Apologies

I can see what you're getting at but what you have proposed is not the same argument.

The Psychological Egoist states as a premise to begin with (before any arguing) that: "There is only one thing which motivates us: self-interest."

The situations would only be comparable if the altruist stated "There is only one thing which motivates us: altruism."

The argument isn't wrong or correct because it keeps repeating itself, but because it presumes an answer and refuses to consider contrary evidence.

In my original example the Psychological Egoist is saying "There is only self interest", but the altruist is saying "There is not only self interest, there is altruism too." If one side refuses to consider the other side then it is being irrational, whether they believe there is only self interest or only selflessness.

So, how would we ever be able to tell if someone is truly altruistic, or just being deceptive?

And if altruistic behavior benefits the altruist in any way, doesn't that contradict the definition of altruism in the first place since now the behavior is also in the self-interest of the altruist? Or is it all about the original motivation for the behavior?

You can never know if someone is truly altruistic or being deceptive.

Psychological Egoism and Altruism are moral theories that are concerned only with motivation. If it was definitional (i.e (as a hypothetical example) the definition of selfish is doing something which ultimately benefits you) then anything that fit that definition of course would automatically be true. But that is the same case for everything because you can just define anything as anything lol.

Language will always be able to prove itself with definitions, but that isn't what egoism and altruism really concern themselves with, they aren't concerned with language they are concerned with human psychological motivation and that can be taken only as testimony or inferred through action.

I personally find moral and ethical philosophy really quite interesting, a fair bit of my work in my degree is on these sorts of subjects.

But, I don't know enough about her to know if she's Jedi material or not. Based on what I've seen, she provides for a specific need in the community. NOBODY does Gathering planning as well as she does She's done it the most and always taken the lead. That's all I know. Notice how I didn't judge her character or anything. I just looked at her actions and did not assign them anything.

Yes, you did. Planning, and leadership.

Both of which, I would imagine a Jedi would be adept at.

Leadership, at least a Knight, or Master, or whatever rank value is applied to whatever forum,chapter, group,etc.

Now, you may not know if she is Jedi material in every aspect, but certainly traits have stood out to you, good ones in regards to any path really.

Is it somehow wrong to say a Jedi should be a competent planner and leader?

If one cannot get there life together, or even lead themselves, should they share a title (Jedi) with the rest of you?

The problem I see, is why you have questions about how you will be taken seriously, etc,etc.

You let anyone call themselves Jedi.

There is a level of responsibility that is being shucked here.

You are part of a group, a religious group at that.

Every member shares in the reputation of that religious institution.

Were a member to step well outside the bounds of propriety and make the news, I wonder, if they claimed Jedi, mentioned ToTJo, etc....Would you publicly allow relativity to damage your whole institution?

"Well, here at TotJo, we dont like to infringe upon anothers understanding of Jedi, and so, while pedophilia is not a common practice of every member, we cannot, and will not say that he is not a Jedi. Each persons understanding of Jedi is unique, and we do not judge,etc,etc,blah,blah,blah...."

Being rude, is hardly a sign of weakness. I also do not feel that Jedi cannot, or should not be rude.

However, if one is being nothing but rude, well, that is a strange.

I am rude, I am sarcastic, I can be mean, and even take pleasure in doing so.

However, that is not all that I am.

I can be nice, I can be generous, and take pleasure in being so.

If I was rude all the time, well, certainly I could say "Hey, im a Sith, thats just how I roll."

Most would give that a pass, but in doing so, not only is my developmental process harmed, but yours as well.

Here at ToTJo, I push the bounds of propriety many times, but not ALL the time.

I can control the volume knob as it were on my emotions, character, responses, etc.

Also, sometimes I simply see no need to be rude at all, and am not feeling so.

Rudeness is not a trait that productive to ascribe to a Jedi or a Sith.

Leadership?

Good planning?

Yes, and if you cannot see that, I dont think there is much hope for anyone trying to become Jedi here.

I have studied under many a rude person, because rudeness was an irrelevant trait. They were good teachers in there chosen field and that was important.

If I couldnt ascribe that value and make such judgements, wow, I could end up with morons as teachers and garbage for teachings.

A master carpenter has many traits that are definable and measurable to make them so.

Or a surgeon, etc.

You wouldnt just let some guy who owns an anatomy book operate on you as opposed to a guy who seems "professional", Knowledgeable ,etc,etc.

Both could claim being a surgeon, and being able to perform the task, but only one is going to have a measurable ability to pull you through an operation.

Of course course planning and leadership are Jedi traits.

My point is that I don't know Kit... I've not had coffee with her. Watched her work in every day life. See what she is really "about". Only then could I think about her as a Jedi. So, yes, she does Jedi things. Sorry if that wasn't clear...

Also, I never said anybody can be a Jedi. I've been trying to show this whole thread that I DO the things a Jedi should do. Even if I don't go about it the same way as others. A surgeon can be a total asshole, and still be the best damn surgeon in the building.

Psychological Egoism and Altruism are moral theories that are concerned only with motivation. If it was definitional (i.e (as a hypothetical example) the definition of selfish is doing something which ultimately benefits you) then anything that fit that definition of course would automatically be true. But that is the same case for everything because you can just define anything as anything lol.

Every action is inherently egoist. We do things BECAUSE (something else). because we care, because we don't care. because we believe or do not believe in one thing or another. everything we do is a product of thought, instinct, a chemical or other reaction... Whether an action benefits some other thing in some way becomes kind of irrelevant, mostly because we cannot know what the true "worth" of anything (including any action) is. I just call it all "the Force" and claim it's all very complicated. :whistle:

Connor L. wrote: Of course course planning and leadership are Jedi traits.

My point is that I don't know Kit... I've not had coffee with her. Watched her work in every day life. See what she is really "about". Only then could I think about her as a Jedi. So, yes, she does Jedi things. Sorry if that wasn't clear...

Also, I never said anybody can be a Jedi. I've been trying to show this whole thread that I DO the things a Jedi should do. Even if I don't go about it the same way as others. A surgeon can be a total asshole, and still be the best damn surgeon in the building.

I think the premise of what Khaos was getting at, is that there appears to be (Judging from the postings of several members here, and on the "A problem." Topic) a preconceived notion among many here that there is nothing that makes a Jedi, except in naming themselves as such. I personally do not see how they can come to that conclusion unless they are totally disregarding the Teachings, Maxims, etc. :silly:

The flaw with using the egoist/altruist argument is that it can assume that a person's motivation is only one or the other, an assumption which automatically defies the mutually dualistic nature of our human behavior in the first place. I don't see any motivation as able to lack neither egoistic or altruistic grounds, though granted, perhaps you might weigh one over the other between circumstances. However, the fact that both facets of motivation are nevertheless present tends to cancel out much of the need to invest in the argument in any kind of context that uses judgement based on intentions of eliminating of either one.

Basically: All motivated behaviors include consideration for both the self and the other, regardless of where the balance between the two lay or whether either one exists directly or indirectly, or even with or without apparent awareness at the time. A decision may be immediately for the self, but in the long run, may serve the other. Vise Versa, a decision may be immediately for the other, but somewhere down the line will also serve the self. Feel free to consult the classic "airplane with kids on board about to crash, who gets the oxygen mask first? the adult or the child" scenario as an example.

That's exactly what I'm trying to say, Pro! Thanks.

ren wrote:

Psychological Egoism and Altruism are moral theories that are concerned only with motivation. If it was definitional (i.e (as a hypothetical example) the definition of selfish is doing something which ultimately benefits you) then anything that fit that definition of course would automatically be true. But that is the same case for everything because you can just define anything as anything lol.

Every action is inherently egoist. We do things BECAUSE (something else). because we care, because we don't care. because we believe or do not believe in one thing or another. everything we do is a product of thought, instinct, a chemical or other reaction... Whether an action benefits some other thing in some way becomes kind of irrelevant, mostly because we cannot know what the true "worth" of anything (including any action) is. I just call it all "the Force" and claim it's all very complicated. :whistle:

Having a reason for something doesn't make your motivation egoist. It is the reason itself that determines whether it is egoist.

"I did this because I am altruistically selfless" - there isn't one part about that sentence which is egoist, saying otherwise brings us back to the aforementioned arguments in my above posts about lying or lack of self-knowledge.

There's a different between something being about you and something being caused by you.

Its not egoist?

Who is the "I" in that sentence?

Mentioned twice no less.

Proteus wrote: The flaw with using the egoist/altruist argument is that it can assume that a person's motivation is only one or the other, an assumption which automatically defies the mutually dualistic nature of our human behavior in the first place. I don't see any motivation as able to lack neither egoistic or altruistic grounds, though granted, perhaps you might weigh one over the other between circumstances. However, the fact that both facets of motivation are nevertheless present tends to cancel out much of the need to invest in the argument in any kind of context that uses judgement based on intentions of eliminating of either one.

Basically: All motivated behaviors include consideration for both the self and the other, regardless of where the balance between the two lay or whether either one exists directly or indirectly, or even with or without apparent awareness at the time. A decision may be immediately for the self, but in the long run, may serve the other. Vise Versa, a decision may be immediately for the other, but somewhere down the line will also serve the self. Feel free to consult the classic "airplane with kids on board about to crash, who gets the oxygen mask first? the adult or the child" scenario as an example.

Yes. This is what I was driving at when I cited the conversation I had with my wife about objectivist philosophy vs. altruism. Objectivism is often understood to be synonymous with selfishness, but that's not exactly the case if you practice objectivism with the understanding that being selfish will hurt you in the long run and that doing good for others will also benefit the self. If altruism is understood (mistakenly in my opinion) as doing something selfless for someone else and getting absolutely nothing out of it, then even the warm fuzzies you get from doing something "altruistic" automatically voids its altruistic nature. An altruist would say that's bad, right? Altruism is good so accepting the fact that the self feels good when you do something "selfless" means altruism isn't real and that's bad, right? But it doesn't really matter, does it? Why let the fact that you get a tiny warm fuzzy from doing something good for someone else diminish how good that thing really is? It's ok to feel good when you behave "altruistically" as long as you're not doing those things just to get praise because that is actually selfish.