"Altruism" is an interesting word. It was coined by Auguste Comte for use in his study of sociology (I think he also coined "sociology") in the mid 19th century. I find it an interesting word because as much and as widely used as it is, it does not really seem to reflect any action in the real world. It seems to me to be an altogether meaningless word. Is anyone truly altruistic, in the sense of the following:
SOURCE:



SOURCE:
... or is it simply an empty, feel-good word, or worse, a word used to manipuate and con others?
Yours,
Issodhos

Issodhos, only you would ask that question. Have you never considered the interest of another before your own? Do you have a child? A loved one?

Really; is this a real question for you?

Well, Phil, some concepts that are mainstream in society generally are foreign to certain segments of society. Kind of like liberty and justice. Very common concepts in the origins of the United States, but I'm finally getting through Dee Brown's Wounded Knee. Was never cynical enough to get beyond the second chapter before. And it makes very clear the reality that liberty and justice were concepts totally foreign to Sherman, Sheridan, Custer, and their ilk. So makes sense that there would be some folks in this day and age who would find the notion of altruism similarly "specious".

Phil I don't think the kind of love you are referring to is often, or perhaps even ever described as altruism. One does not do what one does for one's child or lover out of a sense of altruism.

I think there's definitely a distinction between Comte's definition of the term as describing a moral obligation and the more common usage describing a personal urge or leading. I would agree readily that the former definition invites manipulators: "It's your duty to be nice, and I'm going to tell you what you must do in order to fulfill that duty." But the idea that a word can be empty yet what it describes gives people satisfaction is totally alien to my experience.

It seems from your opening post, iss, that your question is primarily about the original, technical definition than about the more contemporary, colloquial one. I'd rather hear what people have to say about the latter definition. Much more interesting to me!

I like your first quote/definition, Issodhos, rather than the later, more exclusive, It's sort of a matter of degrees isn't it? My ass comes first but I'm gonna do my very best to save your life as well. How about you? Would you give your life to save your daughter?

Given Stereoman's reply I find that my answer is wrong as well, your family doesn't count. Your friends don't count. Only complete strangers? I'd still do my best to save your life Issodhos, to the point of great personal peril.

Yes, I do think altruism exists.

I am fairly sure that whatever examples I come up with will be discounted for one reason or another (I'm feeling contrary tonight) and I can't probably stick around long as the storm has finally arrived here & I'm on battery power.)

This morning I got coffee at a drive-through coffee shop. I don't go there often so I forgot that their exit is way too close to a busy intersection, and for some reason everyone in town was heading west. The backup from the red light prevented me from pulling into the street. Partway during the second red, a car stopped well back, leaving a car length for me to pull into traffic.

Pure altruism.

A more complex version: approximately 12 years ago I was ill and was given a course of medicine. At one point the prescription was changed and the new medication gave me a screaming-willies panic attack. I had no idea what to do, so I called an old friend - someone who lived about 1200 miles away ("rational thinking" and "panic attack" don't exactly go hand in hand.)

My friend could have stayed with me until I started to improve, and then hung up the phone. Instead, he stayed on the phone with me for four hours - until the panic attack was over, then through the shuddering fear that followed (I'd never had a panic attack before and thankfully haven't had one since.) He talked me through a cup of hot chocolate. At about 1:00 in the morning, he told me to hang up and go upstairs to bed (this is pre-wireless), and he'd call me back. He proceeded to do exactly that, making sure I was safely in bed and calm enough to fall asleep.

I am blessed with good friends. At the time of that panic attack, I hadn't seen John in over five years. We didn't talk on a regular basis; he was not an old lover, no romantic interest - a friend. What he did, he did solely for my good - not for any benefit to himself. I still think he's a terrific human being. I haven't seen him in a good eight years now - and if I was in trouble, I still know I could call on him.

Postscript: I would add, many if not most of those whose homes and farms were "stations" on the Underground Railroad.

I would add those - or some of those, if you want to be cynical - who hid, or helped hide, Jews from Nazis in many Eastern European countries.

I would add the Vietnamese man who lived across the street from me many years ago. We had an early blizzard that broke down a ton of trees all over the state. My neighbor and his son - neither of whom I'd ever met - brought a chainsaw to my yard to cut up a huge limb that had fallen in my yard. They wouldn't take money. They didn't speak English. They didn't take the wood.

I won't go into the number of people who have pushed me out of snow in driveways or parking lots as well as streets (my old car lost traction if it snowed in the next county), or the trucker who stopped on a West Texas highway in order to help me change a tire.

This is a false question.

Altruism exists from the point of view of the receiver of the altruistic act.

However, every altruistic act is performed by a person who has chosen to act in such a manner. The "cost" is accounted before prior to the act, and therefore "paid for".

The idea that altruism is a "con" or "pretend" is a false attribution. If the receiver thinks it is altruism, then so it is, regardless of the actor's state of mind. This does bring up the valid question of whether is is possible for an act to be altruistic from the point of view of the actor.

Such questions are really only of concern for people who primarily THINK. For people who primarily FEEL, they are just stupid, and it is annoying for FEELers to listen to THINKers try to break down the elements and quantize the essential elements of the feelings involved. It takes all the sense out of the feelings.

Yes to all of your questions, Phil. Was the subjegation of my interest to another's interest altruistic? I do not see how it could be. In placing another's interest before my own, I did what I wished to do -- and was motivated accordingly. In doing so, I found it to be gratifying to do what I thought was the right thing to do. That would be in my interest, would it not?
Yours,
Issodhos

My question applies to both, stereoman. I provided the various definitions simply to form a basis for discussion. I do not think altruism in any form actually exists.
Yours,
Issodhos

Issodhos, that explanation reeks of logic. Altruism is not logical, as beechouse pointed out, altruism is pre-thought, limbic rather than logic.

When one's child falls into a frozen lake, the reaction comes long before thinking. And it most definitely does not get weighted pro and con. One dives in and risks everything to save the child.

Most things get badly contaminated by thought. I can only recommend several sessions with powerful chemical agents, natural or not, that can help you beyond that curse we humans share -- thinking.

Interesting comments, beechhouse, but I do not think the question is false. People often assign the label "altruistic" to the acts of people without needing to consult with the recipient of the act. I think it is valid to question a claim to selfless motivation.

I think that you are correct in writing that the act is "paid for" in advance. I think that the value to the actor of doing the act has been determined to be greater to him than not doing act, therefore the exchange has been made to the satisfaction of both.
Yours,
Issodhos

Yes. And in doing so it would be because I would find greater satisfaction in doing so than in accepting the alternative.
Yours,
Issodhos

I am not restricting anything to "complete strangers", Greger. I consider nurse Jerry Avant Jr. to be a hero. I do not think this imaginary thing named 'altruism' was involved in his actions. I would compare it to a soldier who died covering a grenade to protect his comrades. Both decided it was of greater value to do what they did than to not have done it. It was not selfless from their viewpoint.
Yours,
Issodhos

I think all the examples you provided were actions of people wanting to be nice. I think that they valued being nice more than they valued being not nice. I think it made them feel good about themselves, and I think it was very nice of them to do what they did, but they did have their reward. So, I do not think that those actions demonstrate the existance of altruism.
Yours,
Issodhos

I suggest, Phil, that such a reaction is a result of prior conditioning and does not require further thought at the time of action.
Yours,
Issodhos
P.s. I don't think beechhouse was suggesting "pre-thought", but rather post-thought.

I agree it is pre thought. It is your notion that altruism is a thought process, not mine.

So, in order to be truely altruistic... one would have to serve the interests of others in some manner that would not at the same time correspond to your own interests? So, for example, a soldier throwing himself on a grenade to save his buddies could not be called altrusitic because he was self interested in saving his friends?

I guess in order to be truely altruistic a soldier would have to throw himself on to a grenade to save enemy troops that were killing his buddies.

Great question, Isso. I don't know that there is an answer.

Altruism is helping someone else in some way without expecting gratitude, recognition or reward. We Buddhists call it "loving kindness". Is altruism truly a selfless act? It could be, but I believe often it is not.

It is my belief that when you do something in the service of others that it is to everyone's benefit if you avoid recognition. It is not always easy, not for me anyway. In fact it can be difficult as hell. It becomes a bit easier in time. I have found that when I do it it brings me tremendous peace. When that happens I have to ask myself what, really, was my motivation for doing it. If you get anything back, even a very good and peaceful feeling and a greater connection to all things, then are your actions really altruistic? I don't know.

So, Mick, the first time you did something and found afterwards that it had given you "a very good and peaceful feeling and a greater connection to all things", did you know in advance of that first time that it would bring you that feeling? Or was it the surprise result of your action? And if, in subsequent moments, you enjoyed that same feeling, did you engage in the act BECAUSE you expected that same feeling again or for some other reason?

Oxford English Dictionary notes that while the specific word as a matter of philosophy originated with Monsieur Comte, the concept existed prior:
Sorry, can't provide a link; to the best of my knowledge one cannot link to OED without a paid subscription. The above citation is from my CD copy of the Shorter edition. (The printed version is great for Scrabble!)

Any good Latin students who can elucidate the matter further in a linguistic sense, how the concept functioned within the language before Monsieur Comte decided to transform it from an every day occurrence into a school of philosophy?

Your remarks do seem rooted in a fixation on "selflessness" being an inseparable part of "altruism", isso. I don't attach that requirement to the term. Just because one derives benefit from something does not automatically mean one is being "selfish". In between "selfish" and "selfless" there is a wide range of mutually beneficial action that describes a great deal of perfectly normal human behavior.

Altruism is a completely synthetic concept... by which I mean that it does not have the solid existence of... for instance... the Grand Canyon. It is a term that has different meanings to different people; it is a term whose meaning is not perpetually fixed by the conception of first person who used the term.

Because of the above, we could indefinitely continue discussions about the "real" meaning of the term. I conjecture that Iss does not care for the concept or the ideas associated with it and therefore will seek to define it in a way that makes it easy to show the term to be "piffle."

One can observe that even ants will sacrifice their lives for their social group. It is unlikely that their sacrifice comes after moral philosophical reflection. On the other hand it also seems likely that animals who live in social groups have developed mechanisms by which members of that group "sacrifice" their interests for the greater good of the group. Perhaps the major difference here is that the human animal has developed some conscious thought process about the subject.... and attached the word "altruism" to some of those behaviours that the group wishes to encourage in order to better flourish.

I found this in the Ayn Rand lexicon (www.aynrandlexicon.com):


I found this here:


The latter quote is how I perceive the concept of altruism.

EmmaG

-

Issodhos has initiated a very interesting discussion. Some people might accuse him of having a perverse sense of humor, since he has placed restrictions on the meaning of "altruism" so that it would be impossible for any action not to be motivated by self-gratification. I would not dare to make such a criticism, of course, since many people might find my own sense of humor to be somewhat perverse. "People who live in glass houses should not throw stones."

Among all the people of the world, Westerners seem to be the most absorbed in their egos, and among Westerners, Americans seem to be those who are generally most absorbed in seeing life as a series of transactions engaged in for profit. I must admit that I find such an attitude to be very low and debased, and not one worthy to be a part of a true human life. I think it is fit only for the pig-sty.

I think Stereoman made a very important point:


Such a lot depends on one's point of view. Life is often like one of those ambiguous pictures that looks one way if one's brain processes the image in a certain fashion, and looks like a completely different thing if perceived under a different mode of processing the image.

If one is not overly concerned with one's ego, so many of these moral "problems" just disappear from the picture. I have often done things of benefit for other people, in ways that more self-absorbed people thought were reckless and damaging to myself. I find it amazing how often such actions have worked to my benefit, often in quite surprising ways. I am quite sure that calculations of self-benefit were quite absent from my motivations, nor, in many cases, could they have been foreseen. What I did seemed as natural as breathing --- feeling my way to a little more harmony and beauty in my environment.

I opine that the more that one perceives harmony and beauty and truth, the more does self-gratification vanish from one's relations with the universe --- it becomes trivial and unimportant.

Though I find their views repugnant and harmful, I am also amused at the attitudes of those who 'think' that "the guy who accumulates the most toys, wins." A moment's clear reflection tells you that when you die, that is the end of personal existence. What is the significance of accumulating toys, conquests, and personal gratification? The moment you have breathed your last breath, they are all as if they had never been.

As the Buddhists say, all things are "as illusions in the sky, a fault of vision, as a lamp, a mock show, dew drops, or a bubble, a dream, a lightning flash, or cloud...." All these things have their place in the pageant of existence, but to imagine that there is anything enduring about them is ridiculous.

I do not know what is the ultimate nature of existence, but I sense that there is something wonderful, harmonious and beautiful in the enduring mystery of Truth. I certainly cannot prove this to the satisfaction of a logician; one cannot hold the sun or moon in one's hand; the best one can do is to lift one's hand and point to them shining in the sky.

I received a lasting impression when I visited the city museum of Taibei, Taiwan. There were a number of ancient ceramic plaques with images impressed upon them, scenes of Buddhist mythology and symbolism, expressive of Buddhist doctrine and philosophy. These plaques were very ancient, dating from the Tang Dynasty, more than a thousand years old. Originally, they were plastered on the outer façade of Buddhist temples. What was interesting about them was that they contained human ashes mixed in with the clay out of which they were made. When devout Buddhists died, they had their bodies cremated, and the remaining ashes were incorporated in these plaques, so that even in death they could continue to proclaim the essential, eternal truth of Buddhism: the transcience of all things. There is a wonderful, paradoxical, Chinese quality to what they did. Eternal truth proclaimed by the dead ashes of vanished men? What is in fact enduring, and what must pass and fade? Very few of these plaques remain, a mere handful in a glass case in a museum. At some point in time, not one of them will remain. Yet the strange, paradoxical, eternal truth that all things pass away will remain, ready to pop up out of non-existence whenever there is a mind able to perceive it.

Also, what they did took more courage than might appear. In traditional China, it was considered vital to bury family members with proper rites and in propitious locations. The future happiness of an entire family was considered to depend on this. The people who mixed their ashes into plaques did something that was roughly equivalent to us throwing the bodies of our dead parents by the side of the road for dogs to eat. They apparently thought proclaiming Truth to be more important than following social convention.

Was what they did altruistic, or not? I think the question blushes to annihilation in a world view in which Truth is real, and ego an illusion.

Numan,

The first time and many other times I struggled not so much to selflessly help someone, but to do it without desire of any discernable recognition. I still struggle with it.


I can say that most times now I don't do it because I expect any reward, but the results have changed somewhat. Avoiding any recognition at all for altruistic acts can give you a sense of power. That's not good either. It's all wrapped up in ego. As Numan says, ego is an illusion. How can all this is possibly be rewarded by all that is for being kind to all that is?

The more thought given to an action, the less likely it is altruism, given that the very purpose of thinking is to preserve the ego-self

That is why I have come up with the following apothegm --- with which I am sure many people who read my postings will heartily agree:

When I know not what I say,
No selfish thought I do betray.

-

I agree that there is a distinction made between a more formal and a less formal usage of the word. The more formal usage is seen in such things as public service, charitable activities, political activities and even the idea that society must be redesigned to be based on altruism. I think the work becomes even less meaningful when applied to these categories of action.

Whether it be Mother Theresa, Save the Children, community organizers, Habitat for Humanity, etc., they are motivated to satisfy their own needs, desires, and expectations. This does not mean that what they do might not be a good thing, but the idea that a thing named "altruism" is involved seems to me to be ludicruous. How does one voluntarilly do what one chooses to do and then try to claim it is not motivated by a satisfaction to self?
Yours,
Issodhos

I can hardly be in a position to define a word for a motivation that I do not think exists, Ardy. In other words, I am not trying to prove the existance of that which I consider non-existant.:-)
Yours,
Issodhos

And you know this .... how exactly?

I am not seeking to define it, Ardy. I presented several definitions of others who were supportive of 'altruism'. If you have more -- without engaging in a complete dilation of definition -- that you think are valid, bring them on.:-)
Yours,
Issodhos

Thank you, Phil. And I also appreciate your signature line.

Some time ago I came up with a sententia which expresses much the same thought:

Your mind is not your friend.

It sometimes flickers among my thoughts when I read certain postings.

I think many people need to be altruistic toward themselves.

...and maybe eat fruit more often.

Except for the very last of your examples, none of the others necessarily fits the "more formal" definition, iss. It's no wonder you think altruism is a "load of piffle." People don't engage in public service selflessly. They make their choices based on what excites them, inspires them, gives them a sense of wholeness or appeals to their sympathies. People generally engage in political activities that are similarly beneficial to them. And often people's choices of charities is based on personal connections - relatives, loved ones, or one's own experiences. None of those represent any sort of self-denial.

It's only when the "must" is added on that we begin to see the influence of Comte. And even then, if one is imposed upon to engage in altruistic actions, the irony is that it would no longer be considered altruistic because one is not doing it willingly. That's the point of departure from Comte's definition to the modern usage.

Of course they are! At least, in part. That's exactly my point. A point you are apparently unwilling to concede based on the narrow, myopic view that any vestige of self-interest in one's actions precludes defining them as "altruistic".

You are of course entitled to define it any way you like, and dismiss it summarily. But the rest of humanity is entitled to accept the more colloquial definition because, for the sake of effective communications, it is helpful to take the meaning of words as they are commonly used.

Why do you insist on denying the validity of other people's experiences?

A thought interestingly presented in T. S. Elliott's Becket play--Murder in the Cathedral, I think it's called.

Setting aside for the moment the curtain of mysticism being generously applied, much as you might want it to "seem" "natural", you apparently did what rewarded you, motivated by a desire to interact with those you say you benefited, more than you were motivated to not interact with them. It was to your greater satisfaction than not to do so. What you did may have been a good thing to do, but this thing called altruism did not enter into it.
Yours,
Issodhos
P.s. The toy thingie? I too often wondered about that until I figured out what the answer was.;-)

I guess that must be true, since you say so.

-

Numan, a question: what is the value of humoring slugs?
Purely a philosophical inquiry.

Good discussion...
Am inclined to go along with Ardy... in seeing this as as a personal thing (if I read him correctly).

Seems as if Altruism requires some degree of personal sacrifice, when it comes to the practice thereof, but as an ideal... as "altruistic", isn't it akin to "do unto others"? And further, isn't this a matter of personal perception?

How about this for argument's sake...
Perhaps GWB's vision of "Freedom" could be said to be altruistic. Would the view of an Iraqi be the same, or would it be more "altruistic" to be left to the ideals of the Sunni or Shia... which doesn't interpret "freedom" in the same manner, but may relate more to the tenets of the faith, and the government that they have lived with, and understand.

In any case, I see "altruism" as a personal perception, which I think is inextricably wound with empathy.

There are many actions in life that have no positive or negative consequences for the actor. For example, yesterday I found a pair of eyeglasses in my cart at the grocery store. I would not have been condemned nor charged any cost for ignoring them and leaving them there. I also gained no advantage from turning them in at the store. Nobody there knows my name or where I live and the person whose glasses they were will, if reunited with the glasses will never know who turned them in. So I gain no advantage from dropping them at the customer service desk as I passed by it on the way through the store.

Common civility neither expects nor welcomes reward.

The root notion behind common civility is that we all benefit by its practice, a concept that existed before Comte and that survives him. That he chose to put a "special" label on it and add some moral burden to persuade others to follow it neither aggrandizes nor diminishes the concept.

Sadly, we have some who must label everything, then must spend large amounts of time attacking the labels.

For pointless endeavor, I prefer golf.

I would say that altruism is a social value judgement that we are each individually, and collectively better off in a society where we act according to the (modified) golden rule (thanks to itstarted) IE people should try to act independently of their narrow interests when those narrow interests would cause them to act in a manner that they would not encourage others to act if they had no narrow interest.

This definition makes no claim that the individual has no interest in the final outcome since it assumes that generally everyone will be better off if everyone abides by this principal... although it is understood that in any specific situation the instantaneous results might be narrowly less favorable for you.... IE someone incorrectly gives you too much change at a garage sale and you have to decide whether to return the excess money.

So, your 'argument' is that my view is narrow and myopic because I provided several definitions from different people without making up one of my own? I would suggest that you are not in a position to know what definition the rest of humanity accepts. I would encourage you to provide other working definitions from which to argue if that will make it easier for you to get to where it is you want to go, stereoman.
Yours,
Issodhos

If Stereoman is not in a position to know what definition the rest of humanity accepts, then how, pray tell, are you in a position to tell us what motivates the actions of all people?

Are you identifying this as "altruistic", or are you simply working a strawman, loganrbt? When did advantage enter into the conversation? How does the fact that you did something nice speak for or against the issue of "atruism"?
Yours,
Issodhos

I am not familiar with the concept of atruism. Are you introducing a new topic?

Oh, there are many motivators, loganrbt. But, I do not think this thing called "altruism" is one of them.
Yours,
Issodhos

For you, I am certain it is not. But you have gone beyond that point, insisting it is not for anyone else either. At a minimum, an incredibly powerful suggestion of omniscience.

No, my 'observation' is that you provided several definitions but steadfastly refused to consider any except the one that is most alienated from contemporary experience.

Agreed. That is why I consulted a dozen or so different dictionaries.

Thanks for that. Very altruistic of you, iss.

ahhh Logan.
Those were my glasses. I left my paid for packages at the customer service desk yesterday to go back step through the store to try to find my glasses that I had obviously laid down somewhere. When I returned to the front the customer service rep handed me my glasses.
Thank you!
This is a true story.
I had no idea who turned them in.

I think it's all in the eye of the beholder. I do good things and they give me pleasure to know I've helped someone. I leave nice size tips in hotel rooms for the cleaning lady I will never see. I provide and serve at the homeless shelter.
These kinds of thing enrich my existence.
I don't know what word you want to call this.
Not altruism because I get something in return? That's fine (with me) if that's what is determined here.

At this point it just seems like this discussion has become parsing words.

Numan I like your long posting too. Nice.

Another scenario:

When Jesus of Nazareth went into the Garden of Gethemene and prayed, asking his Father to, if possible, spare him from having to allow himself to be crucified, yet saying the Father's will be done, not his own, and he went on to be sacrificed for the redemption of Man, was that motivated by altruism?
Yours,
Issodhos

Again, it depends on your definition of altruism, Issodhos.
Was it a selfless act? I think it was.
(let me qualify this and say, I'm not religious. This purely for the sake of the debate. I do believe Jesus existed. In what capacity, I don't know)

He did it for a reason. I suspect he thought that good things would come from it.

Putting yourself in front of a moving train to save another person would be the same thing.

To me, the giver 'getting something' (pleasure, peace, enrichment, whatever) for flinging themselves out there to do a good thing (if it really accomplishes that), is beside the point.
And it doesn't matter what you call it.

Maybe we just can't help it...

woah there, thats built on so many assumptions I cant even begin to figure it out!

Well, first of all, get your theology right. The words of the prayer were (using the revised standard version):
Matthew 26: 39

And again:
Matthew 26: 42

You are making, as Schlack notes, a series of assumptions in your question that I reject. Most specifically, about the motivation of Jesus. And because I reject them, your question becomes spurious.

You are confusing actions based on a sense of spiritual/moral duty, regardless of consequences, with acts of volition based on temporal considerations. Judging either with the weights of the other abuses the scale and cheapens the actor as well as the actor's beliefs.

Though I suspect you reject the teachings of the Lord, Our Saviour as you reject all other compasses outside your own thought processes, you do injustice to those who follow Him by twisting his words to fit your simple polemical exercise.

I took criminal law way back in '87/88. Had a lovely bit of repartee after class with the professor about the absurdity of the whole mental illness defense argument, a line of reasoning that stems from the notion of "guilty mind" as a precursor to guilt in our system of laws and consequences. The limited knowledge of the functioning of the brain even back then suggested that the day will come when a defense is raised that one cannot be convicted of a crime that carries the mens rea requirement because all acts are but the involuntary reactions of the body to the synaptic firings of an organ in the head. She thought I was kidding. This lovely tidbit you have shared with us goes to that very point.

Of course, we are not compelled to follow the primitive firings of our brains. The entire process that we now call (thanks to M. Comte?) socialization is our collective attempt to override those basic instincts with learned behaviors rather than primitive ones. If there is a difference between us and ants, this would be it.

Good thing about altruistic acts is that, per your citation, they appear to be supported by BOTH the primal instincts and the socialization process.

Please note that I was not using an exact quote, loganrbt. If I had been, I would have used quotes and cited the passage. and, just in case you are unaware of it, his words were written down differently in Matthew, Mark, and Luke -- ya know, cause they were like 3 different dudes?;-)
Yours in scriptural rectitude,
Issodhos

My opinion would be that He thought it more rewarding to do the will of His Father rather than to reject the will of His Father and accepted the "cost" of doing so. Therefore, (being of flesh?), He was motivated by something other than selflessness.
Yours,
Issodhos

Distortion of the text is distortion whether the distorted text is placed in quotation marks or not. I expect far better defense than that from you, sir!

But do, pray the, enlighten me on the distinctions among the three gospels that you find so significant. For I see not the distinctions you suggest.

Yes, it is true Matthew has the prayer being said three times, Mark only twice, and Luke but once. But I cannot find that nugget in the ever so subtle differences in phrasing that give rise to the interpretation you derive. Perhaps if you were to tell us which version you found to be the more authentic and thus more in keeping with your own interpretation, I might learn to discern so keenly.

Please do not mistake my correcting you as being meant as defense, loganrbt. And let us leave your strawman to other endeavors, shall we?;-)

By the way, in considering some of the more defensive responses I have seen in this thread, it occurs to me that some folks seem to feel a threat to their perceived sense of moral superiority.;-)
Yours,
Issodhos

The day you learn that what you think others are thinking or feeling is a day I will celebrate. each and every time you have projected onto me your own thoughts over the years you have been entirely wrong.

yes, I totally agree with that characterization of your posts! We agree on something! Cue orchestra. Cue choir.

Here again we see the distinction between the concept of altruism as it is commonly used in modern vernacular and as a technical term in the study of ethics and philosophy. Many of the examples that have been offered by others in this discussion describe the former interpretation, liberated from the necessity of proving the absence of self-interest.

In fact, it seems to me, there is nearly a consensus among us that altruism generally does include some degree of self-interest. The odd man out being you, iss. Which explains very neatly how the rest of us can celebrate our altruism and the altruism of others, whilst you doggedly insist that it doesn't exist.

Vive la difference I say. And let's not get into personal sniping over it. For you, it's a load of piffle. For the rest of us, it's a delightful and rewarding part of life. So be it.

Actually, I think it is more a case of some folks seeking to redefine the issue so that it will comforably line up with their pat answers. I think it upsets some to think that they are not as morally superior as they perceive themselves to be. As to personal sniping, that began almost immediately. Dodge away. I am a patient man.
Yours,
Issodhos

:Tinfoil Hat:

To make a tinfoil hat you type a bracket [ and a colon :
with a space between them it looks like this [ :
remove the space and you get this [:
When Issodhos plays these word games I put on my [:
To the best of my knowledge no one has ever convinced him he was wrong. No personal snipe there, Isso, just an observation. In his own way and by his rules he is quite correct. :[ it can be a smiley bracket in either direction but as you see, a frownie bracket does not make a tinfoil hat.

Yep. There you have it. Not much different from the rest of us, wot?

Not sure what happened there. I "loaded" the tin foil hat from the smilie set on the board, just like the laughers. They all came over intact, but that one did not.

Strange powers reaching across the Web!
:Tinfoil Hat:

Ha! Did it again. So something is amiss with the tool.

If one ignores tone . . .

forget the one on the board. The tool (lol) is not working.
type one of these [ and then one of these : with no spaces in between and you get this... [:
You can do it backwards
like this...: and then one of these ], with no space in between of course. to come up with this... :]

There is nothing wrong with the tool Logan It works like it always has: not at all. If you wish to make a tinfoil hat type a colon and a bracket:] or a bracket and a colon either way like I said if you make it smiley you get a tinfoil hat[: if you dont you get one of these:[

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH:]

This question about altruism is part of a much larger question: determinism. In what sense are we free to do anything?

I have grown old and thought much about the subject, but I have never never been able to make much sense of the concept "freedom," nor been able to understand what other people think they mean when they use the word.

"I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul."

On the face of it, it is hard to imagine a statement more ridiculous and childish. On the most charitable interpretation, one may imagine that Henley is expressing the Stoic doctrine that he may face with calmness and fortitude all that life may deal out to him; if that is so, he expresses himself rather poorly and unclearly.

I firmly agree with the more hard-headed view of Herodotus:

"Circumstances rule men; men do not rule circumstances."

The concept of "freedom" seems utterly incoherent, for what could it mean but that something appears in the world without being the result of cause-and-effect? The only sense that I can make of that idea is that things appear out of the blue, with no causal antecedent, utterly at random.

That, I think, is almost the contradiction of what most people mean by free choice, for it means that they have no control over what happens! If all things arise deterministically, through strict cause-and-effect, then we have no control over what happens; and if they arise randomly, by chance, then we also have no control over them! Damned if you do, and damned if you don't!

My objection to the concept of freedom, or free-choice, is enshrined in what Gottfried Leibnitz called, the "Principle of Sufficient Reason": in the outer world, in the realm of thought, and in the soul of any person, nothing arises without a cause, nothing appears "out of the blue."

Step by step, as we have extended our understanding of the world around us, the Principle of Sufficient Reason has been confirmed over and over again, and there is no reason to suspect that it will ever fail.

There is only one exception to this principle, and it is a glaring one. In certain popular formulations of quantum mechanics, quantum events may arise by pure chance, quite randomly, without causation, no hidden variablles even possible.

This is so completely at variance with the Principle of Sufficient Reason, and with everything else we know about Nature, that I think it is a good reason strongly to suspect that the theory of quantum mechanics is incomplete. Albert Einstein objected to viewing quantum mechanics as a complete theory precisely because of its violation of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, and I agree with him.

Having said all this, to claim that all things arise through strict causation is not to say that all things can be predicted. There many reasons to think that in many circumstances, complete prediction is impossible. I am particularly interested in one source of uncertainty in the world: the relationship between what one may call System and Meta-system.

There is much to be said about systems and the environments in which they are embedded. This involves some of the most complex and abstruse analysis that human thought has ever undertaken. However, let me indicate one extremely simple way in which we may approach the subject.

We are in the Mesozoic Era. Dinosaurs reign triumphant. Mammals are merely the fading remnants of one of Evolution's dead-ends. There is every reason to predict that some species of dinosaur will eventually become the first intelligent, technological species to arise on Planet Earth. Everything is running along tickety-boo in a completely deterministic fashion. Suddenly, all is changed. Something from outside the neatly running system of Planet Earth makes its appearance; a big boulder the size of a mountain strikes a region of oceanic sedimentary rock, and all bets are off: determinism has failed. Meta-system dictates system.

Of course, strict determinism is reinstated the moment one expands the system under consideration: for instance, to include everything that is happening in the Solar System. This merely postpones the problem of predictability. The Solar System itself is embedded in a wider realm, and that realm in a wider one, on and on, until one is faced with dealing with the entire universe.

In what sense is "Everything" determined? Is the concept "Everything" even logically coherent? These are subtle questions.

Descending to regions of inferior grandeur, quantum events may involve processes that extend through the entire history of the Cosmos, both past and future --- as, indeed, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle would suggest. This may be the key to restoring determinism to quantum theory.

I view altruism as a pure selfless act that benefits the benefactor and does not infringe on others.

The below example does not fit what I view as altruism because the person allowing another person to "cut in line" caused everyone else to have to share in that experience.

If one is to allow another "line cuts", then, the person allowing said "cut in line" needs to ask each and every person behind him/her if it's permissable to allow said "line cutter" in. Else, it's not selfless, its selfish to infringe upon others for a momentary good feel for oneself.


My view of atruism and "line cutting" is the bases that I form for illegal immigration. It's the very same thing: line cutting in front of others.

And I can't even tell the difference!
[: :]

For anyone who spent time here on the subject of Altruism, you might be interested in this recent David Brooks essay on Philosophy and Morality Philosophy and Morality as a function of Evolution
It parallels some of our discussion.

Interesting, Itstarted. I am currently very much engaged in How We Decide, by Jonah Lehrer:

Well, think of the cause as being the act of choosing and the effect being the result of that choice. Freedom then would be the freedom to choose.

Circumstances are merely those points of bifurcation (multifurcation?) in life where one is free to choose an action -- regardless of how odious or easy the action may be. While it is demonstrably true that one is not the unencumbered "master of his fate", it is also demonstrably true that exercising the freedom to decide his actions relative to circumstances leaves him with choices he hopes will take him to his desired destiny. He remains free to choose, regardless of whether he eventually fails or succeeds in reaching his destiny (goal, actually since destiny implies determinism).
Yours,
Issodhos

The available evidence rather completely refutes your understanding, issodhos.

-

"I wish that he would explain his explanation."
--- Lord Byron [Writing about an essay of Coleridge and its convoluted style]


Demonstrably? I would very much like to read a demonstration that we have any freedom of choice, since all such "demonstrations" I have come upon were risible --- products of the human propensity for lack of clarity in thought.

You have previously (and, I think, unfairly) accused me of mysticism; but what could be more mystical (in a pejorative sense) than this "freedom to choose"? Where does it come from? What explains it? How does it operate? What is the cause of this "cause"? No one has ever answered these questions adequately. This "freedom to choose" is merely thrown into the internal economy of the soul without any explanation; it is as ad hoc as the notion of a personal God interfering in the smooth running of the world. If God is a cause, then what is the cause of God? If God is HIs own cause, then how does that work? Much the same problems arise with this "freedom of choice" of yours.

I have no quarrel with the notion that we feel that we are choosing freely, but human beings are so prone to delusion and error, that cuts no ice with me.

But, numan, by positing that there is no freedom of choice, are you not, in your own way, making my point for me? If, as you say, there is no freedom of choice, there can be no voluntary decision to act in an altruistic manner. One would simply be responding in the way one was conditioned to respond. Altruism would still, indeed, be a load of piffle.
Yours,
Issodhos

"Piffle is as piffle does." Lt. Dan.

Quite an enjoyable movie, loganrbt.:-)
Yours,
Issodhos