Is there such a thing as selflessness?

[Catison]

Wow, no one has mentioned Ayn Rand yet.  Her whole life was dedicated to answering this question.  To her, the most selfish thing you could do is be selfless.  And the most selfless thing was to be completely selfish.  An interesting perspective.  If you are up to it, read Atlas Shrugged for the full argument.

[Mozart]

Maybe thats what turned him on.

[Brian]

As long as Harry is giving CDs away, there is such a thing as selflessness. 

[karlhenning]

To [Ayn Rand], the most selfish thing you could do is be selfless.  And the most selfless thing was to be completely selfish.  An interesting perspective.

Sounds like rationalization, yes?  Make a blizzard and try to feel good about yourself in the process? 

[Mark]

As long as Harry is giving CDs away, there is such a thing as selflessness. 

But Harry's only doing it to make room for more CDs.

[Hector]

but isn't that circular logic? "she was serving her self-interest because her self-interest was serving others"

Perhaps, but it could be taken further, and I do not want to blacken the old girl's name, by insinuating that she had a totally selfish interest in that she would, not only, enter the Kingdom of God by doing such good works but achieve immortality and perhaps sainthood!

[Hector]

Wow, no one has mentioned Ayn Rand yet.  Her whole life was dedicated to answering this question.  To her, the most selfish thing you could do is be selfless.  And the most selfless thing was to be completely selfish.  An interesting perspective.  If you are up to it, read Atlas Shrugged for the full argument.

And you can understand why he has had such an influence on the Neo-cons.

The other prophet of selfishness was Hayek. His 'The Road to Serfdom' had a huge influence on the Tory government of Margaret Thatcher.

When asked, once, was there any room for altruism in his philosophy Hayek, without a pause, replied "No."

[Catison]

Sounds like rationalization, yes?  Make a blizzard and try to feel good about yourself in the process? 

Well, it is much more than that.  Her idea is that by being selfish, you do the best you could do for humanity.  As each person tries to get what they want, they compete, driving each man to his fullest.  That is, in a really small nutshell, the philosophy.

[longears]

Selfish?  Methinks some confuse selfishness for self-interestedness. 

[Sungam]

Well, it is much more than that.  Her idea is that by being selfish, you do the best you could do for humanity.  As each person tries to get what they want, they compete, driving each man to his fullest.  That is, in a really small nutshell, the philosophy.

And what has this constant competition of man driven us to but the Paradox of Our Time?

The paradox of our time in history is that we have taller buildings, but shorter tempers; wider freeways, but narrower viewpoints; we spend more, but have less; we buy more, but enjoy it less.

We have bigger houses and smaller families; more conveniences, but less time; we have more degrees, but less sense; more knowledge, but less judgment; more experts, but more problems; more medicine, but less wellness.

We drink too much, smoke too much, spend too recklessly, laugh too little, drive too fast, get angry too quickly, stay up too late, get up too tired, read too seldom, watch TV too much, and pray too seldom.

We have multiplied our possessions, but reduced our values. We talk too much, love too seldom, and hate too often. We've learned how to make a living, but not a life; we've added years to life, not life to years.

We've been all the way to the moon and back, but have trouble crossing the street to meet the new neighbor. We've conquered outer space, but not inner space; we've done larger things, but not better things.

We've cleaned up the air, but polluted the soul; we've split the atom, but not our prejudice.

We write more, but learn less; we plan more, but accomplish less. We've learned to rush, but not to wait; we have higher incomes, but lower morals; we have more food, but less appeasement; we build more computers to hold more information to produce more copies than ever, but have less communication; we've become long on quantity, but short on quality.

These are the times of fast foods and slow digestion; tall men, and short character; steep profits, and shallow relationships. These are the times of world peace, but domestic warfare; more leisure, but less fun; more kinds of food, but less nutrition.

These are days of two incomes, but more divorce; of fancier houses, but broken homes. These are days of quick trips, disposable diapers, throw away morality, one-night stands, overweight bodies, and pills that do everything from cheer to quiet to kill.

It is a time when there is much in the show window and nothing in the stockroom; a time when technology has brought this letter to you, and a time when you can choose either to make a difference, or to just hit "Skip Ahead"...

[Kullervo]

The paradox of our time in history is that we have taller buildings, but shorter tempers [etc.]

Exactly how is that a paradox?

[karlhenning]

And what has this constant competition of man driven us to but the Paradox of Our Time?

Pretty words, but too little signification.

Competition is like a hammer.  The thing is neither good nor bad of itself;  it is a thing of which either good or bad use can variously be made.

[Sungam]

Pretty words, but too little signification.

Competition is like a hammer.  The thing is neither good nor bad of itself;  it is a thing of which either good or bad use can variously be made.

I didn't write it, I should have noted that.  It is an email forward that I liked, I saved it because I had never read an email forward before this one that I actually enjoyed.

Of course competition is neither good nor bad.  My point was that Ayn Rand's philosophy, if Catison summarized it correctly, points to human achievement as coming into being by self interested competition.  It is as if she is pointing to what this competition has lead to - taller buildings, more possessions, bigger houses, scientific achievement, and everything else noted as being "more" - and saying that this end has justified self interested competition in some absolute sense.  The "Paradox of Our Time" can be summarized with the line:

"We've done larger things, but not better things."

Just because self interested competition may lead to  a better career, more money, and expensive possessions, this doesn't mean that anything worthwhile has been achieved.

[karlhenning]

Just because self interested competition may lead to  a better career, more money, and expensive possessions, this doesn't mean that anything worthwhile has been achieved.

This is still but a subset of competition.  Part of my point is that, for instance, Mozart composing a set of six string quartets dedicated to 'Papa' Haydn is a form of competition, and a competition in which no one 'loses'.

[Sungam]

This is still but a subset of competition.  Part of my point is that, for instance, Mozart composing a set of six string quartets dedicated to 'Papa' Haydn is a form of competition, and a competition in which no one 'loses'.

If you are suggesting that not all competition is self-interested, I would disagree.  How could you feel competitive feelings, and the feelings not be urging you on to make your side win?  Surely, even in the case that

I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with.  I wrote that self-interested competition is not good or bad in and of itself.  What happens because of it is neither good or bad, although the result is almost always "more".  It drives people to excel, and certainly the competition involved with Mozart composing a sent of string quartets dedicated to Haydn is not bad.  It is not good either, not in a moral sense.  If Mozart killed a few people to get his composition published, this would be a bad result.  If Mozart did his best, and simply got published what he could get published, and used whatever money he got to provide for his family, this would be a good result.  In both scenarios (and I believe both of them are false accounts), the quality of Mozart's string quartets were made better because of the competition he felt with his forerunner.  In both, neither the good Mozart did nor bad Mozart did was caused by the self interested competition.  In the first case, his lack of morality lead his competitive feelings run him toward immoral action.  In the second case, the competitive feelings lead to him to having more money which he used to provide for his family because of his sense of morality.  In both cases, moral or immoral action happened because of the moral disposition of character Mozart chose to have.

Ayn Rand would have you believe that the best world that could possibly come about, would come about because people payed attention to there feelings of competition and acted in accordance with them.  But I think that the best possible world that could come about would come about because everyone chose to have a good moral disposition while choosing each and every action.  I think that Ayn Rand's best possible world would be "larger" but that my best possible world would be "better".  For a description of what a "larger" but not "better" world could be like, just look to the essay I posted titled "The Paradox of Our Time".

[karlhenning]

If you are suggesting that not all competition is self-interested, I would disagree.  How could you feel competitive feelings, and the feelings not be urging you on to make your side win?

Easily. The feelings urge me to do my best, without regard to anyone "winning."

[drogulus]

     There's no bright line between self interest and other interests. My claim is that conscious beings make their interests from the raw material of natures self interest in survival, and modify it to suit whatever they consider to be an overriding goal. Making natures reasons your reasons and changing them in the process is what being conscious is all about.

     People reject the idea that altruism could be a modification of self-interest because they don't want a natural explanation. A natural explanation is the only one that gets you there, though. If you want to know what something is, it makes sense to see how it could come about. We transcend nature through nature, because that's the only way it can be done.

[Ten thumbs]

As self interest is related to the urge for survival maybe it can only lost when there can be no survival. To return to my example of Marie Antoinette. Having refuted all the charges against her for which no evidence could be presented she feels innocent but is still condemned to the guillotine because the mob demands her blood. It is difficult to imagine oneself in such a position. The gist of her words to her allotted maid is 'I need nothing. It is over for me' and in her final letter she does not lament death but expresses her sadness at the distress it will cause to her friends. Furthermore, when taken for execution she was subject to utter humiliation. That someone who had experienced a life of luxury could bear this without flinching seems to indicate quite a degree of detachment. Maybe this is the nature of nobility. Certainly family honour was to be upheld.

[drogulus]

     I remember seeing Ayn Rand interviewed by William Buckley on his show Firing Line. She was an interesting personality, deformed by experience with the Communists, whose cynical use of altruism poisoned her mind. I haven't subjected myself to her writing.

[Mozart]

As self interest is related to the urge for survival maybe it can only lost when there can be no survival. To return to my example of Marie Antoinette. Having refuted all the charges against her for which no evidence could be presented she feels innocent but is still condemned to the guillotine because the mob demands her blood. It is difficult to imagine oneself in such a position. The gist of her words to her allotted maid is 'I need nothing. It is over for me' and in her final letter she does not lament death but expresses her sadness at the distress it will cause to her friends. Furthermore, when taken for execution she was subject to utter humiliation. That someone who had experienced a life of luxury could bear this without flinching seems to indicate quite a degree of detachment. Maybe this is the nature of nobility. Certainly family honour was to be upheld.

I can't say I've been in the same situation, but I have been in one those situations where your just fu**ed and there is nothing you can do to get out of it. I was shocked how calm I was, my heart began beating calmly and I was just kind of resigned to my fate. I have always thought about it because I'm not one to be cool under pressure, but there was like so much pressure that I just said I am fu**ed what can I do and all tension, stress, and anxiety leaves.