See that "we"? There is no "we" in solipsism. — Banno

That's the general way of arguing. (Like, "you can't see a young lady and lose your composure."..."you" doesn't mean you in specific.)

something from "outside your head"? — Banno

Nope. I'm intaking these letters coming through a screen and interpreting it according to my subjective perception and giving it back, creating a communication. What someone from other universe or dimension sees me taking and giving is unknowable to me.

Out of the billions (perhaps more) persons who have lived, there is absolutely no way to know at least one person never lived a life doing exactly that. Sure, it's likely it ended prematurely, perhaps violently, and the person died an unknown and was never heard of or spoken of. But that doesn't matter as far as the premise of your OP is concerned. — Outlander

I answered it here:

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

You enlist La Rochefoucauld for your purposes — Paine

As a reference or background intro music.

Reductions to a pure set of external inputs is not the foundation for solipsism. — Paine

This argument isn't based on solipsism. Don't get distracted.

I see solipsism as the idea that we know nothing outside our heads, which creates the outside experience for us.

Whether my yellow is your yellow, or whether you're real or an imagination or an NPC is unknowable; that's all. Not that we know the objective truth about your existence.

For him, we don't exist, so you already have left him to it. — Banno

That's just one aspect of solipsism. I take it as an initial chamber. Which leads to the understanding that no matter what the truth is, you would never know it because it's outside your head and you're stuck inside your head.

The only selfless act would be when you deny yourself gratification, gain, achievement, everything, including your decision to deny self-interest to achieve the gratification of having the liberty of denying self-interest or to serve your adventurous desire to test yourself, and the idea of doing it all in your head by serving yourself an intellectual ride.

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

Reality is subjective, dependent upon stimulus reception and intellectual perception.

You're a bit of a dill, arn't you. — Banno

Depends on perspective.

You miss the point where the distinction arises. If your vision is of peace and justice for everyone, it is altruistic. If your vision is of your own well-being and prosperity alone, it is selfish. — Ludwig V

No, and no.

You only read part of what I said. You will surely not see what you choose not to look for. — Ludwig V

I'm selfish. (P.S. I did read)

How would you know? — Ludwig V

As a solipsist, that's the core of my worldview.

Great post, just that one line sticks out to me as something that others might gloss over thus prematurely proving the OP's premise as valid.
— Outlander
Thanks for that.

But they're still your children.
— Outlander
There's a case for considering generosity to one's children is a kind of selfishness. But that just reveals that what counts as selfishness is not necessarily obvious. What do we make of the virtue of looking after one's family? In the context of wider society, it can look like selfishness. In the context of traditional individualism, it is altruism.
Think of benefactors of your town or city or of art rather than homelessness.

I could spend my money and time on my personal pleasures and leave the kids without. Would that not be selfish? Is helping out my friends and neighbours not generous, because they are my friends and neighbours? Yet, I agree that exclusive attention to my kids, neglecting my partner, would be wrong.

It benefits your family and existence directly to have happy children who live productive lives, possibly earning lots of money, holding you in high regard, esteem, and favor, and then taking care of you when you're enfeebled.
— Outlander
Yes, but the point is that I consider those happy children to be a benefit and not a drag. The rest of it is far from guaranteed. However, if my generosity to them was predicated on those happy outcomes. that would undermine my claim to generosity. — Ludwig V

@Outlander was right. You seem to fail to grasp it.

It makes La Rochefoucauld's observations useless — Paine

I fail to see where that's my problem.

Solipsists don't usually let themselves out for weekends on the town. — Paine

I do.

those is at least a candidates for a selfless action — Ludwig V

No.

There's nothing wrong with personal satisfaction, emotional fulfilment and existential meaning in themselves. — Ludwig V

Exactly. Everything is about that one way or another.

Where does the meaning, the discipline, the other come from? — Ludwig V

The self.

The difference between someone who gets pleasure from the pleasure of others is different in important ways from the person who gets pleasure from the pain of others. — Ludwig V

Not.

if you can recognize that solipsism is a cage, there is some hope for you. — Ludwig V

No one escapes it.

say some sort of hypothetical secret act to make the world a better place, by someone without children or family, who therefore has nothing to gain from making said world a better place? :chin: — Outlander

You serve your vision of a better world.

The problem with your bubble is that the generality of the explanation renders any particular instance useless for inquiry. Distinctions without a difference. — Paine

Care to elaborate?

Since I never said the intangible characteristics are direct elements of the physical universe, and that they're rather products or byproducts of physical properties, they should be called physical properties. Just like me, a human, a substance of flesh and blood, carrying a sperm, the sperm is also a human; these intangible, abstract properties are physical properties as well.

But perhaps I can use or coin a word that would underscore this nuance.

Too ambiguous.

What would your proposed word be?

I desire to eat but I want a six pack set of abominals. I want to have the high from exercise but don't want to put in the time. I crave sugar but I'm diabetic. In what sense can the "self" be against itself? — Nils Loc

Whatever you choose ultimately serves your self. You choose which is the higher calling for you (eating—desire, packs—health).

And each of the options serves the self. The idea itself serves your purpose. Eating serves happiness, exercising or dieting serves good health.

If you wish to harm yourself, you serve your sadism. If you wish to prevent that, you serve your well-being. If you remain undecided, you serve your procrastination.

Selfishness is self-interest (serving the self, whether by violating other selves or not, or whether putting others above, below, or at equal level or not).

The self is caged in the solipsistic bubble and can only act from within.

I'm simply assuming that if the definitions are true, can it be logically claims that a transman is a man? No. — Philosophim

If he has XY chromosomes, yes.

ou do not have to follow or recognize the gender of that community or culture, but you should be able to recognize that communities and cultures have expectations of behavior of people within them — Philosophim

Yes, but I don't support the idea of unions, especially the involuntary ones. Same as the social contract.

intersex — Philosophim

That's the natural transgenderism.

gender theory — Philosophim

Must be a pretty stupid theory coined by confused people.

if you understand the culture of a place, agree with that gendered culture, and purposefully act in a way that is against the gender of that that culture for your sex, and intentionally take the gender of the opposite sex, you are acting transgendered. — Philosophim

No offense, but that's horseshit. And as a radical individualist, I don't believe in community or culture.

Transgender is agreeing with a particular viewpoint about what non-biological behavior should be done in public by men and women, then purposefully doing behavior that is expected of the opposite sex, not yours. — Philosophim

Transgender is having both male and female sexual parts in a single body (naturally or surgically).

What definition would you like to propose for gender instead? — Philosophim

SEX. Gender means Sex.

If a male wears a skirt, they are acting in a transgendered way. — Philosophim

I don't agree with this view. I have individual freedom to wear what I want, unless I'm breaking laws or protocols. My gender is solely tied to my sex.

There is nothing inherent in being male or female that would drive a man not to wear a skirt and a woman to wear one — Philosophim

Culture is a social construct. Sex/gender is not. Don't let society label your sex, nor let yourself get fooled by yourself by confusing your traits to be your gender (sex).

How is cultural expression "gender"? I think you coined the definition yourself.

If society can't force expectations on you, can you force definitions upon society?

That is the modern day terminology, yes. I note the definitions in the OP, do you disagree with them? — Philosophim

Yes. To me,men and women are sex.

And what you designated as gender could be termed as hormonal traits.

In regards to sex, yes. In regard to gender, no. — Philosophim

Oh boy... we're differentiating sex from gender. I see.

Well, apologies for wasting your time. I hope you find your answers.

I do not see any reason why this is not a philosophical topic. — Philosophim

Because those questions have subjective answers and argumentative grounds. Biological issues are subject to experimental and empirical truths.

What is this question doing on a philosophy platform? It warrants a biological truth, not argumentative conclusions.

because it's giving them a good feeling, at least, if no other transactional motive is present.

what "selfishness" is not — Harry Hindu

Whatever goes against you (want/desire/interest/feelings).

are they being selfish? — Harry Hindu

Well, everyone is. Whether it's a refined one or not.

IDK, it seems to me that all this shows is that all intentional behavior involves desire and that all things desire the good. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Desire for/from oneself. That's the thing. Selfishness is self-interest, not self-supremacy, at least in my definition.

I see.

I don't think there's anything in life, ultimately, that is not an attempt to serve self interest.

That is not how physical is defined. — Patterner

Perhaps I'd have to use a better-suited word.

But I've explained what I mean by "physical".

I think this is an undisputed issue and needs no further argument.

both fall in the same category.

But what have you said about an event when you say it is physical? What is it about an event that makes it physical? — bert1

Anything born out of (may or may not be within) the universe.

Is that your view? — bert1

I have already discussed it here.

to claim that it is an argument with a conclusion is a little misleading — Metaphysician Undercover

Philosophy IS propositional conclusions without empirical evidence.

Aristotle's four-element posit was a speculative conclusion.