Mike is reiterating one very sound criticism of that malignant 19th century European philosophical thought. Whoever read, or even studied it, defined it in ways they wanted to, in ways perhaps beneficial to themselves.

So you can understand why Wittengenstein, later in the 20th century would say "What do you mean by that". He thought a lot of philosophy was meaningless because the language of it became meaningless.

I meant "self-actualize"

"the achievement of one's full potential through creativity, independence, spontaneity, and a grasp of the real world."

From Dictionary.com

"

When I read it, Mike, it was very long ago.

Shakespeare said it best: "To thine own self be true; and it must follow as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man.

But I meant to imply that the altruist is, in effect, hurting others, (by giving them "things") instead of helping them. So altruism isn't good for the "givee" any more than it is good for the "giver".

Rand also said, "I will sacrifice my life for no man; nor will I allow another to sacrifice his life for me." In other words, no one is responsible for the life of another; HE is the only one responsible for his life.

"A Man Said To The Universe" Stephen Crane:

A man said to the Universe: "Sir, I exist".
"That", replied the Universe, "does not create in me an obligation for your existence."

In other words, to fully self-actuate, a man must take responsibility for himself. No other person can do it for him.

I doubt that even when "they" engage in altruism, "they" are not aware that "they" are hurting those "they" purport to help.

Just wanted you to know, Mike, that I am still working on this comment of yours, thinking on't, so to speak.

I think you are saying art is incontrovertibly entwined with the cultural and political happenings of the times. I certainly have no quarrel with that. But art is first and foremost an indicator of man's need to express himself; and of course that would also reflect the particular time in which the artist lives.

We are probably more in agreement, than not.

Borders, whether substantive or imaginary, are man's means of determining "where you end and I begin" for either the individual or society. The distinction between the "I" and the "Thou". The Left wants to make that distinction no longer relevant, so they continually harp on "building the wall" and the economics thereof, and that it is not an "American value" to keep immigrants at bay.
I did want to say this in regards to the Eskimo's "sense of property". Driftwood apparently must be either "mine" or "yours", but not both; but wives are to be shared with strangers. Just saying.

I don't get into "art" that much.

In fact, when I was going for my degree in math, I was told I needed 6 credits of Humanities. (I had 200 college credits, but nothing in Humanities.)

I could take Art Appreciation, Music Appreciation or Acting as qualifying credits. I took Acting.