Ashiwi wrote:I'm just stating that you cannot compare egoism and altruism. Egoism is an ingrained biological drive, and altruism is a higher concept. I don't really believe any action can be "purely" altruistic, because everything a human being does is driven by desire or need, but that's tainting a concept of philosophy by biological mechanism. In order to be able to measure the capacity of altruism in a psyche you would have to be able to remove the physical drive for self, which is impossible, therefore you have to take into account the egoism inherent within the species and consider the measure of altruism within an individual outside of the community standard of drive for self.
Okay, and maybe egoism isn't evolution, per se, but it is one of the main drives of evolution... the drive for self, the drive for survival, the drive to fulfill the basic needs, wants and desires. Getting something out of everything you do. Efficiency of existence. Egoism is the mechanism and evolution is the effect.
The concepts of Egoism and Altruism are as different as concepts of the Id and the Superego. That's why Egoism is such a crap philosophy. It doesn't even realize it's a base drive and only merits a place in a philosophy book for a comparison of the ways in which the spirit overcomes the fundamentals of necessity in order to move to a higher dimension of being.
Oh, and P.S.
Synonymous, instance and quote are spelled... Oh, but I'm sure you get it. :wink:
Lol, I wasn't being snippy in my post script :P or wasn't trying anyway. I just get confused when quotations are messed up a bit is all.
Anyway, philosophy, as a study, attempts to describe the universe in every aspect -- from metaphysics to ethics. Egoism is just a spot on observation... I don't think a philosophy on ethics should be discounted or discredited in anyway because it fulfilled it's function. That's really just silliness. You're basically condemning egoism because it defines what it intended to define -- specifically, what people act in relation to good and evil/right and wrong. I guess I'm just not seeing your complaint.
Again, altruism can not be a part of egoism because, by definition, it is contradictory. There are no degrees of altruism, again, by definition. There are alturistic actions and then there are non-altruistic actions. There is absolutely no grey area. If you want to describe good actions and try to limit human mechanisms, don't use the term altruism because it is a perversion of the term to the point it loses its initial concept. Egoism was defined because altruism failed to account for basic human behavior. Therefore, egoism is the realistic while altruistic is the unattainable. Altruism is sacrifice without desire or gain. Egoism is sacrifice with gain and desire. See how there can be no varying degrees in altruism but they are allowed within egoism?
Can you perform any action without a desire to do that action? Unless you are controlled remotely, no. While desire exists, altruism can not. Call your theory something else, because it is not altruism.