Psychological Egoism

34 posts

Flag Post

What’s kong’s opinion about psychological egoism?

 
Flag Post

It’s untrue. Now wanna step into my bedroom…and we’ll discuss this further…

 
Flag Post

Can you give me any kind of example as to how it’s untrue? I can always think up a reason for it to be true(regardless of how pity the reason is)

 
Flag Post
Joel Feinberg, in his 1958 paper “Psychological Egoism”, embraces a […] critique by drawing attention to the infinite regress of psychological egoism. He expounds it in the following cross-examination:

“All men desire only satisfaction.”
“Satisfaction of what?”
“Satisfaction of their desires.”
“Their desires for what?”
“Their desires for satisfaction.”
“Satisfaction of what?”
“Their desires.”
“For what?”
“For satisfaction”—etc., ad infinitum.[Feinberg 2008]
 
Flag Post

/thread

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Syneil:
Joel Feinberg, in his 1958 paper “Psychological Egoism”, embraces a […] critique by drawing attention to the infinite regress of psychological egoism. He expounds it in the following cross-examination:


“All men desire only satisfaction.”

“Satisfaction of what?”

“Satisfaction of their desires.”

“Their desires for what?”

“Their desires for satisfaction.”

“Satisfaction of what?”

“Their desires.”

“For what?”

“For satisfaction”—etc., ad infinitum.[Feinberg 2008]

Is this… suppose to be relevant?

 
Flag Post

I’d say so.

 
Flag Post

How so?

 
Flag Post

It shows the lack of basis that Psychological Egoism has.

How could a paper titled “Psychological Egoism” not be relevant to discussing Psychological Egoism? I know some titles are misleading, but I think this might be an exception.

 
Flag Post

I am lost on this topic could someone explain what we are talking about here?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by ItsZidane:
Originally posted by Syneil:
Joel Feinberg, in his 1958 paper “Psychological Egoism”, embraces a […] critique by drawing attention to the infinite regress of psychological egoism. He expounds it in the following cross-examination:



“All men desire only satisfaction.”


“Satisfaction of what?”


“Satisfaction of their desires.”


“Their desires for what?”


“Their desires for satisfaction.”


“Satisfaction of what?”


“Their desires.”


“For what?”


“For satisfaction”—etc., ad infinitum.[Feinberg 2008]

Is this… suppose to be relevant?

That looks like a paradox…

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Aaron_:

It shows the lack of basis that Psychological Egoism has.

How could a paper titled “Psychological Egoism” not be relevant to discussing Psychological Egoism? I know some titles are misleading, but I think this might be an exception.

I thought of psychological egoism more of:

Every person desires happiness, so subconsciously(hope that’s spelt right) they’ll always act on something that will favor their happiness over something that wouldn’t.

 
Flag Post

What Syneil posted still applies;
Basic cycle:
desire for happiness—> act to fulfill happiness—> happiness fulfilled, target next desire of happiness…

Insert pain before desire for happiness to accentuate level of happiness:
inflict pain + desire for happiness—> act to fulfill happiness—> happiness fulfilled, target next desire of happiness….

pain as in opposite of happiness; happiness as in fulfillment of pleasure (knowledge, hunger, desire, acceptance, resources, supremacy, fame, enlightenment, etc.

Such applies to everyone, I think…

 
Flag Post

What Syneil posted still applies;

I think the thing Syneil posted was drawing attention to the fact that psychologial egotism just ends up in a logical loop. It doesn’t actually explain anything, it basically just says ‘Man only exists to satisfy his desire to satisfy his desires.’ It’s just an entirely unuseful concept.

 
Flag Post

I can’t discount his post that way, its still relevant to the OP. As long as people have goal/s, the cycle applies.
Anyways, curious what Itszidane trying to find out……

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by unproductive:

What Syneil posted still applies;

I think the thing Syneil posted was drawing attention to the fact that psychologial egotism just ends up in a logical loop. It doesn’t actually explain anything, it basically just says ‘Man only exists to satisfy his desire to satisfy his desires.’ It’s just an entirely unuseful concept.

How’s it unuseful if it tells you what you exist to do?

 
Flag Post

That’s the problem, it doesn’t answer that question. It is a theory that is “proven” by itself.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by SaintAjora:

That’s the problem, it doesn’t answer that question. It is a theory that is “proven” by itself.

It says we all exist to fulfill or desires or happiness or whatever you want to put right there. no word game takes away that meaning.

 
Flag Post

It could say whatever it wants; it has no way of proving it. See the problem?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by SaintAjora:

It could say whatever it wants; it has no way of proving it. See the problem?

That can be said about 2598624961439013461943671394761098346 other things too….

Did I even make this thread? there’s no way to prove it.. you can try and say with IPs… but maybe one of my brothres used one of their computers and posted it.. maybe somebody got on my computer and made this thread…SaintAjora, are you even human? Do you even exist?

Notice the amount of fa****try that comes when you say there’s no way of proving it?

 
Flag Post

You seem to have a great misunderstanding about how science works. A theory without evidence is garbage.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by SaintAjora:

You seem to have a great misunderstanding about how science works. A theory without evidence is garbage.

Only, no… a theory without evidence is a theory.. a theory with evidence is fact.

Also, it has evidence… people just seem to ignore it for some reason..

 
Flag Post

Only, no… a theory without evidence is a theory.. a theory with evidence is fact.

A theory without evidence is unacceptable in science. You could form a religion if you will.

A theory with backing evidence is nowhere near a fact.

 
Flag Post

Remember that “theory” in science does not mean “unsupported hypothesis”, ItsZidane, as it does in common speech.

 
Flag Post

Syneil pretty much nailed it, but here is a more technical definition:

The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means “a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena” (Barnhart 1948).

TO

Spitting out nonsense and claiming “well it’s a theory” may not be semantically wrong, but it certainly isn’t science.