[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

ALB wrote:

L. Bird is arguing that a majority could in theory do this if it wanted to (even if he doesn't think they should do so in practice).

Yes, this sums up my position. That "workers' democracy", in the final analysis, trumps "individual/minority freedom".As ALB recognises, in practice I'd probably be as 'liberal' in my approach to 'freedom for minorities' as ALB or robbo (because we all agree that 'minority' opinions are the essence of democratic practice, and allow criticism of 'what exists', and have the ability to become a 'majority' opinion).But, the 'definition' of what democracy is, and how it works in practice, must be subject to workers' democracy.So, my baseline ideological position is "workers' democracy", and not "individual/minority freedom".If there is a clash between the two, I'd argue for the former. I think that this is entirely consistent with Communism and workers' control of the means of production.I think that the latter is a hangover from our bourgeois conditioning, where, at base, the 'free' individual has the 'right' to ignore their comrades (that is, their comrades' democratically expressed opinion).To me, this notion of 'free' as opposed to 'mass authority' is rooted in 'fear of the mob' and private property.And when it comes to 'matter', well… why should a vote tell us 'what matter is', when matter is perfectly able to speak for itself, to each and every individual… well, at least to 'special individuals' and to 'minorities of scientific experts'…There simply has to be a brake upon the power of workers to make decisions…No, workers' democracy is the last resort for decisions about how our society would be run, not ahistorical and asocial 'freedom' and 'individuals'.

 So –  finally finally  FINALLY – you have been brought, kicking and screaming, to acknowledge the simple undeniable fact  that was stated at the outset that there are indeed limits to how far you can or ought to push democratic decision making, that the freedom of individuals and minorities to take up and express positions contrary to those of the majority is important  – not only for itself but for the sake of democracy as well – and without which there is no democracy. It seems the only argument worth having now is where we actually place those limits. The ridiculous suggestions you have come up with in the past – like the idea of workers democratically "voting" to determine the "truth" of some scientific theory will hopefully now be abandoned by you as the complete nonsense it is.  I have still to hear from you how you hope to organise the logistics of such a mindboggling vote among a global population of 7 billion to determine the "truth" of, not just one but thousands upon thousands of scientific theories but I know I will never get a sensible answer from you or even any answer at all.  You know in your heart of heart you cannot defend  what is a demonstrably indefensible and crackpot idea. Yet despite the apparent progress made you still cling to this silly mantra of yours that insisting on this freedom of individuals and minorities to dissent  is rooted in  "fear of the mob and private property".  This is dire mechanistic rubbish.  If you have studied hunter gatherer band societies you will know that one of the features of this form of society was  its constant tendency towards fissioning or breaking up – not just in response to environmental factors where the carrying capacity of a particular locality had been exceeded but also in response to internal disagreements. In fact this is one of the reasons why levels of violence in this form of society were comparatively low –  contrary to the claims of  people like Stephen Pinker.  Where there is a fall out , a section of the band could just peel off and move off elsewhere.  Voting with your feet was a form of conflict avoidance.  In fact the ethnographic evidence suggests that conflict in HG groups is often radically decentralised involving just the parties concerned without third party intermediaries.  Its a myth that such a societies do not display a high degree of individuality in their dealings with each other. But note that we are talking about a society in which there is no private property. Individuals in this society vigorously assert their right to disagree.  They are proudly and defiantly  independent minded in some ways even as they collectivist in others. I see communist society in analogous terms.    Free access to the means of living by everyone deprives anyone of the means to enslave others. It will be our equivalent of the hunter gatherers ability to vote with their own feet.  Necessarily, that will influence and condition the way democracy is perceived and practised.  We depend on each other in a world of socialised production and to that extent we need to come to decisions about  matters that affect us all and the only way to really come those decision is democratically  –  recognising that minorities have the right to disagree but also recognising that majorities have the right to have the final word in such practical matters. But,  and this is the key  point , the legitimacy and the moral authority of the majority decision MUST stem ultimately from the fact that everyone is treated as an equal regardless of their point of view and that on no account should any attempt be made to suppress that point of view. To do so would corrupt and undermine the democratic process itself

[robbo203]

sarda karaniwan wrote:

So who do you think will represent the authority of trust here? Just play naive?Just make sure it doesn't opiate the mind of the masses.By the way, I think Engels touch that subject about altruism, along with Robert Owen and the Owenite commune who believe in "pure kindness", I don't know, It's been a long time since I read that book Revolution in Science (Anti-Duhring).It is the social condition that determines consciousness not altruism.

 I'm not quite sure what your reasoning is here, Sarda, or how putting your trust in some authority relates to the subject of altruism.  In any event altruism is inherently part of the "social condition" you speak of. I repeat again – human society would have been inconceivable without group solidartiy and the concern of members of the group for the wellbeing of each other (what we call altruism). How would our paleolithic hunter gatherer forbears have even surivived without such a thing?  Ken Smith, a great guy who sadly passed away a few years ago – he was a member of the SPGB – wrote one or two books and in one of them said this: "Morality, defined as sociality, as love of others, as unselfishness, as concern for the weak of the suffering, is not just a good idea, a pragmatic sanction.  It is a condition of survival” (K Smith, 1994, The Survival of the Weakest: Love . Science and Social Change, John Ball Press, Gloucester,     p.317).   I think Ken hit the nail on the head:  And it is not just among human beings that altruism is to be found, you know.  Here are a few examples from Wikipedia of altruism that are to be found among mammals: Wolves and wild dogs bring meat back to members of the pack not present at the kill.[citation needed]Mongooses support elderly, sick, or injured animals.[citation needed]Meerkats often have one standing guard to warn while the rest feed in case of predator attack.[citation needed]Raccoons inform conspecifics about feeding grounds by droppings left on commonly shared latrines. A similar information system has been observed to be used by common ravens.[18]Male baboons threaten predators and cover the rear as the troop retreats.[citation needed]Gibbons and chimpanzees with food will, in response to a gesture, share their food with others of the group.[citation needed] Chimpanzees will help humans and conspecifics without any reward in return.[19][20]Bonobos have been observed aiding injured or handicapped bonobos.[21]Vampire bats commonly regurgitate blood to share with unlucky or sick roost mates that have been unable to find a meal, often forming a buddy system.[22][23]Vervet monkeys give alarm calls to warn fellow monkeys of the presence of predators, even though in doing so they attract attention to themselves, increasing their personal chance of being attacked.[24]Lemurs of all ages and of both sexes will take care of infants unrelated to them.[citation needed]Dolphins support sick or injured animals, swimming under them for hours at a time and pushing them to the surface so they can breathe.[25]Walruses have been seen adopting orphans who lost their parents to predators.[26]African buffalo will rescue a member of the herd captured by predators. (Battle at Kruger)[27]  Though socialists are right to reject the crude biological determinism of the sociobiologists – the term "evolutionary psychology" which has largely replaced "sociobiology" also denotes a shift away from a hardline deterministic position –  there is a sense in which we are indeed genetically hardwired and that some of our attributes are indeed the product of our evolution as a species. Linguistic capacity is a case in point. Culture determines the language we speak but not the fact that we speak at all.. Its the same with altruism.  Culture determines who we are altruistic towards but not the fact that we are altruistic.   Proof that we may be wired up for altruism came with  the discovery of “mirror neurons” by Giacomo Rizzolati and his colleagues in the 1990s   A mirror neuron is a special kind of brain cell located in the premotor cortex which “fires” in response to the observed actions of other individuals and causes the subject to involuntarily mimic or “mirror” these actions to some extent .  An example of this would be the twitching and tensing movements we tend to make when watching, say, two boxers fighting in a ring.     It has been suggested that, since mirror neurons may be  implicated in our ability to empathise with others – putting ourselves in their shoes, so to speak  – they might also have played a formative role in the emergence of human morality .  Indeed, it has even been suggested that autism – a condition that involves inter alia impairment of an individual’s social skills – may be linked to mirror neuron dysfunction The biological basis of altruism may have only just been discovered but altruism itself has been around since the dawn of time…..

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

It's revealing that you focus upon me as 'a very muddled individual'.I regard the social ideology that you have been persuaded of, to be the problem, in your case.But then, my ideology is social and historical at heart, whereas yours is about 'individuals'.

 Thats bollocks LBird.  Your  problem is that you cannot see things except in terms of black or white.  As I said  earlier, your  sociology is at the same naive level as Mrs Thatchers when she declared that there is no such thing as society , only individuals and their families. Except that for you the opposite is true – there is no such thing as individuals, only society My ideology is not what you claim it is. For me individuals can no more exist apart from society than society can exist apart from individuals.  Even you can surely see that is quite different from saying my ideology is just "about individuals".  Individuals are socially constituted but individuals also constitute society. by interacting with each other. There is no such thing as a pre-social individual as per Hobbes and his mythical  "social contract".You say it is revealing that I focus on you as a very muddled individual.  Pray do tell me  – what is this that we are engaged in if not an exchange of ideas between individuals.  Or maybe its not that all. Maybe what we are witnessing is just the collision of abstract ideas that happen to be floating around in the ether and mysteriously find themselves landing on this forum where they materialise in this written form Of course individuals exist but they don't exist in splendid isolation . I recognise and that is precisely I endorse democracy as the only really effective and desirable way of resolving differences of opinion between individuals.  Which is not the same as eliminating differences of opinion which is what you seem to want to push for Its a question of balance.  The freedom of the individual which you sneer at is indeed a precious thing but it has to be constrained and held in check  by the freedom of other individuals.  My view of freedom is not an absolutist any more than is my view of  democracy.  For you on the other hand it is either one thing or the other which in effect means giving up on both

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

LBird wrote:

I'm all for democratic restrictions on all sorts of things – that's the nature of 'power'. Rather than bluff other workers into believing that socialism will realise the bourgeois wet dream of 'free individuals', who will not be subject to any authority, I'd rather stimulate a discussion on the nature, extent and problems of "workers' power", ie. Communist Democracy.

 "In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all."Communist Manifesto  chapter 2

I know, robbo, but why not just come out and say what your ideology is?Your essential focus is, as is Young Master Smeet's, 'free individuals', or 'Libertarian Communism'.Mine is "workers' power", or Democratic Communism.We've had this form of discussion during our 'science' debates: everyone quotes from Marx to support their own views, and Marx supplies a steady source of 'confirmatory quotes' for everyone. We all know he can be selected from, just like The Bible.The more interesting discussion would be to reveal our own ideological viewpoints, and take it from there.Experience leads me to say 'Fat Chance!', right now.Those brought up in bourgeois society apparently love the word 'free': I wonder why?

 You ask me to "come out" and tell you what my ideology is  and then you go on to tell me what my "essential focus" is.  Well, yes, thats right – my ideology is libertarian communism.  And what of it? I agree with Marx about the free development of each being the condition for the free development of all. You claim your ideology is "democratic communism". I dont think it is .  I think your ideology is totalitarian communism i.e. not communism at all.  You are an antidemocrat posing as a democratic workerist.  Dissent will not be tolerated under your so call "communist" dispensation.  How can you have democracy without the right to disagree? I think you are a very muddled individual, personally. Even if your heart is in the right place, your mind is somewhere else, wandering through a rather barren wilderness of ideas

[robbo203]

Talking of altruism here's a rather interesting and informative website.  I particularly like the section on "Altruistic Economics"http://www.altruists.org/ EDIT: I see one or two of the articles tend towards the idea of reforming the money system which is rather disappointing but then I havent read them yet so perhaps I shouldnt judge

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

I'm all for democratic restrictions on all sorts of things – that's the nature of 'power'. Rather than bluff other workers into believing that socialism will realise the bourgeois wet dream of 'free individuals', who will not be subject to any authority, I'd rather stimulate a discussion on the nature, extent and problems of "workers' power", ie. Communist Democracy.

 "In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all."Communist Manifesto  chapter 2

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

As I've said, I'm a Democratic Communist, and I do recognise a social and political authority outside of individuals (persons or groups).That's why I'm not an Anarchist or, from what I've read and tried to discuss on LibCom, a 'Libertarian' Communist. From what little response I got, their 'Libertarian' forms seem very similar to robbo203 and Young Master Smeet's ideological views.The best that I've come up with so far as a way of illustrating these divergent positions is the ask the questions:1. Are you an individual?; and2. After the revolution, who shall tell you what to do? (ie. who shall you obey?).My own answers to these ideologically-loaded questions are:1. No, I'm not an individual, I'm a worker (ie. I regard myself as a constituent part of a social structure); and2. The Democratic Commune of which I'm a voting member will tell me what to do (the Anarchists always seem to reply that, after the rev., no-one will tell them what to do, implying, to me, no society, no political structures, and no authority whatsoever, just 7 billion individuals).If I was pressed to give a short answer to the differences, I think one starts from 'society', and the other from the 'individual'.I start from society, and its history, as I think Marx does, too.

 This is nonsense. The position that LBird is trying to defend is as  indefensible and untenable as Margaret Thatcher's notorious  claim that there is no such thing as society – only individuals (and their families) . Except that LBird is making the equivalent and opposite theoretical blunder  of asserting that there is no such things as individuals only society. In fact there is no society without individuals and there are no individuals without society. Both are just two sides of the same coin. LBird's comments remind me of some of the writings of Emile Durkheim , the famous 19th sociologist who espoused at times an extreme form of holistic thought.  Extreme holism has a long association with authoritarian conservative political thinking and the notion of subordinating the individual to the needs of the state (no wonder  LBird feels incomfortable with the arguments of libertarian communists like myself and others here!).  When confronted by criticism that he was seeking to "reify" society and endow it with some kind of quasi-objective reality separate from, and over and above, that of individuals, Durkheim tried to extricate himself somewhat from the hole he had dug himself into in his  "Rules of Sociological Method" in which he tried to moderate his extreme holism but not very successfully L Bird's implied suggestion that Marx starts from a holistic perspective is questionable.  Louis Dumont makes a strong case against this in his classic work "From Mandeville to Marx : The Genesis and Triumph of Economic Ideology".  But I think Dumont goes too far in suggesting that Marx starts form an individualistic premisses. There is an intermediate position and it is one that I take – namely that of emergence theory Emergence theory steers clear of the pitfalls both extreme individualism and extreme holism and in my view is the way to go

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

To extend the concept of democracy to people's thoughts or modes of self expression implies the suppression of those very things that democracy is supposed to be about. This is not democracy, it is totalitarian thought control. It is fascism.  We are no longer allowed to think what we think.  We must toe the Party Line, embrace the Party Line, become the Party Line.  Sod that. I say.  Who wants such a Brave New World?

This just sounds like 'libertarianism' to me, robbo.Replace "people's thoughts" with "people's property", and I think you'll see what I'm driving at.

 And what you are "driving at" is nonsense.  You completely overlook the distinction I made.  "Property" is a practical matter and so falls within the legitimate realm of democratic control.  Whether or not you think a particular scientific theory is correct or a particular form of artistic expression is good or bad is not a matter  for "democratic control".  Or are you seriously telling us that in your version of "communism" individuals will not be allowed to think differently , express different thoughts and disagree with each other on anything because some "democratic mandate" has been issued. Yes or no LBird? (You have still to explain how a democratic vote by 7 billion people on the merits of String Theory, and thousands of other scientific theories besides,  is even going to be remotely possible in a  practical sense but I have given up trying to press you on a matter on which you are clearly reluctant – and for good reason – to offer an opinion)If what i say is "libertarianism" then I'm proud to call myself a libertarian communist.  I don't think any other kind of communist is actually possible.

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Of course we must respect and abide by majority decisions…

But this is inconsistent with your former rage against 'democracy' as 'thought control'…

[/quote] No, it is not at all. The "thought control" I'm talking about and what you seem to be proposing is the absolutist elimination of all differences of opinion in the heads of individuals  on the pretext that some mysteriously arrived at "democratic mandate" has authorised that. from on high.   That is fascism not democracy in my opinion.  Democracy must acknowledge the right of individuals  to disagree or else it ceases to be democracy.  Disagreeing with others is wholly consistent with  respect ing and abiding by the decisions of the majority. That doesn't mean you agree with the decision per se but rather that you agree to go along with the decision. An important distinction which you seem to completely miss. And you miss it becuase you dont understand that democracy is about practical matters.

[robbo203]

mcolome1 wrote:

Altruism is part of our human nature

 Absolutely. And without  it human society would not have been possible. In fact not only human society but many forms of animal and insect life

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

I have no fear of democratic mandates. I just think that there are some fields where this should not apply, precisely over what ideas individuals hold and express as well as over what food they eat or clothes they wear. Some decisions should be taken democratically, others individually. Obviously I don't think that an individual should be able to dictate decisions on such matters either, though they can seek to change people's minds about them.Anyway, supposing that a decision has been taken to try to prevent the expression of some point of view, what do you envisage should happen to those who persist in expressing it?

 Exactly!  Its got nothing to do with "fear of the mob". That is a complete straw argument. Its got everthing to do with where democracy is required and where it is simply not required – where in fact trying to impose a "democratic mandate" is utterly pointless , stupid , impracticable and a complete waste of everyone's time. In fact the whole argument is self contradictory.  Democracy is supposed to be about the resolution of conflicting differences of opinion over some proposal about  some practical course action and so presupposes those differences in the first place.  To extend the concept of democracy to people's thoughts or modes of self expression implies the suppression of those very things that democracy is supposed to be about. This is not democracy, it is totalitarian thought control. It is fascism.  We are no longer allowed to think what we think.  We must toe the Party Line, embrace the Party Line, become the Party Line.  Sod that. I say.  Who wants such a Brave New World?Agreement and consensus should be allowed to emerge naturally and spontaneously though human interaction and debate and not be  forcibly in the sense of wanting to eliminate the different ways of looking at the world by means of some kind of insiduous thought control:  "You shall henceforth not think these thoughts again because society has determined they are unthinkable.  You shall henceforth conform to what society has determined by democratic mandate"".  That is pointless and it will in fact make democracy pointless even if it could be implemented.. Of course we must respect and abide by majority decisions but that does not have to entail relinguishing our own point of view – does it? – and if we were forced to can we truly be said to be living in a democratic society at all?

[robbo203]

gnome wrote:

Some evolutionary psychologists theorise there is no such thing as true altruism – only reciprocal altruism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rec…)

 And "kin altruism" too which is something different to reciprocal altruism…However, while "some" evolutionary psychologists may theorise that, Dave, it is important to what it is they are actually referring to. “Evolutionary altruism“ is not the same thing as psychological altruism; it does not involve motive.  It is simply a question of consequence.  In this context, it means behaviour in which a donor incurs some cost, and the beneficiary reaps some benefit, in terms of reproductive success.  This is what these evolutionary psychologists may be questioning from a "gene centred" point of view  popularised by Dawkins' book The Selfish Gene.  But even Dawkins did not deny the fact of psychological altruism and even applauded it.   Psychological altruism involves motive and is the basis of human morality and may even sometimes be damaging to the reproductive success of its intended beneficiaries as when good intentions to help others backfire disastrously and, in such instances, may run counter to evolutionary altruism.  Like the patriotic soldier who opts to die for his country before he has  had the opportunity to sow his wild oats.  This is an example of what Durkheim called "altruistic suicide"  We may say that in this case it is thoroughly misguided  but it still a form of altruism that fundamentally refutes the claims of psychological egoism.

gnome wrote:

According to this theory, every act of altruism, such as jumping into a river to save the life of a stranger, is done with some inherent expectation of reward that would offset the risk of losing your own life. The theory states that we perform such acts with the expectation that others might do the same to save the lives of our own genetic relations at some point in time.In addition, every act of apparent altruistic kindness, such as giving to charity and performing social work, also makes the altruistic person "feel good" about themselves in some way, such as the recognition they receive for their good acts.

 Yes, this is a fairly common sort of argument that it is made against the claim that people can behave altruistically.  It serves to reinforce a view of human beings is being exclusively driven by self interest, which in turn feeds into a more general argument that goes to reinforce capitalist ideology and thus capitalism itself.  Remember Adam Smith and his invisible hand of the market and his assertion that it is not out of benevolence that the butcher enables his customers to obtain meat  but out his own self interest.  We have to be very very wary as socialists of engaging with those sort of arguments that place undue stress on self interest as a motive for wanting socialism.  Self interest is part of the reason for wanting socialism but not the whole reason and socialists who want to make it the whole reason completely undermine the whole case for socialism in my view becuase the logic off what they are saying beckons them not to unite with their fellow workers but – instead –  to promote their own interests at the expense of their fellow workers In any event, I think the argument you refer to  that every act of altruism is really self interested is,  at base, baloney.  This is what  the moral philosopher, James Rachels has dubbed the egoistic “strategy of redefining motives”  Self interest is held to be  the real , or ulterior, motive for a  person's actions. An obvious example  is the social approval or esteem we are supposed to obtain from helping others.  But even where the donation is made anonymously, the donor is still held to derive some personal satisfaction (and, hence, benefit) from this act which is what, according to our psychological egoist, purportedly motivated him or her to make this anonymous donation in the first place. .Plausible though this argument may seem at first blush it is nevertheless suspect on several counts.  To begin with, all that it shows, as Rachels points out, is that it is possible to interpret such behaviour as evidence of egoistic motivation;  it does not necessarily prove that the individual in question is egoistically motivated in fact.  And there’s the rub – an individual’s motives are essentially subjective and hence inscrutable to others. So how can the claim that this individual is egoistically motivated be empirically tested? On the face of it, psychological egoism would appear to be a closed theory, incapable of  falsification; it is based on a mere assertion that could just as easily be countered  – and with just as much, or as little, validity – by the assertion that all behaviour is altruistically motivated.True, one could perhaps persuade such an individual to undergo a lie-detection test, assuming such a test to be reliable, but even this would not provide the conclusive proof we require.  After all, such evidence that a test of this kind might reveal, pointing to the fact that one wanted to benefit oneself in some way,  does not preclude wanting others to benefit as well and, consequently, need not be taken to imply egoistic motivation in its strict sense at all. After all psychological egoism is based on the proposition that not only do we not care about other people  but that we are incapable of caring about them and this is precisely what is not the case when we say we want others to benefit from our actions as well as ourselves.Nevertheless, a  psychological egoist, while acknowleging  that people  may well appear to be acting benevolently or altruistically towards others, might still want to argue that their actions spring from  a choice and, given that a choice is involved , the individual actor must ipso facto be doing what he or she wants to do – otherwise, he or she would have chosen something else to do.   In this sense, it is claimed, the individual  is still acting "egoistically" or selfishly. The difficulty with this argument is that saying that we are motivated by our wants really boils down a mere tautology.  It overlooks the obvious point that merely wanting something is not in itself selfish; what makes a want selfish has to do with the object of such a want.  If what I want is to help other people then, by definition, my want cannot be construed as selfish since I am including those other people within its purview.  In any case, what I want may not necessarily accord with my self interest. Thus, I may want to consume copious amounts of alcohol every day but it would hardly be in my interest to do so. Psychological egoism is predicated on the assumption that human action is motivated solely by what individuals rationally consider to be in their "best interests" and is therefore unable to explain why individuals should behave in a way that is quite contrary to this. It might be argued that this is just a simple case of mistaking what one subjectively believes to be in one’s best interest for what is objectively in one's best interest.  However, such an inference would not be reasonable: there is no reason to suspect that an alcoholic, say,  is necessarily incapable of recognising the considerable harm that excessive drinking can do to him or her. In the final analysis, while I may very well derive pleasure from helping others, it does not follow that this is what prompted me to offer this  help in the first place – such pleasure may simply be the inadvertent  consequence, or by-product, of my action rather than its cause.  Suppose a situation arose in which one was called upon to save a drowning child in a stormed-tossed sea.  One surely would not stop to consider the pleasurable benefits that might result from doing this before committing oneself to this course of action; in an emergency of this nature it is unlikely that there would even be enough time to engage in such idle speculation, anyway. In these circumstances people tend to act on impulse.  In fact , study after study seems to bear out the truth of this – that  people in this sort of situation tend to  that  "rescue first and reflect second" (http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2014/10/psychology_of_heroism_and_altruism_what_makes_people_do_good_deeds.1.html),  I think this stems quite simply,  from a natural sense of empathy towards others       

[robbo203]

sarda karaniwan wrote:

"Altruism or selflessness is the opposite of selfishness." I think the word said it all. "altruism is a thoroughly normal and omnipresent aspect of the human condition – just as much as selfishness"So how come you have to look for it?sardaan Ordinarian

 You dont have to look for it , Sarda. Its right there under your nose and it manifests itself in countless ways – how we behave towards members of our own family, towards our friends, towards the wider community in which we live. Do you think the lifeboat people who give up their time and without any thought of financial remuneration, are acting out of selfishness to save people from the sea?  Do you think the volunteer who rattles a money tin for some charity on some windy street corner is merely doing this on a whim and not becuase he or she feels some burning desire to help others?  Of course not.   Altruism is nothing special. It is a completely normal part of what makes us human beings

[robbo203]

sarda karaniwan wrote:

rodshaw wrote:

Altruism comes from the Latin alter, meaning other. Its has nothing to do with elevation.[/quote/]Maybe so, but altruism does, because it is not for a human being to uphold. But if some of you really insist, then I'm not gonna prevent you, do it. Let us see how far you can go before you realize, "hey, I'm only human!".sardaan Ordinarian 

 Again, Sarda, Im afraid you are quite mistaken with this line of argument of yours. You present "altruism" as if it is something to aspire to , to uphold – something almost unnatural or otherworldy. The impression I get is that you think you need almost to be a saint in order to be an altruist.   In an earlier post you saidAltruism, from the word alt or alta, which means, to raise up, elevate, higher, above, because adopting this imaginary virtue is sure to raise ones being into a higher level, not the level to become human, but in a transcendental level, the near to God level, if not God.Your misunderstanding of what altruism is about is reflected in your misconstruing the etymological origins of the word as Rod pointed out:  It doesnt come from the world "alta".  Here is the standard explanation:Altruism or selflessness is the opposite of selfishness. The word was coined by the French philosopher Auguste Comte in French, as altruisme, for an antonym of egoism.[1][2] He derived it from an Italian altrui, which in turn was derived from Latin alteri, meaning "other people" or "somebody else".[3](Wikipedia) Contrary to what you suggest altruism is a thoroughly normal and omnipresent aspect of the human condition – just as much as selfishness.  It is what underlies any kind of human morality.  Even the capitalists to whom you referrred earlier practice a form of altruism in the guize of "kin altruism". In fact, human society would simply not be possible had we not evolved a capacity to behave altruistically towards each other. We are social animals and therefore necessarily also altruistic animals – nothwithstanding the fact that we are also inclined towards selfishness

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

'Inference', eh? As I said, robbo, yours, not mine.As for the 'Mengele jibe' (actually a philosophical explanation), it explains why the notion of 'anyone anywhere, without controls' argument is, well, to use your terminology, 'idiotic'.You made the argument, not me. Idiot, QED.

 Er, why would you volunteer a comment like thisI wonder what other social groups will be 'fighting tooth and nail' against the notion of 'workers determining the production of ideas'?in the context of your response to me if you did not think that was the position I held i.e. that I was against the idea of  "workers determining the production of  ideas".  Of course it is what you are infering – what else could it be, eh?   Duh!And Im still waiting to hear from you what are those "barriers" I want to place on said workers as per your comment:But you'll place a barrier on 'workers determining the truth of string theory'?Given that what I actually said was:I would be fiercely resistant to the idea of imposing any kind of elitist obstacle or barrier to anyone whatsoever wanting to explore the subject further and make a contribution to the debateHowever, knowing you,  I will be waiting till the cows come home.  And to think I was once sympathetic to you on this forum.  Well, you've sure shown yourself to me in your true colours, haven't you sunshine?

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

…a version of "communism" that made it "mandatory" for workers to vote…

Where did you get this gem from? It isn't anything that I've written, so you must be arguing with your own demons.

 Open your eyes and read what you yourself wrote, LBirdHere is what I said:What if 6.999 billion people decide not to cast their vote on the merits of String Theory?  Are you going to make voting mandatory? I certainly hope not because I, for one, would fight your "communism" tooth and nailHere is how you respondedI wonder what other social groups will be 'fighting tooth and nail' against the notion of 'workers determining the production of ideas'?The direct inference to be drawn from that is that you consider my objection to forcing people to  have a say in the production of ideas amounts to me wanting  to prevent them from having a say.  This is a dishonest inference on your partAnother example – here is what I say

robbo203 wrote:

I would be fiercely resistant to the idea of imposing any kind of elitist obstacle or barrier to anyone whatsoever wanting to explore the subject further and make a contribution to the debate.

To which you respondBut you'll place a barrier on 'workers determining the truth of string theory'?So what barrier is that which you say I want to place on workers determining the truth of string theory, eh, LBird?  Come on.   Spit it out. Enlighten me.  Show me where i want to prevent workers determining the truth of String theory? What I actually said was:I would be fiercely resistant to the idea of imposing any kind of elitist obstacle or barrier to anyone whatsoever wanting to explore the subject further and make a contribution to the debateWhat part of this sentence do you not understand?You are a complete fantasist, L Bird, and seemingly, you lack the wit to even see that you are only digging yourself into a deeper hole of your own making with this pathetic wriggling and eel like evasivenessI wont bother gracing your idiotic Mengele jibe with a response; it doesn't deserve one

[Author]

Posts