Searching for GOD...

[Spud]

This may not be in support of Alan's argument, but what about situations when we act against our instinct for looking after number 1. Eg you go out of your way to help someone who's in difficulty; people looking on don't know the context of the situation and might stare and you look a bit of a fool, but you carry on. Is this an example of free-will?

[Gordon]

This may not be in support of Alan's argument, but what about situations when we act against our instinct for looking after number 1. Eg you go out of your way to help someone who's in difficulty; people looking on don't know the context of the situation and might stare and you look a bit of a fool, but you carry on. Is this an example of free-will?

Many people, if not most, are altruistic to some extent and the need to offer assistance when an opportunity presents may be more compelling than any embarrassment they may feel, or risks they may be exposed to.

This kind of freedom to act is perfectly compatible with determinism.

[BeRational]

This may not be in support of Alan's argument, but what about situations when we act against our instinct for looking after number 1. Eg you go out of your way to help someone who's in difficulty; people looking on don't know the context of the situation and might stare and you look a bit of a fool, but you carry on. Is this an example of free-will?

Helping people in difficulty is due to empathy and being part of a group, and comes from our evolution.

[Stranger]

This may not be in support of Alan's argument, but what about situations when we act against our instinct for looking after number 1. Eg you go out of your way to help someone who's in difficulty; people looking on don't know the context of the situation and might stare and you look a bit of a fool, but you carry on. Is this an example of free-will?

It's not in the sense that Alan means (nothing can be, Alan's view self-contradictory). What it means is that there is something more important to you than "looking after number one". That will also be for some reasons (empathy, faith, sense of duty or fairness, etc.).

[Spud]

So, you guys are saying there is no such thing as selflessness?

[Stranger]

So, you guys are saying there is no such thing as selflessness?

I don't know how you read that into the replies. Your concern for others my be more than for yourself in some circumstance, but it doesn't happen for no reasons.

[Gordon]

So, you guys are saying there is no such thing as selflessness?

Nope: no idea how you get to that conclusion based on the replies to your post.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So.........is altruism an illusion?

[Gordon]

So.........is altruism an illusion?

What do you think, Vlad?

[BeRational]

So.........is altruism an illusion?

No why would you think that?

It does convey an evolutionary advantage to the group, and you are part of the group.
You help them, they will help you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No why would you think that?

It does convey an evolutionary advantage to the group, and you are part of the group.
You help them, they will help you.

This is an answer rather than an evasion.
I cant help wondering if you are defining altruism differently from its meaning by way of a dishonest Dawkinsian appropriation of the word. Not the most outrages piece of word piracy from his ilk.......that award goes to Krauss and his redefinition of the word "nothing".

If you are working on the Dawkins definition of altruism I wonder whether you have done so unquestioningly.

[Maeght]

This is an answer rather than an evasion.

You'd have preferred an evasion?

[Gordon]

This is an answer rather than an evasion.
I cant help wondering if you are defining altruism differently from its meaning by way of a dishonest Dawkinsian appropriation of the word. Not the most outrages piece of word piracy from his ilk.......that award goes to Krauss and his redefinition of the word "nothing".

If you are working on the Dawkins definition of altruism I wonder whether you have done so unquestioningly.

How about you define altruism for us, Vlad, instead of idly speculating about what others may or may not think.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You'd have preferred an evasion?

No

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How about you define altruism for us, Vlad, instead of idly speculating about what others may or may not think.

How about you look it up?
There are at least two meanings only one of which is a scientific one. Dawkins ultimately trashes that definition by way of the selfish gene theory where selflessness is really selfishness and that is completely counter to the original meaning of altruism.
Dawkins then brings in the now self contradictory scientific
Definition into a philosophical context where of course his idea is only one of many philosophical ideas of altruism.

[Sebastian Toe]

How about you look it up?
.....many philosophical ideas of altruism.

To which one or ones do you subscribe?

[Stranger]

Dawkins ultimately trashes that definition by way of the selfish gene theory where selflessness is really selfishness and that is completely counter to the original meaning of altruism.

Drivel. The selfish gene is an argument that the unit of selection is the gene, not the organism (or group). It is genes that are (metaphorically) selfish, not individuals. The argument is that genes that cause more altruistic behaviour may produce more copies of themselves because they are likely to be present in members of a closely related group, not just in one individual.

What Dawkins often also emphasises is that we are not slaves to our genes (as, for example, contraception clearly shows).

[bluehillside Retd.]

As someone once said, there is no such thing as altruism - merely enlightened self-interest.

The newly enrobed mayor of Trollheimen knows full well that colloquial meanings of words often differ from deeper definitions ("touch" is another example), so presumably it's feeding time again.   

[Roses]

As someone once said, there is no such thing as altruism - merely enlightened self-interest.

The newly enrobed mayor of Trollheimen knows full well that colloquial meanings of words often differ from deeper definitions ("touch" is another example), so presumably it's feeding time again.   

How cynical!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Floo,

How cynical!

Yeah, life's like that sometimes. On the other hand, the romanticised colloquial meaning may be comforting but it explains nothing.     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As someone once said, there is no such thing as altruism - merely enlightened self-interest.

The newly enrobed mayor of Trollheimen knows full well that colloquial meanings of words often differ from deeper definitions ("touch" is another example), so presumably it's feeding time again.   

I see Diddums still doesnt wike any cwiticism of his hewoes particularly exposure of their constant flip flopping between the colloquial and scientific definitions eg Krauss interview with Colbert and Dawkins self contradicting of the notion of altruism used in philosophical discussion.

And whats this deeper definition Malarkey Hillside?

[Gordon]

How about you look it up?
There are at least two meanings only one of which is a scientific one. Dawkins ultimately trashes that definition by way of the selfish gene theory where selflessness is really selfishness and that is completely counter to the original meaning of altruism.
Dawkins then brings in the now self contradictory scientific
Definition into a philosophical context where of course his idea is only one of many philosophical ideas of altruism.

Leaving aside your misunderstanding of what RD was arguing - I simply asked you for your definition of altruism, since you were the one wot raised it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Leaving aside your misunderstanding of what RD was arguing - I simply asked you for your definition of altruism, since you were the one wot raised it.

I'm pretty sure I asked you first Gordon.
Why do you feel you can both ignore that and now insist I act on what is clearly poor manners?
Meaning A

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism

Meaning B

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_(biology)

[Nearly Sane]

Of course in discussing altruism here, there is the tragedy of George Price to be considered.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_R._Price

[Nearly Sane]

I'm pretty sure I asked you first Gordon.
Why do you feel you can both ignore that and now insist I act on what is clearly poor manners?
Meaning A

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism

Meaning B

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_(biology)

You asked Gordon what you meant by altruism? How odd?

BTW is the different meaning of theory in scientific terms, as opposed to colloquial terms some form of linguistic Stalinist revisionism by science?