Selfish vs. Self-Centered
Posted by jmlesniewski 12 years ago to Philosophy
I've been thinking a lot about these two concepts over the last two ones and am thinking of writing something about it. What are your thoughts on it?
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
Selfishness- making my own self-interest a priority (opposite of altruism).
Self centered- thinking everyone should give a shit about you.
2. The word self doesn't mean "rationally pursuing self interest." "Self" is a term that refers to an existent, it doesn't tell us what to do with that existent. (Note: The definition of self is "A person's essential being that distinguishes them from others, esp. considered as the object of introspection or reflexive action.")
3. (spawned from two) I would argue that individual words should NEVER be prescriptive (tell us what to do with something). Rather, they should be descriptive (telling what is). Even words such as "good" or "bad" don't tells us what to do, only what something is.
Thatis classic circular reasoning. Your gratuitous assertion (that every word has a different meaning than every other word) can be gratuitously denied.
There are many many words with the same meanings as others - we call them synonyms.
In logic we call (any statement of fact that is unsupported by data) a gratuitious assertion.
My intention was not to offend, and the fact that you have evidently taken offense at me pointing out your logical error is quite telling.
I assumed we were working in a philosophical context. You are presuming "need" for both. I am asking you to question that. I don't know the origins of self-centered. but I'll bet you some monopoly money it's been used in speech fewer years than selfish has. why is that? We don't need the word ebonics, for example. :)
self absorbed is more descriptive than self-centered.
btw, like the web presence. In particular, the Offspring t shirt.
The word "go" is not prescriptive. You made it that way by putting it into a sentence.
I feel like we're debating an is-ought. If you start with a premise of human life has value you can go from "is" to "ought" in 1 second. Now we're discussing ethics. Is that your interest? If your interest is linguistics, then I'll disagree on your definition of self centered. Webster's first definition starts with "concerned solely or chiefly with one's own welfare, interests." it ends with egotistical. second definition is "independent, self-sufficient." third, "centered in oneself" I referred to this definition earlier. finally, "fixed,unchanging." If you want to change the definition to include not in one's rational self interest, ie. what people commonly consider "selfish" are you any better than cultures that have changed the definition of o altruistic or selfless to be synonymous with "good"?
About the same time I first read Fountainhead, I was taking a critical theory . I was struck that I was being taught to value the critic the same or higher than the producer, because that was really the point. Toohey, anyone?
Lots of good thought here. The word selfish certainly has picked up some undeserved baggage. I posit it is based on enlightened self-interest, which to my mind is one of the most honest motivations. I find it very difficult to explain to someone who hasn't read Rand.
I look out for myself front and foremost.
I will not intentionally harm another
If I do I just insure it was not with malice.
I help others who deserve my admiration and who live by my standards.
Anyone who is truly selfish is. by definition, self centered. Why in the world would anyone center themselves on anyone else??? Is it even possible?
1) Self centered
2) Other centered
3) What else is there upon which to center your life? I suppose one can concieve of an unbalanced person with no center whatsoever who "blows with the wind"..... is that what you have in mind here?
One would have to give away all of one's food and possessions to "the poor" or "the church" to even get started.... and one would need to ensure that everyone on earth had enough to eat before ever having a bite of food.
Will this be your first submission to the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies that you posted about? :-)
Who do you think needs to read it?
Here's my take on the topic. Rand wrote eloquently in the Virtue of Selfishness about the subject and the strong influence of Aristotle shaping her views on the concept. Many philosophers claim she took Aristotle's words out of context and that she ignored concepts such as "altruism" and my favorite, "harmonization." In popular culture, there is slight separation of the two concepts, but the upshot is both are treated as anywhere on the scale from plain rude to a mental disorder and narcissism. Here is my favorite: from Mayo Clinic, if encountering a selfish person, "stay calm and polite at all times." Point is, both words are mostly used incorrectly. A person pursuing virtuous selfishness acts in their own best self interest. A narcissist doesn't behave in their own best self-interest. If you bring in the concept of greed to be a litmus, the same applies. Pursuing wealth at the cost of your own best self interest is not rational and therefore would not meet the litmus for Rand's definition of selfishness.
Yes, the Mayo Clinic example is interesting, but like you say, there is only a "slight separation" between the two. My question is what is the separation and why is it important (if it is important at all)?