>At 07:53 PM 9/16/00 -0400, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
>>Kelley wrote:
>>
>>>The ``utility function'' Linux hackers are maximizing is not
>>>classically economic, but is the intangible of their own ego
>>>satisfaction and reputation among other hackers. (One may call
>>>their motivation ``altruistic'', but this ignores the fact that
>>>altruism is itself a form of ego satisfaction for the altruist).
>>>Voluntary cultures that work this way are not actually uncommon;
>>>one other in which I have long participated is science fiction
>>>fandom, which unlike hackerdom has long explicitly recognized
>>>``egoboo'' (ego-boosting, or the enhancement of one's reputation
>>>among other fans) as the basic drive behind volunteer activity.
>>
>>Critiques of professions are necessary, but the debunking of
>>motives isn't the best route toward such critiques. Kenneth Burke
>>wrote:
>
>was hoping you'd see how esr, the author, is a modern day adam smith
>and new managerial alfred chandler! the visible hand of noble and
>good mgmt will correct and market generated imperfections or will
>check the erruption of public vices (rather than virtues) as each
>individual pursues their own privates vices. he offers a theory of
>human nature, of how it can be harnessed for the greater social good
>and how that harnessing requires good managers.
Yes, yes, capitalism & its ideologies really present tempting targets for the debunking of motives (its early master was Jeremy Bentham), but I'm not in favor of this genre of critique (especially if it becomes an endless enterprise), even when masters of this genre (such as Noam Chomsky) engage in it (attacks upon imperial hypocrisy only go so far, and besides, they are dangerous business in the era of humanitarian imperialism). A while ago, there was a little discussion of B. F. Skinner, with Bill Fancher & Jim Farmelant defending him & others criticizing him. I didn't get around to discussing the question in detail, but I believe Skinner's avoidance of "mentalism" was essentially helpful (besides more humane than Kantian-Chomskian humanism, which is the point made by Skinner), even though the avoidance had its own pitfalls.
Suppose, for the sake of an argument, that there is something like an "ego" (or the "unconscious," or the "inner man," or whatnot), and this "ego" seeks satisfaction even in apparently & effectively "altruistic" behaviors. So? If that's what an "ego" does, everywhere, at any moment, there is no point in saying so, is there?
Yoshie
P.S. Between Skinner and Chomsky, there stands Wittgenstein:
***** "An attitude towards a soul"
- Camilla Kronqvist
With the remark "My attitude towards him is an attitude towards a soul. I am not of the opinion that he has a soul." (PI p. 178), Wittgenstein is responding to a specific philosophical discussion and the way it presents our relationship with other human beings. The tradition he is mainly turning against is the Cartesian tradition which regards human beings as consisting of two parts, a material body and an immaterial mind or soul. Of these two, the mind is seen as the real person while the body is seen as a mere automaton, that does not grant that the other bodies I see around me also have souls and thereby are persons....
<http://www.abo.fi/~ckronqvi/soul.htm> *****