Altruism

[Wolf DeVoon]

Revisiting some many pages of this thread, I had forgotten how much I contributed to it, best of which was...

"There is a solution, however steely. My time is gone, but another will follow, someone much greater."

[Brant Gaede]

Wolf: great plus much greater = the future.

Rand: much greater plus great (Aristotle) = the past.

Ayn couldn't begin to imagine someone standing on her shoulders, but she was afraid of pretentious mediocrities trying to, so everyone got sloughed off to some extent, most 100%.

Objectivists can't imagine the future--they need Objectivism plus--AS stops there after 625,000 words--because they--or the philosophy--leaves too much out of what's in decent humanity. Even indecent humanity. I speculate Hickman wasn't real to her, for instance, just someone or someone as something she abstracted out for her own use. None of her villains could shine Hickman's shoes qua villainery. She was after the big villains, not twerps. If a monster like Hickman had been really real to her her heroes would have been impossible to her and she'd have stopped writing before her first novel. That's because she pretended greatness in a sniveling, murdering coward. It didn't exist in Hickman--she made it up--but she put some of it into her notion of heroism, individualism and elitism. Her readers can analyze and consider her heroes without him for they are abstractions including what she wrote about him. The problem is to consider oneself in the context of such abstracting, not a real person who happened to be a child killer. The only real person here is oneself, presumably not a monster. A Randian hero can't be a monster, not in the fictional context. You pull Howard Roark into the real world by humanizing him with your own humanity. You pull Hickman into your world, you shoot him. Rand did not pull Hickman into her world.

Libertarians image all sorts of futures, usually involving space-ships or mere political contexts. That's because libertarianism is all about politics and rights. All else is deuces wild. I suspect that when they get married most calm down, for women know a bigger human world that has to do with babies and nurturing and love.

--Brant

typical rant from Brant (moi)

[anthony]

Is it your intention William, to indicate that altruism values life, and could have saved this child's life?

(Also -"Just another example of Over There, Not Here" - is easily rebutted anti-conceptual thinking. And does one have to actually see the photo to know what 'the deaths of children' as an abstraction, really is?).

I think altruism has some roots in predeterminism, based in turn on the desire for omniscience. One can't know what this person or that child will become - one acts on one's own value in life as the standard of value. So discussion on scenarios of 'if's and maybe's' about individuals is moot and invalid.

[Wolf DeVoon]

women know a bigger human world that has to do with babies and nurturing and love

Yep.

[anthony]

women know a bigger human world that has to do with babies and nurturing and love

Yep.

High human/individual values, and they must be protected in every generation.

How? is the question.

A morality "In defence of innocent liberty" to paraphrase you.

[Mikee]

I don't like the phrase "innocent liberty". There is nothing innocent about what it takes to create liberty. Liberty speaks for itself and does not need "innocent".

"How? is the question"

you know how.

[anthony]

I don't like the phrase "innocent liberty". There is nothing innocent about what it takes to create liberty. Liberty speaks for itself and does not need "innocent".

Hm, yes I know what you mean, and I've puzzled over Wolf's formulation and what he means - liberty is our natural state and I like the connotation of "innocent liberty", like a kitten gambolling or a frolicking child, or an adult thinking and acting without knowledge of guilt and fear, and of what other people want to pressure him/her into.

Liberty ~shouldn't~ have to be explained (but of course, it clearly must: it doesn't always speak for itself, to everyone) and stating the obvious, must be defended, once even a little is created.

[anthony]

___________________

** See Have your fiance tested for the 'ruthlessness' gene and Richard Dawkins on the evolutionary origins of altruism

The most infamous false dichotomy of all: ruthlessness -or-altruism.

I surmize that Dawkins and Comte shared a similar "ant hill" view of man's metaphysics. Dawkins, from an animal biological viewpoint, and Comte the sociological. They saw a 'society' (of men or ants) which has endured this far, and concluded that it must have done so, it HAD to be, by dint of our billions of ancestors, and it's all dependent on each new member scurrying around slaving (self-sacrificing, or being sacrificed) for the 'common good' of that society.

"You didn't build that!", so you owe an automatic debt, to those largely nameless people before you who supposedly, sacrificially, did, and that's altruism.

Or, "it's in your DNA, you can't argue with that!".

[Wolf DeVoon]

I don't like the phrase "innocent liberty". There is nothing innocent about what it takes to create liberty. Liberty speaks for itself and does not need "innocent".

Hm, yes I know what you mean, and I've puzzled over Wolf's formulation and what he means - liberty is our natural state and I like the connotation of "innocent liberty", like a kitten gambolling or a frolicking child, or an adult thinking and acting without knowledge of guilt and fear, and of what other people want to pressure him/her into.

Liberty ~shouldn't~ have to be explained (but of course, it clearly must: it doesn't always speak for itself, to everyone) and stating the obvious, must be defended, once even a little is created.

Why this has to be explained again puzzles me.

"Justice is the armed defense of innocent liberty."

The purposes and limitations of a first principle are: (1) to establish the context and scope of discussion; (2) to affirm the existence of a fundamental truth pertaining to the topic generally; and (3) to define that truth, employing the least ambiguous and most cognitively fruitful concepts that are logically germane to the definition. Men and women have reasoned about law for centuries. Familiar terms, the relations of which are obvious in the structure of a predicate, compel any adversary to concede or to contradict squarely, because a first principle necessarily addresses a fundamental question. The most fundamental issue in law is justice — not electoral processes or delegated powers, but the right to public justice.

Definitions of justice proffered by others have been lengthy, covering hundreds of pages, intertwining dozens of terms. However, logic is an exact science. Verbosity indicates lack of understanding or deliberate obfuscation. That's why my definition of justice is succinct. A complete theory of justice is presented in one proposition, consisting of one object, one action, and two qualifiers: Justice = armed defense of innocent liberty. The qualifiers are necessary for precision. Verbal defense of liberty isn't justice. It must be armed defense. Not all liberty, just innocent liberty (e.g., the liberty of women and children, who are often unable to defend themselves).

My definition does not refer to or imply any ethical principle. The philosophy of law is a separate branch of science, independent of ethics. Moral inquiry pertains specifically to the interests, powers, and dilemmas of an individual, epitomized by the question: "What shall I do?" Legal philosophy addresses impersonal administration of public justice, litigation among parties in dispute, the combined might of a community, and custodial guardianship of certain individuals who are unable or legally prohibited to conduct their own affairs.

“No freeman shall be arrested or imprisoned or disseized or outlawed or exiled or in any way victimized, except by the lawful judgement of his peers and by the law of the land.” (Magna Carta, 1215 A.D.)

Very early in the history of Anglo-American law it was asserted that a freeman was at liberty to conduct his own affairs, unless restrained by due process of law (i.e., a constitution). The notion of "innocent liberty" is easily discerned in this ancient statement of political right. Freemen were at liberty, presumed innocent unless proved guilty of violating the law, which applied equally to all freemen. I do not suggest that this provision of Magna Carta should be construed as an obligatory legal or constitutional precedent. Rather, I cite it to suggest that my theory of justice is not at odds with historical understanding of civil liberty and the rule of law.

The essential function of law is to distinguish between innocence and guilt, truth and falsehood, political right and wrong.

“The power exerted by a legal regime consists less in the force that it can bring to bear against violators of its rules than in its capacity to persuade people that the world described in its images and categories is the only attainable world in which a sane person would want to live.” (Robert Gordon)

[Preamble, The Freeman's Constitution]

[Wolf DeVoon]

"You didn't build that!", so you owe an automatic debt, to those largely nameless people before you who supposedly, sacrificially, did

from my next book (An Eggshell Armed With Sledgehammers)

Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, echoing Ayn Rand, was excoriated by the British press for saying "There is no such thing as society." Her socialist opponents quoted it endlessly and it became an indictment that ended her career a few months later. Never have so many lost so much by the public utterance of an unguarded truth...

Privately between you and me, de jure sovereignty is not an issue. You're not part of the majority and neither am I. My point was fairly simple, albeit foolish, like Maggie's unguarded truth. We received far more from our parents and forebears than we can possibly repay. Others are doing most of the productive work. Tyrannies like China have their country-of-origin stamped on our household goods and idiotic Christmas decorations, luxuries denied to 90 percent of the world's population. The purchasing power of your dollars is backed by our gas-guzzling Seventh Fleet, not by current output of American goods and services.

Let's face facts. We're living off our parents' and grandparents' savings...

I'm in favor of repudiating debts, revolution on a modest scale. It consists of saying that, yes, I owe others a mountain of debt, and I ain't paying. I can't pay. Worse: neither can you... All that remains is a vast debt to others and one fundamental principle. I owe but am not (and cannot be) owned.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Let's face facts. We're living off our parents' and grandparents' savings...

I'm in favor of repudiating debts, revolution on a modest scale. It consists of saying that, yes, I owe others a mountain of debt, and I ain't paying. I can't pay. Worse: neither can you... All that remains is a vast debt to others and one fundamental principle. I owe but am not (and cannot be) owned.

Wolf,

This is where I have a different view of human nature. To me, humans are both individuals and members of a species. That sounds kind of obvious and snarky, but I don't mean it that way. I mean it on a deeper level.

Here's an example to understand where my frame comes from. Part of human nature is to propagate the species. We can choose to do so or not, but we cannot ignore the reality that if this innate value is not within most of individual humans, the species will die out and there will be no more individuals later down the line.

Any philosophy that ignores that value is ignoring one component of fundamental human nature.

Another fundamental part of human nature is the ability to increase knowledge that is learned conceptually, not just by imitation and experience. I don't mean this collectively, I mean individually. If an individual were born in the wilderness and somehow survived without contact with other humans, it is not his nature to invent a complex language, create artistic masterpieces, develop advanced science, and so on from scratch. The only humans who can do those things are those who have been educated with the achievements and knowledge of people who came before.

One could put this in monetary terms like debt and payment--and that leads to being in perpetual metaphysical default on debt. Or one could do it as a human nature thing, which is what I do. And it becomes a birthright.

This changes some of the foundational framework when thinking about liberty.

I haven't completely thought this through, but I have a working rule of thumb on the individual to collective elements a person should devote his volitional energies and outputs to: 80-to-90% individual concerns and 10-to-20% species (or collective) concerns.

So I don't see inherited wealth (intellectual or produced) as a debt. I see it as the way humans exist. I am not an individual metaphysical blob stuck to a ball that is spinning through time and space. I am an individual human being with shared characteristics of other human beings.

A way (so far) for me to embrace my inherited wealth with elegance is to intentionally pay what I make forward when I use this wealth. Not everything, of course, not when I have the health and ability to use it. As an individual, I should use the bulk of it for me. That's human nature, too. But I see elegance in paying a small part like the 10-to-20% forward to the species seeing that I could not have ever obtained what I have on my own if alone on a desert island.

I realize this is Randian and libertarian blasphemy, but in my view, social organization is for humans as they exist, meaning observable human nature, not the ideal human molded according to a principle.

I recall having discussions where O-Land people have literally tried to calculate the debt a child owes to its parents and treat the parent-child relationship like a contract for goods and services. To me, that's pretty weird when dealing with a party-to-contract who can't walk, talk or understand what a contract is, much less agree to one and sign it.

Anyway, food for thought.

Michael

[Wolf DeVoon]

I recall having discussions where O-Land people have literally tried to calculate the debt a child owes to its parents and treat the parent-child relationship like a contract for goods and services. To me, that's pretty weird when dealing with a party-to-contract who can't walk, talk or understand what a contract is, much less agree to one and sign it.

Anyway, food for thought.

I read your entire post with interest. Infants can't be party to a contract. More than that, no one volunteers to be born.

In previous writing I suggested that no one wants to be who they are. I always wanted to be taller and smarter, for instance. As a father, I have a selfish interest in treating my daughter with care and concern, safeguarding her welfare through childhood, helping her to understand the world a little fuller each day. She doesn't owe me a dime for it.

I have a vivid recollection of my daughter's birth 12 years ago. She did not volunteer to be born and had no capacity to select her parents or the century in which she was thrust and thereby challenged to discover and exercise liberty...

Objectivists know what they're doing and why. Pregnancy is not an unwanted surprise. Mom and Dad know that it means decades of personal sacrifice and tough decisions from day to day in answer to unpredictable, unexpected, myriad questions of what might be best for the kid in novel or adverse situations. No one does this perfectly. There are tears to shed and terrible transits of regret and despair...

All children suffer injuries. It's a necessary step in learning to exercise their liberty. No child can be (or ought to be) supervised every split-second of every day. They slip and fall. They explore storm drains, catch snakes, get stung by bees and thrown off horses, collect bruises and head lice and intestinal viruses. They have to be shown kitchen equipment, sharp knives, boiling water, ovens, and hot pad holders.

Their dreams and ambitions matter. Shortly before her 12th birthday, my daughter became sad, silent, deeply troubled and withdrawn. I let it go for a day or two. Privacy is the existential fountainhead of growth. But her silence persisted longer than I thought was healthy, so I knocked on her bedroom door and sat down. She didn't want to talk about it. I promised not to tell Mom. I promised not to laugh or think she was crazy. Eventually she unwound enough to tell me. She wanted to travel in outer space to other star systems.

I told her that it might be possible during her lifetime. Not during my lifetime, but perhaps in hers. I explained that to become an astronaut, she would first have to learn how to fly an airplane. Thinking of that moment again, just now, I burst into tears. They are streaming down my cheeks as I write. Fatherhood is an emotional business.

Her pilot's flight bag is in the living room, a heavy black vinyl thing on wheels with zipper pockets stuffed full of manuals and checklists and maps and flight calculators; no different than the flight bag you'd see a commercial pilot wheel along into the cockpit of his 747.

She completed aviation ground school in four months, the youngest candidate at age 12, and now has 5 hours logged as Pilot Flying with her instructor as a co-pilot. She learned to do the complete pre-flight engine, fuel, and control surface checks. She did her own taxiing and takeoffs and landings, sitting on a pillow so she could see over the instrument panel. I watched her take off in a strong crosswind. My heart was in my throat as her plane wobbled aloft.

[COGIGG, pp.17-19]

[Brant Gaede]

I don't like the phrase "innocent liberty". There is nothing innocent about what it takes to create liberty. Liberty speaks for itself and does not need "innocent".

Hm, yes I know what you mean, and I've puzzled over Wolf's formulation and what he means - liberty is our natural state and I like the connotation of "innocent liberty", like a kitten gambolling or a frolicking child, or an adult thinking and acting without knowledge of guilt and fear, and of what other people want to pressure him/her into.

Liberty ~shouldn't~ have to be explained (but of course, it clearly must: it doesn't always speak for itself, to everyone) and stating the obvious, must be defended, once even a little is created.

Why this has to be explained again puzzles me.

"Justice is the armed defense of innocent liberty."

The purposes and limitations of a first principle are: (1) to establish the context and scope of discussion; (2) to affirm the existence of a fundamental truth pertaining to the topic generally; and (3) to define that truth, employing the least ambiguous and most cognitively fruitful concepts that are logically germane to the definition. Men and women have reasoned about law for centuries. Familiar terms, the relations of which are obvious in the structure of a predicate, compel any adversary to concede or to contradict squarely, because a first principle necessarily addresses a fundamental question. The most fundamental issue in law is justice — not electoral processes or delegated powers, but the right to public justice.

Definitions of justice proffered by others have been lengthy, covering hundreds of pages, intertwining dozens of terms. However, logic is an exact science. Verbosity indicates lack of understanding or deliberate obfuscation. That's why my definition of justice is succinct. A complete theory of justice is presented in one proposition, consisting of one object, one action, and two qualifiers: Justice = armed defense of innocent liberty. The qualifiers are necessary for precision. Verbal defense of liberty isn't justice. It must be armed defense. Not all liberty, just innocent liberty (e.g., the liberty of women and children, who are often unable to defend themselves).

My definition does not refer to or imply any ethical principle. The philosophy of law is a separate branch of science, independent of ethics. Moral inquiry pertains specifically to the interests, powers, and dilemmas of an individual, epitomized by the question: "What shall I do?" Legal philosophy addresses impersonal administration of public justice, litigation among parties in dispute, the combined might of a community, and custodial guardianship of certain individuals who are unable or legally prohibited to conduct their own affairs.

“No freeman shall be arrested or imprisoned or disseized or outlawed or exiled or in any way victimized, except by the lawful judgement of his peers and by the law of the land.” (Magna Carta, 1215 A.D.)

Very early in the history of Anglo-American law it was asserted that a freeman was at liberty to conduct his own affairs, unless restrained by due process of law (i.e., a constitution). The notion of "innocent liberty" is easily discerned in this ancient statement of political right. Freemen were at liberty, presumed innocent unless proved guilty of violating the law, which applied equally to all freemen. I do not suggest that this provision of Magna Carta should be construed as an obligatory legal or constitutional precedent. Rather, I cite it to suggest that my theory of justice is not at odds with historical understanding of civil liberty and the rule of law.

The essential function of law is to distinguish between innocence and guilt, truth and falsehood, political right and wrong.

“The power exerted by a legal regime consists less in the force that it can bring to bear against violators of its rules than in its capacity to persuade people that the world described in its images and categories is the only attainable world in which a sane person would want to live.” (Robert Gordon)

[Preamble, The Freeman's Constitution]

This is completely libertarian even if in any ways wrong libertarian. For me it's both. It is not compatible with libertarianism such as it is to be found in Objectivism which grows out of the primary moral locus of that philosophy. Since I have a huge swath of Objectivism in me encompassing all its basic principles, I cannot in intellectual justice and courtesy--to you--discuss these ideas out of essential disinterest except for the historical allusions. Most libertarians, however, don't talk about justice though they may claim it as a proper consequence of a desirable system, which in turn seems to be more utilitarian than moral. The morality implicit in libertarianism is in and from individual rights' philosophy. It's right not to violate rights. It's wrong to. Initiation of force is required for the wrong and all questions of right and wrong are moral questions into and out of the politics. The Founding Fathers, of course, were more broad minded speaking of the "right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The first two of these three are also the pursuit of. It just reads better the way written. One fights for one's freedom. Getting a better system in place, public or private, is to make a better society for living in and for a stronger position to carry on for the good guys and gals. You might be seen as a visionary in a hundred or so years. I don't think I'll be seen at all, being so completely concerned with today and tomorrow and the day after tomorrow, but not the days after the day after tomorrow, which is too vague for my near-sightedness.

--Brant

[william.scherk]

Just in from the newswires, a letter that the government is not yet fully prepared to discuss. The drowning deaths of little Aylan Kurdi his brother and mother may break into a major election-time scandal in Canada.

This is a letter from the aunt of the toddler depicted on front pages around the world (the government, which is seeking a renewed mandate on October 19, has offered the surviving father a home in Canada. The father said no thanks, it's too late, he will take his dead back to Kobane). The catch-22 for Kurdish refugees from ISIS in Turkey is almost beyond belief.

PS, Tony -- two posts worthy of an answer, but I am on a time budget.

Edited September 4, 2015 by william.scherk

[anthony]

We do the best we can, Wolf. As my parents who'd stepped off a ship and a train into the middle of Central Africa, they had no idea what was ahead, only a Police posting for my father in some bush village where I was born. After years later and immigrated to this country, they never became wealthy and did just OK, but had managed to send me to an expensive college and would have backed me the whole way to Uni overseas, if I'd wanted. What I privately owe their memory - goes without saying.

And then, what anyone owes every anonymous person who went before or lives now, who did 'something' small or major that benefits us today is worthy of endless admiration - the 'debt' is a personal debt of gratitude, and that's the best anyone can do, I think.

(Some of my favourite TV viewing are those programmes around how things are made, a bridge, tomato sauce, a golf club, etc. or about the marvels of engineering, and the like. I'm blown away thinking how some individual or team envisaged and designed some little mechanical doodad that makes a machine work better...)

To do "the best we can" - for whom and what we value - takes everything we've got in the long haul. Altruism, as advocated nowadays, doesn't insist one gives away everything material one owns or place one in permanent servitude, no, it's far more insidious than that. 90 per cent of altruism is unseen below the water line, feeding the constant anxiety and guilt - that one could do more to alleviate suffering - or that one has no right to enjoyment of life when people are dying. This is the chorus we hear from all sides, both subtlely and crassly. This 'psychological altruism', an unfocused obligation to "someone", anyone else, undermines one's sense of liberty, saps creative energy, constricts good will for others, and slowly kills man's spirit and his capability to value. To "owe" is to be "owned", one and the same, ultimately.

[Just read your last piece. Moving.]

[Selene]

For me Tony it was the paper clip that fascinated me...

In fact, my associates and I were discussing this precise issue over this last week because we are finishing a project that we will be launching.

Birth of the Paper Clip

As mentioned earlier, William Middlebrook is credited as the one who invented the paper clip we know today. He in fact not only invented the paper clip but also the machine that would make paper clips. The drawings on the patent distinctly portray our modern day paper clip. The patent William Middlebrook obtained was for both the paper clip and its production machine.

Coming of the GEM

In the year 1899 the manufacturing company Cushman and Denison bought William Middlebrook’s patent. In that same year they also trademarked the name ‘GEM’ for the new paper clip. They then introduced a further improvement to the design. The points on the prior design were rounded off thus avoiding catches and scratches or even tears on the papers that were held.

http://www.whoinventedit.net/who-invented-the-paper-clip.html

[anthony]

Adam, the humble paper clip, indeed. If one takes the societal viewpoint, it was a simple benefit for mankind that the inventor "owed" to all of us and was an 'obvious' product. Yes, obvious -- in retrospect. I suggest that the mind of a creative inventor identifies first some material and its properties (stainless steel wire and its tensile strength). Next, the most important, he perceives 'a purpose' for it in reality, and the purpose determines his design. Then, he sees the need of many people for the product, closely followed by his selfish aim to profit from it. Last would come satisfaction and pride that his mind was able to create a boon for mankind. Not much altruism in there.

[william.scherk]

Is it your intention William, to indicate that altruism values life, and could have saved this child's life?

I am still puzzling through an adequate/thorough reply to your comment and question, Tony. In the meantime, you and other readers might be interested in this article by Paul Bloom:

The Baby in the Well: The case against empathy.

-- the concluding paragraph:

Such are the paradoxes of empathy. The power of this faculty has something to do with its ability to bring our moral concern into a laser pointer of focussed attention. If a planet of billions is to survive, however, we’ll need to take into consideration the welfare of people not yet harmed—and, even more, of people not yet born. They have no names, faces, or stories to grip our conscience or stir our fellow-feeling. Their prospects call, rather, for deliberation and calculation. Our hearts will always go out to the baby in the well; it’s a measure of our humanity. But empathy will have to yield to reason if humanity is to have a future.

Edited September 6, 2015 by william.scherk

[anthony]

William, now this writer digs deep and honestly. A few things, for now. One is that empathy is unpredictable, for oneself and in the broad mass. It therefore can't be counted upon, reliably. The empathy which arose for some unfortunate, yesterday, might not apply to another person's plight equally, tomorrow. As the author observes.

I've asked of some people how much and how often empathy has made all the difference to others' suffering--e.g. who and how many has it saved in the last century of mega-death inflicted by dictatorships and famines?

What difference does this entirely proper emotional response to any human (and animal) pain actually make? How does one act on it effectively and consistently? In truth, one can't.

Empathy and compassion evidently failed to stop the worst sacrificial savageries of the 20th Century, but more, is failing to prevent history repeating itself and stop the worst happening again, now! Perhaps empathy has to be seen as prompting a last ditch effort, one that rescues and saves only a few. I don't quite know.

What I do know is that you don't go about destroying a poisonous bush by trimming its branches. You destroy it at its roots. You will know how it goes in Objectivism, altruism-collectivism is the prime cause behind nearly all ills of men to men. If one doesn't see this at first, keep looking, one will find its primal power some levels down.

The answer has to lie then in reason and value (self-value, above all). Individual empathy then would necessarily fill in all the many cracks, gaps.

The power of the media to move masses is too obvious to remark on. But which event or happenstance is given prominence though? By what evaluation? A child in a well - or hundreds starving elsewhere? I worked on a daily newspaper and learned something about the priorities applied - in the name of 'objectivity', ha - to planning a lead story and page layout. That photo you put up is a shoe-in as a 5 column front page pic, any day on most papers. At one time I would have endeavoured to shoot a picture like that. Now, I haven't the least desire to photograph any more violently dead bodies. What I am getting at, is that we (most viewers) have become slack, accepting and too accustomed to The Media leading us by the nose and prescribing our emotions - and thereby, our moral outrage - and, in the guise of necessary and vital information, trying to shape our morals.

There are millions of bad things/good things happening in the world to someone every minute of every day, but on the basis of the tree falling in the forest ~it did not happen~ unless CNN, etc. was there to film it...

The "Primacy of Consciousness" IOW, fuelling the growing subjectivism of people.

Next time I hope to stick to my "few things" promise.

[Wolf DeVoon]

The power of the media to move masses is too obvious to remark on. But which event or happenstance is given prominence though?

I was working in the ITN newsroom when Margaret Thatcher resigned. They wheeled in cases of champagne to celebrate.

[anthony]

The power of the media to move masses is too obvious to remark on. But which event or happenstance is given prominence though?

I was working in the ITN newsroom when Margaret Thatcher resigned. They wheeled in cases of champagne to celebrate.

The BBC is my worst. The self-righteous Nanny. Of course, the publisher/owner of a station or newspaper has every right to have and to promote his own political and ethical agendas (the better ones at least attempt a show of impartial balance) but a government mouthpiece run by bureaucrats who consider themselves the universal moral authority and who push a Progressive policy - yuk.

[william.scherk]

William, now this writer [Paul Bloom] digs deep and honestly. A few things, for now. One is that empathy is unpredictable, for oneself and in the broad mass. It therefore can't be counted upon, reliably. The empathy which arose for some unfortunate, yesterday, might not apply to another person's plight equally, tomorrow.

I had only been glancingly aware of Paul Bloom's work as a philosopher. I find his thoughts and writings on empathy to be challenging (challenging to my own cognitive biases and limitations -- and therefore a very useful edge to sharpen my thought with).

If you enjoyed reading the article I cited from the New Yorker -- and want to explore his thoughts on empathy further, I can recommend a discussion series at the Boston Review ... Forum: Against Empathy. His initial essay is followed by responses from some of the folks he has cited in his books and articles on the subject (ie, Peter Singer, Simon Baron-Cohen). That forum initiated an even larger, longer conversation with Sam Harris (available as a Youtube podcast dialogue).

Meat for the mind!

Edited September 7, 2015 by william.scherk

[Wolf DeVoon]

Would anyone say it is somewhat act of altruism to write and publish a philosophical treatise? Is it not to inform and help others find meaning in their lives?

Guilty as charged.

Even now, in this moment, I am painfully aware of the cost. It is highly unlikely that this essay will ever return a penny to me... a non-profit lecture on a subject that no one will likely publish. If published, it will neither pay the rent nor rehabilitate my reputation in Hollywood. If anything, publication of this essay will push me farther away from career opportunities as a filmmaker, and make it harder to write marketable potboilers. ["The 51% Solution"]

Makes me wonder about time spent reading and writing on OL.

[Brant Gaede]

Any writer primarily motivated by money is in over his head just for starters. There are so many easier more joyful things to do for that. Everything one does is reflective of one's ego and the trick is to honor that ego without going off the rails or visiting destruction on oneself and others. One keeps on marching forward--screw the past; there's nothing to be done about that unless you want (usually stupid) vengeance on others or even yourself. (Thank God for Viagara.)

--Brant

resident egomaniac speaking

[Wolf DeVoon]

Brant,

Is "ego" the same as self-image, or what? In any case, being wonderful is not a sufficient reason to write if, as GS suggested in 2007, the writing is inherently devoted and/or intended to improve others (altruistic). Terrible purpose.

I wrote with the intention of making money at it, however impossible that ultimately proved to be. I lacked significant talent. But the motive was okay.