I'm not in the mood for trolling, so I'd ask you politely to either get serious or find a different discussion.

Remember this?

If you start with the wrong question, you will get the wrong answer. While ethics concerns what I should do, the philosophical question at the core of political thought, modern or otherwise, is What should we do? It's about communal action. That it is about us is the bit that libertarians miss. — Banno

Worse for solipsists.

which is a subjective expression of oneself. — Copernicus

But for you, that's all there is...

I'm not in the mood for trolling, — Copernicus

You seem quite adept at it, even when not in the mood.

I'm quite serious. Your ideas are a nonsense, the result of a failure to realise that you are, like it or not, a part of a community, a member of a group - the very fact that you are writing in English belies your excessive faith in individualism.

Your need to post your ideas on this forum probably indicates that you know this, and are looking for a way out.

The fly and the bottle. But you probably will not get that reference.

But you probably will not get that reference. — Banno

No, I don't.

If you start with the wrong question, you will get the wrong answer. — Banno

Where was my question wrong?

But for you, that's all there is... — Banno

Yes, to myself. I wrote and sang a song for you by myself. You're free to give feedback.

you are, like it or not, a part of a community, a member of a group — Banno

Yes, I'm forced to accept the social contract involuntarily, and I don't live in a utopian individualistic planet, so yes, I happen to live in a community.

But still we could arrange a separate bedroom for each member despite sharing the same house, instead of putting everyone in the common room floor (which communitarians do).

Just because we eat, play, and dance in the same house doesn't mean we'd have to sleep together.
Just because we coexist and transact monetary and other values in a society doesn't mean we'd have to be socially bonded (to a point where the collective interest supercedes the individual's).

I'd like to know where it went wrong. — Copernicus

I wouldn't say anything "went wrong", per se, just, as it stands, this isn't anything substantial that hasn't been discussed (and dismissed, if not by widely-held view, which sure, might not invalidate anything in an absolute sense). It simply didn't "transcend" what others have suggested and discussed before, in my opinion. So, nothing went wrong, it's just, it didn't seem to "catch" or what have you, in the sense of throwing things at a wall and seeing what sticks.

It's still early on, who knows, perhaps you're simply ahead of your time, not unlike the many great artists and authors whose work was discounted, even ridiculed while alive, only to become a staple in every library after their death. Vincent van Gogh only sold but one painting while his breath was still in his body. So. Who could say, yes? :smile:

From my argumentative conclusion, all people are, and it's impossible not to be. — Copernicus

See this is where things get a bit confusing. You say just a few moments ago, here:

That makes selflessness theoretically (of course, practically) unattainable. — Copernicus

Impossible = not possible.

Theoretically (practically unattainable) = possible. (albeit unlikely)

These are two starkly different worlds of possibility you seem to waver back and forth between. So, I'll ask the obvious question. Which is it?

The fly and the bottle. — Banno

I think you meant to write "the flea in the bottle"?

You're free to give feedback. — Copernicus

No, since I don't exist.

I'm forced to accept the social contract involuntarily — Copernicus

You love it. You keep coming back for more. You don't have to be here, after all - go play Counterstrike or something - oh, wait, those are team games... Patience, maybe?

I'm sorry your living arrangements do not meet your needs. Perhaps if you asked nicely...

Oh, that'd require taking others into account...

So, nothing went wrong, it's just, it didn't seem to "catch" or what have you, in the sense of throwing things at a wall and seeing what sticks. — Outlander

Looks like papers won't cut it. Need a book to cover everything.

Impossible = not possible.

Theoretically (practically unattainable) = possible. (albeit unlikely) — Outlander

I don't think I quite caught what you meant.

Looks like @Banno has a personal vendetta for me being a radical individualist while him being a communitarian.

I have a vendetta against poor thinking.

You love it. You keep coming back for more. — Banno

I go to the grocery store to get fruits. Do I need to marry the cashier for that?

What's wrong with self-serving social interactions?

poor thinking — Banno

define it

What's wrong with social interaction? — Copernicus

You tell us. You want to be here. But you tell us that we don't count for anything. You shit were you eat.

define it — Copernicus

Supposing that all you need is a definition.

you tell us that we don't count for anything — Banno

That sounds like a charge without evidence.

Supposing that all you need is a definition. — Banno

To see what you mean. Perhaps you meant your way of thinking?

define it — Copernicus

Now who's getting distracted. :smile:

You say, the only way a truly non-selfish act can occur is if one denies basically all positive and generally-appreciated aspects of life. You also say, if one does this, it is because they seek a "challenge" and some sort of fulfillment from said challenge.

I then state, it's possible that out of the billions and billions of minds that exist and have existed, one may have embraced the first part of your premise (self-denial) without doing so for the challenge or sense of fulfillment in any form.

You find this impossible. You are one person. There are billions of people. Therefore, the odds of your sentiment being correct, without substantial proof are 1 in 8 billion, and that's a high estimate in your favor.

Do you understand that?

That sounds like a charge without evidence. — Copernicus

Well, no. It's the consequence of your approach.

Your every act is selfish - so you claim. So what we want doesn't count, unless it matches what you want. We don't count.

So why should we do anything for you?

At the very least, you need to learn to play the iterative prisoner's dilemma.

Do you understand that? — Outlander

Yes. Newton believed light wasn't a wave. He was proven wrong. I can be proven wrong. But from my equations, I'm pretty solid on my conclusion.

Might get a Nobel in math and then 200 years later someone proves me wrong and the Nobel committee is left feeling like a twat.

It happens.

He was proven wrong. — Copernicus

Proven? Are you certain?

But you said...

Proven? Are you certain? — Banno

In the realm of science. Or at least the books we read.

Don't tell me you're planning to bring solipsism (a philosophy) into science or court ("your honor, reality is subjective and deceitful, hence the crime didn't happen").

You offer only two possible motivations. I have been arguing the limits of such a division, not whether it is the case.

Elaborate, please.

It's your epistemology. So you say that we can be certain that Newton was proven wrong... but that

we know nothing outside our heads — Copernicus

I'm just trying to work out how you keep both those ideas in the same head.

Then you'd need to understand the difference between philosophy, doctrine, law, evidence, science, etc.

Assume I do. How can Newton be proven wrong about light if you know only what is in your head? Newton and light are in your head?

Until the communitarian comes to terms with the fact of our separateness, of our individuation, the communitarian Good can never be imagined in any other sense as individual, selfish desire — NOS4A2

According to who? And certainly, it can at least be imagined as such. One can say many things about the Neoplatonists, or say the Sufi poets, but that they lacked imagination is not one of them.

He wants conformity to certain ancient ideals, to return us to ancient ways of life, and so on. — NOS4A2

Odd, I seem to recall the biggest communitarian movement of the past century or so doing things like dynamiting cathedrals to turn them into the world's largest swimming pool, massacring priests and monks, re-educating minorities out of Buddhism and Islam, etc., and trying to rebuild man in a radically new image.

In general, when there is an appeal to ancient framings or norms, the idea is that they are better, not that they are merely old (although to be sure, some folks do tend towards tradition for tradition sake, just as some see innovation as an end in itself).

↪Copernicus I don't know. It seems you are defining "selfish" in such a way that makes it meaningless, as there is no contrast to what "selfishness" is not — Harry Hindu

Bingo. But then it also seems to commit a fallacy of equivocation on this usage later on.

↪Paine Elaborate, please. — Copernicus

My previous efforts were not deemed worthy of consideration,

The problem with this topic is in reasoning that if we find some benefit of an action, or a future beneficial state, that proves it's a selfish action.

But surely the intent matters here? If I help an old man cross the street, and he turns out to be a billionaire who buys me a car, that doesn't make it selfish, because that wasn't my reason for helping.

I know that's a silly example, but I just want to establish the distinction, because now we can take a look at an example from the OP:

The OP mentions a parent caring for their child and mentions things like self satisfaction. And sure, being a good parent feels good. Was that the reason for doing it though?
I would say: no. I wouldn't necessarily say it's "love" either.
I think there is a responsibility hat that we sometimes wear, instinctively. It's only occasionally that we get to stop and think about consequences of *not* looking after a child, or how much we love them or whatever. The rest of the time we're operating out of a sense of duty; someone is depending on us.

Of course, we can take this a step back and say that that instinct of duty exists for selfish (gene) reasons. But to me it's absurd if we're requiring selfless acts to go back beyond this level. We'd be implicitly defining "selfless" as "reasonless, and yet non random". Yes of course a nonsensical thing doesn't exist.

The problem with this topic is in reasoning that if we find some benefit of an action, or a future beneficial state, that proves it's a selfish action. — Mijin

Yep. If we said instead that any action can be described in selfish terms, few would protest; it's be a rare action that had no benefit to the actor. The fallacy is framing this as an account of the intent of the actor, or worse, as the only intent.