>So far you are unwilling to accept my suggestion that
>self-interest benefits only one person, and that mutual self-interest is
>not a contradiction in terms, that there are acts that can benefit two or
>more persons at once that can be called self-interested.
You've not given me any reason to discard the commonly accepted
definition.
>Since you will
>not accept my suggestion, I will accept yours and abandon the discussion
>at that point; I cannot argue against your suggestion using your
>definition.
Likewise. But if it just comes down to terminology we don't need to
abandon the discussion, we just each need to accept the essence of the
others usage. When I say self-interest I mean acting first and foremost
to achieve my own ends but without excluding cooperation. You have a
definition which does. It seems then that we're essentially in
agreement, or at least we haven't found what we *really* disagree about.
>>Yes it is. Unless *you* change the definition of self-interest. "One's
>>personal interest or advantage" he discovers on leafing through the
>>forbidden tome. That definition doesn't care whether any incidental
>>benefit is conferred on anyone else.<
>
>Isn't that what I started saying a while back? "personal" interest? Or
>are you using the "advantage" part to override the "personal"? If so, we
>are not in disagreement.
>I simply stress the "personal" more.
You seem to stress it to the exclusion of anything else. I find that
unnecessarily restrictive and I think you're inferring more than is
intended by the definition.
>With the understanding that I stress the "personal" part of the
>definition you cited above, and that you stress that "personal advantage
>can also benefit someone else"
>I think we can agree to disagree.
>
>>I have to agree with Lee here. Cooperation as a consequence of self-
>>interest has been a central element of this thread from day one.
>
>I may be misreading Reed's original post, but it seems to me he implied
>cooperation is a consequence of society and group organization, not a
>consequence of self-interest.
I said "from *day* one" not "since the first post". I had meant that to
include any direct replies to Reed's post. Admittedly I haven't checked
the dates so a day may have passed before the replies rolled in. You
gotta watch out for those inferences. ;)
>>He didn't introduce it and it's quite frustrating when someone
>repeatedly
>>misses the point.
>
>I am indeed as frustrated as you are; being advised pointedly by Lee that
>I am missing the point is only limitedly useful,
>when I think others are
>creating points out of whole cloth and drawing unjustified conclusions
>from unexamined premises.
Fair point, but to me the premises had been examined but you were
focussing on the wrong parts. By "wrong" I just mean a part of the
premise which wasn't actually being used to support anything.
>I will not perpetuate any more misunderstanding on this subject; you and
>Lee can have the victory. Self-interest can include others by definition,
>and everything I've posted for the last week is irrelevant.
If victory means a better understanding then we've all won. And by the
same token our posts have been equally irrelevant i.e. an excessive
amount of energy expended to arrive at a small understanding. Having
arrived, we can now move on (and find something else to fight about).
>I hope you feel better for winning;
I don't consider it a "win" in the sense you seem to mean it.
>I still suspect we have missed an
>opportunity for communication of ideas, although I can accept that at
>least half (and probably more) of the responsibility is mine.
Not missed, merely postponed.
>IMATDO? Not familiar with that acronym.
That's because I just made it up. "In mine and the dictionaries
opinion". Weak humour, perhaps a smiley would have been justified (I
hate overusing them so I probably underuse them in retaliation).
>I am not offended, and I hope you are not; I've gotten past momentary
>aggravation at Lee for his post, and will try to maintain civility into
Likewise. I promise you I won't succeed though. 8) Take solace from the
knowledge that I know from much examination that any frustration I feel
is *always* aimed at myself. That others bear the brunt is purely
coincidental (selfish motivations again - you just can't get away from
them).
-- Martz martz@martz.demon.co.ukFor my public key, <mailto:m.traynor@ic.ac.uk> with 'Send public key' as subject an automated reply will follow.
No more random quotes.