Can you selfish email-dissectors just take this to personal email and leave the list out of it?
Thaaanks... From: Nat Russo Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 4:25 PM To: feistfans-l Subject: Re: Audiobooks On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 9:47 PM, Patience <[email protected]> wrote: " . You stated that the basic human drives are inherently selfish" Yes, people say basic human drive is to procreate, and people do not procreate 24/7, but do it hell of alot. "when people eat they are not selfish" how is someone going to be selfish alone?? Well, using your previous definition, for starters. In your earlier emails you defined selfish as any form of looking out for one's self. I argue that eating is a form of looking out for one's self. Allow me to quote you one more time: At the core of all of that is that they are looking out for themselves and their happiness ergo selfishness. That's your email. In your own words you equate "looking out for themselves and their happiness" with "selfishness". I'm pretty sure that eating when one is hungry is "looking out for themselves and their happiness". Therefore, according to you, they are selfish. Incidentally, you stepped on your own point when you provided the Oxford dictionary definition, which clearly places the act within an appropriate context of "lacking consideration for others". But more on that later. "i was trying to say that you are making a moral judgement about basic human drives...which are by nature amoral" I base it on observation. I know people do not like to say humans are bad. So you agree that you were making a moral judgement about basic human drives and suggesting that by our very nature we are bad? " Read my fund manager analogy to find out why this is a problematic > definition ." I took that from the oxford dictionary. Oh I'm getting to the definition :) But first, would you be willing to point out where my analogy was flawed? " > response to you taking a very "black or white" stance on whether or not > something could be considered selfish," How can it be grey? when people argue in a court of law then it can seem grey. I've already provided you with umpteen examples of how it can be grey. I'm really not inclined to provide any more until you start responding to them. Look in my emails in this thread and you will find examples for hunger, survival, going to the bathroom, and procreation. That's more than enough fuel for debate, I would think :) " You're right...the idea that a person is either one thing or another > 100% of the time is silly" So when we say someone is a happy person, we are wrong, because they can become sad? This is one part of the argument that I think we're having a miscommunication about. If you look at the entire thread, on this one point I think we've both said identical things. I get the feeling, based on your words throughout this thread, that you are getting caught up in a limitation of language. Because we use the word "self" when describing acts for our own benefit, it does not necessarily follow that those acts are "selfish". That's a leap of logic. There's some work you have to do in the middle to get there, and it's my opinion you haven't done that yet. I want to be clear that I'm not talking about any issues surrounding English skills. I'm talking about the actual language itself. By "limitation of language", let me give you an example: In English we have one word for "Love". I "love" my wife. I also "love" my parents. I also "love" my son. I "love" my dog. I "love" my job. I "love" this mailing list. I "love" Ray's books. I "love" music. I "love" pizza. I "love" my house. I "love" spending lazy time with my family. I "love" my iPhone. But I don't think you would be willing to argue that I mean the same thing in each of those phrases. I can tell you that I mean something completely different when I say "I love my son" compared to "I love pizza". It's not a difference of degree...it's a difference of kind. I think a similar thing is happening in your reasoning regarding "self" and "selfish". I think you're equating acts centered around the self with being "selfish" (in fact, I don't think this...I know this based on what I quoted near the top of this email, using your words). Just because an act is centered on self does not make it "selfish". You have to consider context and motivation. Your own Oxford dictionary definition implies this if you read it carefully. The definition you quoted: Selfish: lacking consideration for others when concerned with one’s own personal profit or pleasure: The definition does not say "Concern for one's own personal profit or pleasure." It says "LACKING CONSIDERATION FOR OTHERS when concerned with one's own personal profit or pleasure". [Emphasis mine, obviously.] Sorry...it's hard to let these things go with a degree in Philosophy. Where else am I going to use the skills if not in pointless internet arguments :) Nat
