The Falsity of Altruism

@Ruthless Logic,

I'm dying to hear your solution to this matter, Ruthless.:popcorn:

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

I'm dying to hear your solution to this matter, Ruthless.:popcorn:

A human axiom(self-interest) does NOT REQUIRE A SOLUTION, because IT IS NOT A PROBLEM.

@Ruthless Logic,

No, I mean where altruism fits into the picture.

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

No, I mean where altruism fits into the picture.

The concept of altruism does not fit anywhere, because it does not empirically exist. What exists are primary self-interest acts, and secondary(ancillary) residual interactions.

@Ruthless Logic,

Yes and are you saying that the subconscious reactions are predestined to act within the realms of self interest and altruism is the rational definition of the outcome (action), and you do not call that empirical... why?!

We perceive our own reactions and reflect on them. If they do not rationally reflect the self interest or ego, then they do no empirically match either, as the empirical standards are subjective anyways. And don't our conscious reflections get posited into subconscious decision making as the conscious thought influences the ego?

@Ruthless Logic,

RL, If you think that 2+2=4 is empirically evident, then you either do not understand 2+2=4 or you do not understand what "empirical" means. The sequence of symbols 2+2=4 is a tautological statement whose meaning consists solely in the value we assign to the symbols, but cannot be empirically demonstrated EVER without a circular lapse into that tautology.

@Aedes,

A pissing contest? Smile

@Ruthless Logic,

This thread is lasting absurdly wrong. I havent been reading it since my last post, but may I suggest that you guys accept you have diferent ideas about the matter and give up? Smile

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

RL, If you think that 2+2=4 is empirically evident, then you either do not understand 2+2=4 or you do not understand what "empirical" means. The sequence of symbols 2+2=4 is a tautological statement whose meaning consists solely in the value we assign to the symbols, but cannot be empirically demonstrated EVER without a circular lapse into that tautology.

Empirical= Subjected to verification by observation or experimentation.

EVERY SINGLE MEANING OR SYMBOL consists of values or concepts we choose to assign to them. Please spare me from proving that 2+2=4 is empirically simplistic to demonstrate.Your arguments, like the heartbeat of a terminal patient, grows weaker with every passing moment.

@Ruthless Logic,

Until the day comes that you show me TWO, not two apples or two bananas but TWO, then you have no basis to call 2+2=4 empirically demonstrable.

i have long believed that you have little idea what empirical means. Thank you for making that point empirically evident. Smile

Ruthless Logic;32786 wrote:

EVERY SINGLE MEANING OR SYMBOL consists of values or concepts we choose to assign to them.

Exactly, so the only thing empirically demonstrable here is that we've collectively agreed upon a shared idea behind the symbol 2, which when added to itself can define the symbol 4. Empiric? Hardly, it's a logical lexicon.

@Aedes,

Still a pissing contest.:brickwall:

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

Until the day comes that you show me TWO, not two apples or two bananas but TWO, then you have no basis to call 2+2=4 empirically demonstrable.

i have long believed that you have little idea what empirical means. Thank you for making that point empirically evident. Exactly, so the only thing empirically demonstrable here is that we've collectively agreed upon a shared idea behind the symbol 2, which when added to itself can define the symbol 4. Empiric? Hardly, it's a logical lexicon.

No, thank you for your continued mundane child-like conjectures and your subsequent plodding understandings. Your rebellious dismissals only serve to expose your cognitive inadaquacies.

@Ruthless Logic,

I didn't think it would be long before ad hominem was all you had left to offer the discussion. But as you say, it's everyone else who has deficiencies in their argument.

Maybe you should take your last potshot at how dumb I am, just to show how altruism (for you) is nonexistent, which should nicely wrap up this topic.

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

I didn't think it would be long before ad hominem was all you had left to offer the discussion. But as you say, it's everyone else who has deficiencies in their argument.

Maybe you should take your last potshot at how dumb I am, just to show how altruism (for you) is nonexistent, which should nicely wrap up this topic.

Look it, the issue is not how dumb you are, but your continued interjections of side-stepping topics that reflect no relevance to the thread. While the world of Math is decidedly invisible, the unequivocal consistency of revealed patterns are constantly utilized for empirical findings, while your child-like arguments knows no bounds for required Prerequisites Of Understanding (POU).

@Ruthless Logic,

Whatever. No one discovered that 2+2=4. When we see it in the world we're not demonstrating or observing it, we're simply applying a set of shared symbols to what we see. While you could go to the extreme and claim that this is true for all communication, "The dog chased the cat" refers to POTENTIALLY observible things, whereas 2+2=4 refers only to a relationship between symbols.

I half agreed with your initial argument, but I and half the other people to participate in this thread have offered you numerous LEGITIMATE refutations that you are either unwilling to answer or incapable of understanding. Feel free to remind yourself that it was YOU who justified the "empirical" nature of your argument by comparing it to a manifestly UNempiric, symbolic statement, 2+2=4. Not the first time you've contradicted yourself.
As to how this relates to the topic, the only thing empirically evident about altruism is that people honestly believe it exists when they observe others, and people honestly believe it's within their power to help others. Your argument has a logical basis, but no empirical justification.

Furthermore, to claim that there is no such thing as altruism is self-contradictory from the start, because your premise is to prove the lack of existence of something that already only exists metaphysically. Assuredly the concept exists; certainly someone can do something that benefits other people in some commonly recognized way. The word exists. The tradition of belief however misguided exists. So be honest, all you are even attempting is to prove that altruistic acts are simply hedonistic. Fine, I believe you, but who cares? It doesn't at all change the rest of our understanding of altruism.

@Aedes,

Although my sympathies lie with the obvious premise that selfishness or self-interest is inescapable, I don't think the tone of this conversation is acceptable. You two fellows might consider avoiding one another from now on. Enough slap and tickle guys, let it go!! :brickwall:

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

Whatever. No one discovered that 2+2=4. When we see it in the world we're not demonstrating or observing it, we're simply applying a set of shared symbols to what we see. While you could go to the extreme and claim that this is true for all communication, "The dog chased the cat" refers to POTENTIALLY observible things, whereas 2+2=4 refers only to a relationship between symbols.

I half agreed with your initial argument, but I and half the other people to participate in this thread have offered you numerous LEGITIMATE refutations that you are either unwilling to answer or incapable of understanding. Feel free to remind yourself that it was YOU who justified the "empirical" nature of your argument by comparing it to a manifestly UNempiric, symbolic statement, 2+2=4. Not the first time you've contradicted yourself.
As to how this relates to the topic, the only thing empirically evident about altruism is that people honestly believe it exists when they observe others, and people honestly believe it's within their power to help others. Your argument has a logical basis, but no empirical justification.

Furthermore, to claim that there is no such thing as altruism is self-contradictory from the start, because your premise is to prove the lack of existence of something that already only exists metaphysically. Assuredly the concept exists; certainly someone can do something that benefits other people in some commonly recognized way. The word exists. The tradition of belief however misguided exists. So be honest, all you are even attempting is to prove that altruistic acts are simply hedonistic. Fine, I believe you, but who cares? It doesn't at all change the rest of our understanding of altruism.

Enough is enough. Your a fool if you believe self-interest is NOT empirically provable. My original scenario of the soldier in the foxhole provides all the necessary evidence to prove the sequence of self-interest, and the subsequent evidential indulgement of self-interest. READ CAREFULLY, as soon as the soldier moved towards the grenade, this physical interference DOES NOT HAPPEN MAGICALLY, it can only happen from a decided decision within the individual self-interested soldier, and this is the empirical evidence that you carelessly indicate does not exist. Your a bonafide nut if you think you can assign this physical interaction to ANYTHING other then the individual self-interested soldier.

@Ruthless Logic,

I do have to agree that self interest is empirically provable, but so is altruism. You'd be using humanity's reactionary nature to validate the empirical claims of either.

Are you saying that there is a higher level of empirical data that accounts for self interest, ruthless?

Obviously I see a problem here, altruism and self interest are not at the same sort of 'levels'. Ruthless, please help me to understand this empirical claim, google is failing me on this one.

@Holiday20310401,

Ruthless,

The problem is that you are viewing solely objectively and scientifically. This does negate true altruism, but not true altruism alone. It negates altruism because it negates any meaningful intent. Science can observe decision making processes, but it observes them deterministically and causally. There is no such thing as choice in scientific observation.

You are correct in saying that there is a stimuli and a string of resulting firing synapses that lead us to action, but you are incorrect in saying this is self-interested, because there is no intent involved.

By calling self-interested, it seems you acknowledge that, even though we cannot scientifically observe it and account for it, we have subjective experience of the act of choosing and doing. Intent is at least meaningful to us, and when we account for intent, we can accept the intent can be altruistic or self-interested.

There is not much more I can say to reconcile the two sides. I think pretty much everyone now gets this.

@Ruthless Logic,

Holiday, one can empirically demonstrate self-interest and perhaps even demonstrate that some acts of altruism are fundamentally self-interested.

But what one cannot empirically demonstrate is that 100% of altruistic acts are self-interested to the degree that one can also absolutely declare that there is no such thing as altruism.

Philosophy Forum

The Falsity of Altruism

Quick Links

My Account

able2know