> unreasonably wide definition by most people's standard? Yes - words meanings are defined by how people use them, after all. Let's say you help a friend and

> unreasonably wide definition by most people's standard? Yes - words meanings are defined by how people use them, after all. Let's say you help a friend and you both feel good about it, even though you sacrifice something of personal value in the process. That's a selfless act by most people's definition. Can you truly say that you did it solely for the kick you got out of it, regardless of his feelings about it? No, because you wouldn't feel that good about it if he wouldn't also feel good. On the other hand, if you just did it because you want to trick somebody into believing you care about their good (for example), then that's selfish, yes. Big difference, intention matters. Looking at it another way, one could construct a symmetrical argument for the nonexistence of selfishness, this time. Something along the lines of: the best possible course of action for ourselves, in the interest of preservation of life on the planet, is to look after our own person and interests. So really we're just being selfless when we're being selfish (Adam Smith: “Individual ambition serves the common good” - mentioned in the article). But this argument equally erases the boundary between the two opposite concepts. And that boundary is what makes words useful as you observed too. Without it our language and our conceptual framework become less rich. On the other hand I think it's good to observe this collapse of opposites, because it points to the limits of language and description. > I don't get what you're saying here. Please ignore that. It was just vacuous conjuncture on my part.