Bitter-sweet symphony.

Last session was interesting, because all of us know each other and yet it was a new kind of sitution for all of us. Debate was intensive at times and even though none of us students speak english like it'd be our mother language, most of the ideas got pretty well articulated and understood.

Psyhological egoism is an enduring trend. It makes some plausible claims over human beings minds structure. Plausibility holds until the arguments are taken seriously, viz. dissected philosophically. I’m not saying that egoism isn’t a driving force of human beings, I simply claim that psychological egoism is just too easy a solution to a problem where is no easy answers. I have prejudice towards all uncompromising solutions, of which I think psychological egoism is an excellent example. It doesn’t pay respect to worlds many dimensionsal and sometimes even contradictory character. Next I’ll approach this issue from societal viewpoint, and to be exact, critical social philosophys viewpoint.

Critical theory has its starting point in societys incorruptible examination. And while being incorruptible, it admits that it can’t be impartial or neutral. Standpoint is inevitable, but it must be articulated and explicated as well as it’s possible. I’ve been wondering from what viewpoints would psychological egoism be advantageous. Theories create reality as much as they describe it. And my – maybe far-fetched – idea is that people who are psychological egoists (or think that they and others are) are best citizens in capitalist society. Psyhological theory from this viewpoint is nothing but a justifier of selfish behaviour so that executive managers and other Very Important Persons can sleep their nights with clear conscience. Because if everyone is selfish in nature, one doesn’t have to contemplate if his/her actions are justified or wrongful. They are mere manifestation of human essence. And in addition when morally judgemental monkey’s off capitalsts back, he can announce his victory over those who are feeble and therefore bitter. Bitterness doesn’t come from unfair treatment that feeble get, it comes from their incapability to execute their own egocentric plans.

Here psychological egoism is seen as a theory that is made for some purpose. Or maybe that’s not the point. The interesting thing is that this trend is very popular even though I can’t even imagine how psychological egoism could be proven or even reasonably approached. And quite frankly, I have difficulties in seeing why his theory would be acquired if there wasn’t need for clearer conscience..

Is my critic biased and one-sided? It most certaily is, and I want to come forward with it. But I merely tried to shed light on this issue from a standpoint that feels the most of my own. And from a standpoint that is not always remembered in our modern, consumeristic society.

And another blog's in the internet.