I know exactly what you mean. I'm responding to Robbie's "subversion" argument. Words have specific meanings, but when the concept is philosophical or scientific, the meanings somewhat change. Her philosophy was new. She chose words to describe her concepts. "selfishness" is an important concept. Instead of subverting it, she gave it its meaning back

Herb; "You might consider the loss of certain persons sad, but is it?" No, I don't see it as sad. It's just the natural progression of things--some learn and grow, some don't.

You've done your own nailing it.

How much Rand have you read?

People often "sacrifice" one thing for another. But if the trade off creates positive value then overall, it is not a sacrifice.

Exactly. But that is not sacrifice.
It's like the times I would keep my store open on a holiday so that I could use the extra money to send the boys to summer camp. It's actually a form of payment to yourself.

So then you do not think the proper terminology is being used in the "pure" wikipedia definition of, "altruism?"

The crux of the matter is sacrifice. If we take the definition of altruism as "unselfish concern for the welfare of others" and delete the word "unselfish" we get "concern for the welfare of others" which closely approximates both your, mine, and A.R. 's OK list. That works, so long as the "others" are not defined. If we start talking about who or what the others are we will get mired in a long list of who deserves our concern. If we get into the "unselfish" part, then we get stuck in that tar-pit of sacrifice. Rand also gives an answer, I think in the Playboy interviews, in which she does justify unselfish concern for loved ones -- but I'd have to scrounge to find the quote on that. Robbie, I don't think our disagreement is actually a disagreement. More like a clarification of definitions. In any case, we might have a discussion on definitions at some future time. So many arguments are based on incorrectly or vaguely defined things that create much misunderstandings.

So just to be clear, the basic definition for words like, “altruism” should include the motivation for everyone even if it is different for each individual and still debatable?

Why should the basic definition include everyone's motivation as if it is from a collective mind? This is a moral debate. Do we do the things we do because afterwards we will feel good, or we will have a better chance to get to heaven, or we will make new friends, or we will get some other gain? What really motivates us? Is what motivates you, motivate me, or everyone else?

I'm damn tired of any reference to race. The concept of race is artificial. With rare exceptions we look like our biological parents and that's it. It is not skin color or hair texture or any other physioligical feature that separates or joins individuals; rather it is the values we hold. I look much more like Bill Clinton than I do either Walter Williams ar Thomas Sowell--but that's where any similaity with Slick Willie ends. I have much more in common with Drs. Williams and Sowell.

All I was saying is that I am fully aware I may not know the definition of every word in our English language. This is particularly true when the progressive movement purposely bastardized the language by creating new meanings for words we all think we understand. This may be why news commentators now find the need to tell us what the President or Senate majority leader really said.

AR got the definition and concept she uses from Auguste Comte, who originally invented the term.

This down to the bone definition is also on Wikipedia under "altruism",
"Pure altruism consists of sacrificing something for someone other than the self (e.g. sacrificing time, energy or possessions) with no expectation of any compensation or benefits, either direct, or indirect (e.g., receiving recognition for the act of giving)."

AR considered this type of negative trade evil.

She did not subvert other philosophies. What nonsence.

hear, hear!

You are probably correct. I most likely have an ill conceived definition of the word due to over exposure to progressive news media. Thank you for the thoughtful correction.