Tyler Durden

Painfully incorrect. The word “appearance” has its own antonym in the history of philosophy: reality. Within this assertion you are gambling on a philosophical position of your own, i.e. phenomenalism or subjective idealism, similar to what the good old Bishop Berkeley espoused or Protagoras.

Moreover the “true motive” is an inference from the appearance to the observer, not what is “apparent.” What is apparent may be good enough for the uncritical thinker, who is comfortable with taking things at face value, but not for the philosopher, or the subterranean thinker who rejects the prejudices of his day and explores deeper, backwards, further. Try again!

Dig a little deeper, and stop pulling up short and be so quick to settle for less, Page. Look past that apparent lip-service to democratic or liberal principles and you might be able to locate the herd mentality at the origin of those egalitarian doctrines.

My claim is that whoever promotes any form of egalitarianism has a certain psychological motive to see distinct people equally.

Don’t be shy, and explain yourself.

Idioms.

Perhaps I am taking your statements at face value, now, aren’t I?

Inconnu

If I die to save my family and I value them more than myself, am I not sacrificing 'my experience of my better family', and thus making a sacrifice, ie, my death is also my loss of something better than me (loss of the family to me), hence a true 'sacrifice'?

Bob Stewart

Inconnu,

You are pressing the same thought that I am pressing (I am waiting for an answer to my last post) against Tyler Durden. I am not sure that I have a clear understanding of TD's definition of "sacrifice", but it appears to make not only altruism (if altruism involves sacrifice) impossible, it makes sacrifice impossible.

His definition is supported by the dictionary definitions he says, though I don't see this either.

As I said, I am waiting for a response-- we will see.

Bob Stewart

John Page

Bathroom Tyler:

Appearance and reality are not opposites. Do you agree that we cannot know "reality" directly?
I don't see how you reach this conclusion. (My position, therefore, may not be what it appears to be. )
That's why I put the term you used in quotes.
Again, how is it that you know reality directly?
What "apparent lip-service to democratic and liberal principles" are you talking about? I thought we were talking about altruism as a behavioral trait, not whether anyone's princples makes them altruistic or not.
Are you saying that an egalitarian attitude is a precursor to altruism? Consider the economic benefits that accrue from increases in cooperative/group behavior.
Haha. I can't - why do you think I'm philosophizing?
So, an impure appearance is a statement whose meaning is not clear (when compared to the dictionary definitions, due to common usage) whereas a pure appearance results from using literal meanings only?

BTW I've always wondered what the difference is between a literal mening and a "real" meaning.

Cheers, John