Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

InTheEndEntropyWins t1_jartuau wrote

Reply to comment by Picards-Flute in Glorifying the "self" is detrimental to both the individual and the larger world. It neither helps you find your true nature, nor your role in the larger world. by waytogoal

>Ideas from people like Ayne Rand about selfishness being a virtue runs counter to millions of years of evolutionary history

That doesn't sound right, evolutionary scientists aren't writing books called "the selfish gene" for no reason.

I would argue we have billions of years of selfishly passing on genes, with being social just a tool to selfishly pass on genes.

4

waytogoal OP t1_jarw9o6 wrote

Wrong. First, even Dawkins hated the word "selfish". He regretted and suggested to replace with "immortal" (since it is basically redundant and only misleads laymen, its use is equivalent to "persistence" in his book, it doesn't mean "selfishness" in common sense usage).

Second, almost every single thing you see in the biological world is gradually built from the result of cooperation being a stronger force than selfishness - single gene > genome > complex cells > Eukaryotes > multicellular individual > community and ecosystems etc. (Yes, things like cancer, predation, and parasitism exist but they are and must be kept to a low percentage biomass-wise, else ecosystem collapse would follow).

3

InTheEndEntropyWins t1_jarxnkb wrote

Maybe I should rephrase it. Being social is just a means to be able to pass on more of your own genes.

So I wouldn't say we are fundamentally social.

3

itsdoctorlee t1_jas3ler wrote

What do you mean by "fundamentally social"? We are social if we successfully survive by forming society through millions of years.
Do you want to say we aren't fundamentally cooperative/altruistic/empathetic towards others? (somewhere along these lines)

6

InTheEndEntropyWins t1_jas6wsa wrote

>What do you mean by "fundamentally social"?

You first used it in the context of us being fundamentally social not selfish.

So I took it to be a definition which excludes the real reason being selfish. So I oppose the idea that they are mutually exclusive.

​

>Do you want to say we aren't fundamentally cooperative/altruistic/empathetic towards others? (somewhere along these lines)

It feels like we are getting at psychological egoism.

>Psychological egoism is the view that humans are always motivated by self-interest and selfishness, even in what seem to be acts of altruism. It claims that, when people choose to help others, they do so ultimately because of the personal benefits that they themselves expect to obtain, directly or indirectly, from so doing.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_egoism

1

TheRoadsMustRoll t1_jas8bwx wrote

>evolutionary scientists aren't writing books called "the selfish gene"

correct. only one scientist wrote that book. had you read it you might have understood that Dawkins uses the term "selfish gene" as a way of expressing the gene-centred view of evolution (as opposed to the views focused on the organism and the group)

​

>being social just a tool to selfishly pass on genes.

so you admit that taking out the "social" part (so no genes are passed on) would end the human race? or how did you expect to continue? because, by your own admission then, being social is fundamental to human existence.

0