Absolutely. I guess my question is less about the site, and more about communication in general. I just used the site as an example of heady wording getting in the way of communicating something important.
I can concede that it might just be the way that some people (myself included- I made a sperate aside to make this note) communicate, but there is a serious issue in science communication- it seems to me that people either don't understand or choose not to understand based on language. So how is good science communicated well?

I have noticed nowadays there is a very tangible intersection of anthropology/archaeology/philosophy I find very interesting

I love all of these responses- 'the only thing I know is I know nothing' etc. I've gotten exactly what I wanted- way too many books and authors to read. Thank you y'all so much, I'll get cracking!

I'll look them up. Thank you!

Because I value people's opinions. I can learn who the most influential modern philosophers are, but I may miss someone who is not necessarily well known. I consider it 'consulting the experts' in a way.

A fair point and I have no argument. In reading responses though, I'm getting closer to forming my question though which I think is not the one I originally asked. What do you suppose that means that we have this duality? I'm attempting to do the un-attemptable here and asking why humans are going to human, I understand that. we think in binary, good vs evil, etc. Are we just constantly dancing at the line, choosing to lean one way or the other, or is there something in acknowledging that duality that could lead us somewhere better?

I suppose that is true. But I guess my question is about basic human instinct. Because it would appear there are examples of both being selfish and selfless. I think it is important to think about the aggregate; are we selfish or selfless, and how does that inform how we conduct ourselves? How does it effect everything from a basic social standpoint to political policy and how so we know when we've gone astray?

interesting. I'll think on this response.

That is an excellent statement

I very much enjoy that definition of selflessness. Again, my question is still taking form (which is why I posted here, to try to temper it). But I suppose then, what is the distinction between, say, someone doing a selfless act to shine their halos and an actually selfless person? The halo shiners are trying to benefit themselves while "thinking of the welfare of others"- but they are still selfish, and yet I can't help but think that they believe they need to do it, that they NEED to look out for others even if they otherwise wouldn't.

So, is that selfish or selfless, and are we all halo-shiners? Thank you for your input!

I don't like the idea of immortality. A life that is free of pain and is completely pure bliss would rob humans of anything that makes them human. I can only think of the universe; science agrees (from what I've been able to gather, I'm an economics teacher so what do I know) that the universe will eventually end. If what we consciously perceive will at one point be over, what is the point of living forever? Further, an infinite life only makes doing human things- looking out for one another, taking care of yourself, all things that give us meaning- less desirable, because there is no incentive to do them.

I think there can be instances where you can be calculatingly irrational but ultimately I find it subjective Suppose you are down, and are faced with either completing chores or staring at Netflix for 8 hours? The rational mind says 'fold the laundry's, 'empty the dishwasher' etc. But the irrational mind says 'keep watching' and which is best is dependent on the person doing it.

I suspect these situations come up all the time (in less dramatic fashion).
One situation is rational, and the other is irrational- it serves no purpose, except for the person doing it.