Why Selfishness is a Virtue

[DonQuixote99]

Perhaps you're conflating the defense of one's position, or oneself from gratuitous insult, with the desire to feel dominant over someone rhetorically for shits and giggles? The latter of the two likely being what compelled the former event in the first place.

I hesitate to go further than that because I don't understand your question beyond the trolling aspect of it.

And likewise, I wonder if saying 'I don't understand your question' may have a trolling aspect.

But let's try to proceed. I guess I was sort of asking 'is the quest for dominance always an example of selfishness?' Could there be such a thing as unselfish dominance?

Responding to what you said, I don't see a lot of difference between 'defending oneself,' as you say, and attacking for 'shits and giggles.' I mean, what does one defend one's position for, if not 'shits and giggles,' that is, ego gratification? True, we as a general rule regard attacking as transgressive, and defending as more normative. But apart from that, I don't see it as a wrongful 'conflating' to see the two sides of an online fight as being engaged in pretty much the same thing, especially if a 'passive aggressive' defender has in some way 'prompted' the attack.

Here I go introducing another term. I suspect we are a little more comfortable with the idea of unselfish 'ego gratification,' since practically anything can be gratifying. Still it's a question of ethics whether any sort of payoff for the actor negates the purported unselfishness of an act. Indeed, perhaps all good deeds must be punished, or else they are not good.

 

[MikeMA]

In the end, isn't it all down to the selfish gene?

 

[vuk]

I wouldn't bother. It would take 5 minutes for someone with any depth in a subject to articulate a critical analysis beyond insulting some part of it while ignoring its application. In this case, a perfectly valid entry for the topic.

maslow's hierarchy is from the early days of the field and based mainly on intuition, not research. a useful theory can be used to generate interesting and testable hypotheses. his is one of those theories that explains everything, so, even if we assume it is true, the concepts are so broad that, even if largely correct, they tell us nothing beyond the banal. what is more interesting, for example, are the conditions under which people do what seems highly counter-intuitive. i'm quite sure you would skip a few meals if that meant a date with [insert your favourite female celebrity/model here]. ultimately, the issue of X being more important Y, although it may make for amusing dinner conversation, is not at the scientific level of trying to figure of how X and Y operate.

 

[droodzilla]

Selfishness is not a virtue.

 

[vuk]

Selfishness is not a virtue.

is this from your famous work, "thus spoke droodzilla"?

 

[avole]

wow, lost it, vuk? Droodzilla gets my vote as one of the most erudite and sensible people on the forum, and I’d be surprised if many thought otherwise.

 

[vuk]

i think you are losing it. i was making a friendly (and flattering) joke.

 

[droodzilla]

i think you are losing it. i was making a friendly (and flattering) joke.

And I'm duly flattered. I read a lot of Nietzsche as a baby.

 

[droodzilla]

wow, lost it, vuk? Droodzilla gets my vote as one of the most erudite and sensible people on the forum, and I’d be surprised if many thought otherwise.

Can I quote you on that to my partner?

 

[avole]

Sure, but be aware there are royalties each time !

 

[avole]

Friendly, joke? Then let me not stand in the way of the reinvented vuk! Thet’s also a joke, by the way, but not the next clause: I hope you’ve started saving to visit

 

[Marky-Mark]

maslow's hierarchy is from the early days of the field and based mainly on intuition, not research. a useful theory can be used to generate interesting and testable hypotheses. his is one of those theories that explains everything, so, even if we assume it is true, the concepts are so broad that, even if largely correct, they tell us nothing beyond the banal. what is more interesting, for example, are the conditions under which people do what seems highly counter-intuitive. i'm quite sure you would skip a few meals if that meant a date with [insert your favourite female celebrity/model here]. ultimately, the issue of X being more important Y, although it may make for amusing dinner conversation, is not at the scientific level of trying to figure of how X and Y operate.

You're doggedly focusing on one part of a post, and the part of the least importance to the topic question and my answer, in order to create a straw-man to bat about. This has become habitual for you with anything I write here in OT and it's beyond tedious. I sincerely implore you to stop. Perhaps just ignore me and save the energy?

 

[Joe P]

Drood’s mind is powerful. Decent bloke too. And his avatar is awesome.

In Canada, that thar is known as a hat trick.

Joe

 

[Marky-Mark]

I guess I was sort of asking 'is the quest for dominance always an example of selfishness?' Could there be such a thing as unselfish dominance?

I'd say for the most part, yes. An example of that not being the case would be most of the parent-child relationship ... hopefully, anyway.

 

[vuk]

You're doggedly focusing on one part of a post, and the part of the least importance to the topic question and my answer, in order to create a straw-man to bat about.

i was responding to your request for a 5 minute explanation of what's wrong with the hierarchy. i'm starting to think he person who called you passive-aggressive is spot on.