/lit/ - Literature

>>14192726
Yes.
No.
Yes.

>>14192726

>>14192726
An pure egoist appeals to nothing but their own ego, that means refutation, however true, matters. Any appeal to reason and they would cease to be egoists. These people are like the mentally challenged, the very idea of truth or morals is as alien to them as color is to the colorblind. Pity them

>>14192802
Where did you get the idea that egoists can't use rationality from? Retarded post.

>>14192726
> psychological egoism
You mean lack of empathy? That's a mental condition, not something that can be "refuted".

>>14192846
Refute that empathy is anything more than a tool used in roundabout self interest.

>>14192853
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy
>A recent meta-analysis of 40 fMRI studies found that affective empathy is correlated with increased activity in the insula while cognitive empathy is correlated with activity in the mid cingulate cortex and adjacent dorsomedial prefrontal cortex.[110]
Is a process in your brain, if it's not functioning properly then you have a mental disorder.

>>14192726

>>14192755
Thread ended here

>>14192873
hunger, empathy, fear, all similar tools for survival

>>14192853
Strictly speaking empathy is a tool used to promote your genes, which can include genes you share with family members.

>>14192897
What?

>>14192953

>>14192802
OP was talking about psych egoism, i.e. involuntary egoism, not about self-proclaimed egoists

>>14193005
yeah i guess the stirner pic was a poor choice

>>14192953
He means you can indirectly advance your genes by helping those who carry identical genes to yourself. Not that egoists have to be biologically minded.

>>14192878
The person who read this hasn't read Nietzsche

>>14193007
No? The opening lines of ego & it's own point out that if god is everything, what could he be occupied with, but himself? And in turn, if man is less, how could he do better? Stirner is definitely a psych egoist. He thinks accepting it is the next step, though.

>>14193015
Are you implying Nietzsche was a nihilist?

Psychological egoism is a tautology when you really get down to it

>>14192811
Yes I would love to teach you about egoism. So let me break it down very easy so that you can understand. An egoist has one priority, their own ego. If you read Schopenhauer you would know that most of these egoists, like Ayn Rand, Stirner and Nietzsche, are soft core when it comes to egoism. Real egoism is a life of Will, which is, inherently, blind and stupid because it cares for nothing but fulfilling itself for no other reason but it’s own fulfillment. The real egoist doesn’t will toward things because of reasons, in fact reason is subordinate to the will, they will reason only in so far that it is in accord to their own will. For Stirner, he believed that since it was the natural disposition, that it was the “right” way. His reasoning functions negatively, by going through the history of thought by negating everyone based on this elementary disposition, which is inherently immature in light of say more adult philosophy. It is an easier step to take, from those egoists to Schopenhauer then say Hegel because you are still stuck on first principles of egoism ( I’m guessing this is your first year in philosophy). So for Schopenhauer only the artist, philosopher or saint can get out of the muck that is the ego/will, by denying the first impulse, thereby subordinating the will to something beyond itself, something less base and immature and more beautiful sand sublime. Philosophy can get tricky, I know it can be frustrating, but keep reading buddy, and most importantly, try to treat the place and people who are trying to help you, if not with respect, at least not blatant bitchiness.

>>14192885
Not similar at all. Survival instincts are inherently located in the basil ganglia, where as empathy is located in the Limbic system/neocortex. Not at all the same Or similar

>>14193240
>belives in natural selection
>thinks only certain parts of the brain developed because they aided in survival and reproduction

>>14193256
Huh? I like Lamarck more than I like Darwin. try again

>>14193085
Truths are tautologies when you get down to it. What matters is how many premises were required/language granted.

>>14193272
>I like Lamarck more than I like Darwin
Try again

>>14193286
can you respond to this>>14193240
in coherent sentences?

>>14193303
Can you provide a citation? I'm guessing your asspull comes from MRI scans, which tell you only where blood flow is occurring. That's like looking at where electricity is in a computer and pretending it's the code. What the hell do you even mean in saying that empathy is "located" somewhere? Nonsense. If you walk a mile in someone else's shoes, it's still your sock in the shoe. You walk a mile in someone else's sock, it's still your foot in the sock. You walk a mile in someone else's foot, it's still (You) in the foot. Empathy isn't real, others are necessarily excluded from the perspective of others. For that to not be the case, would be for them to have not been others in the first place. Sticking the term "empathy" over some patch of blood flow means fuck all.

>>14193324
>I'm guessing your asspull comes from MRI scans,
Oh, didn't even have to guess: >>14192873

Tell me, how was the process identified as empathy? Because it had blood flow in the correct spot? And in turn, the correct spot had been originally identified by... already claiming to recognize the process empathy, and then seeing where blood flow occurred? Recursive.

>>14193324
I said coherent.

https://www.cell.com/neuron/fulltext/S0896-6273(17)30415-4?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0896627317304154%3Fshowall%3Dtrue

>>14193377
>>14193355

>>14193384
Don’t ask for citation if your not gonna read it. Do you have any intellectual integrity or are you just here to fight? What’s the matter with you

>>14193384
Oh and also, >>14193324 again. I've put in more hours in neuro labs as well as reading phil, Lamrakian hipster retard.

>>14193391
Don't ask for a post if you're not going to read it. fMRIs aren't going to tell you what you want without you begging the question. Objectively. If you can't even explain how it's possible for a process to meet the criteria of empathy, how can you label some patch of blood flow with it?

>>14193392
Here’s the citation doctor

https://www.cell.com/neuron/fulltext/S0896-6273(17)30415-4?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0896627317304154%3Fshowall%3Dtrue

>>14193399
ESL?

>>14193409
You wish

>>14193404
And here's the response, and conclusion, of the argument: >>14193324/>>14193355

>>14193412
you lose

>>14193404
>Participants made moment by moment empathic care and distress ratings using a visual analog scale...
>Each participant was assigned to rate...
Are you fucking kidding me? "Hey, do you think you're being empathetic?" "Uhh yeah I'm pretty sure dude!" Great fucking science anon.

>Hey anon, you feel connected to god right now?
>Yeah dude.
>OK cool, rate how connected you feel on this scale while I run an fMRI
>OK cool dude
>Wow dude, there'd blood in your prefrontal cortex. We found god!

RECAP

This anon >>14192873 points out that empathy, contrary to misinformed opinion, is an actual detectable function of the brain, missing it is literally considered a mental disorder.

Then this anon >>14192885 likened it to survival instincts, saying they were the same

Then this anon correctly pointed out >>14193240 that empathy was not at all similar to survival instincts because they took part in different regions of the brain

I’m response, the anon reasonably asked for a citation >>14193324 before unreadable demonstrating their inability to be swayed by said citation due to incoherent ideological babble spewing.

When anon provided citation >>14193377 the anon continued to double back on their shoe metaphor, demonstrating not only that the very standard to which they would be able to verify the truth of the claim, how empathy was detectable in the brain, by a citation that showed how scientists demonstrated this fact, would still be met with similar recursive incoherence.

>>14193481
that is what happened lol

>>14193201
This is retarded. You know that, right anon? Literally retarded. Where do you think reason comes from? Are you suggesting that it's not a result of the ego and that by using reason the ego is inherently a slave to it? Holy retard

>>14193201
Underrated post

>>14193481
>Empathy's real! Trust me, I have a poll!

>>14193516
>>14193524
You are officially in an area beyond your skill set. Provide a descent rebuttal or accept the facts buddy

>>14193541
My rebuttal is that truth is not democratic and having people "rate" empathy on a "scale" does not prove it's existence any more than "rating" myself as having lifted 100 kilos actually does so.

>>14193541
-and on the subject of popular vote, the first one isn't me.

>>14193558
Are you saying that citation bothers you? Because I have more

>>14193569
plebs get addressed in conjunction

>>14192755
Who refuted it and how?

>>14192846
What OP probably means is simply acting in one's self-interest, which is always the case. Even self-sacrifice is an act of self-interest. Even self-contradiction is. All religions which practice abstinence are merely practicing the hedonism of a decadent ego.

>>14193576
More polls? Neuro doesn't even have a proper conception of causality:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=neuroscience+causation+sufficiency+and+necessity&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3D9Eyw0V3IH4IJ

For event X to be considered causal of event Y, X is expected to be both sufficient and necessary nowadays. That means it's impossible for a neuroscientist to believe (within this paradigm) that any event has more than one possible cause, since if A can be caused by either B or C (or D, E, F...), neither B or C are necessary, as you could just use the either. It's a presumptuously fatalistic field that doesn't mesh with quantum phys at all, and is all around philosophically inept. But go on, give me more social science polls that you've paired with neuro equip.

What's even happening in this thread, are people seriously debating whether empathy is real or not in neuroscience?

>>14193596
Yikes

>>14193600
Ok so neuroscience is bunk but shoe metaphors >>14193324 are right on the money. Excellent.

>>14193601
Yeah, and I'm fucking sick nof it. It's as bad as asking if empathy is real or not in engineering.

>>14193623
How would you have the entirety of someones prespective while not actually being them, an essential component? The fact that I give you a walkthrough doesn't mean the walkthrough is what my argument's predicated upon. To say you entirely empathize with someone while not actually being them is self contradictory. Go read The Identity of Indiscernibles.

>>14193541
You're making the argument that reason cannot come from the will, so go ahead and prove it. You first. You're the one who made the retarded assumption, because you're retarded. Retard

>>14193623
You cringe but only because you're a primitive moron who thinks acting in self-interest is morally reprehensible.

>>14192726
Nietzsche did

>>14192726
People are gonna think i sound like a cuck now but honestly anyone who's ever truly loved someone more than temselves know that there are motives that surpass egotism

>>14193657
Based and sincerepilled
>>14193201
>Stirner and Nietzsche, are soft core when it comes to egoism

>>14193657
but YOU love them

>>14193676
This

I would not want my spouse to be anything but interested in me.

>>14193683
That's not what I meant. But feelings of love are rooted in self and personal preferences. Even if you place the object of your love over yourself it still routes back to an internal valuation of your own and the supremacy of this valuation.

>>14193690
I don't see how that's not what you meant, barring the fact that I extended it to how I'd want to be loved rather than just how I love things.

>>14193600
What an absolute dogshit take of that paper. Holy shit, the reading comprehension on this board is absolutely abysmal.

>>14193240
Why is their location significant? The fact is, empathy is useful for survival. Or do you think that a psychopath is just as well off? Do you actually think that empathy is never beneficial to the one who has it?

>>14193703
Wanting to be loved is a step further, and is arguably not the only reason for loving. The basing of the act of love itself in the self is a more fundamental argument.

>>14193733
The point is that it’s not inherently just only for survival. Believe it or not, people empathize not for singular reason of their self benefit or their ego, but because it is good in itself. Sometimes people do what’s good, despite the possibility of terrible consequences, for the sake of goodness itself. They are commanded, by the good in them, to abide. If this doesn’t resonate with you, you as a human being have a serious handicap that you will have to mask in order not to be ostracized as a no good piece of poopie

>>14193713
That isn't the take I had of that paper, that's what it's responding to. What an absolutely dogshit take of a 4chan comment.

>>14193840
> people empathize for reasons other than survival
> if you don't exhibit these behaviors you will be ostracized

>>14193840
>good in itself
circular, vague nonsense. Why is it good? As you’re thinking of an answer, ask yourself why it’s good to have empathy for humans and some animals, but not all animals, and not all objects, living or not.

>>14193915
lmao

>>14193915
seriously how did he even submit that post

>>14193713
They get into co-occurance on page 6, which is exactly what was brought up

>>14193840
>Sometimes people do what’s good, despite the possibility of terrible consequences, for the sake of goodness itself.
It makes more sense that they just do it because it generally is beneficial for them, and that by doing such a thing that usually brings a reward, they feel good by doing it. It’s similar to when you feel guilt or fear after doing something that usually leads to your punishment. Just that emotion of fear is enough to dissuade you, just as the feeling of charity is enough to persuade you to do good. If it didn’t feel good on some level, you wouldn’t do it.

>>14193915
People ostracize you for lacking the capacity and exemplifying the opposite behaviors, no one gives a dam about your retardation

>>14193965
I’m sorry you are handicap to the basic difference between human beings and rocks lmao

>>14193977
I know it’s like they storm from cripplechan in droves

>>14194007
Because it was correct and relevant. What other obvious things can I help you understand?

>>14194031
I’m so sorry that you are like this crippled human being who has never engaged in an activity for the sake of itself. It’s really fulfilling and peak experience. But don’t worry, you’ll graduate high school soon

>>14194039
>I’m sorry you are handicap to the basic difference between human beings and rocks lmao
pathetic explanation. I’m trying to get to the heart of the matter and you just insult me. You also didn’t answer how it is “good in itself,” whatever that means. Do you at least admit that empathy is beneficial to the one who has it?
>I know it’s like they storm from cripplechan in droves
we’re laughing at you

>>14193840
Based and Holypilled

>>14194048
But there are infinite things to do, so how do I choose which one to do “for the sake of itself” ? It’s almost as if these good things you’re promoting have good consequences. Is that too reasonable for you?

>>14193588
unfalsifiable theories are generally not taken very seriously.

>>14194053
>the heart of the matter
that means nothing coming from an egoist, you’ll believe whatever suits your beliefs. How do I explain a c-note to you who is tone-deaf? I understand, you don’t have that inner good in itself. You come to /lit/ and shit up the board with petty arguments and hypocritical behavior. You come here asking to be proven wrong, which you have been, and if you had any sense of goodness within yourself you would attempt to have a diplomatic debate. But no, you are offended at the prospect of being faced with the limits of your capacity as a human being. I would be just as troubled anon, I empathize LOL


>we’re
Oh right samefagging is what cripples do

>>14194063
Whether they do or don’t is regardless. If you engage in activities solely for the sake of their consequences, I pity you

>>14193773
I don't really disagree. I think my point wasn't taken to be as auxiliary as I'd hoped, but then again, if it's totally auxillary, then you're correct in saying that it's not what you said. I should have added the word "anyways" to the end of my post.

>>14194092
>>14194095
You’re assuming that I only do things because of a rational understanding of the good consequences. I have empathy, too, along with fear. I do things because they feel good, or avoid doing what makes me feel bad. But my point is that these emotions exist for the benefit of the self. And it makes sense. Empathy, for example, leads to better cooperation, as well as increasing the probability that your genes survive. What you people are arguing for, by comparison, is much more circular and vague.

>>14194053
>we’re laughing at you

>>14192726
yes
yes
no

>>14194113
fucking thank you

>>14194113
You are an absolute moron. People are sacrificing their lives everyday and actually lose their life in an attempt at making the world a better place, whether they are in it or not.
>Oh but they still do it for the idea of making the world a better place which is still egotistical
No. They all wish to survive, but in an instant of circumstance they make the choice to sacrifice themself, which is inherently and by definition selfless. You are a mentally/emotionally/spiritually a crippled human being and we would not have “survived” had humanity been defined by your asinine excuse for a human being.

>>14194146
You and your cripples need to retreat to reddit, this board has standards and you all have failed

>>14194147
when you sacrifice yourself for an ant, or a rock, I’ll be impressed. Your “selflessness” is peculiarly restricted to certain beings and items of significant value to yourself.

>>14194163
Whats the point of sacrificing the self for something not valuable?

>>14194163
Yes, because humanity
Like I said, you are cripple to us. We have to carry you and your lot. You and your cripples are a burden to humanity, and unlike people who were born that way, you have stupefied yourself with philosophical half readings and poor standards in the art of conversation. I pity the fool(s)

>>14194163
Like I said, I’m sorry you are handicap to the basic difference between human beings and rocks. Except I’m not gonna laugh, because it’s fucking sad man. Really sad and pathetic

>>14194163
When you communicate with an ant or a rock as you would with a human being I'll be impressed.

>>14194188
seriously how did he even submit that post

>>14194174
Apparently for “good in itself” according to him. He thinks consequences don’t matter.
>>14194175
>because humanity
lmao
>>14194186
>basic difference between human and rocks
You mean their value to us? I thought it didn’t matter to you?
>>14194188
I can’t communicate with a retarded baby but I can still have much more empathy for it than an intelligent chimp who wants to kill my family.

>>14194192
That guy is a pedophile too, he's always in morality threads, don't even bother.

>>14194194
Lmao says the crippled human being.

>>14194194
>He thinks consequences don’t matter.
You absolute level of ineptitude is as remarkable as it is cringey. My advice is to keep your opinions to yourself because you will be BTFO every time. But I don’t need to tell you that right? That’s why you started this thread? It’s another attempt? Sorry to check you at the door, I have the day off and take pleasure in making an example of you

>>14194204
more assumptions and as hominem. I would gladly sacrifice myself for someone, but my simply point is that I do it because it benefits me in some way. I’m not gonna sacrifice myself for something that isn’t valuable to my species, the people that share my genes. It’s as if you people think we have positive and negative emotions for random acts. Why exactly do we feel good when we help others, but not when we lift our right arm in the air? You people are blind

>>14194194
>You mean their value to us?
No

>>14194232
Kek

>>14194232
then what is the difference, exactly? Yes, rocks and ants aren’t humans, but that doesn’t explain why we shouldn’t sacrifice for them if sacrifice and charity are supposed to be good in themselves without consequence.

There's a basic refutation in that if you think ALL actions are egoistic, it's tautology.

There is room for altruism, but it, ironically, comes from a place of apathy. Once emotions are involved, it becomes egoistic. So, it begs the question: why act if you don't care? There has to be some agent that inspires action.

>>14194230
Don’t pretend. You wouldn’t give a hand if there wasn’t something in it for you. All of this is an attempt to justify your absolute pathetic way of being the world. You are a disgrace to humanity. Let’s get this straight, humanity is eating at applebee’s, you aren’t invited

>>14194238
I’m SOOOOO sorry you are handicap to the basic difference between human beings and rocks. REALLY SORRY

>>14194263
You don’t know anything about me. One of my greatest pleasures in this life is explaining academic subjects and tutoring people. I could do it for free. I don’t sit down and calculate the future and hope to receive reward by helping people learn concepts, but it’s still my rational belief that I do this and other things for my benefit. Even if I’m not benefited indirectly through doing this thing, I am at least benefited by the positive emotion that overwhelms me when I feel as though I’m helpful to someone. If I didn’t have that emotion, then I probably wouldn’t care as much.

>>14193910
Let EF denote the effect, let CA denote the cause.

{B, C, D, E, F...} ∈[CA] ∧¬ ∈[EF]

(X ∨ Y) [EF]: ∀{X,Y}∈[CA]

Necessity and sufficiency denotes:
(∃∈[CA] [EF]) ⊨ (∃!∈[CA] [EF]) ∧ (∀∈[CAn] [EF] ⊨ [CAn]∈[CA])

Not the lack of exclusivity that you presuppose.

>>14194293
No I get it. What you don’t understand is that there are people, who make up the bulk of what’s great about humanity, what separates them from animals and inanimate objects, specifically because of their capacity to do the right/good thing for the sake of itself. Even if there was no benefit, even if it brought on negative emotions, they do it because it is good. They know it like an instinct. Rationality itself is valued because it is good, they don’t do good because of some rationale, such as benefit. I totally see you and your cripples have an impossible time grasping this. I’m sorry. You have your place on earth, just not with what we term humanity

>>14194323
Note*

>>14194323
also fucking 4chan sanitizes certain operators for some reason, so let me rewrite this where "->" indicates material implication.

{B, C, D, E, F...} ∈[CA] ∧¬ ∈[EF]

(X ∨ Y) -> [EF]: ∀{X,Y}∈[CA]

(∃∈[CA] -> [EF]) ⊨ (∃!∈[CA] -> [EF]) ∧ (∀∈[CAn] -> [EF] ⊨ [CAn]∈[CA])

>>14194323
>>14194338
This is what the decline of the humanities look like. You have people talking in mathemes. Frightening to say the least

>>14194343
Reaching meltdown levels of cope.

>>14194365
Imagine feeling a sense of accomplishment by being stupid

>>14194404
>NOO!! NOT PROPOSITIONAL CALCULUS!!! HOW AM I SUPPOSED TO DISGUISE MY FAULTY REASONING WITH HEAVY RHETORIC NOW??? FUCK YOU!!!

>>14194429
Remind us how newton invented infinitesimals in order to save calculus from being an absolutely ridiculous model of the universe anon

>>14194338
your quantifiers have no domain dummy. You don't even know how to write a wff lmao

>>14194440
>calculus
>1st order logic

totally different anon

People act in the interest of those who are genetically close to them because they share enough genes that it is beneficial to attempt to secure their fertility. An individual that, for example, has 4 brothers that have 4 kids each is essentially reproduced as far as all of his genes going to the next generation. The individual is not relevant to the process of evolution so much as the genes he carries, which are "what he is" in a sense but also transcend his individuality. I read about this in Jared Taylor's book "If We Do Nothing". I think he was talking about the research of Frank Salter but I might be mistaken.

>>14194453
Mathemes are mathemes

>>14194466
Yea we read that retarded book too anon stop trying pose as some warrior of truth you are a mouth piece meme bot for a 43 year old book.

>>14194479
If We Do Nothing coomed out like 3 years ago fella.

>>14194492
That was all addressed in the selfish gene by that quack Dawkins

>>14194483
Srsiouly. I’d be willing to sacrifice myself just to X out all of these cripple fucks from reproducing

>>14193588
I'd tell you but it's not in my interest to do so.

>>14194496
I found the essay I was talking about. It was a review of Salter's book, which I should probably read. I tried reading The Greatest Show on Earth in high school but it was too boring. Don't know much else about Dawkins other than that he's a fedora tipper and he played a MIDI trumpet to a song about memes one time.
https://www.amren.com/news/2017/11/what-we-owe-our-people/

>>14194533
>>14194466
And that's how Hitler justifies killing millions of jews, gentlemen.

>>14194515
Based

>>14194546
Yeah, I guess he must have read Frank Salter's 2005 book, "On Genetic Interests".
https://www.bitchute.com/video/tji0q4eO8uMe/

>>14192726
>Can one square leftist politics with egoist psychology?

Yes, if it is in your best interest.

>>14194586
You are not very aren't you?

>>14194596
-smart

>>14194586
>https://www.bitchute.com/video/tji0q4eO8uMe/
A moron who believes in a jewish conspiracy and probably holocaust denier, got it.

>>14194440
Zeroth-order logic isn't math, you absolute philistine. It's a process that utilizes a terse metalanguage that is logically complete. Perhaps if you spent less time reading pop philosophy garbage peddled to you via bite-sized internet memes, you'd know that. Formal semantics are great, they make pseud rhetoricians like yourself endlessly seethe, and out yourselves like the posers you are. This always brings a smile to my face.

Infinitesimals were not "invented" by Newton, Leibniz' differentials predated Newton's publishings. There have even been many conceptions of infinitesimals before these two, as far back as the Greeks. Additionally, calculus is the field of mathematics that deals with studying infinitesimals. They were not "invented" to fix calculus, calculus was established with them as a core axiom to provide infinite granularity over change (a shortcoming of some proto-calculus models)

Additionally, calculus is not a model of the universe and infinitesimals do not bridge the gap between mathematics and reality. Surreals are more important to math. But again, none of this has to do with propositional calculus, it is not mathematical calculus. Fucking goofball /lit/ poster, educate yourself.

>>14194448
I'm not writing a treatise, for the purpose of the post leaving the domain ambiguous was sufficient to indicate the lack of exclusion in "sufficiency"

>>14194622
If it’s complete it’s incoherent

Check mate

>>14194639
Necessity and sufficiency*

>>14194645
Emphasis on logically, not on complete.

>>14194596
>>14194601
I am very.
>>14194610
Ok normie.

>>14194741
Retard.

>>14194741
post your jaw

>>14194741

>>14194751

>>14194775
You are a fag anon.

>>14192726
The self doesn't exist though

>>14195055
if the self doesnt exist what am I using to comprehend the Idea that my self doesnt exist?

This thread turned out better than I expected.

>>14195093
Your consciousness and thoughts aren't "you". You don't own them, similar to how you don't own your vision, or your hearing. It's always in a state of impermanence, and most of the time, people's thoughts control them, not the other way around.

>>14195108
>most of the time, people's thoughts control them, not the other way around
differentiate your subjective "them" from one's thoughts

>>14195108
>most of the time, people's thoughts control them
Control whom, you said the self isn't real

>>14194331
This anon is a King

>>14192726
Too reductive. It gets into the question of free will and identity more than it says anything meaningful.

>>14195260
I need to know if selflessness is real or if it is just disguised egoism because I need to decide whether I should be moral or act like a sociopath to achieve only my ends.

>>14192726
Egoism is an empty doctrine without specifying what people want.
Everyone acts according to his motivation, so indeed everyone always acts in 'self interest' in this sense. People like Aquinas or Leibniz presented things like this. Yet no one would call them egoists in the stirner manner.

>>14192873
>Ay ay bro these mental scans show that you arent working normally. And by normally means as according to some invisible standard of equality that i've traced from looking at other humans. So you are objectively wrong.

Its no wonder that after the 60s a large branch of psychology divorced with their desire to look for the "standard" human human psyche

>>14192726
>what appears to be selflessness
This is the problem with egoism, really: it's nothing but begging the question. You set out with the belief that everything is selfish, and find that proving yourself right is one of the easiest things to do.
If you have a round peg and a square hole, the solution is a bigger hammer. So love, sacrifice, and cooperation all become selfish, because by god, that peg is getting through that hole.

>>14193516
>thinks because the ego uses reason, it must confirm to it
>doesn't realise that reason tells us to go beyond the ego

>>14192726
It's an unfalsifiable hypothesis. No point in trying to refute it.

>>14192726
Leftists are the ultimate egoists.

>>14194241
See >>14193281 and then actually read Stirner

>>14194323
Oh really? Because when the paper was expressing what the popular conception of sufficiency and neccesity was, they opted to give a bunch of fucking synonyms instead. Citation needed.

>>14195273
I thought the point was that morality is subjective so any attempt you make to be moral is just you trying to achieve your end like a sociopath

>>14195118
>>14195215
There is the idea of a colloquial self, and then there's the idea of a of self as merely a concept. When I casually say "I have to get groceries", I'm not making an argument about the nature of whether a self exists or not, I'm just trying to communicate an idea like a normal person. In this particular case, I'm simply saying that thoughts are out of our control, the same way how vision is perceived is largely our of our control.
>But how could there be an "our" if there is no self?
Again, it's for the sake of speaking normal English. Semantics isn't an argument worth having in this case.

>>14192853
>Empathy
Kantian deontology doesn't need to appeal to sentiments such as empathy

>>14195286
>Everyone acts according to his motivation, so indeed everyone always acts in 'self interest' in this sense.

Psychological egoism doesn't say that everyone acts according to his own motivation, it says that everyone is acting according to his own benefit. Everyone agrees that we act according to our motivations, the controversial point is whether everything we do is for own benefit, or whether we also act in ways that are genuinely altruistic without a hidden self-serving agenda. So for example traditional moralists would argue that we often engage in altruistic behavior simply because we recognize that this type of behavior has the quality of moral goodness. The psychological egoist on the other hand claims that this way of talking is a hypocritical delusion, and in reality there are no such things as moral qualities, we simply act in ways that maximize our personal well being, and if we help others this is merely a means for personal self-fulfillment.

TL;DR psychological egoism denies objective morality and claims we are no different than others animals. So no, Aquinas doesn't agree with that.

>>14196874
>TL;DR psychological egoism denies objective morality
Not necessarily. Just because I believe that murder is ok doesn’t mean I could do it and benefit. Sure, the constitution of my parts and my relation to my environment will determine if or to what extent I am benefited by a certain action, so in this sense morality is subjective, but given those parameters, there is one path of action that will give me a most preferable experience, regardless of what I think the best decision should be. If I could run a simulation of all my possible lives, then perhaps I would finally be able to see which life I would most prefer, therefore being able to see the best decision at all times. But I’m not intelligent enough to calculate the future like that, nor simulate my experience of the future, so I can only make guesses and hope that I approximate my best life.

>>14195968
It is not an unfalsifiable hypothesis, you could in principle find counter examples where an action can't be plausible explained by the hypothesis. So for example if I make a theory called "psychological altruism" that claims that all human acts are altruistically motivated, you could easily refute it by pointing examples of behavior that is egoistically motivated (it could be something simple like eating an ice cream). Psychological egoism is a powerful theory precisely because it corresponds very well with our experience. Look

>>14196955
You aware the ideas of Loser Stirner never worked right? His union of egoists is a failure of an ideology.

>>14196895
I am not sure what your point is, but psychological egoism doesn't require that you always act according to what is best for you - only what you *think* is best for you in any given moment. Humans can make mistakes, no one challenges that.

>>14196966
It works in the relationship I have with my wife.

>>14196966
What the fuck does that have to do with my post, we are talking about egoism as a psychological doctrine, not as normative ethics. Stirner is not a psychological egoist.

>>14196966
union of egoists is neither an ideology, nor a system or anything else you want to call it. A union of egoists comes into existence when conscious egoists meet and realize that they coincidentally have the same ambitions and the same preferred path to achieve them. Therefore they spontaneously cooperate for however long necessary.

>>14196974
but an egoist doesn’t have to deny objective morality. He can still believe that certain actions are most preferable regardless of what he thinks. An egoist only needs to think that he is motivated by what he perceives to be good for himself.

>>14197019
Technically yes, in the sense that there is no contradiction in simultaneously holding that objective moral values are real but they don't influence human behavior. But of course no one actually holds that position. Part of the reason people believe in objective morality is that they think it obvious that there are ways we act that reflect that we understand what is right and wrong. If you get convinced that all our actions are in reality motivated by purely egoistical motives, you probably won't have much reason to believe in objective values anymore. It would be a strange theory to say that objective moral values exist and we can know them, but we can't be motivated by them.

>>14197018
No no haha true egoism has never been tried haha, like, the union of egoists uh, doesn’t work haha human nature bro

>>14192873
How does empathy prove anything? Psychological egoism doesn't say "nothing you do can help other people EVER". If given the choice to get $1m or give someone else $1m psychological egoism just says that the individual will choose the option which grants then the highest utility/happiness/good feels. So if I give away the money, that's altruistic and empathetic by most standards but the reason why I gave it away if because - given the information I have - I believe that giving the money away will make me feel better about myself and the world around me than if I had the money. In other words, u(giving money away) > u(keeping money) you fucking dolt. Psychological egoism's and being a decent human being are not mutually exclusive. It provides no means to predict what humans will/should do (that would be ethical egoism) it more so describes why humans make the choices they do. We are all egoists but we all have different preferences that make our perceived utility of different choices different.

Yes, Hume

According to Hume, our sympathy-based sentiments can motivate us towards the pursuit of non-selfish ends, like the utility of others. For Hume, and for fellow sympathy-theorist Adam Smith, the term "sympathy" is meant to capture much more than concern for the suffering of others. Sympathy, for Hume, is a principle for the communication and sharing of sentiments, both positive and negative. In this sense, it is akin to what contemporary psychologists and philosophers call empathy. In developing this sympathy-based moral sentimentalism, Hume surpasses the divinely-implanted moral sense theory of his predecessor, Francis Hutcheson, by elaborating a naturalistic, moral psychological basis for the moral sense, in terms of the operation of sympathy.

After providing various examples, Hume comes to the conclusion that most, though not all, of the behaviors we approve of increase public utility. Does this then mean that we make moral judgments on self-interest alone? Unlike his fellow empiricist Thomas Hobbes, Hume argues that this is not in fact the case, rejecting psychological egoism—the view that all intentional actions are ultimately self-interested.

In addition to considerations of self-interest, Hume maintains that we can be moved by our sympathy for others, which can provide a person with thoroughly non-selfish concerns and motivations, indeed, what contemporary theorists would call, altruistic concern.