François-René Rideau ([info]fare) wrote,
@ 2008-06-15 17:24:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Current music:Paul Anka - My Way
Entry tags:en, extropian, metaphysics, psychology, selfishness

To: dughof, Re: selfish

Dear Douglas,

I just read this interview of yours by Tal Cohen:
http://tal.forum2.org/hofstadter_interview

I quite agree with you when you claim that Kurzweil and other "raptured nerds" actually have "a deeply pessimistic view of the nature of the human mind." But similarly, when you start criticizing selfishness and boasting altruism, I think that you actually have a deeply pessimistic view of the nature of the human self: a narrow view of the self limited to base instincts and asocial indulgence, easily debunked by your own arguments about the survival of the extended self through the lasting consequences, traces and memories of one's art. Actually, the self is the unit of action and enjoyment, of understanding and appreciation, without which no art is possible, and any beauty is vain. It is the very thing that you glorify without shame - and rightfully so - when you publish your art and spread the memory of those you love.

[ François-René ÐVB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ]
Non seulement il n'y a pas contradiction entre égoïsme et altruisme, mais il n'y a pas d'altruisme possible sans égoïsme - car quelle amélioration souhaiter pour un autrui sans désir égoïste, pour lequel tout changement est indifférent?
[Not only is there no contradiction between egoism and altruism, but no altruism is possible without egoism - for what betterment to wish to an other person devoid of selfish desire, to whom any change is indifferent?]

I was honored to receive this short answer: Merci de vos observations. -- DH. [Thanks for your remarks.]


(Post a new comment)


(Anonymous)
2008-06-21 09:23 pm UTC (link)
Those who criticize selfishness rarely if ever advocate total lack of love, emotions or care for oneself. They criticize what they see as excessive, unbalanced selfishness.

(Reply to this) (Thread)
The Unselfishness Trap
[info]fare
2008-06-21 11:09 pm UTC (link)
"excessive" as compared to what? "unbalanced" according to what scale? Those who criticize selfishness don't think, they emote. They do not try to convince, they try to manipulate others - into subservience to their own selfish comfort. They present selfishness as something essentially bad, that may be "natural" and "necessary" but must otherwise be repressed. They promote the basic justification for all oppression and mass criminality in the world.

Selfishness is the measure of all good in the world. There cannot be any good whatsoever without a self to feel it. WHO is whatever "altruistic" oppression ever good for? No one. Why is gratuitous vandalism or well-intentioned mass murder bad? Not because it is selfish, but precisely because it hurts other people's selfish interest.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: The Unselfishness Trap
(Anonymous)
2008-06-22 04:25 pm UTC (link)
Of course, criticism for selfishness can be used as a justification for oppression. That is unselfishness trap you speak about. However, it still doesn't mean that criticism is invalid in all circumstances.

If one is willing to kill unknown man to steal his $500 and buy, say, TV, can we agree that he is excessively selfish?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: The Unselfishness Trap
[info]fare
2008-06-22 04:58 pm UTC (link)
That man isn't particularly selfish. Everyone wants $500. You yourself probably go through a lot of trouble to get much more money than that. As far as selfish ambition goes, this man has next to none.

The obvious problem is not that he is selfish, but that he is particularly oblivious to other people's selfishness. He is a psychopath. He is the enemy of others, and he's pitting others against him. Others will react and try very hard to catch him and will eventually get him if he makes killing a habit. He'll have to hide and take the risk to fight, go to prison and be executed. All in all, not only is he not selfish, but he's probably lacking in care for his future self. His problem is not an excess of selfishness but a huge lack of it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: The Unselfishness Trap
(Anonymous)
2008-06-22 10:26 pm UTC (link)
Hm, hm ...

I do not think that man who kill for $500 is psychopath or enemy of other people - he does not kill for sake of killing, but for money. He simply cares more for $500 than for life of other man - that is exactly the system of values very selfish man should have.

You can still argue that murderer risks revenge of the society, so even extremely selfish man could do such evils only due to his lack of the understanding for his situation, in which case his selfishness shouldn't be blamed.

However, society's revenge system is not perfect, so there are such situations that it is actually profitable to do "wrong things." It is easy to find few examples. Do you think that one should actually kill and rob one for $500, if he discovered the hole in the society's revenge system?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: The Unselfishness Trap
[info]fare
2008-06-23 12:23 am UTC (link)
Maybe you don't understand the term psycopath. A person who kills for $500 is clearly a psychopath unable to respect other people.

Considering the risks of losing lifelong earning and spending worth half a million dollar for even the minimumest wage person, someone willing to forego that for the short-term benefit of $500 can certainly be said to have a very high time-preference -- which once again is the same as lack of long-term selfishness (for whatever genetic or memetic reasons). And this very high time-preference if widespread is incompatible with a stable society, once again confirming the diagnosis of psychopathy.

There isn't a single measure of selfishness by which this man is more selfish that the one who works hard to earn $500 honestly. And a lot of measures by which he is clearly less selfish.

As for the society in which honest people can't defend themselves, indeed the problem isn't with the psychopath murderer's selfishness, but precisely with the "unselfishness" of the other psychopaths who systematically disarm the victims. You can't reason an enemy and no amount of "blaming" him can help. But you can reason other honest citizens and have them recognize and reject the psychopathic tendencies of the socialists who try to disarm them.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Double standard and petition of principle
[info]fare
2008-06-23 02:13 am UTC (link)
In an all-too-common fallacy, you of course apply a double standard to the robber and his victim. If the mugger is selfish to want those $500, how isn't his victim just as selfish in wanting to keep them?

You apply your criterion one-sidedly and then reach your conclusion as a non-sequitur by positing it with intimidation. That's not going to work with me or my readers.

The problem obviously isn't one of selfishness. It's one of conflict. And because conflict is a negative sum game, whoever causes it obviously has less selfishness than one who
cares enough about the expected sum to avoid the conflict. (Not to talk, once more, about the blatant disregard for other people's selfishness, that lies at the root of the conflict.)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Double standard and petition of principle
[info]fare
2008-06-23 12:00 pm UTC (link)
And of course, communists will indeed apply the "selfishness" one-sidedly to accuse the legitimate owner of selfishness while exonerating the mugger as a victim of society, reversing the nature of oppression.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Re: Double standard and petition of principle
(Anonymous)
2008-06-24 11:05 pm UTC (link)
There is no fallacy - I said nothing about victim because it is not relevant to my point: that one who advocates unrestricted selfishness has to advocate that one should kill and steal, whenever he find it is in his interest.

"Because conflict is negative sum game, whoever causes it obviously has les selfishness" It is wrong - one who is selfish does not care for SUM of the game at all; he cares for HIS outcome. If his outcome is $500 - it is his game, whatever happens to others and to sum.

Sure, there are political positions that really advocate unrestricted selfishness. For example, Stirner's nihilism. But libertarianism is not one of them. Libertarians require behaviour typical for a "free market." They act (or try to act) primarily in their self-interest, however, there are the lines they do not cross. They do not advocate (or accept) breaking property rights of other people, even if it is in ones selfish interest.

Why libertarians advocate restrictions of the selfishness? The reason is quite common - because they believe it is the way to the best possible society. Just like many socialists and conservatives do.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Double standard and petition of principle
[info]fare
2008-06-24 11:36 pm UTC (link)
Saying nothing of the victim is the double-standard. Why blame only one person's selfishness when two person's selfishnesses are at stake? And what is there to blame him for at all if the victim's selfishness doesn't matter? That you ASSUME the legitimacy of the victim's selfishness establishes the performative contradiction of your claim. At least communist are most consistent in their criminal craziness (not that consistency is something I encourage in people with criminal ideas).

As for claiming that it is in the mugger's interest to be a mugger, that's the petition of principle. As I already argued many times, that is only valid if the mugger has a very narrow idea of his self - i.e. indeed a lack of selfishness as opposed to honest people.

Libertarians certainly claim that it is in everyone's interest not to be murdered and to support social structures that discourage murder in general.

Now of course, if there was a way for me to mug and not possibly get caught... *you* obviously have never heard of it.

Do I spend time fantasizing about crazy plans to mug random strangers and get away with it? No, I have more productive use for my time. And so it is not in my interest to develop the skills of a mugger, and in my interest to support activities that reduce the odds of my getting mugged.

The very existence of society and its huge positive sum game is proof enough that there is no contradiction between personal interest and mutual interest.

Maybe you should read "The Foundations of Morality" by Henry Hazlitt.

Morality is not about "atomic choices" detached from a wider life, but about strategies of behavior using limited knowledge in a world of repeated interactions.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Positive vs Negative Sum
[info]fare
2008-06-24 11:54 pm UTC (link)
Socialists believe that society is all about negative sum interactions. Conservatives believe that any departure from a hypothetical status quo is to be presumed to be such a negative sum game that should be quelled. Both want to restrict free interactions between individuals for that reason.

Libertarians understand that society is made of positive sum free interactions that are in the mutual interest of all involved.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…