Isn't the actual meaning just a more important someone's meaning?
The word was given to the meaning though, not the other way around. That more important person didn't wake up one night and shout "ALTRUISM" and then decide "well, that sounds like it would make a nice word, now all I need to do is find something to associate it with".
ORIGIN mid 19th cent.: from French altruisme, from Italian altrui ‘somebody else,’ from Latin alteri huic ‘to this other.’
So you’re wrong. It was a process, spread through several languages. Altruism existed as a concept before somebody gave it a name.
That's what I said. The word was given to the meaning - altruism is just a label for a concept.
That is a dark world. I don't pretend selfishness and pragmatism don't work. I just hope altruism is out there somewhere too. Is that so bad?
I think that will depend on your definition of altruism. You can certainly argue that true altruism doesn't exist, because people tend to choose their course of action rationally, so you can argue that they always choose the course from which they stand to gain something. For example, if you give a homeless guy 5 bucks, you could argue that was not truly altruistic, because you get to feel good about yourself doing something good for another person. I think this argument is a bit silly, but I really don't think it's an important distinction. Whether we choose to call it altruism or not, the fact still remains that there are people who do act outside of their immediate material self-interest, and that's good enough for me.
It's a stupid, meaningless distinction which serves no purpose.
It may serve no purpose, but you can't call it "meaningless" as that's the exact meaning of "altruism". Either change the definition of altruism or make up a new word. As it stands, the distinction exists.
Altruism is "an attitude or way of behaving marked by unselfish concern for the welfare of others". Saying "Oh, she's not really altruistic, she's just doing it because other people's suffering makes her unhappy" is stupid, because that's what concern for others is. That's the definition of compassion.
Not really. I give people cough drops because I can't stand people coughing. I'm happier when they stop coughing, so for some woman to help someone because she can't stand people being unhappy is still unselfish. She can't stand unhappy people, so she alters their situation as she sees fit and then feels better. That's not entirely unselfish.
There's a distinction between not standing unhappy people (i.e. unhappy people irritate you), and not standing people being unhappy (i.e. you empathise with people's unhappiness), but I'll assume you meant the latter.
So: Yes, really. Altruism is "unselfish concern for the welfare of others". Concern, contextually, is "feeling of worry, compassion, sympathy, or regard for somebody or something". Compassion, sympathy are "awareness of the suffering of another coupled with the wish to relieve it", "a feeling or an expression of pity or sorrow for the distress of another". It's really very simple. You people are trying to replace an actual, working definition with a non-existent one, based upon some kind of ridiculous concept you have of people performing helpful acts and then feeling completely emotionless about it. Commiseration for the distress of others is considered, by commonsensical people, to be altruistic, by the clear-cut definition of all words involved.
No, we're all discussing the actual meaning of the actual word, not the fantasy one you think we're talking about.
None of us have even brought up "emotion" - we're talking about motivation and personal gain. You again fail to address that your own quoted definition includes the word "unselfish". I've already explained the "clear cut" definition of this word, but you apparently don't agree with it.
Sucks to be you.
:roll:
Alright, let's take a look at this word, 'unselfish', shall we?
un·self·ish
adj.
Generous or altruistic.
Gee. I wonder what that might mean?
The fact of the matter is, Drez, that out of some misguided sense of precision, you have, by selecting only very specific word definitions and ignoring all others, reduced the definition of "altruism" in your own mind so much that it no longer describes anything at all. This is pedantry at it's height. You see that conjunction up there? That's an "or". It means that the words on either side of it are alternatives. 'Unselfish' can mean either 'generous' or 'altruistic'.
Let's look at another definition of 'unselfish':
un·self·ish
–adjective
not selfish; disinterested; generous; altruistic.
Notice how this definition is slightly different from the one above? Yeah. You might want to ruminate on that.
Plus, mathematics is itself a theory with which people can argue and raise objection.
Valid objections?
a) No, but when has that ever stopped _J_
b) _J_, mathematics is not a theory, you stupid twit
Mathematics is theory. Any mathematician would say the same, dude. I think it's silly to argue over a concept like "infinity" but in essence math is just theory.
What else would it be? "Fact"? "Fact" doesn't really exist in science. The highest you go is non-unprovable, excessively tested and pondered theory.
Drez on
Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
0
Options
DynagripBreak me a million heartsHoustonRegistered User, ClubPAregular
edited November 2007
If we were all in a supermarket I would so be on the ground kicking and screaming throwing a giant tantrum.
Isn't the actual meaning just a more important someone's meaning?
The word was given to the meaning though, not the other way around. That more important person didn't wake up one night and shout "ALTRUISM" and then decide "well, that sounds like it would make a nice word, now all I need to do is find something to associate it with".
ORIGIN mid 19th cent.: from French altruisme, from Italian altrui ‘somebody else,’ from Latin alteri huic ‘to this other.’
So you’re wrong. It was a process, spread through several languages. Altruism existed as a concept before somebody gave it a name.
That's what I said. The word was given to the meaning - altruism is just a label for a concept.
That is a dark world. I don't pretend selfishness and pragmatism don't work. I just hope altruism is out there somewhere too. Is that so bad?
I think that will depend on your definition of altruism. You can certainly argue that true altruism doesn't exist, because people tend to choose their course of action rationally, so you can argue that they always choose the course from which they stand to gain something. For example, if you give a homeless guy 5 bucks, you could argue that was not truly altruistic, because you get to feel good about yourself doing something good for another person. I think this argument is a bit silly, but I really don't think it's an important distinction. Whether we choose to call it altruism or not, the fact still remains that there are people who do act outside of their immediate material self-interest, and that's good enough for me.
It's a stupid, meaningless distinction which serves no purpose.
It may serve no purpose, but you can't call it "meaningless" as that's the exact meaning of "altruism". Either change the definition of altruism or make up a new word. As it stands, the distinction exists.
Altruism is "an attitude or way of behaving marked by unselfish concern for the welfare of others". Saying "Oh, she's not really altruistic, she's just doing it because other people's suffering makes her unhappy" is stupid, because that's what concern for others is. That's the definition of compassion.
Not really. I give people cough drops because I can't stand people coughing. I'm happier when they stop coughing, so for some woman to help someone because she can't stand people being unhappy is still unselfish. She can't stand unhappy people, so she alters their situation as she sees fit and then feels better. That's not entirely unselfish.
There's a distinction between not standing unhappy people (i.e. unhappy people irritate you), and not standing people being unhappy (i.e. you empathise with people's unhappiness), but I'll assume you meant the latter.
So: Yes, really. Altruism is "unselfish concern for the welfare of others". Concern, contextually, is "feeling of worry, compassion, sympathy, or regard for somebody or something". Compassion, sympathy are "awareness of the suffering of another coupled with the wish to relieve it", "a feeling or an expression of pity or sorrow for the distress of another". It's really very simple. You people are trying to replace an actual, working definition with a non-existent one, based upon some kind of ridiculous concept you have of people performing helpful acts and then feeling completely emotionless about it. Commiseration for the distress of others is considered, by commonsensical people, to be altruistic, by the clear-cut definition of all words involved.
No, we're all discussing the actual meaning of the actual word, not the fantasy one you think we're talking about.
None of us have even brought up "emotion" - we're talking about motivation and personal gain. You again fail to address that your own quoted definition includes the word "unselfish". I've already explained the "clear cut" definition of this word, but you apparently don't agree with it.
Sucks to be you.
:roll:
Alright, let's take a look at this word, 'unselfish', shall we?
un·self·ish
adj.
Generous or altruistic.
Gee. I wonder what that might mean?
The fact of the matter is, Drez, that out of some misguided sense of precision, you have, by selecting only very specific word definitions and ignoring all others, reduced the definition of "altruism" in your own mind so much that it no longer describes anything at all. This is pedantry at it's height. You see that conjunction up there? That's an "or". It means that the words on either side of it are alternatives. 'Unselfish' can mean either 'generous' or 'altruistic'.
Let's look at another definition of 'unselfish':
un·self·ish
–adjective
not selfish; disinterested; generous; altruistic.
Notice how this definition is slightly different from the one above? Yeah. You might want to ruminate on that.
No thanks. I already know what altruism means. It means "acting out of concern for others without regard to the self". Honestly, RBB, there's really not much more I can do to help educate you on this. The journey, I now leave to you. Have fun with that.
Plus, mathematics is itself a theory with which people can argue and raise objection.
Valid objections?
a) No, but when has that ever stopped _J_
b) _J_, mathematics is not a theory, you stupid twit
Mathematics is theory. Any mathematician would say the same, dude. I think it's silly to argue over a concept like "infinity" but in essence math is just theory.
What else would it be? "Fact"? "Fact" doesn't really exist in science. The highest you go is non-unprovable, excessively tested and pondered theory.
Plus, mathematics is itself a theory with which people can argue and raise objection.
Valid objections?
a) No, but when has that ever stopped _J_
b) _J_, mathematics is not a theory, you stupid twit
Mathematics is theory. Any mathematician would say the same, dude. I think it's silly to argue over a concept like "infinity" but in essence math is just theory.
What else would it be? "Fact"? "Fact" doesn't really exist in science. The highest you go is non-unprovable, excessively tested and pondered theory.
Plus, mathematics is itself a theory with which people can argue and raise objection.
Valid objections?
a) No, but when has that ever stopped _J_
b) _J_, mathematics is not a theory, you stupid twit
Mathematics is theory. Any mathematician would say the same, dude. I think it's silly to argue over a concept like "infinity" but in essence math is just theory.
What else would it be? "Fact"? "Fact" doesn't really exist in science. The highest you go is non-unprovable, excessively tested and pondered theory.
Maths isn't science. FAIL.
Go ask a few mathematicians "is math fact or theory?" and see what they say.
Plus, mathematics is itself a theory with which people can argue and raise objection.
Valid objections?
a) No, but when has that ever stopped _J_
b) _J_, mathematics is not a theory, you stupid twit
Mathematics is theory. Any mathematician would say the same, dude. I think it's silly to argue over a concept like "infinity" but in essence math is just theory.
What else would it be? "Fact"? "Fact" doesn't really exist in science. The highest you go is non-unprovable, excessively tested and pondered theory.
Maths isn't science. FAIL.
Go ask a few mathematicians "is math fact or theory?" and see what they say.
Question is vague and unclear.
Rephrase.
EDIT: Also, doesn't relate to the fact that it is not science.
I thought math held the only philosophical truths...
Maths and the other analytic systems contain propositions which can be proven, so we can know things to be true. If that's what you mean?
Yes. I meant this.
Here's my personal philosophy tidbit I have been thinking about.
The only truths lie in paradoxes. That is a paradox which is a truth which is a paradox ad infinitum.
Cool eh?
I'm sure it has been done before but I was thinking about how cyclic all the universal questions are while sitting in lecture.
I'm pleased to see that Senj has pwned _J_ at semantics.
Edit: Senj has also pwned Drez at semantics.
pwned me at semantics? He said that math is not theory. This is absolutely, 100% false.
I'm not arguing that every objection to mathematical theory is valid, however.
Right, I'm saying you're wrong. Mathematics isn't a theory. It's a system for tracking the particular abstract concept "numbers". There are theories within that system, lots of them, but it's not a theory. Science also isn't a theory, it's a specific method of inquiry which has resulted in the discovery of many laws and the supposition of many theories. Senj pwns you and _J_ at semantics.
Plus, mathematics is itself a theory with which people can argue and raise objection.
Valid objections?
a) No, but when has that ever stopped _J_
b) _J_, mathematics is not a theory, you stupid twit
Mathematics is theory. Any mathematician would say the same, dude. I think it's silly to argue over a concept like "infinity" but in essence math is just theory.
What else would it be? "Fact"? "Fact" doesn't really exist in science. The highest you go is non-unprovable, excessively tested and pondered theory.
Plus, mathematics is itself a theory with which people can argue and raise objection.
Valid objections?
a) No, but when has that ever stopped _J_
b) _J_, mathematics is not a theory, you stupid twit
Mathematics is theory. Any mathematician would say the same, dude. I think it's silly to argue over a concept like "infinity" but in essence math is just theory.
What else would it be? "Fact"? "Fact" doesn't really exist in science. The highest you go is non-unprovable, excessively tested and pondered theory.
Maths isn't science. FAIL.
Go ask a few mathematicians "is math fact or theory?" and see what they say.
Question is vague and unclear.
Rephrase.
Okay, ask them if they would call math "theory". You can phrase the question any way you like as long as the core question revolves around that query and elicits a "yes" or "no" response.
I thought math held the only philosophical truths...
Maths and the other analytic systems contain propositions which can be proven, so we can know things to be true. If that's what you mean?
Yes. I meant this.
Here's my personal philosophy tidbit I have been thinking about.
The only truths lie in paradoxes. That is a paradox which is a truth which is a paradox ad infinitum.
Cool eh?
I'm sure it has been done before but I was thinking about how cyclic all the universal questions are while sitting in lecture.
Posts
b) _J_, mathematics is not a theory, you stupid twit
That's what I said. The word was given to the meaning - altruism is just a label for a concept.
:roll:
Alright, let's take a look at this word, 'unselfish', shall we?
un·self·ish
adj.
Generous or altruistic.
Gee. I wonder what that might mean?
The fact of the matter is, Drez, that out of some misguided sense of precision, you have, by selecting only very specific word definitions and ignoring all others, reduced the definition of "altruism" in your own mind so much that it no longer describes anything at all. This is pedantry at it's height. You see that conjunction up there? That's an "or". It means that the words on either side of it are alternatives. 'Unselfish' can mean either 'generous' or 'altruistic'.
Let's look at another definition of 'unselfish':
un·self·ish
–adjective
not selfish; disinterested; generous; altruistic.
Notice how this definition is slightly different from the one above? Yeah. You might want to ruminate on that.
What else would it be? "Fact"? "Fact" doesn't really exist in science. The highest you go is non-unprovable, excessively tested and pondered theory.
Edit: Senj has also pwned Drez at semantics.
Still, like I said, it’s a process.
No thanks. I already know what altruism means. It means "acting out of concern for others without regard to the self". Honestly, RBB, there's really not much more I can do to help educate you on this. The journey, I now leave to you. Have fun with that.
I think I can do the assigning just fine, but I'm not sure what formula to use. Quadratic? If yes, how do I make b a negative?
Maths isn't science. FAIL.
You'd probably be happiest if you didn't dwell on truth too much.
Maths and the other analytic systems contain propositions which can be proven, so we can know things to be true. If that's what you mean?
pwned me at semantics? He said that math is not theory. This is absolutely, 100% false.
I'm not arguing that every objection to mathematical theory is valid, however.
Science isn't a theory either.
Go ask a few mathematicians "is math fact or theory?" and see what they say.
Yeah?
Ok. I'll come back later.
Sale on toiletries.
Question is vague and unclear.
Rephrase.
EDIT: Also, doesn't relate to the fact that it is not science.
I call top bunk.
Here's my personal philosophy tidbit I have been thinking about.
The only truths lie in paradoxes. That is a paradox which is a truth which is a paradox ad infinitum.
Cool eh?
I'm sure it has been done before but I was thinking about how cyclic all the universal questions are while sitting in lecture.
We'd be slotted in prime time.
That's silly, they should be integrating it.
N00bs.
Right, I'm saying you're wrong. Mathematics isn't a theory. It's a system for tracking the particular abstract concept "numbers". There are theories within that system, lots of them, but it's not a theory. Science also isn't a theory, it's a specific method of inquiry which has resulted in the discovery of many laws and the supposition of many theories. Senj pwns you and _J_ at semantics.
It certainly isn't facts, thats for sure.
Okay, ask them if they would call math "theory". You can phrase the question any way you like as long as the core question revolves around that query and elicits a "yes" or "no" response.
See the post above, where I tell you what science is, because apparently you don't know what the word means either.
I call top.