Your assumptions are incorrect.
Your assumptions are incorrect.
Just because we do something "emotionally unpleasant" does not mean we were not motivated by a self-interest.
Other people's direct interests can be our indirect self-interests.
This is an argument nearly as old as civilization and no matter what people want the situation to be, nobody has ever given a valid example of altruism.
George Price actually gave all he could to prove this wrong, and ended up realizing that just attempting to prove altruism was true concept negated his ability to perform an altruistic act.
Quote: So following your logic, it seems that I had no choice in the matter that was not rooted in selfishness.
You hit the nail on the head. There are no selfless actions.
How you choose to apply that lesson to free will is another argument altogether.
I am simply stating there are no truly selfless actions, therefore altruism (selflessness) does not exist.
And to add to it, I firmly believe most people mistake benevolence for altruism.
This is a very depressing topic. I was distraught when I first figured it out. Then I read some Nietzsche and found that altruism doesn't need to exist to be content. Now that I no longer look to impossible ideals as a way to live my life, I am actually much happier. But I assume many people will feel the way I did when I first realized this and be rather lost. Hopefully though, it will eventually set you free to live as beasts were intended. Just do the best you can from your perspective and understand you can't save the world.
Believing it is the right thing to do would leave you feeling guilty if you had not done it, because then you not have done the right thing.
Therefore there is a selfish motivation to do what you consider right, even if you do not consciously comprehend you are doing this to advance yourself or state of well being.
As many others have done, you have mistaken benevolence for altruism.
Quote:"Ok, I'll check it out," was the only way I was going to get that old fucker off of my porch.
You desired he leave your porch. You committed an action to obtain a good that you desired. Not altruistic.
Self-satisfaction negates selflessness which is the definition of altruism.
Even if you do what you consider good because it makes you feel good, you are still being selfish.
I think you may be mistaking benevolence for altruism.
Benevolence exists and I attempt to be as benevolent as possible because it makes me feel good to help other people.
But that does not make me altruistic; it makes me very, very selfish to help others.
Altruism is an abstract ideal man created to describe an impossible situation.
And, as a side note, it makes me sad to see that people are approaching philosophy so subjectively.
There is an objective science behind philosophy.
Even jumping on a hand grenade isn't altruism if the user did it to either feel superior or prevent a feeling of guilt. To be altruistic one has to act without feeling. Otherwise self preservation is always the motivating factor.
If he left smiling, he received satisfaction. Therefore it is a selfish act. If you can show me how the person approached it without the intent of feeling satisfied with his actions, you have made an argument for altruism. Otherwise you have simply argued to my point.
Altruism doesn't exist. This has been debated before and there is no proof that altruism is anything other than misdirection. This would be an actual story if they could support a claim that altruism exists. But this is just another report from the desk of Captain Obvious.
Strict enforcement of intellectual property laws is what open source is all about!
Ah that's actually kind of funny. Work requires me to type that way, so I just do it everywhere. Sorry to hog the screen space.
And yours does nothing to contribute.
Please see my response to jones_supra.
This is not about Unity.
Your myopic view of reasons people dislike Ubuntu has apparently blinded you to the rest of the comment and respones to others'.
If you read the whole comment you would see that I like Unity, but it was too unstable.
I tried to stick it out, but the entire culture shift from it should "just work" to "let's try this" is unacceptable in my case.
So I didn't even bother to give enough time to learning how to make Unity work for me.
I wish it wasn't so and I could use the shiny new interface.
I don't currently have the time to transition to Gnome 3 and really appreciate the Debian team allowing Gnome Classic to stay integrated by default.
And please don't call my comment, generic.
From my perspective your comment happens to be the generic "I'm too cool for you, let me show you how you do what you do with arrogant sarcasm" comment.
Comments and responses should move the conversation along instead of simply attacking the opinion or character of the poster.
Technically, I believes it qualifies as a manifesto.
Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifesto.
But it is a bit of a stretch as I am not *intending* to change other people's opinions.
I'm just point out why I feel this way in case anyone from Canonical is actually reading this.
The future will change my circumstances and I am confident at some point Debian will no longer meet my needs... again.
In that case, it is in my best interest to have more open source options that bind closely to the workstyle I choose and the education I have obtained.
But good points it does make. Points that should be in taken into consideration and investigated.
Such as, what negative impact does the further industrialization required for these families to earn the 10k required place upon the environment?
What impact does it have on the mental health of an individual, the violence in a community, the additional reources required of a nation?
Both of "the wings" tend to think like this. It is generally the moderates who think about others.
"Any excuse will serve a tyrant." -- Aesop