Does the inability to answer the egoist mean that _we_ have no reason to care about one another, those of us who are not egoist? Of course not: our feeling for each other is a reason to act on it. I really suspect that this is the best we can do. I do not regard the egoist's challenge as very important because there are few if any real egoists. --jks
-------------
You're right. I read this answer, and then forgot it. Why? There were a lot posts and this response came up early on the list. But there is another reason.
Your response didn't have that hard ass, in you're face quality that I was looking for. After all you concede the point, there is no answer. I wanted something that would match the callous self-interest in the original question, why care, with an equally callous answer.
The harshness of Rousseau's answer was exactly the kind of obnoxious retort I was looking for, and was lucky to find. It poses the answer back in terms that the question was issued and is a reciprocity of callousness.
Now I think the reason for Rousseau's ability to come up with that kind of response is also interesting. The egotism of the why-care-and-we-are-individuals-of-importance crowd was readily available to Rousseau, through the immediate presence of an extremely arrogant nobility, monarchy and bourgeoisie. He had to live with this crap in his face, and he knew how to goad them back.
Chuck Grimes