I came to this video via a debate I’m having with an associate. He maintains that egoism and being an egotist overlap in that being egotistical is the natural practice of the philosophy of egoism. I hold that I need to learn more about both but based on what I know, egoism is a philosophy, but egotism is a separate psychological view of oneself and is more closely linked to trauma and narcissistic tendencies than a conscious choice of personal ethics. Thank you for putting this information into a small, easy-to-digest format.
Selfishness - motive tied to personal happiness? Personal happiness - satisfaction of preferences(appetites) tied to rewards and opposed to stress. Reward - things that satisfy appetites. Stress - things that frustrate or cause separation from goals. Satisfaction - mental, physical, social, or all three combined, process of accomplishment. Accomplisment - stress whose overcoming fills an appetite; or an appetite whose fulfillment is worth the stress. Appetite - any personal desire Desire - Any needful or pecuniary urge Urge - bodily feeling sometimes stimulated by external stimuli.
@@TheWorldTeacher please don't write such long comments. It is selfish to think complete strangers have time to read it. That being said, I think we mostly agree. Someone said: you can do what you want but you cannot want what you want. Still it's too black or white to accept completely as some decisions are just random
External circumstances can and do force people to do things against their will. Do you think chattel slaves chose to work on plantations of their own free will? Have you never been forced to do something you did not want to do due to external forces? I think it would be pretty awesome to be able to fly without a contraption to make it so but physics does not allow me to do that. I do not fly but walk because I must not because I choose to. All will must be conducted within the bounds of the circumstances one finds themselves in. I want to live as part of a species that values altruism over selfishness but I cannot because circumstances dictate otherwise. To say that it is impossible to do something without wanting to is absurd on its face.
@@NoOne-vm2wd well, I guess being forced might be an issue... or not. Slaves could have chosen death instead so you could argue that they chose being slaves instead of being dead. External circumstances do not dictate, they make us choose
We must remember that certain instincts (like feeling pain when ones child dies) are part of our nature due to the evolutionary advantages it gives to the individual. It is technically irrational to cry when ones child dies, however we as humans are still to a certain extend controlled by our instincts. We can try to rationalize the death of ones child as a good thing, however the instinct of sadness overwhelms the rationalization. Certain instincts are stronger then rational thinking, because this also brings with it an evolutionary advantage (If a species were to decide that not having children is the rational choice, that species would eventually disappear).
@@lorenzomizushal3980 the child is already dead, so crying about it would be a waste of energy. But this is only a simplification, because crying about it could also give you advantages in a more societal sense.
To Hume, at 4:27: The mother feels great pain that her child is sick. She tries desperately to mend her own pain, by caring for and trying to heal her sick child. She tends to her child, because not tending to it would make her feel worse (or at least, she imagines that she would feel worse). So she is still motivated by her own selfish interest to avoid pain.
I think there should be a distinction between SELFISH and self-interest. Selfishness I would define as the pursuit of self-interest without the consideration, or at the explicit expense, of others. So I don't think I would call a mother tending to her sick child, due to feeling emotional pain and a also due sense of duty as the mother of that child, a "selfish" act because of that distinction that I draw. Whenever we speak of self Interest without this distinction, a lot of altruistic actions are usually given more bleak motivations. Such as wanting to look better than you are or boost one's status, or to have others in social debt to you. Again, this is where I'd draw the distinction between self Interest more generally and selfishness With this distinction, the pursuit of self Interest during altruistic endeavors could be as simple as feeling good or feeling joy internally from helping someone or making someone else feel good, without any other social benefits or reciprocation. One may say "but the consideration of others isn't a TRUE consideration of others, because it still stems from one being concerned about their internal emotions" and to that I'd say I simply disagree
@Thinking Deeply with Ben Hmmm. First, about the circular reasoning argument; Hmm I think its an oversimplification to say, that psychological egoism is about assuming that a person derives pleasure from any made choice. The point is that a person associates, interprets, evaluates and prioritizes in a situation, and then makes a choice based on what he or she values and prioritizes, in the context. Not what happens but the personal experience and evaluation, determines the made choice. This is what I as a psychological egoist, call egoism. --- Secondly, about evoquation fallacy: How is it flawed to call two different things by the same name, if no two things are actually the same, yet we do it anyway? This seems like a matter of detail in classification. A jeep is not a limousine. No car is exactly like another car, yet we can confidently call both a car. No egoism is exactly like another egoism, yet we can call both egoism.
Equivocation - calling two different things by the same name. Tautology - saying the same thing in two different ways? Ethical egoism - moral imperative Rational egoism - categorical imperative?
@@kallianpublico7517 If all pigs can fly, then Oscar the pig can fly. - This is a tautology. In every case the "if" is true, "then" must follow. Rationality is not about logical statements but about persons beliefs. If beliefs are in congruence with reasons, then they are rational. I won't try to give a lecture :D
@@GeorgWilde Reason is not always about belief. Your example proves my point. Pigs can't fly. But that doesn't make your logic flawed. Our assertions always start with some assumption. Euclid and the Greeks were good at unprovable assumptions disguised as "axioms". Sometimes "self-evident" axioms. For example: a line is made of points. A point is made of.... A tautology is an unprovable definition, an assumption disguised as a valid assertion. A mirage posing as a cause. You can be logical without being rational. Still, the sums of the interior angles of any triangle 🔺️ is still the same, no matter the size. The proof is "in the pudding".
Is survival selfish? The philosopher who asked "why not suicide?", what was his answer? Also what is instinct in this fight between motive and consequences? Is flinching from heat or sheltering from cold "selfish", "moral", or some other form of "self-imposed" sadism or masochism? Is evolution self-torture? Or self-expression? Or imposed torture or imposed change? What does one's view of free will and determinism say about this?
@@TheWorldTeacher it seems to me that a view of the world as deterministic, as if every effect had an ultimate cause, is a form of solipsism. The ultimate cause must be the creator or the one who created himself and therefore is the self-caused or uncaused. Human beings can only have access to this being through a form of understanding that is equally as self-caused: the linguistic mind, the source of solipsism.
@@TheWorldTeacher is language the ultimate belief? Why do you speak and write in English when there are other languages? Indoctrination or convenience? If we were very energetic what language would we speak? Does the linguistic mind serve our convenience or guide it?
I don’t know if this view I hold already exists but I will call it moral illusionism or psychological egoistic illusionism: all actions are really caused by humans' self-interest - psychological egoism is true - but there is the illusion of altruism which is useful in humans' societies, interactions and their well-being. I don't find the counter-arguments of Psychological Egoism convincing. Psychological Egoism can seem kind of fallacious because you can pick every action and say that x and y desire of that person caused it to act that way, like you are forcing the answer but I think through questioning of that individual, clinical psychological questioning we can find out the personal reasons and maybe be 90% or more sure of their accuracy (truthfulness). The obstacle of that may be the desire of people to seem like good people and so they may hinder the questioning by just repeating that they did what they did because they wanted to 'simply' help others.
hello i have a question a woman was murdered in a neighborhood and everyone in there witnessed it but none of them did nothing, no one even called for the cops except for an old lady but when the cops came the woman is already dead. when the cops questioned the residents of the neighborhood about the murder, their answers are "i dont know" "i was tired" "we were afraid" did the residents showed ethical egoism?????
Am i the only one who seen his mustache be shaped that way that your eyes are fixed on his lips? i dont know if that was done intentionaly or not but it kept me from clicking away from this video. If it is intentional you are genius and im really blown away.
If you sacrifice your future for the betterment of someone else, is it possible to do so without thinking, even for a moment, that you will be a part of it, whether in memory or otherwise? If the answer is no, you cannot say that psychological egoism is incorrect, because it is correct for you.
You can have more then one motivation for an action. You could hold open a door for someone both because it makes you look like a good person and because its the right thing to do.
Doesn't clear up Spinoza view of being Anti-Egoist in a sense of the 1 spoken about in the theo-philo-psycho-socio-logical consciousness of the universe's the one. See metaphysics for more information. To attack any part of the whole is to be devoid of full awareness.
Islam and being a Muslim and some degree Christianity( specially Orthodoxic and catholic church ) moralizes entitlement to virtue and civil rights while liberal democracy and in practice pluralism rationalizes entitlement to virtue and civil rights . why a society or community or an individual cant be rational but rather moral , brings up this discussion that morality and value based mentality and consciousness vs rationality and reason based mentality and consciousness could be the grounding features . this value based consciousness and reason based consciousness in my view epigenetic . This could finally bring us to this discussion that if one defines constructivism as a conscious working model reaching from rationality to value while if one defines structuralism as conscious working model reaching from value to rationality ; then liberal democracy evolves and flourish individually if the epigenetic conscious working model of a society member is based on constructivism rather than structuralism.
I’m reviewing psychological and ethical egoism for my philosophy class, thank you for summarizing it clearly!
I came to this video via a debate I’m having with an associate. He maintains that egoism and being an egotist overlap in that being egotistical is the natural practice of the philosophy of egoism. I hold that I need to learn more about both but based on what I know, egoism is a philosophy, but egotism is a separate psychological view of oneself and is more closely linked to trauma and narcissistic tendencies than a conscious choice of personal ethics.
Thank you for putting this information into a small, easy-to-digest format.
Selfishness - motive tied to personal happiness?
Personal happiness - satisfaction of preferences(appetites) tied to rewards and opposed to stress.
Reward - things that satisfy appetites.
Stress - things that frustrate or cause separation from goals.
Satisfaction - mental, physical, social, or all three combined, process of accomplishment.
Accomplisment - stress whose overcoming fills an appetite; or an appetite whose fulfillment is worth the stress.
Appetite - any personal desire
Desire - Any needful or pecuniary urge
Urge - bodily feeling sometimes stimulated by external stimuli.
I'm not convinced by the objections. It's impossible to do something without wanting to do it
@@TheWorldTeacher I'm not sure it is up to us.
@@TheWorldTeacher please don't write such long comments. It is selfish to think complete strangers have time to read it. That being said, I think we mostly agree. Someone said: you can do what you want but you cannot want what you want. Still it's too black or white to accept completely as some decisions are just random
@@TheWorldTeacher evil doesn't exist. Also what is presumptuous? The fact I told you to keep it short? What's presumptuous about that?
External circumstances can and do force people to do things against their will. Do you think chattel slaves chose to work on plantations of their own free will? Have you never been forced to do something you did not want to do due to external forces? I think it would be pretty awesome to be able to fly without a contraption to make it so but physics does not allow me to do that. I do not fly but walk because I must not because I choose to. All will must be conducted within the bounds of the circumstances one finds themselves in. I want to live as part of a species that values altruism over selfishness but I cannot because circumstances dictate otherwise. To say that it is impossible to do something without wanting to is absurd on its face.
@@NoOne-vm2wd well, I guess being forced might be an issue... or not. Slaves could have chosen death instead so you could argue that they chose being slaves instead of being dead. External circumstances do not dictate, they make us choose
We must remember that certain instincts (like feeling pain when ones child dies) are part of our nature due to the evolutionary advantages it gives to the individual. It is technically irrational to cry when ones child dies, however we as humans are still to a certain extend controlled by our instincts. We can try to rationalize the death of ones child as a good thing, however the instinct of sadness overwhelms the rationalization. Certain instincts are stronger then rational thinking, because this also brings with it an evolutionary advantage (If a species were to decide that not having children is the rational choice, that species would eventually disappear).
What's technically irrational about crying over a one's dead child?
@@lorenzomizushal3980 the child is already dead, so crying about it would be a waste of energy. But this is only a simplification, because crying about it could also give you advantages in a more societal sense.
To Hume, at 4:27: The mother feels great pain that her child is sick. She tries desperately to mend her own pain, by caring for and trying to heal her sick child. She tends to her child, because not tending to it would make her feel worse (or at least, she imagines that she would feel worse). So she is still motivated by her own selfish interest to avoid pain.
this video has quite a few flaws
I think there should be a distinction between SELFISH and self-interest. Selfishness I would define as the pursuit of self-interest without the consideration, or at the explicit expense, of others.
So I don't think I would call a mother tending to her sick child, due to feeling emotional pain and a also due sense of duty as the mother of that child, a "selfish" act because of that distinction that I draw.
Whenever we speak of self Interest without this distinction, a lot of altruistic actions are usually given more bleak motivations. Such as wanting to look better than you are or boost one's status, or to have others in social debt to you. Again, this is where I'd draw the distinction between self Interest more generally and selfishness
With this distinction, the pursuit of self Interest during altruistic endeavors could be as simple as feeling good or feeling joy internally from helping someone or making someone else feel good, without any other social benefits or reciprocation.
One may say "but the consideration of others isn't a TRUE consideration of others, because it still stems from one being concerned about their internal emotions" and to that I'd say I simply disagree
@Thinking Deeply with Ben
Hmmm.
First, about the circular reasoning argument;
Hmm I think its an oversimplification to say, that psychological egoism is about assuming that a person derives pleasure from any made choice.
The point is that a person associates, interprets, evaluates and prioritizes in a situation, and then makes a choice based on what he or she values and prioritizes, in the context.
Not what happens but the personal experience and evaluation, determines the made choice.
This is what I as a psychological egoist, call egoism.
---
Secondly, about evoquation fallacy:
How is it flawed to call two different things by the same name, if no two things are actually the same, yet we do it anyway? This seems like a matter of detail in classification.
A jeep is not a limousine.
No car is exactly like another car, yet we can confidently call both a car. No egoism is exactly like another egoism, yet we can call both egoism.
Just clicked here to see your handsome self speak 🤗
th-cam.com/video/NNC0kIzM1Fo/w-d-xo.html
Equivocation - calling two different things by the same name.
Tautology - saying the same thing in two different ways?
Ethical egoism - moral imperative
Rational egoism - categorical imperative?
Tautology is a logical statement that is true in any hypothetical case possible.
@@GeorgWilde Tautology may be logical but not rational?
@@GeorgWilde Give examples of tautologies then examine their rationality
@@kallianpublico7517
If all pigs can fly, then Oscar the pig can fly. - This is a tautology. In every case the "if" is true, "then" must follow.
Rationality is not about logical statements but about persons beliefs. If beliefs are in congruence with reasons, then they are rational. I won't try to give a lecture :D
@@GeorgWilde Reason is not always about belief. Your example proves my point. Pigs can't fly. But that doesn't make your logic flawed.
Our assertions always start with some assumption. Euclid and the Greeks were good at unprovable assumptions disguised as "axioms". Sometimes "self-evident" axioms. For example: a line is made of points. A point is made of....
A tautology is an unprovable definition, an assumption disguised as a valid assertion. A mirage posing as a cause.
You can be logical without being rational. Still, the sums of the interior angles of any triangle 🔺️ is still the same, no matter the size. The proof is "in the pudding".
Is survival selfish? The philosopher who asked "why not suicide?", what was his answer? Also what is instinct in this fight between motive and consequences? Is flinching from heat or sheltering from cold "selfish", "moral", or some other form of "self-imposed" sadism or masochism?
Is evolution self-torture? Or self-expression? Or imposed torture or imposed change? What does one's view of free will and determinism say about this?
@@TheWorldTeacher it seems to me that a view of the world as deterministic, as if every effect had an ultimate cause, is a form of solipsism. The ultimate cause must be the creator or the one who created himself and therefore is the self-caused or uncaused. Human beings can only have access to this being through a form of understanding that is equally as self-caused: the linguistic mind, the source of solipsism.
@@TheWorldTeacher is language the ultimate belief? Why do you speak and write in English when there are other languages? Indoctrination or convenience? If we were very energetic what language would we speak?
Does the linguistic mind serve our convenience or guide it?
I need your help
Please reply on my comments as soon as you see it
I don’t know if this view I hold already exists but I will call it moral illusionism or psychological egoistic illusionism: all actions are really caused by humans' self-interest - psychological egoism is true - but there is the illusion of altruism which is useful in humans' societies, interactions and their well-being.
I don't find the counter-arguments of Psychological Egoism convincing. Psychological Egoism can seem kind of fallacious because you can pick every action and say that x and y desire of that person caused it to act that way, like you are forcing the answer but I think through questioning of that individual, clinical psychological questioning we can find out the personal reasons and maybe be 90% or more sure of their accuracy (truthfulness). The obstacle of that may be the desire of people to seem like good people and so they may hinder the questioning by just repeating that they did what they did because they wanted to 'simply' help others.
hello i have a question
a woman was murdered in a neighborhood and everyone in there witnessed it but none of them did nothing, no one even called for the cops except for an old lady but when the cops came the woman is already dead. when the cops questioned the residents of the neighborhood about the murder, their answers are "i dont know" "i was tired" "we were afraid"
did the residents showed ethical egoism?????
I feel like that is an extreme simplification on trying to explain away psychological egoism but alrighty then.
Am i the only one who seen his mustache be shaped that way that your eyes are fixed on his lips? i dont know if that was done intentionaly or not but it kept me from clicking away from this video. If it is intentional you are genius and im really blown away.
lmao
Sedgwick was 13 when he published philosophical work? Doesn't seem right. I won't dive deeper into this, but wikipedia gives entire different dates.
If you sacrifice your future for the betterment of someone else, is it possible to do so without thinking, even for a moment, that you will be a part of it, whether in memory or otherwise? If the answer is no, you cannot say that psychological egoism is incorrect, because it is correct for you.
You can have more then one motivation for an action. You could hold open a door for someone both because it makes you look like a good person and because its the right thing to do.
Simply Amazing! 😊
Doesn't clear up Spinoza view of being Anti-Egoist in a sense of the 1 spoken about in the theo-philo-psycho-socio-logical consciousness of the universe's the one. See metaphysics for more information.
To attack any part of the whole is to be devoid of full awareness.
Flawed deviations and anomalies walk among our chance to know learn & experience the universe!
fuck this vid is so raw
Islam and being a Muslim and some degree Christianity( specially Orthodoxic and catholic church ) moralizes entitlement to virtue and civil rights while liberal democracy and in practice pluralism rationalizes entitlement to virtue and civil rights . why a society or community or an individual cant be rational but rather moral , brings up this discussion that morality and value based mentality and consciousness vs rationality and reason based mentality and consciousness could be the grounding features . this value based consciousness and reason based consciousness in my view epigenetic . This could finally bring us to this discussion that if one defines constructivism as a conscious working model reaching from rationality to value while if one defines structuralism as conscious working model reaching from value to rationality ; then liberal democracy evolves and flourish individually if the epigenetic conscious working model of a society member is based on constructivism rather than structuralism.
You’re responding to strawmen buddy
Riview this videos ?
You’re responding to strawmen buddy