|
 MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
  
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
 Altruism
#9756520 - 02/07/09 06:26 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Why do you think that some people are decided to believe it exists, or why do you think it is real?
Personally, I think it has its roots in our need to feel loved and important. When this need, which I think is present in all of us more or less, is mixed with feelings of confusion and personal insecurity, people tend to believe, as a misunderstood measure of self-protection, that there's actually someone else besides them on this planet that could care so much about them that they are able to do acts from which they get absolutely no reward (be it psychological or material). Wishful and potentially dangerous thinking, because one might end up holding such irrational and unreal expectations about the world, that one might end up having their perception of the world crushed and their minds in terror, or even inflict pain on others, when severely confronted with reality.
Of course, I have this impression based on the fact that in my early teens I used to believe that altruism was real, along with believing in other self-destructive crap, and after a deep and honest analysis of myself made by me, I realized that these were the reasons I was holding such ridiculous beliefs. 
I'm more than interested in hearing other's opinions, both believers and non-believers. 
--------------------
    
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
 deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
|
I think parents can certainly be altruistic for their children, or lovers for one another, or even (at a lesser level) friends for each other.
I also think people can be incredibly selfish in their interactions, and that this in no way invalidates their altruistic motivations at other times.
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
  
|
daytripper23
?
Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc: 
|
 Re: Altruism [Re: deCypher]
#9756628 - 02/07/09 06:48 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
Re: Altruism [Re: deCypher]
#9758828 - 02/08/09 02:46 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
I think parents can certainly be altruistic for their children, or lovers for one another, or even (at a lesser level) friends for each other.
I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you're confusing having one's best intentions regarding someone else, with altruism.
I completely agree that one's love for another can be so strong that it makes them think about the best ways in which they can help and bring happiness into their lives, but why does it have to mean that these doers of good will get absolutely no emotional reward as a result of doing that?
Are you thinking that in such situations, the parents don't have a feeling of accomplishment and happiness because they're helping their kids or giving them the best education they can think of? 
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
Bernackums
The universe will have its way.
Registered: 08/06/07
Posts: 865
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
|
|
Conversations on altruism seem to continually fall into semantical discussions about whether emotional rewards are a reward in themselves. I think they certainly do, and once we consider this I think it is impossible for altruism to exist in a human.
But the word altruism has alot more practicality if we remove emotional rewards from the equation (since they are always present because we are always doing things for ourselves), and in doing so we have made altruism a much more common act and not the precipice of good intentions that it once was.
I'm mostly just playing with the word altruism, but I also don't find it very useful for a human to believe altruism exists. It has no place in this world of self-interest, and seem like a rediculous ideal that some people hold themselves to (and as a result it may cause themselves suffering).
This doesn't satisfy me though, I have no set stance on the matter.
--------------------
Let's get the fuck out of here.
|
zen buddy
not a buddhist
Registered: 01/22/09
Posts: 704
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Why do you think that some people are decided to believe it exists, or why do you think it is real?
Personally, I think it has its roots in our need to feel loved and important. When this need, which I think is present in all of us more or less, is mixed with feelings of confusion and personal insecurity, people tend to believe, as a misunderstood measure of self-protection, that there's actually someone else besides them on this planet that could care so much about them that they are able to do acts from which they get absolutely no reward (be it psychological or material). Wishful and potentially dangerous thinking, because one might end up holding such irrational and unreal expectations about the world, that one might end up having their perception of the world crushed and their minds in terror, or even inflict pain on others, when severely confronted with reality.
Of course, I have this impression based on the fact that in my early teens I used to believe that altruism was real, along with believing in other self-destructive crap, and after a deep and honest analysis of myself made by me, I realized that these were the reasons I was holding such ridiculous beliefs.
I'm more than interested in hearing other's opinions, both believers and non-believers.
I go out of my way to help others and I live my life in such a way that I know will benefit others even if only for the reward of feeling good. Does that answer your question?
I definitely don't believe that doing good things for others means that I expect they will do the same for me. I might take the time to enlighten them to the idea that they would feel better if they were not so selfish but I love and accept them regardless. There is no reason for me to make someone's life any more miserable than it already is. If I have an impact on someone's life I want it to be a good thing and I am constantly aware of my effect on others.
I think that living a life in a way that you are not concerned for the welfare of others is far more self-destructive than misunderstanding the word 'altruism'. Personally I choose not to use the word altruism while communicating my beliefs.
I will go out of my way for you even if the only reward is that I will feel good about it and I believe it would be good if you do the same.:)
|
Kukaracha
Cat wannabe
Registered: 12/18/08
Posts: 1,554
Loc: France
Last seen: 21 days, 22 hours
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Are you thinking that in such situations, the parents don't have a feeling of accomplishment and happiness because they're helping their kids or giving them the best education they can think of?
Does any form of "altruism" in your opinion aim for such rewards?
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
|
Quote:
Kukaracha said:
Does any form of "altruism" in your opinion aim for such rewards?
Such rewards as in only emotional?
Like I already said, in my opinion, there's always something we get out of helping someone, even if it is feeling good about what we did.
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
deranger
Registered: 01/21/08
Posts: 6,840
Loc: off the wall
|
|
Sure, but we don't always perform such deeds with the intent of helping ourselves first and foremost.
altruism: intention to help another because of an empathetic connection and sympathy for their state of being and needs. thinking about helping them first and foremost before yourself.
egoism: intention to help another for the result of feeling good about it.
Though this isn't to say that altruism is a completely unselfish behavior, it's just more so than egoism.
|
Bernackums
The universe will have its way.
Registered: 08/06/07
Posts: 865
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
|
Re: Altruism [Re: deranger]
#9760590 - 02/08/09 01:18 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Slinging definitions? This sure hasn't boiled down to another semantics arguement has it?
--------------------
Let's get the fuck out of here.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Are you thinking that in such situations, the parents don't have a feeling of accomplishment and happiness because they're helping their kids or giving them the best education they can think of?
Suppose a mother sacrifices herself for her child. She certainly won't be feeling anything after her death, let alone accomplishment and happiness.
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Bernackums
The universe will have its way.
Registered: 08/06/07
Posts: 865
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
|
Re: Altruism [Re: deCypher]
#9760749 - 02/08/09 01:52 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Are you thinking that in such situations, the parents don't have a feeling of accomplishment and happiness because they're helping their kids or giving them the best education they can think of?
Suppose a mother sacrifices herself for her child. She certainly won't be feeling anything after her death, let alone accomplishment and happiness.
Perhaps she only did out of the fear of losing the child, concerned more for the effect it has on herself rather than because she was being empathetic of the child. Our bodies make sure we care about our offspring, losing one would be very painful and we don't need to experience this to know it.
--------------------
Let's get the fuck out of here.
Edited by Bernackums (02/08/09 01:52 PM)
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
Re: Altruism [Re: deCypher]
#9760750 - 02/08/09 01:52 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
No, but she will feel it before.
Does the reward necessarily have to come after the deed is done? 
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
Kukaracha
Cat wannabe
Registered: 12/18/08
Posts: 1,554
Loc: France
Last seen: 21 days, 22 hours
|
|
What I was trying to say is that having some emotional reward to an altruistic behaviour does not necessarily means altruism does not exist.
Teaching someone for example, might give you a feeling of superiority; but do you always teach people (such as kids) only to get that feeling?
The example is crappy but I hope you get what I mean.
Edited by Kukaracha (02/09/09 09:06 AM)
|
Bernackums
The universe will have its way.
Registered: 08/06/07
Posts: 865
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
|
|
I would teach kids to get money and in turn make myself happy. Or maybe we need to teach kids because the world is ending and only they can save us with their tiny hands, either way I'll find some reason that I need to teach the kids, and teach them because I want to accomplish what I've set to.
-
Say a child and I are trapped and there is very little food left. I am a withering old man as it is, so I feel that the food should be given to the young because I have already lived, and this wee one has barely experienced this life at all. I give him the food, and even though I go hungry I feel the satisfaction of doing what I have convinced myself is right.
Was this altruism? Even I, the old withering man who will now surely die, do not think so. The child living longer was the principal of the act but not the reason for the act itself. Mathematically speaking, the food went to better use by being eaten by the child, since I am nearing death regardless. This calculation leaves me with what I feel to be right, and thus this was an act of righteousness that left me feeling good. Speaking without morality though, I would have been much more satisfied by simply eating the child. 
Now here is what I'm getting at: if we were to eliminate the emotional reward from the equation then yes, this would be apparent altruism (dying man gives last food to child), and I feel if this is the case then altruism does exist. In fact, if this is the case then we witness altruism all over the place every day. Altruism loses it's holy place as "the ultimate good deed, say thankya". As a result I think emotional rewards need to be considered.
The definition of altruism keeps falling apart in front of me, and I'm coming to feel it is more of an inevitable result of the human mind assuming there is an extreme for the natural dichotomy of good and evil.
--------------------
Let's get the fuck out of here.
Edited by Bernackums (02/08/09 05:22 PM)
|
lIllIIIllIlIIlIlIIllIllIIl
Stranger
Registered: 12/16/04
Posts: 11,123
Loc: Texas
|
|
I think it's easy for you to say that, considering you are in a good position. I don't know too much about you but I do know you are a professional, and you are in no danger of starving and you have a computer with internet. So yeah, you are in a good position to be making those statements.
My own view happens to coincide with yours.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
|
Obviously you're not going to be able to find clearly defined cases where an action is either entirely selfless or entirely self-serving. In this sense I would define any action to be altruistic when it is done more for selfless reasons than by selfish ones; more a matter of degree than a black-or-white thing.
In this sense, I still think altruism exists, but mostly towards people you already love or have feelings for (be it (be it genetic, sexual, or even social). The altruistic action to a total stranger is rare indeed as compared to ripping him off.
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Lakefingers
Registered: 08/26/05
Posts: 5,660
Loc: mumuland
Last seen: 4 months, 30 days
|
Re: Altruism [Re: deCypher]
#9763953 - 02/08/09 11:44 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
it seems nietzsche accurately described the motivation
behind much christian altruism: passive-aggression,
hatred repressed by impotence, justifying actions to
ease mental dissonance
this doesn't cover all altruism discussed here, about
which i'm indecisive. if there are truly altruistic
acts that seems like a good thing. although, i haven't
seen one IRL
|
Silversoul
Holon
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 22,562
Loc: Mostly harmless
|
|
Is wanting to do the right thing considered altruistic? I often hear altruism discussed as if it's only legitimate if there is no motive behind it.
--------------------
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
|
Quote:
Teaching someone for example, might give you a feeling of superiotity; but do you always teach people (such as kids) only to get that feeling.
I don't quite get what you're trying to say here.
Are you saying that, if the parents aren't teaching their kids about getting an emotional reward, then the act is altruist? 
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
|
Quote:
adjust said:
I think it's easy for you to say that, considering you are in a good position. I don't know too much about you but I do know you are a professional, and you are in no danger of starving and you have a computer with internet. So yeah, you are in a good position to be making those statements.
How does the social status or personal belongings influence one's beliefs in altruism? I see absolutely no relation between those two, and, by following your logic, it means that when I was younger and believed in altruism, I was starving.
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
Re: Altruism [Re: deCypher]
#9764434 - 02/09/09 03:49 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
Obviously you're not going to be able to find clearly defined cases where an action is either entirely selfless or entirely self-serving. In this sense I would define any action to be altruistic when it is done more for selfless reasons than by selfish ones; more a matter of degree than a black-or-white thing.
But this only means that you're re-fining the term altruism.
I agree that there are acts that ae leaning more towards selfish or selfless, but this is not the altruism people are referring to.
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
|
Quote:
Silversoul said:
Is wanting to do the right thing considered altruistic? I often hear altruism discussed as if it's only legitimate if there is no motive behind it.
Quote:
al⋅tru⋅ism
/ˈæltruˌɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [al-troo-iz-uhm] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others (opposed to egoism ).
2. Animal Behavior. behavior by an animal that may be to its disadvantage but that benefits others of its kind, as a warning cry that reveals the location of the caller to a predator.
How can something that has at least a degree of selfishness be opposed to egoism? The reason why you hear altruism being discussed in terms in which there's no motive behind, it is because this is its definition. 
However, each example of reality is pointing towards the fact that all acts seem to be done from the self, with personal motives, so how does that fit the provided definition of altruism?
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
"Why do you think that some people are decided to believe it exists, or why do you think it is real?"
How isn't altruism real? Do you mean to ask instead, "Why do some people choose to live altruistic lives?"
"Personally, I think it has its roots in our need to feel loved and important. When this need, which I think is present in all of us more or less, is mixed with feelings of confusion and personal insecurity, people tend to believe, as a misunderstood measure of self-protection, that there's actually someone else besides them on this planet that could care so much about them that they are able to do acts from which they get absolutely no reward (be it psychological or material). Wishful and potentially dangerous thinking, because one might end up holding such irrational and unreal expectations about the world, that one might end up having their perception of the world crushed and their minds in terror, or even inflict pain on others, when severely confronted with reality."
When severely confronted with what reality?
If someone does something to "....feel loved and important", then by definition, they aren't being altruistic.
Is everything you do based on the belief you somehow will be rewarded?
"Of course, I have this impression based on the fact that in my early teens I used to believe that altruism was real, along with believing in other self-destructive crap, and after a deep and honest analysis of myself made by me, I realized that these were the reasons I was holding such ridiculous beliefs. "
So you "believed altruism was real", while at the same time "believing in self-destructive crap", and you say these things are the reasons you were holding such ridiculous beliefs? What ridiculous beliefs were you holding?
"I'm more than interested in hearing other's opinions, both believers and non-believers."
I still don't understand what you mean by this.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan   fireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Quote:
deCypher said:
I think parents can certainly be altruistic for their children, or lovers for one another, or even (at a lesser level) friends for each other.
I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you're confusing having one's best intentions regarding someone else, with altruism.
I completely agree that one's love for another can be so strong that it makes them think about the best ways in which they can help and bring happiness into their lives, but why does it have to mean that these doers of good will get absolutely no emotional reward as a result of doing that?
Are you thinking that in such situations, the parents don't have a feeling of accomplishment and happiness because they're helping their kids or giving them the best education they can think of?
So are you saying that the only reason one has children is to gain a sense of accomplishment?
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Quote:
adjust said:
I think it's easy for you to say that, considering you are in a good position. I don't know too much about you but I do know you are a professional, and you are in no danger of starving and you have a computer with internet. So yeah, you are in a good position to be making those statements.
How does the social status or personal belongings influence one's beliefs in altruism? I see absolutely no relation between those two, and, by following your logic, it means that when I was younger and believed in altruism, I was starving.
Why would it surprise you that social status and/or financial success could influence one's "belief", as you so call it, in altruism?
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Poid]
#9764494 - 02/09/09 04:17 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
How isn't altruism real? Do you mean to ask instead, "Why do some people choose to live altruistic lives?"
If it was in my intention to ask that, I would have asked that, but I didn't, did I?
Asking a plain question such as "how isn't altruism real", followed by no explanation as to why altruism is real, is, in my opinion, a total waste of time and completely pointless.
Quote:
When severely confronted with what reality?
With the only reality there is: this one, that we're all experiencing.
Quote:
If someone does something to "....feel loved and important", then by definition, they aren't being altruistic.
Exactly. 
Quote:
Is everything you do based on the belief you somehow will be rewarded?
I thought I explained my views and experience in my first post.
When I am helping someone, I hold no expectations and beliefs they they will eventually pay me back (except for the cases where there was a mutual agreement between me and the person I'm helping), but I still get the emotional reward which consists of me feeling good as a result of helping them.
Quote:
So you "believed altruism was real", while at the same time "believing in self-destructive crap", and you say these things are the reasons you were holding such ridiculous beliefs? What ridiculous beliefs were you holding?
Listen, I already specifically explained what ridiculous beliefs I was holding, it is right there in my first post. Let's not turn this into a stupid discussion where the only question you're asking, in one form or another, is "what did you say?"
Quote:
I still don't understand what you mean by this.
Well then, maybe some comprehension classes are required.
Quote:
So are you saying that the only reason one has children is to gain a sense of accomplishment?
I never made such a statement, but as a matter of fact yes, I do believe that people want to have kids for selfish reasons.
Quote:
Why would it surprise you that social status and/or financial success could influence one's "belief", as you so call it, in altruism?
I am well aware of the fact that social status can influence one's beliefs, but this doesn't mean that a set of beliefs corresponds to a certain social position, and that we're destined to follow those beliefs as long as we belong to a particular social status.
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
"If it was in my intention to ask that, I would have asked that, but I didn't, did I?
Asking a plain question such as "how isn't altruism real", followed by no explanation as to why altruism is real, is, in my opinion, a total waste of time and completely pointless."
I am trying to understand what your intentions are, how am I supposed to know? I am asking you, "How isn't altruism real?" because I want to hear your answer; it's not a waste of my time to wait for your answer, and it's not pointless to me.
"With the only reality there is: this one, that we're all experiencing."
You answered my question with a similar statement to which my question was asked.
You're asserting we all experience reality in exactly the same way? Explain, then, how this reality relates to altruism.
"Exactly. "
But you're saying the root of altruism is the need to feel loved and important, when by definition, it's not. The need to feel loved and important bears fruits other than altruism.
"I thought I explained my views and experience in my first post.
When I am helping someone, I hold no expectations and beliefs they they will eventually pay me back (except for the cases where there was a mutual agreement between me and the person I'm helping), but I still get the emotional reward which consists of me feeling good as a result of helping them."
Apparently not clearly enough.
If feeling good after helping someone has become a pattern in your life, then don't you think it's become an expectation as well? Do you always feel good as a result of helping others?
"Listen, I already specifically explained what ridiculous beliefs I was holding, it is right there in my first post. Let's not turn this into a stupid discussion where the only question you're asking, in one form or another, is "what did you say?""
You weren't specific at all, or else I wouldn't be asking you this question. You explained that you think altruism is ridiculous, but you have yet to explain exactly why.
"Well then, maybe some comprehension classes are required. "
Is this a personalism?
"I never made such a statement, but as a matter of fact yes, I do believe that people want to have kids for selfish reasons."
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you're confusing having one's best intentions regarding someone else, with altruism.
I completely agree that one's love for another can be so strong that it makes them think about the best ways in which they can help and bring happiness into their lives, but why does it have to mean that these doers of good will get absolutely no emotional reward as a result of doing that?
Are you thinking that in such situations, the parents don't have a feeling of accomplishment and happiness because they're helping their kids or giving them the best education they can think of?
This quote shows that you opine that parents usually have children in order to obtain a sense of accomplishment.
How common (or uncommon) do you think that people have children for unselfish reasons?
"I am well aware of the fact that social status can influence one's beliefs, but this doesn't mean that a set of beliefs corresponds to a certain social position, and that we're destined to follow those beliefs as long as we belong to a particular social status."
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
How does the social status or personal belongings influence one's beliefs in altruism?
You weren't so well aware of this less than an hour ago!
"...but this doesn't mean that a set of beliefs corresponds to a certain social position, and that we're destined to follow those beliefs as long as we belong to a particular social status."
That's the point I'm making here. 
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Poid]
#9764536 - 02/09/09 04:46 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
You're asserting we all experience reality in exactly the same way? Explain, then, how this reality relates to altruism.
I didn't say what our perception of reality is the same; however, reality IS only one, even if our understanding of it differs.
Quote:
But you're saying the root of altruism is the need to feel loved and important, when by definition, it's not. The need to feel loved and important bears fruits other than altruism.
You're not paying attention to what I am saying.
I said that, in my opinion, belief in altruism has its roots in our need to feel to feel loved and important, mixed with feelings of insecurity.
Quote:
If feeling good after helping someone has become a pattern in your life, then don't you think it's become an expectation as well? Do you always feel good as a result of helping others?
It is an expectation from myself, and since I am in control of myself, I am able to make sure that I am getting what I want (the emotional reward I keep mentioning). I don't see any reason in doing something that doesn't make me feel good.
Quote:
You weren't specific at all, or else I wouldn't be asking you this question. You explained that you think altruism is ridiculous, but you have yet to explain exactly why.
Yes I did. The explanation was right here, in my first post:
Quote:
Wishful and potentially dangerous thinking, because one might end up holding such irrational and unreal expectations about the world, that one might end up having their perception of the world crushed and their minds in terror, or even inflict pain on others, when severely confronted with reality.
Quote:
Is this a personalism?
No, it was a suggestion to you saying that you don't understand my words.
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
daytripper23
?
Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc:
|
Re: Altruism [Re: deCypher]
#9764544 - 02/09/09 04:49 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
Obviously you're not going to be able to find clearly defined cases where an action is either entirely selfless or entirely self-serving.
I agree. Did anybody watch the video I posted? Ill summarize:
-We have a concept of "the individual", or the "self", referred to as "I", "me".
-We also have a concept of the group, referred to as "we", or "us".
These are all in quotations because they are just words. They are not descriptions of "reality as it is". There is no "real self", and there is no "real group". These are habitations of the mind. I put them in quotes because they are at most, concepts. Just because it is possible call the world one thing, and the world fits, doesn't mean that the world reflects this. All that has been done, is reality has been effectively named. In terms of this argument, it isn't Susie or John, it is either "I" or "we". Think of it this way, either perspective is only as meaningful as your first and last names; your individual and your group/family. These are symbols and representation of reality, or reality as we refer to it.
A biological understanding seems to back this up: The actions of the "species" can always be considered in terms of the "individual" organism. But just the same, the acts of the individual organism are can be considered in terms of the species. Saying that individual is more important than species or vice versa, is ridiculous. So again, my point is that either of these supposed inclinations are in the end really only dependent upon context.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
"I didn't say what our perception of reality is the same; however, reality IS only one, even if our understanding of it differs."
And I'm asking you, "What is your understanding of reality?".
"You're not paying attention to what I am saying.
I said that, in my opinion, belief in altruism has its roots in our need to feel to feel loved and important, mixed with feelings of insecurity."
Ah, so the mere belief in altruism is rooted from our need to feel loved and important. So what about a truly altruistic person? What are his/her roots?
It is an expectation from myself, and since I am in control of myself, I am able to make sure that I am getting what I want (the emotional reward I keep mentioning). I don't see any reason in doing something that doesn't make me feel good."
I suppose you also believe that there's no reason to do something that doesn't make you feel anything.
"Yes I did. The explanation was right here, in my first post:"
Quote:
...unreal expectations about the world...
...perception of the world crushed...
...perception of the world crushed...
All this about the world, from where does it come?
Do you believe the need to feel loved and important is ridiculous?
"No, it was a suggestion to you saying that you don't understand my words."
Do you actually believe that I need "comprehension classes" in order to understand you?
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Poid]
#9764582 - 02/09/09 05:19 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Ah, so the mere belief in altruism is rooted from our need to feel loved and important. So what about a truly altruistic person? What are his/her roots?
There's absolutely no evidence that shows there are any altruistic persons out there.
Unless you are willing to show any evidence that sustains your view, this discussion is going nowhere and we're just going to agree or disagree.
Quote:
I suppose you also believe that there's no reason to do something that doesn't make you feel anything.
Give me one example where one individual can do something with absolutely no though or feeling as a result of it.
Quote:
Do you believe the need to feel loved and important is ridiculous?
No, but I do think that this need can exacerbate to such a degree that it becomes ridiculous and hurtful for the individual. If we know how to intelligently (i.e. in a way that fits our best interests and is less harmful for the self and those around us) satisfy those needs and Quote:
understand
them, then these needs won't have the chance to become an obsession that clouds our judgment. In my opinion, when one believes that there's someone else who's willing to sacrifice for them without getting any benefit at all, it means that they are engaging themselves in delusional thinking, since there's nobody that fits the description. The same thing goes for someone deluding themselves into thinking that they are helping someone without getting absolutely nothing in return. The potential of developing some sort of Messianic Complex or victim-like mentality is very big, for people holding such beliefs.
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
Kukaracha
Cat wannabe
Registered: 12/18/08
Posts: 1,554
Loc: France
Last seen: 21 days, 22 hours
|
|
Well, altruism and egoism are a matter of proportions. Pure selfishness is rare too. We could argue about selfishness the same way we argue about altruism.
What I was trying to say, is that the example you give does not prove that there is no altruism; it justs proves that an altruistic attitude has some kind of reward.
I tend to agree with Nietzsche but I don't think there is a way to prove that altruism doesn't exist.
|
lIllIIIllIlIIlIlIIllIllIIl
Stranger
Registered: 12/16/04
Posts: 11,123
Loc: Texas
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
I see absolutely no relation between those two, and, by following your logic, it means that when I was younger and believed in altruism, I was starving.
That is a very strong statement to make. What you've said is that I am wrong in the absolute sense.
I find it slightly amusing that you always pick out certain things in my replies.
I think that you search for reasons to justify your own comfortable existence when you could be using your resources to help those that need it. You try to make out as if this is somehow normal, which it is actually, but you come off as being defensive whenever I mention anything like spending money on pets instead of helping humans who need it, or that you conveniently feel there is no altruism or no need for it in our world, when you yourself enjoy great abundance of wealth and resources.
I'm exactly the same way though. Fuck em!
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
|
Quote:
I find it slightly amusing that you always pick out certain things in my replies.
You only made one statement, to which I replied. Which of your other zero statements did I ignore? 
Quote:
I think that you search for reasons to justify your own comfortable existence when you could be using your resources to help those that need it. You try to make out as if this is somehow normal, which it is actually, but you come off as being defensive whenever I mention anything like spending money on pets instead of helping humans who need it, or that you conveniently feel there is no altruism or no need for it in our world, when you yourself enjoy great abundance of wealth and resources.
Defensive? This is nothing more than your own perception, based on nothing since it isn't true. If you are unable to separate the person from their ideas, then this discussion is doomed to failure. You don't know if I want to help people or not, or how many I had helped, and it is not the objective of the discussion. All I was saying is that I prefer not to bullshit myself with the ides that I'm helping someone without getting anything out of it, even if it is a psychological reward such as feeling good about what I did.
Also, the reason why I argue against you saying that it makes more sense to feed starving people than having pets, is not because I am defensive but because it really doesn't make any sense, since there's nothing to lead me to believing that a human life should be more valued that other life.
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
Lakefingers
Registered: 08/26/05
Posts: 5,660
Loc: mumuland
Last seen: 4 months, 30 days
|
|
yeah, like, when did a starving african ever wag its tail when you came home?
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
|
Don't you think it's a tad cruel to say they have tails, just because they're less-fortunate? 
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
Lakefingers
Registered: 08/26/05
Posts: 5,660
Loc: mumuland
Last seen: 4 months, 30 days
|
|
indeed, i'm definitely not sending them money now
wouldn't an instance of altruism be voting for mccain when you're a democrat? that is supporting the survival of something else instead of yourself?
|
Silversoul
Holon
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 22,562
Loc: Mostly harmless
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Quote:
Silversoul said:
Is wanting to do the right thing considered altruistic? I often hear altruism discussed as if it's only legitimate if there is no motive behind it.
Quote:
al⋅tru⋅ism
/ˈæltruˌɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [al-troo-iz-uhm] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others (opposed to egoism ).
2. Animal Behavior. behavior by an animal that may be to its disadvantage but that benefits others of its kind, as a warning cry that reveals the location of the caller to a predator.
How can something that has at least a degree of selfishness be opposed to egoism? The reason why you hear altruism being discussed in terms in which there's no motive behind, it is because this is its definition.
However, each example of reality is pointing towards the fact that all acts seem to be done from the self, with personal motives, so how does that fit the provided definition of altruism?
Unselfish does not mean unemotional. I think the confusion comes when people conflate internal with external rewards. It is unselfish when you do something without expecting any reward in return. The desire to do good is not an external reward, and thus is not sufficient to disqualify an act as altruistic.
--------------------
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Also, the reason why I argue against you saying that it makes more sense to feed starving people than having pets, is not because I am defensive but because it really doesn't make any sense, since there's nothing to lead me to believing that a human life should be more valued that other life.
Really? So, is this true for all the hostile bacterias and prokaryotes that your immune system is murdering all the time too? Are their lives worth the same as your life? Then why don't you just let all the hostile bacterias murder you, instead of letting your immune system murder them?
--------------------
|
deranger
Registered: 01/21/08
Posts: 6,840
Loc: off the wall
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Quote:
deCypher said:
Obviously you're not going to be able to find clearly defined cases where an action is either entirely selfless or entirely self-serving. In this sense I would define any action to be altruistic when it is done more for selfless reasons than by selfish ones; more a matter of degree than a black-or-white thing.
But this only means that you're re-fining the term altruism.
I agree that there are acts that ae leaning more towards selfish or selfless, but this is not the altruism people are referring to.
self⋅less
/ˈsɛlflɪs/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [self-lis] Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
having little or no concern for oneself, esp. with regard to fame, position, money, etc.; unselfish.
Altruism doesn't have to be based on complete selflessness.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
|
Quote:
Kukaracha said:
I tend to agree with Nietzsche but I don't think there is a way to prove that altruism doesn't exist.
Well, altruism in animals is a proven fact. Many species have members that will let themselves die, if it increases the likelihood for their group to survive. Bees and ants are nice examples. Humans dying for their countries in wars is another example of altruism.
Altruism in animals
--------------------
Edited by Zanthius (02/09/09 11:28 AM)
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Zanthius]
#9765531 - 02/09/09 11:26 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Really? So, is this true for all the hostile bacterias and prokaryotes that your immune system is murdering all the time too? Are their lives worth the same as your life? Then why don't you just let all the hostile bacterias murder you, instead of letting your immune system murder them?
Value is purely subjective and at the decision of the individual; this is the reason why I said it's dumb to say that it makes more sense to feed starving kids than "wasting" your money on pets. While for him something like that would make sense, for someone else it doesn't, and it most definitely isn't "the right thing to do".
In the same manner, I am free to choose if I want to let a bacteria to live or not. It wouldn't serve my interests to let those harmful bacteria to live, while I am all for beneficial bacteria: they help me and I help them.
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Zanthius]
#9765537 - 02/09/09 11:29 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Quote:
Kukaracha said:
I tend to agree with Nietzsche but I don't think there is a way to prove that altruism doesn't exist.
Well, altruism in animals is a proven fact. Many species have members that will let themselves die, if it increases the likelihood for their group to survive. Bees and ants are nice examples. Humans dieing for their countries in wars is another example of altruism.
In order to make this altruism in other animals (because we're animals too, you know ) seem credible, you will first have to come with some solid evidence that they don't get any emotional reward for their acts. 
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Really? So, is this true for all the hostile bacterias and prokaryotes that your immune system is murdering all the time too? Are their lives worth the same as your life? Then why don't you just let all the hostile bacterias murder you, instead of letting your immune system murder them?
Value is purely subjective and at the decision of the individual; this is the reason why I said it's dumb to say that it makes more sense to feed starving kids than "wasting" your money on pets. While for him something like that would make sense, for someone else it doesn't, and it most definitely isn't "the right thing to do".
In the same manner, I am free to choose if I want to let a bacteria to live or not. It wouldn't serve my interests to let those harmful bacteria to live, while I am all for beneficial bacteria: they help me and I help them.
Okay, but what makes your life worth more, than the life of a hostile bacteria?
I value life according to complexity, and according to how self-conscious the life form is.
When the life form is less self-conscious, it is less alive, and more like a machine. I don't think bacterias have much self-consciousness, and that reduces them to self-replicating machines.
--------------------
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
In order to make this altruism in other animals (because we're animals too, you know ) seem credible, you will first have to come with some solid evidence that they don't get any emotional reward for their acts.
I am talking about animals that are willing to die for their flocks. How can you get any emotional reward once you are dead?
--------------------
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
Re: Altruism [Re: deranger]
#9765568 - 02/09/09 11:37 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Silversoul and deranger: you're both contradicting the definition of altruism, which clearly states: unselfish and opposed to egoism.
This could go on forever like this, but honestly, I see no sense in sustaining that something exists, but not exactly as the definition says, especially since all we have for this term IS it's definition.
Just because the reward comes from the self, it doesn't mean that the reward is nonexistent. And since there is a reward, there is some selfishness involved.
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Zanthius]
#9765604 - 02/09/09 11:46 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Okay, but what makes your life worth more, than the life of a hostile bacteria?
The individual's opinion, which by definition is subjective. Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean that it is also flawed.
Quote:
I value life according to complexity, and according to how self-conscious the life form is.
I value life based on how it serves me and those I care about, and if rationality is kept, it usually meets some sort of common interest (it doesn't usually have to harm other people or life forms).
Quote:
When the life form is less self-conscious, it is less alive, and more like a machine. I don't think bacterias have much self-consciousness, and that reduces them to self-replicating machines.
It is impossible to determine, at this moment, how conscious bacteria are. Even if they seem unaware, it doesn't mean that awareness presents itself only in the form known by us. You're entitled to your opinion and your own way of scaling things, of course, but the fact that it is impossible to determine the awareness of a bacteria is still standing.
Quote:
I am talking about animals that are willing to die for their flocks. How can you get any emotional reward once you are dead?
They get it before they die: they feel good they're helping their kind right before they die. Emotional reward begins in the moment the decision it taken, not after the action is done. If it were so, it would mean that we only become aware of the meaning of something after it happens.
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
I value life based on how it serves me and those I care about, and if rationality is kept, it usually meets some sort of common interest (it doesn't usually have to harm other people or life forms).
What a shame. Maybe if you eat more magic mushrooms, you will get in touch with the cosmic consciousness above your head, and convert to a more holistic mindset.
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
They get it before they die: they feel good they're helping their kind right before they die. Emotional reward begins in the moment the decision it taken, not after the action is done. If it were so, it would mean that we only become aware of the meaning of something after it happens.
Okay, you get high on oxytocin just before you die. So what? It is still altruism according to the biological definition. The hormone oxytocin probably evolved just to give you emotional rewards for altruistic behavior.
The biological definition of altruism is when you are willing to put your own life into a greater danger, in order to put your flock into less danger. This has evolved because the flock of an individual carries many of the same genes as the individual.
--------------------
Edited by Zanthius (02/09/09 12:06 PM)
|
Silversoul
Holon
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 22,562
Loc: Mostly harmless
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Silversoul and deranger: you're both contradicting the definition of altruism, which clearly states: unselfish and opposed to egoism.
What definition of egoism are you referring to? Psychological egoism, in which individuals are always motivated by self-interest? In this case, it's an unfalsifiable assertion. If we're talking about ethical egoism, in which one ought to do what is in one's own self-interest, as in Ayn Rand's philosophy, then there is indeed altruistic behavior, as in cases where people risk their lives to help strangers.
Then, what are we defining as unselfish? You seem to be under the impression that selfishness means doing something because you want to. But this would render the term meaningless. Any non-coerced action would fall under this definition of selfishness. If instead we define unselfish behavior as behavior which seeks no reciprocity from others, then we have a meaningful definition, which would indeed characterize altruistic behavior.
--------------------
|
lIllIIIllIlIIlIlIIllIllIIl
Stranger
Registered: 12/16/04
Posts: 11,123
Loc: Texas
|
|
I want to share something with you, but it's a bit off topic.
I was reading about in India how there was a struggle to get salt iodized. People who live inland and away from sea food (which is where most of our iodine would naturally come from) can develop problems with the thyroid due to lack of iodine, causing a whole host of physical problems which are quite serious.
Yet adding iodine to salt is such an inexpensive thing... it works out to 2 or 3 cents extra per person per year of salt consumption.
And yet the manufacturers in India, knowing this, resisted it. Because it added a small amount of cost to their salt. Even though it would alleviate an immense amount of suffering, and even though if everyone did it there would be an even playing field since no one would be able to sell their salt without iodine added.
Now my own personal feeling is there is nothing wrong about what the salt manufacturers did or the way they behaved. That is normal human behavior and to expect otherwise would be unrealistic.
It was only after a costly advertising campaign by private individuals and the government that a demand for iodized salt was created. This meant that salt manufacturers who added iodine could charge a bit more money and increase their profits, so very quickly almost all of them did it.
|
deranger
Registered: 01/21/08
Posts: 6,840
Loc: off the wall
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Silversoul and deranger: you're both contradicting the definition of altruism, which clearly states: unselfish and opposed to egoism.
This doesn't contradict what we've been saying, nor the dictionaries definition of the term. When someone has the intent to help others before themselves, they are behaving in a more altruistic manner. When they behave with the intent to help themselves firstly, they are behaving in a more egoistic sense. These two perspectives are in opposition of each other, and are in accordance with how the altruism is defined.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Altruism [Re: deranger]
#9765738 - 02/09/09 12:11 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deranger said:
This doesn't contradict what we've been saying, nor the dictionaries definition of the term. When someone has the intent to help others before themselves, they are behaving in a more altruistic manner. When they behave with the intent to help themselves firstly, they are behaving in a more egoistic sense. These two perspectives are in opposition of each other, and are in accordance with how the altruism is defined.
I think holism is the opposite of egoism, and that altruism can be really stupid, like when you are willing to give your life for your country in a war. War isn't good for mankind, and in a holistic perspective, you wouldn't fight for your country, because you would see an equal value in all the other countries, and a benefit for the whole in global peace.
--------------------
Edited by Zanthius (02/09/09 12:29 PM)
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Zanthius]
#9765739 - 02/09/09 12:11 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
What a shame. Maybe if you eat more magic mushrooms, you will get in touch with the cosmic consciousness above your head, and convert to a more holistic mindset.
We're not here to discuss what I should do, or why, or any of this crap, this is not the pub so refrain yourself from comments as these which are far from the meaning of a philosophical discussion. Kindly appreciated if you stick to the subject and maybe read the forum rules.
Quote:
Okay, you get a oxytocin height just before you die. So what? It is still altruism according to the biological definition. The hormone oxytocin probably evolved just to give you emotional heights for altruistic behavior.
The biological definition of altruism is when you are willing to put your own life into a greater danger, in order to put your flock into less danger. This has evolved because the flock of an individual carries many of the same genes as the individual.
Oh, so it is that definition that you're talking about.
Just for the sake of discussion, I will post the entire definition of altruism, as it is in the dictionary:
Quote:
al⋅tru⋅ism
/ˈæltruˌɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [al-troo-iz-uhm] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others (opposed to egoism ).
2. Animal Behavior. behavior by an animal that may be to its disadvantage but that benefits others of its kind, as a warning cry that reveals the location of the caller to a predator.
The act you're talking about (with or without taking oxytocin) has an emotional reward, which makes is non-selfless.
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
We're not here to discuss what I should do, or why, or any of this crap, this is not the pub so refrain yourself from comments as these which are far from the meaning of a philosophical discussion. Kindly appreciated if you stick to the subject and maybe read the forum rules. :grin
I value life according to what is best for the whole, and I think holism is a much better philosophy than egoism.
Holism
--------------------
|
Silversoul
Holon
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 22,562
Loc: Mostly harmless
|
|
Since you're so insistent on dictionary definitions, let's look at the definition of selfish:
Quote:
Main Entry:
self·ish Listen to the pronunciation of selfish
Pronunciation:
\ˈsel-fish\
Function:
adjective
Date:
1640
1: concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others
2: arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others <a selfish act>
3: being an actively replicating repetitive sequence of nucleic acid that serves no known function <selfish DNA> ; also : being genetic material solely concerned with its own replication <selfish genes>
Emphasis mine. QED
--------------------
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
|
Quote:
What definition of egoism are you referring to? Psychological egoism, in which individuals are always motivated by self-interest? In this case, it's an unfalsifiable assertion.
Hold on a second, why is this unsatisfactory? What's the reason behind you saying this?
Quote:
If we're talking about ethical egoism...
Ethical egoism is hard to swallow from my perspective, since from my first post I stated my views on that, and the fact that even doing one's duty has a reward.
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
Silversoul
Holon
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 22,562
Loc: Mostly harmless
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Quote:
What definition of egoism are you referring to? Psychological egoism, in which individuals are always motivated by self-interest? In this case, it's an unfalsifiable assertion.
Hold on a second, why is this unsatisfactory? What's the reason behind you saying this?
It's an a priori assumption about people's motivations that can't be falsified. It also rests on a definition of "self-interest" that is so broad as to be meaningless.
--------------------
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
|
--------------------
|
lIllIIIllIlIIlIlIIllIllIIl
Stranger
Registered: 12/16/04
Posts: 11,123
Loc: Texas
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Zanthius]
#9765991 - 02/09/09 01:05 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Well, altruism in animals is a proven fact. Many species have members that will let themselves die, if it increases the likelihood for their group to survive. Bees and ants are nice examples. Humans dying for their countries in wars is another example of altruism.
Altruism in animals
Yes, but in those cases the individuals killing themselves share nearly the same genetics as their sisters. Two ants or bees are much closer genetically than two human siblings. So their death does not result in a reduction of their own genes.
|
Silversoul
Holon
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 22,562
Loc: Mostly harmless
|
|
Quote:
adjust said:
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Well, altruism in animals is a proven fact. Many species have members that will let themselves die, if it increases the likelihood for their group to survive. Bees and ants are nice examples. Humans dying for their countries in wars is another example of altruism.
Altruism in animals
Yes, but in those cases the individuals killing themselves share nearly the same genetics as their sisters. Two ants or bees are much closer genetically than two human siblings. So their death does not result in a reduction of their own genes.
So what? That's still group interest rather than self-interest.
--------------------
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
|
Quote:
Silversoul said:
So what? That's still group interest rather than self-interest.
Because of course, satisfying one of your deepest beliefs and concerns (such as giving your life to save someone else's) is anything but self-interest, right?
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
Silversoul
Holon
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 22,562
Loc: Mostly harmless
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Quote:
Silversoul said:
So what? That's still group interest rather than self-interest.
Because of course, satisfying one of your deepest beliefs and concerns (such as giving your life to save someone else's) is anything but self-interest, right?
Are you saying that one's beliefs are identical to the individual? Furthermore, are you saying that animals have beliefs?
As for concerns, isn't the definition of altruism an unselfish concern for others?
--------------------
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Quote:
Silversoul said:
So what? That's still group interest rather than self-interest.
Because of course, satisfying one of your deepest beliefs and concerns (such as giving your life to save someone else's) is anything but self-interest, right?
Self-interest is good, as long as your self-interest is in harmony with what is best for the whole.
The problem is when your self-interest is in disharmony with what is best for the whole.
--------------------
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
|
Quote:
Silversoul said:
Are you saying that one's beliefs are identical to the individual?
No.
Quote:
Furthermore, are you saying that animals have beliefs?
In the same measure they are able to decide they they want to give their lives to save the others, otherwise their action of doing so is nothing more but a random act.
Quote:
As for concerns, isn't the definition of altruism an unselfish concern for others?
A concern is being satisfied when they know that their action will result in saving those for whom they hold the concern.
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
Silversoul
Holon
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 22,562
Loc: Mostly harmless
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
A concern is being satisfied when they know that their action will result in saving those for whom they hold the concern.
So, if a concern for others is satisfied, then it's no longer altruism? You're playing semantic games and moving goalposts.
--------------------
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
|
How am I doing anything of what you said?
I can understand that you don't agree with my views, but frankly, when you don't know what to say anymore, you start saying things like that.
Why didn't you address the rest of my post?
And yes, just to answer your question, if a concern is being satisfied then it means that the act wasn't selfish. Hell, if the concern wasn't there in the first place, the person or animal would have never died for the others.
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Zanthius]
#9766450 - 02/09/09 02:23 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Self-interest is good, as long as your self-interest is in harmony with what is best for the whole.
And what specifically is best for the whole?
Quote:
The problem is when your self-interest is in disharmony with what is best for the whole.
What problem and for whom? It is only a problem for those who didn't get any advantage out of someone else's self interest, but one doesn't HAVE to think about the benefit of others. In fact, we only really carry our own responsibility. Anything more than that is purely preferential and at the decision or ability (for cases in which one is mentally unable to see a solution in which he/she and some others will benefit).
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
Silversoul
Holon
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 22,562
Loc: Mostly harmless
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
How am I doing anything of what you said?
You're torturing the meaning of "self-interest" to mean whatever will support your point. Self-interest means something in the interest of one's self, not one's beliefs.
Quote:
I can understand that you don't agree with my views, but frankly, when you don't know what to say anymore, you start saying things like that.
I start saying things like that when you're not making sense.
Quote:
Why didn't you address the rest of my post?
Because it's irrelevant.
Quote:
And yes, just to answer your question, if a concern is being satisfied then it means that the act wasn't selfish. Hell, if the concern wasn't there in the first place, the person or animal would have never died for the others.
So then we have explained away selfishness as meaningless. Any action which is not coerced is an act of volition, and therefore selfish according to your strange view. Thus, unselfishness would mean being coerced into acting, since otherwise one would have to have an internal motivation.
--------------------
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
And what specifically is best for the whole?
- That people don't pollute their environment.
- That people tell the truth to each other.
- That people don't steal from each other.
- That people give love to each other.
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
What problem and for whom?
These things are a problem for the whole:
- That people pollute their environment.
- That people tell lies to each other.
- That people steal from each other.
- That people give hate to each other.
--------------------
|
Kukaracha
Cat wannabe
Registered: 12/18/08
Posts: 1,554
Loc: France
Last seen: 21 days, 22 hours
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Zanthius]
#9766633 - 02/09/09 02:51 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I would rather refer to Kant's categorical imperative, which is a bit more precise. It does place humans above other beings, though.
|
Bernackums
The universe will have its way.
Registered: 08/06/07
Posts: 865
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
|
|
Quote:
Silversoul said:
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
How am I doing anything of what you said?
You're torturing the meaning of "self-interest" to mean whatever will support your point. Self-interest means something in the interest of one's self, not one's beliefs.
One's beliefs are in one's self interest. I brought this exact situation up on page one with the old man and the child.
Quote:
Quote:
I can understand that you don't agree with my views, but frankly, when you don't know what to say anymore, you start saying things like that.
I start saying things like that when you're not making sense.
MushroomTrip has made more sense in this thread than anyone else.
Quote:
Furthermore, are you saying that animals have beliefs?
This wasn't said, so I'm not sure why you've jumped to this conclusion. But on the basis that we are animals and we believe things I would be pretty certain we do.
--------------------
Let's get the fuck out of here.
Edited by Bernackums (02/09/09 03:09 PM)
|
Bernackums
The universe will have its way.
Registered: 08/06/07
Posts: 865
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
|
|
I thought I had done atleast a decent job pointing out where discussions on altruism always spiral into a semantical arguement, and I outlined the differences of considering or not considering emotional rewards (which are consequencial of belief) in the equation with the example of the old man and the child. Why have I been ignored to find the same things being argued over a few pages later?
--------------------
Let's get the fuck out of here.
Edited by Bernackums (02/09/09 03:09 PM)
|
Bernackums
The universe will have its way.
Registered: 08/06/07
Posts: 865
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Zanthius]
#9766748 - 02/09/09 03:08 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
And what specifically is best for the whole?
- That people don't pollute their environment.
- That people tell the truth to each other.
- That people don't steal from each other.
- That people give love to each other.
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
What problem and for whom?
These things are a problem for the whole:
- That people pollute their environment.
- That people tell lies to each other.
- That people steal from each other.
- That people give hate to each other.
We could have a four page thread about this post alone.
--------------------
Let's get the fuck out of here.
|
Silversoul
Holon
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 22,562
Loc: Mostly harmless
|
|
Quote:
Bernackums said:
One's beliefs are in one's self interest. I brought this exact situation up on page one with the old man and the child.
That doesn't make sense. This would mean that the same act could be selfish or selfless depending on a fickle change of mind over what I believe. This would also make it impossible for one to be mistaken about what is in one's self-interest, because if you believe something is in your self-interest, then it is. Thus, investing in Bernie Madoff's ponzi scheme would be in one's self-interest because you believe it to be, even though it clearly is not.
Quote:
MushroomTrip has made more sense in this thread than anyone else.
No she hasn't. Nor have you. You guys rely on too vague a definition of selfishness and self-interest.
--------------------
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
"There's absolutely no evidence that shows there are any altruistic persons out there.
Unless you are willing to show any evidence that sustains your view, this discussion is going nowhere and we're just going to agree or disagree."
What sort of evidence would you accept? Altruism isn't some sort of scientific theory, it is a potential human quality, like selfishness or immaturity is. I can give you some examples of people that I think may have been altruistic in at least some point in their lives, but there is not going to be some sort of scientific evidence that will prove altruism to be true; it isn't necessary.
"Give me one example where one individual can do something with absolutely no though or feeling as a result of it."
Helping others for the mere sake of helping them. Could you not think of that example on your own?
"No, but I do think that this need can exacerbate to such a degree that it becomes ridiculous and hurtful for the individual."
This sentence is grammatically unsound. Do you mean to say, "...this need can be exacerbated to such a degree...", or, "...this need can exacerbate the individual to such a degree that it becomes ridiculous and hurtful."
"If we know how to intelligently (i.e. in a way that fits our best interests and is less harmful for the self and those around us) satisfy those needs and Quote:
understand
them, then these needs won't have the chance to become an obsession that clouds our judgment."
Agreed. But technically, an altruistic person doesn't have those needs, therefore, it would not be possible for it to become an obsession, nor would their judgment be able to be clouded by them.
"In my opinion, when one believes that there's someone else who's willing to sacrifice for them without getting any benefit at all, it means that they are engaging themselves in delusional thinking, since there's nobody that fits the description."
Those are some pretty harsh words. You actually believe that there aren't people out there who do good for the mere sake of helping others?
"The same thing goes for someone deluding themselves into thinking that they are helping someone without getting absolutely nothing in return. The potential of developing some sort of Messianic Complex or victim-like mentality is very big, for people holding such beliefs."
A "Messianic Complex" exists only within the realm of psychology, a science. Today, religion and science seem to be on opposite sides of the same scale (e.g., the search for truth). People who are truly altruistic do so with a spiritual intent, not a psychological one. I agree that developing some sort of victim-like mentality is likely, but for those who can't handle being truly altruistic, that just shows that altruism is truly not for them.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip has made more sense in this thread than anyone else.
She has most definitely not made more sense than anyone else, and she brings with herself an unnecessary attitude into this thread.
She often makes grammatical errors, and assumes that everyone knows what she's speaking about while refusing to specifically explain her views.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
Quote:
adjust said:
I want to share something with you, but it's a bit off topic.
I was reading about in India how there was a struggle to get salt iodized. People who live inland and away from sea food (which is where most of our iodine would naturally come from) can develop problems with the thyroid due to lack of iodine, causing a whole host of physical problems which are quite serious.
Yet adding iodine to salt is such an inexpensive thing... it works out to 2 or 3 cents extra per person per year of salt consumption.
And yet the manufacturers in India, knowing this, resisted it. Because it added a small amount of cost to their salt. Even though it would alleviate an immense amount of suffering, and even though if everyone did it there would be an even playing field since no one would be able to sell their salt without iodine added.
Now my own personal feeling is there is nothing wrong about what the salt manufacturers did or the way they behaved. That is normal human behavior and to expect otherwise would be unrealistic.
It was only after a costly advertising campaign by private individuals and the government that a demand for iodized salt was created. This meant that salt manufacturers who added iodine could charge a bit more money and increase their profits, so very quickly almost all of them did it.
You're positing that selfish behavior is inherent to a mature human being?
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Poid]
#9766867 - 02/09/09 03:27 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Mushroom Trip said:
"I am well aware of the fact that social status can influence one's beliefs, but this doesn't mean that a set of beliefs corresponds to a certain social position, and that we're destined to follow those beliefs as long as we belong to a particular social status."
less than an hour later:
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
How does the social status or personal belongings influence one's beliefs in altruism?
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Quote:
Kukaracha said:
I tend to agree with Nietzsche but I don't think there is a way to prove that altruism doesn't exist.
Well, altruism in animals is a proven fact. Many species have members that will let themselves die, if it increases the likelihood for their group to survive. Bees and ants are nice examples. Humans dieing for their countries in wars is another example of altruism.
In order to make this altruism in other animals (because we're animals too, you know ) seem credible, you will first have to come with some solid evidence that they don't get any emotional reward for their acts.
No, first you will have to show us some solid scientific evidence that shows proves that animals even experience emotions at all.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Bernackums
The universe will have its way.
Registered: 08/06/07
Posts: 865
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Poid]
#9766922 - 02/09/09 03:33 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
and she brings with herself an unnecessary attitude into this thread.
*blink* What? She started the thread, and hasn't had any unnecessary attitude as far as I can see. Personally I find you to be rather difficult to talk to. I've now skimmed over your conversation with MushroomTrip, but I hadn't read it because by your second post you were questioning more about the poster than about the topic of conversation. This is infuriating when we're trying to have a conversation. Because of which, I found, the quality of conversation degraded rapidly from page two.
This is not meant to be insulting, but I cannot let MushroomTrip be accused of all this when she has made sense from the very beginning. I love you.
Now then, altruism?
--------------------
Let's get the fuck out of here.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
No, I completely understand, and I'm glad you told me this. 
"This is infuriating when we're trying to have a conversation."
Who said this? Certainly not I! 
"...by your second post you were questioning more about the poster than about the topic of conversation."
It may have looked or sounded like that, but I was just imploring about the poster's views, not necessarily the poster. Different people need to be talked to in different ways in order to get the information you want out of them.
I'm waiting for MushroomTrip's response before I go further, because at this point, I don't even know which direction this thread is going to be headed towards.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Bernackums
The universe will have its way.
Registered: 08/06/07
Posts: 865
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
|
|
Quote:
Silversoul said:
Quote:
Bernackums said:
One's beliefs are in one's self interest. I brought this exact situation up on page one with the old man and the child.
That doesn't make sense. This would mean that the same act could be selfish or selfless depending on a fickle change of mind over what I believe. This would also make it impossible for one to be mistaken about what is in one's self-interest, because if you believe something is in your self-interest, then it is. Thus, investing in Bernie Madoff's ponzi scheme would be in one's self-interest because you believe it to be, even though it clearly is not.
Hm, we are thinking on different levels here, let's try and meet each other in the middle. I am not always that good with language, and it often takes me a few attempts at translating my thoughts before I've refined them accurately, I don't hesitate to do this in text to you guys.
In the example with the old man and the child it is because of the man's moral beliefs he gives the food to the child, satisfies his moral dilemma (as a man with a moral system such as that will likely feel guilt if had eaten the bread instead of giving it to the child. The knowledge of this guilt in advance is likely) by doing "the right thing", subsequently feeling good and righteous. There is compensation.
Due to this, I would not consider this altruism. What would suffice as altruism, then? The man would have to willingly give the child the food, but have no desire to do so. If the man does not desire to do something, he will not do it. I cannot imagine this scenario happening and it is only reinforced that I have never seen or heard of anything like it.
It is now that I realize what I am implying, that yes, the same act could be selfish or selfless depending belief at the time, but if these are the parameters then there has never be an altruistic act to witness.
As I said before, I have to come to feel because of this that altruism is simply the result of the human mind assuming the extreme of everything. Altruism is sort of like infinity, in that way.
Quote:
MushroomTrip has made more sense in this thread than anyone else.
No she hasn't. Nor have you.
Sense is fairly subjective, I was merely expressing that she does make sense from the proper view point and that we are simply at different view points.
You guys rely on too vague a definition of selfishness and self-interest.
Vague? If it's effect is on the positive side of the emotional spectrum, it is self-interest. How the emotional body and the world of mind and language work together is far beyong my current comprehension level, mind you.
--------------------
Let's get the fuck out of here.
Edited by Bernackums (02/09/09 04:04 PM)
|
Silversoul
Holon
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 22,562
Loc: Mostly harmless
|
|
Quote:
Bernackums said:
You guys rely on too vague a definition of selfishness and self-interest.
Vague? If it's effect is on the positive side of the emotional spectrum, it is self-interest. How the emotional body and the world of mind and language work together is far beyong my current comprehension level, mind you.
Many actions cause conflicted feelings. The man sacrificing himself for the boy may not feel good at all about dying, but may feel a sense of obligation or duty. Obligation and duty do not always feel good.
--------------------
|
Bernackums
The universe will have its way.
Registered: 08/06/07
Posts: 865
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
|
|
The man sacrificing himself for the boy may not feel good at all about dying
Of course he doesn't feel good about dying; on the larger scale his death is still going to suck. The time while there was a scrap a food and the decision was to be made is what the time frame that is relevant (without rescue they both die anyways). Duty or obligation would result of one's moral beliefs, for it would not be there without a sense of 'right', and this has it's own gratification when fulfilled. The act to gives one life for another has no correlation to one's ideas and perspective on death, in no sense would one "die happy" due to an altruistic act preceeding it.
But I've presented where thinking on this has taken me, unless we're going to discuss the possibility of altruism being a natural reaction to the way in which our minds work I feel I'm rather spent on the topic.
--------------------
Let's get the fuck out of here.
|
Bernackums
The universe will have its way.
Registered: 08/06/07
Posts: 865
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
|
|
I'm sorry, I seem to avoided your point. 
Many actions cause conflicted feelings.
Agreed.
--------------------
Let's get the fuck out of here.
Edited by Bernackums (02/09/09 05:54 PM)
|
lIllIIIllIlIIlIlIIllIllIIl
Stranger
Registered: 12/16/04
Posts: 11,123
Loc: Texas
|
|
Quote:
Silversoul said:
Quote:
adjust said:
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Well, altruism in animals is a proven fact. Many species have members that will let themselves die, if it increases the likelihood for their group to survive. Bees and ants are nice examples. Humans dying for their countries in wars is another example of altruism.
Altruism in animals
Yes, but in those cases the individuals killing themselves share nearly the same genetics as their sisters. Two ants or bees are much closer genetically than two human siblings. So their death does not result in a reduction of their own genes.
So what? That's still group interest rather than self-interest.
I'm just saying that in possibly the only easily observable case of true altruism (eusocial insects sacrificing themselves) the ones sacrificing don't lose out genetically.
If I were to do the same thing for anyone less than my identical twin my genes would be diminished, negative feedback loop. That's why altruism is so uncommon in humans (besides mother/father feelings towards their children, which again can be explained through preserving one's own genetics).
|
lIllIIIllIlIIlIlIIllIllIIl
Stranger
Registered: 12/16/04
Posts: 11,123
Loc: Texas
|
|
Just think about it... why would there exist humans willing to do something that will eliminate their genes from the gene pool?
Why would that be a benefit?
It wouldn't unless you are protecting your own genetic children or an identical twin.
Just think about it a bit, I am saying from a genetic perspective it doesn't make any sense because it is the opposite of a benefit for creating more copies of yourself.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
|
Quote:
adjust said:
Just think about it... why would there exist humans willing to do something that will eliminate their genes from the gene pool?
Why do humans commit suicide?
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
lIllIIIllIlIIlIlIIllIllIIl
Stranger
Registered: 12/16/04
Posts: 11,123
Loc: Texas
|
Re: Altruism [Re: deCypher]
#9767987 - 02/09/09 06:38 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I'm not sure. I've never wanted to commit suicide or talked with anyone who has tried it and lived. Have you? It would be very interesting to speak with someone who wanted to commit suicide for philosophical reasons.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
|
Quote:
adjust said:
I'm not sure. I've never wanted to commit suicide or talked with anyone who has tried it and lived. Have you? It would be very interesting to speak with someone who wanted to commit suicide for philosophical reasons.
I've only really desired to on the peak of a very intense mushroom trip when I thought I was never coming back down. Philosophically I suppose it would probably save a lot of time and bother, but meaningless hedonism trumps any rush to see what's on the other side in the short term.
It is a pretty interesting question why humans commit suicide; you would think that this would have bred itself out of the gene pool a long time ago. AFAIK no other animals kill themselves (the usual story about lemmings is an urban myth).
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
zen buddy
not a buddhist
Registered: 01/22/09
Posts: 704
|
|
You don't know what it feels like to help someone until you do it. If you help someone only because you think it will make you feel good you won't feel good about it. When people go out of their way to help others they don't do this because it feels good, they do it because it's the right thing to do and feeling good about it comes natural.
Altruism feels good! It happens all the time, people go out of their way to help others without any thought of reward.
You can have more faith in humanity.
I'm still not going to use the word 'altruism' when describing my beliefs but I believe its literal meaning does exist.
Edited by zen buddy (02/09/09 11:04 PM)
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
|
Quote:
You're torturing the meaning of "self-interest" to mean whatever will support your point. Self-interest means something in the interest of one's self, not one's beliefs.
Listen, instead of bitching about me not making sense (when, as opposed to you, I am not avoiding your replies, and I am actually explaining my points of view), why don't you try to explain yourself, for example you could start with why you think I'm "torturing" the meaning of self-interest?
IS it or isn't it self interest to satisfy one's worry?
Quote:
I start saying things like that when you're not making sense.
Yet more bitching with no actual meaning. 
Quote:
Because it's irrelevant.
Irrelevant you say? Then it means that the questions you asked me were irrelevant (and I thought you were going somewhere with them), because it is my answers to those question you're avoiding. Could it be because I proved you wrong? I am led to believe so since I get no answer from you.
Quote:
Thus, unselfishness would mean being coerced into acting, since otherwise one would have to have an internal motivation.
No
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Poid]
#9770400 - 02/10/09 02:47 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
What sort of evidence would you accept? Altruism isn't some sort of scientific theory, it is a potential human quality, like selfishness or immaturity is. I can give you some examples of people that I think may have been altruistic in at least some point in their lives, but there is not going to be some sort of scientific evidence that will prove altruism to be true; it isn't necessary.
But both selfishness AND immaturity have definitions which can be identified in human behavior. The only one that can't is altruism.
Maybe it wouldn't be necessary for you, but I think it is, because the way we feel about things and what we believe to be true is guiding our decisions, and if what we believe as being true is actually false, then the results of our decisions are fucked.
Quote:
This sentence is grammatically unsound. Do you mean to say, "...this need can be exacerbated to such a degree...", or, "...this need can exacerbate the individual to such a degree that it becomes ridiculous and hurtful."
Did you understand what I meant or not? By the sounds of it you did, otherwise you couldn't have corrected it the way you did. I appreciate your concern for my grammar, but not as long as you're only avoiding a real discussion and hiding behind those reasons.
Quote:
Agreed. But technically, an altruistic person doesn't have those needs, therefore, it would not be possible for it to become an obsession, nor would their judgment be able to be clouded by them.
An altruist person isn't concerned with considering one's self interest along with the others, nor is it interested in understanding those needs? It sounds like a pretty stupid person to me.
Quote:
Those are some pretty harsh words. You actually believe that there aren't people out there who do good for the mere sake of helping others?
For the sake of helping others is still a reason that vibrates with something the person that helps, how many times do I have to repeat this?
Quote:
A "Messianic Complex" exists only within the realm of psychology, a science. Today, religion and science seem to be on opposite sides of the same scale (e.g., the search for truth). People who are truly altruistic do so with a spiritual intent, not a psychological one. I agree that developing some sort of victim-like mentality is likely, but for those who can't handle being truly altruistic, that just shows that altruism is truly not for them.
Why did you even have to bring religion up? I completely fail to see the reason why you did that, or what purpose it could serve in finding any kind of truth. I also don't know what you mean by "spirituality" since you oppose it to psychology and science, as personally I think these are closely related. If anything, your spiritual side could influence you to decide that a scientific fact means more than a stupid religious dogma.
Quote:
No, first you will have to show us some solid scientific evidence that shows proves that animals even experience emotions at all.
I don't have to prove that, since I didn't make this statement but someone else. Maybe they can present the required evidence.
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
fireworks_god
SexyButt McDanger
Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 23,677
Loc: Red Panda Village
Last seen: 8 hours, 19 minutes
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Poid]
#9770428 - 02/10/09 03:07 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
...and she brings with herself an unnecessary attitude into this thread.
Have you read the forum rules? This forum does not exist for posters to discuss the personal nature of other posters. Speculating as to the "unnecessary attitude" that an individual brings into a discussion belongs in private messages or an off-topic forum. Maybe now would be a great time to review the forum rules. This forum is intended strictly for ideological discussion.
Quote:
She often makes grammatical errors....
Often? What is your criteria for determining that? I only noticed you critiquing one incident in which she made a statement that was not technically, grammatically correct, and the nature of that one instance was incredibly insignificant and more than likely a simple omission to explicitly state one word that was fully implied by the context of the rest of the sentence.
I can understand the compulsion to correct someone else's grammatical error in the course of the thread, but referring to another poster as "often making grammatical errors" in the context of dismissing the proposal that they have been making sense is, once again () against the forum rules.
We're here to discuss the ideas that posters present. Vague discussion about whether or not another poster makes sense has no place.
Furthermore, this forum is not held to a staunch sense of formality, and whether or not someone else makes an occasional (no, not often, you're completely wrong) grammatical error has no bearing on whether or not they are making sense. Dwelling upon the matter as though it has any relevance to the discussion, beyond simply correcting an error, is the height of pointless triviality. Frankly, MT uses English as a second language, does an exceptional job at it, and makes less mistakes grammatically than what I would posit to be the vast majority of native speakers. The differences between languages and their grammar implies that, in the same circumstances, things are expressed with different syntax and in different forms, and it is only natural that someone participating in an informal debate will have occasions in which ingrained tendencies from one language will inevitably manifest in the usage of another language. Upon beginning to learn a new language, what I learned instantly began to affect my usage of my native tongue in subtle ways.
I'd advise you to stop interrupting on-topic discussion with violations of the rules and dwelling upon completely unnecessary, trivial "points" that are bound in nothing more than foolishness.
--------------------
  
 
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
 
 
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
|
Quote:
zen buddy said:
You don't know what it feels like to help someone until you do it. If you help someone only because you think it will make you feel good you won't feel good about it. When people go out of their way to help others they don't do this because it feels good, they do it because it's the right thing to do and feeling good about it comes natural.
Again, I never implied that I (or anyone else who helps IMO) is doing it because they're looking for feeling good, but that helping others, by it's own nature, creates a feeling of well-being in the person who helps. If this feeling of well being is felt as a result of helping people, then a reward is present, which makes the act non altruist. I don't know how much clearer I can explain that, without people giving second meaning to my words, or without getting advices like: "take more mushrooms and you'll change your view".
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Again, I never implied that I (or anyone else who helps IMO) is doing it because they're looking for feeling good, but that helping others, by it's own nature, creates a feeling of well-being in the person who helps. If this feeling of well being is felt as a result of helping people, then a reward is present, which makes the act non altruist. I don't know how much clearer I can explain that, without people giving second meaning to my words, or without getting advices like: "take more mushrooms and you'll change your view".
Well, I could argue that you, as a separate being don't even exist, as your being is constantly interacting with the universe around you. You inhale air from around you all the time, and if this air is polluted, your organic body is polluted. Therefore it is in your self-interest that the air and water around you is clean, and it is in your self-interest to value what is best for the universe around you. Not just what is best for your organic body, but what is best for the whole globe, as your organic body constantly is interacting with the environment around you. It is beneficial for your organic body with a good environment, and therefore you should think about what is best for the whole globe.
Holism is better than egoism, but if you want you can call me an egoist, because I know that it is in my self-interest to value the whole globe.
--------------------
Edited by Zanthius (02/10/09 06:46 AM)
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Zanthius]
#9770911 - 02/10/09 06:48 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Ok, one more time:
I am not arguing that it would be preferable for me to pollute my environment, and I wonder why you had to explain me basic things like these since I never made a statement that could make someone think that I am pro-pollution. 
On the contrary, I even agree with you saying: "Therefore it is in your self-interest that the air and water around you is clean, and it is in your self-interest to value what is best for the universe around you."
It IS in my self-interest to preserve the nature, as my health and well being are depending on that.
As a side note, just because my life and its quality are depending on things like air, water, and so on, it doesn't mean that I am not separated from them, since basic notions of physics will show that I'm not one with any of these.
My question to you, considering that your own words said that my best interest (term which is egoistic by definition) would be to preserve the nature (a holistic action), is why you conclude your post by saying "holism is better than egoism". By your example they're not contradicting each-other.
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
Indigenous
Stranger
Registered: 01/08/09
Posts: 814
Loc: Celestial Realm
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Zanthius]
#9770916 - 02/10/09 06:53 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Altruism is real. The fact that some people are not capable of it and cannot comprehend that others are does not negate it's existence.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
As a side note, just because my life and its quality are depending on things like air, water, and so on, it doesn't mean that I am not separated from them, since basic notions of physics will show that I'm not one with any of these.
Really? Have you studied entanglement in quantum physics?
Quantum Entanglement
--------------------
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
|
Quote:
Indigenous said:
Altruism is real. The fact that some people are not capable of it and cannot comprehend that others are does not negate it's existence.
That's a great point, I wonder how I didn't think this way until now 
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Zanthius]
#9770943 - 02/10/09 07:05 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Really? Have you studied entanglement in quantum physics?
Quantum Entanglement
I don't trust "quantum", but feel free to explain what you mean, rather than giving me a link. I'm sure some other people are interested too.
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
I don't trust "quantum", but feel free to explain what you mean, rather than giving me a link. I'm sure some other people are interested too.
I think it means some like that everything in the universe is above 0% entangled. Some particles might be more entangled than others though. A holistic person is probably more entangled with the universe, than an egoistical person :P
The standard model of quantum mechanics is one of the best proved models in science by the way.
--------------------
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Zanthius]
#9770965 - 02/10/09 07:14 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
I think it means some like that everything in the universe is above 0% entangled. Some particles might be more entangled than others though. A holistic person is probably more entangled with the universe, than an egoistical person :P
The standard model of quantum mechanics is one of the best proved models in science by the way.
This is all unsubstantiated crap, how is anyone to believe something like this?
Above 0%? That's impressive! 
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
This is all unsubstantiated crap, how is anyone to believe something like this?
Maybe they studied quantum mechanics.
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Above 0%? That's impressive!
It means that nothing in the universe is completely separate.
--------------------
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Zanthius]
#9770990 - 02/10/09 07:26 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Ok, I guess this discussion is over and we'll just have to disagree. Discussing in this manner, where you keep making baseless claims, is not what I have in mind and is taking us nowhere.
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
Bernackums
The universe will have its way.
Registered: 08/06/07
Posts: 865
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
|
|
Altruism is real. The fact that some people are not capable of it and cannot comprehend that others are does not negate it's existence.
Show me, for I have never witnessed it.
And then we'll do this aaaaall over again.
--------------------
Let's get the fuck out of here.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Ok, I guess this discussion is over and we'll just have to disagree. Discussing in this manner, where you keep making baseless claims, is not what I have in mind and is taking us nowhere.
Baseless claims? As I said, the standard model of particle physics is one of the best proved models in science. Quantum mechanics and general relativity has replaced the old newtonian idea of a clockwork universe.
Almost every scientist today affirms that quantum mechanics and general relativity more accurately describes reality than classical physics.
There are thousands of scientific articles on the internet about quantum mechanics, so I am hardly making baseless claims.
--------------------
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Zanthius]
#9771059 - 02/10/09 07:48 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
You are making baseless claims such as "we're not separated from the universe", and even your more than 0% claim still shows that we're mostly separated. Also, you keep sustaining that quantum physics agrees with your point (which initially was that altruism exists, in case you forgot ), but you can't show how. Even if we are somehow connected with the universe, it doesn't show that altruism is real. Where are you trying to go with all that? My guess is that you just want to disagree.
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
|
Quote:
Indigenous said:
Altruism is real. The fact that some people are not capable of it and cannot comprehend that others are does not negate it's existence.
Well, maybe you think it is virtuous to let yourself die for your country in a war, but I don't.
I think holism is more virtuous than altruism, and that people should refuse to fight for their countries in wars, and rather try to make global peace.
--------------------
|
zen buddy
not a buddhist
Registered: 01/22/09
Posts: 704
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Quote:
zen buddy said:
You don't know what it feels like to help someone until you do it. If you help someone only because you think it will make you feel good you won't feel good about it. When people go out of their way to help others they don't do this because it feels good, they do it because it's the right thing to do and feeling good about it comes natural.
Again, I never implied that I (or anyone else who helps IMO) is doing it because they're looking for feeling good, but that helping others, by it's own nature, creates a feeling of well-being in the person who helps. If this feeling of well being is felt as a result of helping people, then a reward is present, which makes the act non altruist. I don't know how much clearer I can explain that, without people giving second meaning to my words, or without getting advices like: "take more mushrooms and you'll change your view".
It is not whether or not there is a reward for the action, it is whether or not the action was done for the reward. You have confused the definition of altruism for some unknown reason.
And there is a very good chance that I've tripped out far more than you have, if that even matters. ... maybe you should try some LSD or maybe a little DMT.  
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
You are making baseless claims such as "we're not separated from the universe", and even your more than 0% claim still shows that we're mostly separated. Also, you keep sustaining that quantum physics agrees with your point (which initially was that altruism exists, in case you forgot ), but you can't show how. Even if we are somehow connected with the universe, it doesn't show that altruism is real. Where are you trying to go with all that? My guess is that you just want to disagree.
Real? Is selfishness real? Then you must first prove that there is a self, and if everything in the universe is above 0% entangled, then there is no such thing as a completely separated self. More than 0% also means that some systems of particles can be much more than 0% entangled.
I also think that altruism is real, regardless of if it gives you emotional reward. You might have lost confidence in altruism, when you discovered that you actually had a self-interest in giving your life to your boyfriend, but I think about altruism in a biological perspective, and according to the biological definition. Then altruism is related to behavior, not to feelings.
--------------------
|
Indigenous
Stranger
Registered: 01/08/09
Posts: 814
Loc: Celestial Realm
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Zanthius]
#9771200 - 02/10/09 08:31 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Quote:
Indigenous said:
Altruism is real. The fact that some people are not capable of it and cannot comprehend that others are does not negate it's existence.
Well, maybe you think it is virtuous to let yourself die for your country in a war, but I don't.
I think holism is more virtuous than altruism, and that people should refuse to fight for their countries in wars, and rather try to make global peace.
I don't remember mentioning war. My only point is it is a waste of time arguing this point. If you can't see it exists you are probably incapable of understanding altruism.
|
Kukaracha
Cat wannabe
Registered: 12/18/08
Posts: 1,554
Loc: France
Last seen: 21 days, 22 hours
|
|
MushrooTrip just said "people get a nice tan if they walk in the sun, therefore they walk in the sun to get a nice tan".
Sometimes, I walk in the sun to go to the supermarket, too.
So what she said does not have much value.
Altruism comes down to personal experience and understanding; I don't really believe in altruism but I'd rather say it's an intuition; I've never been in anyone else's head.
Besides, you guys are being childish, you're just covering this thread with your flaming attitude. Please behave, to keep the debate clear.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
|
Quote:
Indigenous said:
I don't remember mentioning war. My only point is it is a waste of time arguing this point. If you can't see it exists you are probably incapable of understanding altruism.
Well, I am capable of understanding holism, and it is a whole lot more difficult than understanding altruism.
--------------------
|
Indigenous
Stranger
Registered: 01/08/09
Posts: 814
Loc: Celestial Realm
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Zanthius]
#9771222 - 02/10/09 08:36 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
It's not a matter of difficulty. It is a matter of your own philosophy and personality.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
|
Quote:
Indigenous said:
It's not a matter of difficulty. It is a matter of your own philosophy and personality.
Well, my philosophy doesn't have such concepts as "self" and "non-self". In my conceptualization of the universe, we are all one.
--------------------
|
Indigenous
Stranger
Registered: 01/08/09
Posts: 814
Loc: Celestial Realm
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Zanthius]
#9771237 - 02/10/09 08:41 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
I also think that altruism is real
I agree with you, why are you arguing with me?
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
|
Quote:
Indigenous said:
Quote:
Zanthius said:
I also think that altruism is real
I agree with you, why are you arguing with me?
Because you are arguing with me!
--------------------
|
Indigenous
Stranger
Registered: 01/08/09
Posts: 814
Loc: Celestial Realm
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Zanthius]
#9771262 - 02/10/09 08:49 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
No, I'm not.
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
|
Quote:
Kukaracha said:
MushrooTrip just said "people get a nice tan if they walk in the sun, therefore they walk in the sun to get a nice tan".
Sometimes, I walk in the sun to go to the supermarket, too.
No, it is not what I said.
But being well aware of the sun's effects on your skin when you go out, even if it is for shopping, you can't say that the walk to there and back has left you untanned.
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
deranger
Registered: 01/21/08
Posts: 6,840
Loc: off the wall
|
|
Quote:
zen buddy said:
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Quote:
zen buddy said:
You don't know what it feels like to help someone until you do it. If you help someone only because you think it will make you feel good you won't feel good about it. When people go out of their way to help others they don't do this because it feels good, they do it because it's the right thing to do and feeling good about it comes natural.
Again, I never implied that I (or anyone else who helps IMO) is doing it because they're looking for feeling good, but that helping others, by it's own nature, creates a feeling of well-being in the person who helps. If this feeling of well being is felt as a result of helping people, then a reward is present, which makes the act non altruist. I don't know how much clearer I can explain that, without people giving second meaning to my words, or without getting advices like: "take more mushrooms and you'll change your view".
It is not whether or not there is a reward for the action, it is whether or not the action was done for the reward. You have confused the definition of altruism for some unknown reason.
Exactly. This simple point has been overlooked too many times in this thread.
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Zanthius]
#9771299 - 02/10/09 08:58 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Well, my philosophy doesn't have such concepts as "self" and "non-self". In my conceptualization of the universe, we are all one.
Too bad your conceptualization of the universe doesn't fit the real world. Also, incidentally or not, it doesn't have anything to do with debating.
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Well, my philosophy doesn't have such concepts as "self" and "non-self". In my conceptualization of the universe, we are all one.
Too bad your conceptualization of the universe doesn't fit the real world. Also, incidentally or not, it doesn't have anything to do with debating.
You don't know if it fits with reality or not. You consider yourself to be one person, even if there are many separate neurons in your head. Maybe the universe considers itself to be one person as well, even if there are many separate particles in the universe.
--------------------
|
Kukaracha
Cat wannabe
Registered: 12/18/08
Posts: 1,554
Loc: France
Last seen: 21 days, 22 hours
|
|
What about "the first time" you help someone? It's like the first time you go out in the sun, you don't know your skin will be very nice afterwards.
Plus, I think that if this reward is not consciously perceived, then it's not one of the main reasons. Every action brings many emotions in differents proportions.
It's like getting tanned, you'll get slightly tanned every time you go out in the sun, but it might not be a major consideration when you go to the supermarket.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Altruism [Re: deranger]
#9771348 - 02/10/09 09:12 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deranger said:
Exactly. This simple point has been overlooked too many times in this thread.
Why are you people so afraid of admitting that it gives your conscience a good feeling when you act virtuously?
I am always trying to act virtuously, because I know that it generates a good feeling in my conscience when I act virtuously, and I am not afraid of admitting that it makes me feel better to be virtuous.
I would be really stupid if I acted amorally, because I know that would degenerate the feeling I carry around inside of myself, which is my conscience.
--------------------
|
Indigenous
Stranger
Registered: 01/08/09
Posts: 814
Loc: Celestial Realm
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Well, my philosophy doesn't have such concepts as "self" and "non-self". In my conceptualization of the universe, we are all one.
Too bad your conceptualization of the universe doesn't fit the real world. Also, incidentally or not, it doesn't have anything to do with debating.
Way to prove my point. 
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
|
Even for the first time, you're still aware of the feelings and thoughts that make you want help someone (obviously, thoughts that occur before the action), and, as a result of those thoughts (that, like I said a few times before, need to be satisfied), you do.
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
|
Quote:
Indigenous said:
Way to prove my point.
You have a point? You're hiding it damn well.
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Zanthius]
#9771370 - 02/10/09 09:17 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Why are you people so afraid of admitting that it gives your conscience a good feeling when you act virtuously?
I am always trying to act virtuously, because I know that it generates a good feeling in my conscience when I act virtuously, and I am not afraid of admitting that it makes me feel better to be virtuous.
I would be really stupid if I acted amorally, because I know that would degenerate the feeling I carry around inside of myself, which is my conscience.
This, of course, is completely unselfish... 
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
This, of course, is completely unselfish...
No, it is not. I am not afraid of admitting that my self-interest is to make the universe around me as good as possible, but I always think that your self-interest should be in harmony with what is best for the universe.
Therefore you could say that people should tune their self-interests into what is best for the universe, and that would be like tuning egoism into holism.
--------------------
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Zanthius]
#9771413 - 02/10/09 09:27 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I shouldn't do anything, I am free to choose whatever I want, being well aware of the consequences.
Just as a side note, don't you think it's ridiculous of you to tell me what I should do, firstly because you're not in a position to do so, and secondly because you don't know anything about what my self-interest is?
Maybe you need to learn to separate the poster from their ideas, in order to stop making personalisms, and focus on the discussion of ideas, for which this forum is intended.
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
I shouldn't do anything, I am free to choose whatever I want, being well aware of the consequences.
Just as a side note, don't you think it's ridiculous of you to tell me what I should do, firstly because you're not in a position to do so, and secondly because you don't know anything about what my self-interest is?
Maybe you need to learn to separate the poster from their ideas, in order to stop making personalisms, and focus on the discussion of ideas, for which this forum is intended.
When I say something like "You should", of course I mean that "everybody should". I will try to say "everybody", instead of "you", the next time, if you feel offended by it.
Everybody should tune their self-interests into what is best for the whole, because that would make the whole better for everybody.
--------------------
|
Kukaracha
Cat wannabe
Registered: 12/18/08
Posts: 1,554
Loc: France
Last seen: 21 days, 22 hours
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Zanthius]
#9771430 - 02/10/09 09:33 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I'm sorry Zanthius but sadly you only know your own mind and know very little about others at all.
"I do this, I do that, because I, and I" 8 times!
Don't forget you're speculating about other people. Plus, we are trying to build something, not breaking in and claiming we just found the truth.
To MushroomTrip : Well, there must be a need to feel loved and important, but what about love itself?
Humans, "zoon politikon", might have some link. They are a species; members of the same species tend to work together for the sake of their genes (anyway, that's what I think).
Plus, now refering to Aristoteles, they live in a society; in my opinion, a society made of egoism would collapse.
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Zanthius]
#9771436 - 02/10/09 09:35 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
My point is still standing: nobody should do anything, there's no universal rule or truth, and things are different for everybody, people are different. Diversity is the stuff! 
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
|
Quote:
Kukaracha said:
Plus, now refering to Aristoteles, they live in a society; in my opinion, a society made of egoism would collapse.
Wrong.
A society built on self-interest guided by reason will flourish. 
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
My point is still standing: nobody should do anything, there's no universal rule or truth, and things are different for everybody, people are different. Diversity is the stuff!
Ideologies are often transpersonal, and if this forum is for discussing ideologies, then why can't those ideologies say something about what people should do?
Of course people shouldn't pollute their environment, of course people should tell the truth to each other, of course people shouldn't steal from each other, and of course people should give love to each other.
Why? Because that would make the world better for everybody, and I think one of the most important reasons for having an ideology, is to find a common ground for people to stand on, in order to increase the harmony between people.
--------------------
|
daytripper23
?
Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc:
|
|
Well this thread certainly seems to be flourishing.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
|
Quote:
Kukaracha said:
Don't forget you're speculating about other people. Plus, we are trying to build something, not breaking in and claiming we just found the truth.
Of course different people have different motives, but I don't think altruism becomes anything less virtuous, just because there might be a self-interest in altruistic behavior.
Actually, I am usually more attracted to girls that considers it to be their self-interest to please me, than what I am to girls that think they are being altruistic when they are pleasing me. :P
--------------------
|
Kukaracha
Cat wannabe
Registered: 12/18/08
Posts: 1,554
Loc: France
Last seen: 21 days, 22 hours
|
|
A society of self-interests guided by reason...
But in this case society is a war. This is Hobbes's vision of society, except that Hobbes does not consider it guided by reason.
Can reason guide one's conatus (to make all simpler, I don't necessarily agree with Spinoza)?
If I want and I look for what I need, then I will never consider the others as an end, but as a mean; I will use the others.
In this struggle, strenght will prevail.
In don't get the flourishing part. : )
Could you explain?
|
lIllIIIllIlIIlIlIIllIllIIl
Stranger
Registered: 12/16/04
Posts: 11,123
Loc: Texas
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
My point is still standing: nobody should do anything, there's no universal rule or truth, and things are different for everybody, people are different. Diversity is the stuff!
I think I feel the same way, only you are much more cheerful about it. Can you explain to me why you are cheerful about a basically selfish meaningless life on a speck of dust floating through space? I mean besides selfish meaningless hedonism.
|
fireworks_god
SexyButt McDanger
Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 23,677
Loc: Red Panda Village
Last seen: 8 hours, 19 minutes
|
|
Quote:
Indigenous said:
Altruism is real. The fact that some people are not capable of it and cannot comprehend that others are does not negate it's existence.
Altruism is a matter of semantics, pure and simple. Altruism is a description of behavior and the reason why an individual chooses said behavior. Whether or not altruism exists is purely a matter of how it is defined, and, subsequently, whether or not behavior, accompanied with its motivation, matches said definition.
Essentially, the argument you give for the existence of altruism is the exact same argument that a proponent of any idea could give, with just as much substantiation. Such an argument doesn't contribute anything to an ideological discussion. "G*d is real; the fact that some cannot comprehend that g*d is real doesn't negate g*d's existence". "The fifteenth planet of the Solar System, Galapodeous, is real; that some don't know this for a fact doesn't negate its existence". Etc., etc., etc.
In order for you to actually support the existence of "altruism", it would be necessary to actually put forth an explanation on how it is real. Define altruism, give an ideological presentation on how the definition matches reality as it presents itself, and so forth. Engaging in that which is quoted above doesn't fit the bill.
As for myself and what I think, the dictionary defines altruism as "1. the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others (opposed to egoism ).". It juxtaposes its meaning against egoism, which it defines as "the habit of valuing everything only in reference to one's personal interest; selfishness (opposed to altruism ).".
Again, the name of the game when it comes to altruism is semantics, and, as far as I've gathered from observing this thread, MT put forth the view that every thing is valued through one's personal interest, pointing out that concern for the welfare for others is itself rooted in one's personal interest in seeing their welfare provided for. I personally feel that, as individuals, we are only capable of acting in accordance with what our interests are, even if our interests are to act to promote the well-being of others, even if these actions conflict with other interests that we have.
Altruism as a word to represent acting to promote the welfare of others, sure if it serves you to define it as such, but altruism as a concept that is not in accordance with the natural fact that we are individuals who are only capable of acting in line with our own interests, as our interests are determined by our own mind, is not in accordance with reality and should be discarded.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
|
Quote:
adjust said:
I think I feel the same way, only you are much more cheerful about it. Can you explain to me why you are cheerful about a basically selfish meaningless life on a speck of dust floating through space? I mean besides selfish meaningless hedonism.
Because I like it and because diversity really seems to be a mind opener; it is the opposite of monotony, apathy and depression. I don't know how meaningless hedonism is to you, but to me is pretty important.
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Because I like it and because diversity really seems to be a mind opener; it is the opposite of monotony, apathy and depression. I don't know how meaningless hedonism is to you, but to me is pretty important.
So, you are incapable of conceptualizing diversity, while at the same time being integrated? Let me make it easy for you to understand.
- If the world is an orchestra, then diversity symbolizes many different musical instruments, while integration symbolizes that everybody are playing in harmony with each other.
- If there is diversity without integration, then you have many different musical instruments, but there is no harmony between the musicians playing, so everything sounds like noise.
- If there is integration without diversity, then everybody are playing in harmony with each other, but it sounds monotone because they are all using the same musical instrument.
- If there is integration and diversity, then you have many different musical instruments, and they are playing in harmony with each other, so it sounds great!
--------------------
|
lIllIIIllIlIIlIlIIllIllIIl
Stranger
Registered: 12/16/04
Posts: 11,123
Loc: Texas
|
|
I get the feeling that you don't really understand what you are saying.
I have spent years of reading time on this subject of how the world works and I don't turn my mind away from what is horror and sadness. Humans aren't really about hedonism, it is that way for you because you have an abundance of wealth. Remember that what you are is a brain... not a body. In fact the brain evolved recently in geological time and the vast majority of this planet's biomass has no brain or even a CNS.
It is not fun being a slave... and a large proportion of the human race are slaves in all but name. I can understand I think why this is, it is not really about us at all. Diversity has nothing to do with it, it is all about certain instructions we inherit or directives passed on from our ancestors in our DNA.
I would LOVE to destroy it all. But since I can't (not yet anyway) I'll just have to settle for meaningless selfish hedonism till I die. I am not going to be cheerful about it though...
|
Kukaracha
Cat wannabe
Registered: 12/18/08
Posts: 1,554
Loc: France
Last seen: 21 days, 22 hours
|
|
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
I personally feel that, as individuals, we are only capable of acting in accordance with what our interests are, even if our interests are to act to promote the well-being of others, even if these actions conflict with other interests that we have.
Altruism as a word to represent acting to promote the welfare of others, sure if it serves you to define it as such, but altruism as a concept that is not in accordance with the natural fact that we are individuals who are only capable of acting in line with our own interests, as our interests are determined by our own mind, is not in accordance with reality and should be discarded.
What if, like Marx or Auguste Comte, you consider that what comes first is society, and not individuality? Society would be a fact, individuality a concept; the ego is after all removable (savage childs such as Kamala in 1920 or Victor in 1800 seemed to have no sense of "I").
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Zanthius]
#9772084 - 02/10/09 12:22 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
So, you are incapable of conceptualizing diversity, while at the same time being integrated? Let me make it easy for you to understand.
- If the world is an orchestra, then diversity symbolizes many different musical instruments, while integration symbolizes that everybody are playing in harmony with each other.
- If there is diversity without integration, then you have many different musical instruments, but there is no harmony between the musicians playing, so everything sounds like noise.
- If there is integration without diversity, then everybody are playing in harmony with each other, but it sounds monotone because they are all using the same musical instrument.
- If there is integration and diversity, then you have many different musical instruments, and they are playing in harmony with each other, so it sounds great!
I'm wondering what does any of what you said have to do with my claim?
I could continue this post with telling you a story about shrimp production and breeding, but I realize it would be as pointless as the post you just made.
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
I'm wondering what does any of what you said have to do with my claim?
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:My point is still standing: nobody should do anything, there's no universal rule or truth, and things are different for everybody, people are different. Diversity is the stuff!
This sounds very much like an argument against a higher level of integration to me, and I believe that we can have integration and diversity at the same time, just like we can have many different musical instruments in an orchestra, while at the same time the musicians are playing in harmony with each other.
--------------------
|
fireworks_god
SexyButt McDanger
Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 23,677
Loc: Red Panda Village
Last seen: 8 hours, 19 minutes
|
|
Quote:
Kukaracha said:
What if, like Marx or Auguste Comte, you consider that what comes first is society, and not individuality? Society would be a fact, individuality a concept; the ego is after all removable (savage childs such as Kamala in 1920 or Victor in 1800 seemed to have no sense of "I").
I wouldn't consider that in terms of it reflecting the nature of reality because it doesn't. Society doesn't come first because it is an effect of individuals interacting together, with how they choose to act determining how society is. Here's the test: Individuals make decisions, whereas a society cannot make a decision.
Your point about the "ego" being "removable" doesn't have any pertinence to this. If you expand upon the idea you are citing by referencing "savage childs", I'd be more than happy to demonstrate how it doesn't pertain.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
|
fireworks_god
SexyButt McDanger
Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 23,677
Loc: Red Panda Village
Last seen: 8 hours, 19 minutes
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Zanthius]
#9772163 - 02/10/09 12:35 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
- If there is integration and diversity, then you have many different musical instruments, and they are playing in harmony with each other, so it sounds great!
"It sounds great."
You are applying a standard as to how things should be to achieve a certain effect (harmony, integration), but the concept of how things should be and the concept of what sounds great is subjective.
Isn't the danger in everyone ascribing to a concept of the whole being worth more than the part the fact that someone has to decide how the whole should be?
--------------------
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
|
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
I wouldn't consider that in terms of it reflecting the nature of reality because it doesn't. Society doesn't come first because it is an effect of individuals interacting together, with how they choose to act determining how society is. Here's the test: Individuals make decisions, whereas a society cannot make a decision.
Okay. Here is a question for you. Who comes first, the neurons in your head, or you? Because you are actually an effect of neurons interacting together.
--------------------
|
fireworks_god
SexyButt McDanger
Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 23,677
Loc: Red Panda Village
Last seen: 8 hours, 19 minutes
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Zanthius]
#9772189 - 02/10/09 12:41 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Okay. Here is a question for you. Who comes first, the neurons in your head, or you? Because you are actually an effect of neurons interacting together.
The neurons in my head, of course. Its a no-brainer.
Just the same as one's body coming first when it comes to nutrition. What's the longest you've went without eating?
--------------------
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
|
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
You are applying a standard as to how things should be to achieve a certain effect (harmony, integration), but the concept of how things should be and the concept of what sounds great is subjective.
Not entirely subjective. There is ALWAYS certain mathematical patterns in music. If an orchestra diverges completely from any mathematical pattern, everybody will agree that it sounds like noise, not music.
--------------------
|
Kukaracha
Cat wannabe
Registered: 12/18/08
Posts: 1,554
Loc: France
Last seen: 21 days, 22 hours
|
|
Do individuals live naturally outside the society?
I think that society is a genetic trait. I can't imagine ants meeting each other and deciding to live in groups. Nor can I imagine lions meeting and deciding to live in groups.
Solitary people are exceptions, therefore I think that man was made to live in a group; water is to fish what society is to man.
Considered from a distant point of view, society does have a will in itself. It interacts with other groups. Individual's interactions mean almost nothing compared to societies' interactions.
I would be happy if you show me what is wrong with my example. : )
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
|
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
The neurons in my head, of course. Its a no-brainer.
I think I am more important than any single neuron in my head, as I am the field of consciousness emerging from billions of neurons interacting.
I would rather kill a neuron in my head, than murder myself. In fact, there are neurons dying in my head all the time, and in other parts of my body there are cells programmed to kill themselves altruistically for me.
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
Just the same as one's body coming first when it comes to nutrition. What's the longest you've went without eating?
7 days. Me and my x-girlfriend tried fasting once, many years ago.
--------------------
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Zanthius]
#9772362 - 02/10/09 01:19 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
This sounds very much like an argument against a higher level of integration to me, and I believe that we can have integration and diversity at the same time, just like we can have many different musical instruments in an orchestra, while at the same time the musicians are playing in harmony with each other.
Yeah, but only that you're suggesting that, with all the existing instruments, the orchestra can play only one song, while I'm saying that it can play a multitude.
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
|
Oh but I completely understand. For example, I understand that there's horror, bliss, as well as everything in between, and that I can direct my emotions to any place I want, without losing my awareness about the existence of horror and sadness. I choose to feel happy and when I feel sad I am trying to accept it so it doesn't feel so bitter and confusing.
It makes more sense for me to pick the alternatives in which I feel free instead of constrained and enslaved, since my objective is to feel good not bad.
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
|
Quote:
Kukaracha said:
Do individuals live naturally outside the society?
I think that society is a genetic trait. I can't imagine ants meeting each other and deciding to live in groups. Nor can I imagine lions meeting and deciding to live in groups.
Solitary people are exceptions, therefore I think that man was made to live in a group; water is to fish what society is to man.
Considered from a distant point of view, society does have a will in itself. It interacts with other groups. Individual's interactions mean almost nothing compared to societies' interactions.
I would be happy if you show me what is wrong with my example. : )
So, in your opinion, since we live in a society it means that it is more important that the self? I fail to see how claiming that we're making part of society could lead you to the conclusion that it has to have a greater importance than us.
Most of us also live in houses, does this mean that our houses are more important than us?
Also, I wanna know how you measure the importance of the interactions. Also, who is affected by this interactions? Could it be the individual?
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Yeah, but only that you're suggesting that, with all the existing instruments, the orchestra can play only one song, while I'm saying that it can play a multitude.
I am saying that the musicians must play in harmony with each other. If all the musicians in an orchestra are playing their own songs, without playing in harmony with each other, it will sound like noise. Have you ever played in an orchestra?
--------------------
|
fireworks_god
SexyButt McDanger
Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 23,677
Loc: Red Panda Village
Last seen: 8 hours, 19 minutes
|
|
Quote:
Kukaracha said:
Considered from a distant point of view, society does have a will in itself. It interacts with other groups. Individual's interactions mean almost nothing compared to societies' interactions.
Society doesn't have a will in itself. There are only the wills of individuals interacting together and influencing the actions of other individuals. From a distant point of view, it is possible to notice these trends and how individuals are making decisions that, in turn, alter the experience of other individuals and then they, in turn, make further decisions, but yet decisions themselves are only being made by individuals. Thus, society doesn't have a will in and of itself. Society only exists as an abstract concept.
Quote:
I would be happy if you show me what is wrong with my example. : )
Like I said, give the example and I will critique it. What exactly was the deal with these savage childs who supposedly had no sense of individuality, how was it determined that they did not have a sense of individuality, and what does it have to do with your expression that society is a fact and that individuality is only a concept?
--------------------
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
|
lIllIIIllIlIIlIlIIllIllIIl
Stranger
Registered: 12/16/04
Posts: 11,123
Loc: Texas
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Oh but I completely understand.
I hope this doesn't come off as a personalism but I think most people would consider that to be evil. Not that there is anything wrong with that! I have a lot more respect for someone like you who knows what they are doing than someone who is ignorant of it... assuming what you say is the truth. I hope so!
|
fireworks_god
SexyButt McDanger
Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 23,677
Loc: Red Panda Village
Last seen: 8 hours, 19 minutes
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Zanthius]
#9772654 - 02/10/09 02:17 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
I would rather kill a neuron in my head, than murder myself. In fact, there are neurons dying in my head all the time, and in other parts of my body there are cells programmed to kill themselves altruistically for me.
I agree with you; however, my statement was not regarding one neuron, but a response to your questions regarding the neurons.
Could you elaborate as to how this quoted point above relates to the discussion we were having regarding my points on society? The difference between a changing body comprised of temporal cells that themselves die and are programmed to die/die as result of the nature of chemical reactions and a society of humans is that a society of humans is an effect of how humans choose to interact with each other, whereas cells within a body are chemically programmed to unfold in such a manner.
Yes, consciousness is an effect of a multi-faceted system of interacting, transitory cells, and society is an effect of a multi-faceted system of interacting, transitory humans, yet the biological existence of a human is a predetermined process that unfolds through interaction with the environment providing the prerequisite materials. At the same time, human beings actually experience reality, make decisions as to how to act, and this determines the effect known as society.
What other factor than the individual decisions of individual humans is powering the form and progression of society? I'd love to be made aware of it.
Quote:
7 days. Me and my x-girlfriend tried fasting once, many years ago.
Seven days is commendable. I'm sure it wasn't entirely without physical stress, though.
Quote:
Not entirely subjective. There is ALWAYS certain mathematical patterns in music. If an orchestra diverges completely from any mathematical pattern, everybody will agree that it sounds like noise, not music.
Indeed, there is ALWAYS certain mathematical patterns in music, insomuch that everything can be represented as mathematical patterns. However, what exactly constitutes "noise" and what exactly constitutes "music" is entirely subjective and cultural. There most certainly isn't any "right" mathematical pattern for sound-waves in order for them to be considered music and not noise. It might be difficult to recognize the difference, considering how conditioned we are as to how we are to perceive the world and make sense of our sensory data, but it doesn't change the fact. Ask Kukaracha about savage children for more info on that.
To the point, this discussion of music was an analogy you created to speak for an integration, for the benefit of the whole of society, and my response that you replied to, as quoted above, was continuing to utilize the analogy to speak of the broader topic that you were speaking for with the analogy. You countered my idea that the idea of how an individual should be for the whole as well as how the whole should be is merely a subjective sense with the assertion that it isn't entirely subjective.
Now, I'd like for you to demonstrate for us how any sense of how individuals should act and how society should be is, at least in part, an objective truth.
At the same time, I'd appreciate an answer to an earlier question I posed, that did not yet receive a response:
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
Isn't the danger in everyone ascribing to a concept of the whole being worth more than the part the fact that someone has to decide how the whole should be?
--------------------
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Zanthius]
#9772745 - 02/10/09 02:42 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
I am saying that the musicians must play in harmony with each other. If all the musicians in an orchestra are playing their own songs, without playing in harmony with each other, it will sound like noise. Have you ever played in an orchestra?
IF those musicians mutually agree to play together.
Another issue is that, even if they do, and they start playing, and they have an audience, and someone from the audience decides that they're not playing the way "they should", it doesn't mean that there's actually no harmony in those sounds, but maybe that the particular listener can't see it. After all, other listeners can feel the harmony and have nothing to object.
Think about shpongle and how, dedicated symphony lovers, would have the tendency to find their music dis-harmonious and noisy, maybe even irritating, even though shpongle even has some songs with symphony bits, and there are so many other people that completely love their music. Maybe the reason why the classic symphony lovers can't see the harmony in shpongle songs is because their ears are not conditioned to accept amazing piano sounds blending together with high pitched sounds, deep synths, and a woman's voice singing operatic vocals.
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
|
Quote:
adjust said:
I hope this doesn't come off as a personalism but I think most people would consider that to be evil. Not that there is anything wrong with that! I have a lot more respect for someone like you who knows what they are doing than someone who is ignorant of it... assuming what you say is the truth. I hope so!
Why would this be considered evil?
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
lIllIIIllIlIIlIlIIllIllIIl
Stranger
Registered: 12/16/04
Posts: 11,123
Loc: Texas
|
|
Because you enjoy being part of and participating in a system that forces slavery onto the majority of humans? Or maybe you don't understand...
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
|
No, I enjoy living my life, change what I want and can, and accept what doesn't stand in my direct power to change, or something that I think would be too time consuming to be worth trying. If evil = rationally considering priorities, then I guess you're right. 
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
lIllIIIllIlIIlIlIIllIllIIl
Stranger
Registered: 12/16/04
Posts: 11,123
Loc: Texas
|
|
That's not true. You spend money on pets when you could spend it solving the problems of our world. You are also typing from a laptop I bet, with tantalum capacitors in it. I bet there are MANY things that are in your power to change but you choose not to. You rationalize this by saying you can't do anything, or it's too much of a bother but you're really no different than all the other ignorant people who sustain the current systems and organizations by not thinking.
I know I am causing harm, I do it without any excuse with full knowledge of the consequences. I bulldozed hectares of trees for money and dumped diesel into freshwater ponds. I did it knowing exactly what the consequences are and I don't care.
You seem to have a happy outlook that is partly delusional, based on this idea that you can't effect meaningful change or that somehow it's okay to live in an isolated fantasy bubble. Perhaps one day this bubble will pop and you won't like it so much.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
|
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
Could you elaborate as to how this quoted point above relates to the discussion we were having regarding my points on society?
Our society functions more harmoniously when everybody subscribe to a common moral code or ideology.
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
What other factor than the individual decisions of individual humans is powering the form and progression of society? I'd love to be made aware of it.
The trends in our society is functioning in a way that goes beyond the power of any single individual, just like your brain is functioning in a way that goes beyond the power of any single neuron. Just like your consciousness emerges from the interactions of neurons, society is something that emerges from the interactions between people.
We don't even decide fully what thoughts are vibrating in our heads. Our language and our culture was imprinted into our heads from our parents and our society when we were children. Many of the beliefs that were imprinted into our brains when we were children, are usually manifesting themselves in us, during our entire lives.
Do you believe in democracy? 99% of the people who believe in democracy, only believes in democracy because they were thought that democracy is the right way to rule a society when they were children. In exactly the same way, people that were born in a muslim country, believes that whatever Allah said in the quran is right, just because they were thought that Allah is right when they were children.
We are just as much an effect of our society, as our society is an effect of us. You think that society is an effect of individuals, but you are forgetting that individuals were imprinted with the values of their societies when they were children.
Quote:
Indeed, there is ALWAYS certain mathematical patterns in music, insomuch that everything can be represented as mathematical patterns. However, what exactly constitutes "noise" and what exactly constitutes "music" is entirely subjective and cultural. There most certainly isn't any "right" mathematical pattern for sound-waves in order for them to be considered music and not noise.
The musical octave is based upon mathematics, and isn't that at least partially a right pattern to create music in accordance with?
Quote:
Now, I'd like for you to demonstrate for us how any sense of how individuals should act and how society should be is, at least in part, an objective truth.
At the same time, I'd appreciate an answer to an earlier question I posed, that did not yet receive a response:
- People should not pollute their environment.
- People should tell the truth to each other.
- People should not steal from each other.
- People should give love to each other.
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
Isn't the danger in everyone ascribing to a concept of the whole being worth more than the part the fact that someone has to decide how the whole should be?
I see a much greater danger in giving the world to a chaotic system where everybody only cares about their self-interest. This system has a tendency to pollute the environment, because people don't see any harm in polluting just a little themselves, but once you take the pollution from all the people together, you suddenly get a problem.
Do you know anything about game theory and about the prisoners dilemma?
--------------------
Edited by Zanthius (02/10/09 03:24 PM)
|
lIllIIIllIlIIlIlIIllIllIIl
Stranger
Registered: 12/16/04
Posts: 11,123
Loc: Texas
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Zanthius]
#9772959 - 02/10/09 03:20 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
- People should not pollute their environment.
- People should tell the truth to each other.
- People should not steal from each other.
- People should give love to each other.
Typical eschatalogical/millenarian nonsense.
This has never been the case, it never will be the case. If forced on a society the result is unimaginable horror. If left up to individuals they will choose not to follow them.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
|
Quote:
adjust said:
This has never been the case, it never will be the case. If forced on a society the result is unimaginable horror. If left up to individuals they will choose not to follow them.
Not necessarily if you teach individuals why they should follow a specific moral code / ideology. Everybody is born an egoist, but then the superego develops as you learn to adapt to your society, and I believe that everybody has the potential to learn a holistic mindset in the end.
Not all societies are the same. Some societies are functioning much more harmoniously than others, and why is that? My own Norwegian society is functioning quite harmoniously compared to the rest of the world.
--------------------
|
lIllIIIllIlIIlIlIIllIllIIl
Stranger
Registered: 12/16/04
Posts: 11,123
Loc: Texas
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Zanthius]
#9773024 - 02/10/09 03:32 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
They won't listen. Don't you get it? People have been saying what you just said for 8000 years, probably more. Some choose to follow those rules, the majority don't because they don't want to. You say you follow game theory, doesn't game theory suggest an equilibrium between selfish and altruistic individuals? The most you can expect is a slight movement in the equilibrium. There will always be people who are willing to violate those rules you listed.
Norway functions so harmoniously because it has a superior position in the world, a large abundance of resources and stable population. Take that away, and you become just as fucked up as Zimbabwe or Iraq. Your peaceful existence has very little to do with philosophy and almost everything to do with consumerism.
|
Bernackums
The universe will have its way.
Registered: 08/06/07
Posts: 865
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
|
|
Quote:
adjust said:
That's not true. You spend money on pets when you could spend it solving the problems of our world. You are also typing from a laptop I bet, with tantalum capacitors in it. I bet there are MANY things that are in your power to change but you choose not to. You rationalize this by saying you can't do anything, or it's too much of a bother but you're really no different than all the other ignorant people who sustain the current systems and organizations by not thinking.
I know I am causing harm, I do it without any excuse with full knowledge of the consequences. I bulldozed hectares of trees for money and dumped diesel into freshwater ponds. I did it knowing exactly what the consequences are and I don't care.
You seem to have a happy outlook that is partly delusional, based on this idea that you can't effect meaningful change or that somehow it's okay to live in an isolated fantasy bubble. Perhaps one day this bubble will pop and you won't like it so much.
Thank you for this, you have caused me to think in a new way and I enjoy this offered perspective.
Do you assimilate and consider yourself to be evil, or have you found a way around this system?
--------------------
Let's get the fuck out of here.
|
lIllIIIllIlIIlIlIIllIllIIl
Stranger
Registered: 12/16/04
Posts: 11,123
Loc: Texas
|
|
Part of me is evil, part of me is good, I accept both sides. There is no easy way out of the system because if there was it wouldn't be as successful as it has become. The only foolproof way out is to kill yourself, which seems worse to me than just putting up with it. If there is a way out that you can survive, it would have to be exceedingly difficult or else the majority would do it since the majority of humans are being fucked over by the few.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
|
Quote:
adjust said:
Norway functions so harmoniously because it has a superior position in the world, a large abundance of resources and stable population. Take that away, and you become just as fucked up as Zimbabwe or Iraq. Your peaceful existence has very little to do with philosophy and almost everything to do with consumerism.
I think EVERY society in the world, is functioning mostly according to what data was imprinted into the individuals of the society when they were children. Zimbabwe could have produced a lot of ethanol, and cars can use ethanol, just like our Norwegian oil. Zimbabwe was one of the richest countries in Africa before Mugabe fucked it up, because it has a lot of natural resources and good terms for agriculture. I have been in Zimbabwe by the way, and visited the victoria falls.
--------------------
|
lIllIIIllIlIIlIlIIllIllIIl
Stranger
Registered: 12/16/04
Posts: 11,123
Loc: Texas
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Zanthius]
#9773099 - 02/10/09 03:44 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
You just contradicted yourself.
You said that societies behave according to what is imprinted in childhood.
Then you said Mugabe (1 man) changed everything in that country Zimbabwe, which was otherwise doing very well.
So maybe we should install Mugabe as dictator of Norway and see what happens? Or maybe let's destroy all your powerplants, bridges, railways, water treatment plants and hospitals and see what happens? According to you everything should be fine since all the Norwegians were imprinted to be good citizens.
|
Bernackums
The universe will have its way.
Registered: 08/06/07
Posts: 865
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
|
|
If all you offer is perspective then surely you are aware that the evil you speak of is subjective, so why not shift your perspective to a more relative view? Say, relative to an individual instead of the entire planet? Since you're aware of the subjectivity why acknowledge the concepts of good and evil at all?
I'm just poking out of curiosity. 
--------------------
Let's get the fuck out of here.
Edited by Bernackums (02/10/09 03:54 PM)
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
|
Quote:
adjust said:
So maybe we should install Mugabe as dictator of Norway and see what happens? Or maybe let's destroy all your powerplants, bridges, railways, water treatment plants and hospitals and see what happens? Because according to you everything should be fine since all the Norwegians were imprinted to be good citizens.
Yes, you could easily do that, because the Norwegian population would never accept Mugabe as their dictator, because of the data that was imprinted into the Norwegian population while they were children.
He wouldn't stand a chance here, and nor would Bush.
--------------------
|
lIllIIIllIlIIlIlIIllIllIIl
Stranger
Registered: 12/16/04
Posts: 11,123
Loc: Texas
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Zanthius]
#9773136 - 02/10/09 03:49 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
What if the US raped all of your infrastructure like they did during the Gulf war in Iraq?
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
|
Quote:
adjust said:
What if the US raped all of your infrastructure like they did during the Gulf war in Iraq?
If our country is damaged so badly that we lose our cultural foundation, then of course we will devolve into barbarism.
Much of the western roman empire devolved into barbarism after they lost most of their cultural foundation. Byzantine however was able to maintain a much more harmonious society, because they were able to keep much of their cultural foundation from Greece and Rome.
--------------------
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
"What would suffice as altruism, then? The man would have to willingly give the child the food, but have no desire to do so. If the man does not desire to do something, he will not do it."
Not exactly. Can't a man do something that he logically knows he should do without necessarily having the desire to do so?
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Bernackums
The universe will have its way.
Registered: 08/06/07
Posts: 865
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Poid]
#9774350 - 02/10/09 07:40 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
"What would suffice as altruism, then? The man would have to willingly give the child the food, but have no desire to do so. If the man does not desire to do something, he will not do it."
Not exactly. Can't a man do something that he logically knows he should do without necessarily having the desire to do so?
No. Should is a result of one view imposed upon another, often it's a person of rank or authority who's should we pay attention to because it yields in our greatest interest, causing a desire to do so.
We mostly feel desire in this organism, from my experience.
--------------------
Let's get the fuck out of here.
|
MarkostheGnostic
Elder
Registered: 12/09/99
Posts: 8,634
Loc: South Florida
Last seen: 2 days, 4 hours
|
|
Consider the model of Karma Yoga, the Yoga of action. As BE HERE NOW expresses it, "when there is a task to do, you are the task." (page 4). So, I end my work day at 3:40 PM and I usually check in at the office. Today a boy gets bullied and hit in the face after school. His mom sees him crying and takes him back into the school office. We can pat him on the back and promise him we'll deal with the bully (whom he identifies in a school year book), but the "task" is clearly at hand, and I remain a half hour longer (a common thing) with another counselor to assure the boy that 1) he won't be suspended for having gotten into a fight, since he did not retaliate, and 2) the bully will be dealt with (suspension and possible police action). This satisfies the child and his mother, and maintains a zero-tolerance policy against school violence. Point is, we work without pay after hours often, becuase such events require attention in the here & now. It is compassionate and compassion IS 'the right thing' if one groks a spiritual motive governing all lesser motives. For me Compassion is God above gods, as far as motivation is concerned, and Compassion transcends the desires to split, go home, kick back, or whatever. After all, it's my time and I'm not getting paid. But, after all, such a moment is not about money, it is about the very meaning of my existence. It is about integrity and service, even at my own expense. This is altruism and it is not something to be rewarded as if it's above-and-beyond the call of duty. It is above-and-beyond because altruistic action derives from a transcendental awareness of what it's all about. It is a priviledge to be in a position which allows for the expression of transcendental awareness - Compassion. I do not pat myself on the back for acting thusly. It is not a self-conscious "I must act compassionately if I am enlightened" - it is quite simply enlightened action that flows from being compassionate. The obverse is to walk away from a crying child and go home. That is simply not an option at this point. It's altruistic, but not heroic - it's just human. I do not necessarily have to derive emotional satisfaction from such an act. Karma Yoga is the Yoga of work as well as action, and it is work, but it is effortless effort if it comes from one's Center.
--------------------
γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Sauton - Know Thyself
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
"No. Should is a result of one view imposed upon another, often it's a person of rank or authority who's should we pay attention to because it yields in our greatest interest, causing a desire to do so."
If a man's child is hungry, and he feeds his child because he knows he should, would it still considered an example of one's will being imposed upon by another? Even if the the child is willing to be fed, and the man is willing to feed his child?
We mostly feel desire in this organism, from my experience.
But is desire inherent to our being, or is it the result (however directly or indirectly) of societal conditioning?
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
Quote:
MarkostheGnostic said:
Consider the model of Karma Yoga, the Yoga of action. As BE HERE NOW expresses it, "when there is a task to do, you are the task." (page 4). So, I end my work day at 3:40 PM and I usually check in at the office. Today a boy gets bullied and hit in the face after school. His mom sees him crying and takes him back into the school office. We can pat him on the back and promise him we'll deal with the bully (whom he identifies in a school year book), but the "task" is clearly at hand, and I remain a half hour longer (a common thing) with another counselor to assure the boy that 1) he won't be suspended for having gotten into a fight, since he did not retaliate, and 2) the bully will be dealt with (suspension and possible police action). This satisfies the child and his mother, and maintains a zero-tolerance policy against school violence. Point is, we work without pay after hours often, becuase such events require attention in the here & now. It is compassionate and compassion IS 'the right thing' if one groks a spiritual motive governing all lesser motives. For me Compassion is God above gods, as far as motivation is concerned, and Compassion transcends the desires to split, go home, kick back, or whatever. After all, it's my time and I'm not getting paid. But, after all, such a moment is not about money, it is about the very meaning of my existence. It is about integrity and service, even at my own expense. This is altruism and it is not something to be rewarded as if it's above-and-beyond the call of duty. It is above-and-beyond because altruistic action derives from a transcendental awareness of what it's all about. It is a priviledge to be in a position which allows for the expression of transcendental awareness - Compassion. I do not pat myself on the back for acting thusly. It is not a self-conscious "I must act compassionately if I am enlightened" - it is quite simply enlightened action that flows from being compassionate. The obverse is to walk away from a crying child and go home. That is simply not an option at this point. It's altruistic, but not heroic - it's just human. I do not necessarily have to derive emotional satisfaction from such an act. Karma Yoga is the Yoga of work as well as action, and it is work, but it is effortless effort if it comes from one's Center.
I think this is an excellent example of someone being altruistic. Can anyone present an argument that suggests otherwise?
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
deranger
Registered: 01/21/08
Posts: 6,840
Loc: off the wall
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Poid]
#9774807 - 02/10/09 09:06 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
That pretty much concludes this thread.
Well said Markos.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Poid]
#9776210 - 02/10/09 10:42 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
Not exactly. Can't a man do something that he logically knows he should do without necessarily having the desire to do so?
Like I know that I should work on my studies, keep my apartment clean, and exercise?
I think dutifulness is about doing things you logically know you should do, even when you have a desire to do something else.
--------------------
|
Lakefingers
Registered: 08/26/05
Posts: 5,660
Loc: mumuland
Last seen: 4 months, 30 days
|
|
Quote:
MarkostheGnostic said:
Consider the model of Karma Yoga, the Yoga of action. As BE HERE NOW expresses it, "when there is a task to do, you are the task." (page 4). So, I end my work day at 3:40 PM and I usually check in at the office. Today a boy gets bullied and hit in the face after school. His mom sees him crying and takes him back into the school office. We can pat him on the back and promise him we'll deal with the bully (whom he identifies in a school year book), but the "task" is clearly at hand, and I remain a half hour longer (a common thing) with another counselor to assure the boy that 1) he won't be suspended for having gotten into a fight, since he did not retaliate, and 2) the bully will be dealt with (suspension and possible police action). This satisfies the child and his mother, and maintains a zero-tolerance policy against school violence. Point is, we work without pay after hours often, becuase such events require attention in the here & now. It is compassionate and compassion IS 'the right thing' if one groks a spiritual motive governing all lesser motives. For me Compassion is God above gods, as far as motivation is concerned, and Compassion transcends the desires to split, go home, kick back, or whatever. After all, it's my time and I'm not getting paid. But, after all, such a moment is not about money, it is about the very meaning of my existence. It is about integrity and service, even at my own expense. This is altruism and it is not something to be rewarded as if it's above-and-beyond the call of duty. It is above-and-beyond because altruistic action derives from a transcendental awareness of what it's all about. It is a priviledge to be in a position which allows for the expression of transcendental awareness - Compassion. I do not pat myself on the back for acting thusly. It is not a self-conscious "I must act compassionately if I am enlightened" - it is quite simply enlightened action that flows from being compassionate. The obverse is to walk away from a crying child and go home. That is simply not an option at this point. It's altruistic, but not heroic - it's just human. I do not necessarily have to derive emotional satisfaction from such an act. Karma Yoga is the Yoga of work as well as action, and it is work, but it is effortless effort if it comes from one's Center.
And this is what is meant by "educators are underpaid".
It's not the money so much as the underpayment of respect and cooperation from the rest of the community.
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
|
Quote:
adjust said:
I bet there are MANY things that are in your power to change but you choose not to. You rationalize this by saying you can't do anything, or it's too much of a bother but you're really no different than all the other ignorant people who sustain the current systems and organizations by not thinking.
How'd you figure this one out? I specifically said that I accept what's not in power, and I also don't waste my time on things that I consider to be taking too much time from my own life. Just because I'm not considering that I'm evil because of that, it doesn't mean that I'm not aware that I could do more if I wanted. After all, I don't owe anything to anyone, and all the help I ever gave was because I wanted to, and not because of a sense of duty.
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
|
Yes, but you mention that, as a result of that extra time spent with a student and his mother, you are not getting paid, and I was never taking only about material rewards. Surely, if you decided to stay and help the kid, it was because you thought it was the best thing to do, and because you wanted to help (reaching this conclusion in a rational way is even more admirable), but it means that it must have produced some feelings in you, and these feelings are exactly the reward I am talking about.
I don't know all the persons that think of themselves that they're altruists, but all the persons I have met sustaining this thing, were united by this deeper victim-like mentality, since they were making themselves believe that they're giving their help to the others to their detriment.
In my opinion, the compassion that you mention is a reward in itself, in the moment when you're actively taking a position in helping someone, because you don't want them to feel that sorrow anymore, and you want to help alleviate it.
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Zanthius]
#9776852 - 02/11/09 03:14 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Like I know that I should work on my studies, keep my apartment clean, and exercise?
I think dutifulness is about doing things you logically know you should do, even when you have a desire to do something else.
Yeah, right, because it isn't in your desire to have a clean apartment, for your own comfort. And you don't want to exercise because you don't want to look like Peter Griffin.
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
fireworks_god
SexyButt McDanger
Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 23,677
Loc: Red Panda Village
Last seen: 8 hours, 19 minutes
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Zanthius]
#9776915 - 02/11/09 04:13 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Our society functions more harmoniously when everybody subscribe to a common moral code or ideology.
That is an elaboration on how your statement that neurons die and other cells are pre-programmed to die pertains to my statement that individuals make decisions for themselves that in turn determines how society exists as?
To address your statement on its own merit, the definition of "more harmoniously" is in relation to precisely what moral code or ideology everybody "subscribes" to.
Who, precisely, makes the decision as to which ideology everyone should subscribe to, and how is everyone brought to subscribe to it?
Quote:
The trends in our society is functioning in a way that goes beyond the power of any single individual, just like your brain is functioning in a way that goes beyond the power of any single neuron. Just like your consciousness emerges from the interactions of neurons, society is something that emerges from the interactions between people.
No one ever disputed that society is a function that is beyond the influence of any single individual. Obviously, society is something that emerges from the interactions between people. As a matter of fact, I just said precisely this in the reply of mine to which you were replying.
Obviously, this isn't an answer to what force, beyond the decisions every individual makes for themselves, is responsible for producing the form and progression of society.
Quote:
We are just as much an effect of our society, as our society is an effect of us. You think that society is an effect of individuals, but you are forgetting that individuals were imprinted with the values of their societies when they were children.
I'm forgetting?  I think you are forgetting the very discussion that we have been having. I have specifically stated that the wills of individuals determine their actions, which in turn influence the actions and wills of other individuals. Thus, it could hardly be proposed that I am forgetting this very notion, since I acknowledge fully how individuals are influenced by the decisions of others.
Now, once again, let me ask you: Which force, other than the individual decisions that every individual makes for themselves, determines the form and progression of society? All along, regardless of the fact that individuals have been influenced by the decisions of others, each individual has made their own decisions for how they will act in this reality, and this has, in turn, determined the path that reality takes.
Now, you are proposing that it isn't just this deciding how society exists. What other factor is responsible?
You are proposing that how an individual should act and how society should be is at least partially an objective truth. How have you determined that this is objective truth?
Quote:
The musical octave is based upon mathematics, and isn't that at least partially a right pattern to create music in accordance with?
"Right"? Nope. Being aware of the way in which two different frequencies interact in relation to each other can be a very effective way to accomplish a specific end, but it doesn't mean anything more than that. The question is of what one's goal is and how one achieves it - an understanding of how different frequencies interact in relation to each other only serves this.
Quote:
- People should not pollute their environment.
- People should tell the truth to each other.
- People should not steal from each other.
- People should give love to each other.
Telling me how you feel people should act is not an answer to the question as to how you have determined that your sense of how people should act is an objective truth. Care to explain how your subjective conclusion as to how everyone should act and how society as a whole should be is an objective truth?
Quote:
I see a much greater danger in giving the world to a chaotic system where everybody only cares about their self-interest.
A "chaotic" system? The only manner in which one is able to classify one thing as "chaotic" and another thing as "orderly" is a decision as to exactly what constitutes "order". Once more, we return to the fact that it is only a question of what someone feels "order" is, and then we face the question of how one has determined that their sense of what constitutes order is based in objective truth.
You see a danger in giving the world to a system regulated by a principle you disagree with? Who is doing the giving, in your opinion? Didn't you already admit that you are not afraid of admitting that it is in your self-interest to provide for the welfare of others and the environment as a whole that influences the course of your life and supports you? If it is in someone's self-interest to be a steward to all of these things, then why do you feel there is a great danger in allowing people to care about their self-interest? Isn't it rather that you feel no danger in allowing you to care about your self-interest, because you feel your self-interest is more in tune with how things should be, but that you simply feel there is danger in allowing others to care about their self-interest, because they don't think the same way you do?
What are you proposing as an alternative, exactly? Force? Coercion?
--------------------
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
|
fireworks_god
SexyButt McDanger
Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 23,677
Loc: Red Panda Village
Last seen: 8 hours, 19 minutes
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Zanthius]
#9776976 - 02/11/09 05:03 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Yes, you could easily do that, because the Norwegian population would never accept Mugabe as their dictator, because of the data that was imprinted into the Norwegian population while they were children.
He wouldn't stand a chance here, and nor would Bush.
Honestly, this statement is ridiculous. The Norwegian population would never "accept" Mugabe as their dictator, but they did "accept" Hitler as their dictator? Or is it that the values of the Norwegian people radically changed in the last few years regarding dictators?
Obviously Norwegians, for the most part, didn't "accept" Hitler as their dictator. I know, because I've seen the fortifications installed on various mountains as a defense against the Nazis. Of course, it wasn't long and these fortifications were then used by the Nazis to oversee their conquered territory. In very much the same way, Zimbabweans, for the most part, do not "accept" Mugabe as their dictator, as anyone who followed the last controversial election would know. Force and coercion was used in a lot of rural areas to prevent people from voting for the opposition.
Your remark about Bush is similarly out of touch. The American people didn't "accept" Bush as their leader, but just a little over half of the population did. Each individual in the country that chose to vote made individual decisions as to the manner in which their society would manifest. Just as not every Norwegian is very satisfied with the direction the government takes their country. There are communists who want more state-control and a lot of individuals in the western part of the country that would love for Oslo to stop making all of their decisions for them. There is no other factor that determines how a society manifests but by the individual decisions that each individual makes, and how those decisions influence others and their environment.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
|
fireworks_god
SexyButt McDanger
Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 23,677
Loc: Red Panda Village
Last seen: 8 hours, 19 minutes
|
|
Quote:
MarkostheGnostic said:
The obverse is to walk away from a crying child and go home.
The reason why you would not prefer this isn't selfless. Your disposition is such that you would prefer not to see that outcome when you know you could affect the situation differently. Obviously, this satisfies some sense within you of what you prefer your identity to be - someone who sympathizes with the state of being of others and will take action when possible to benefit their welfare. It doesn't make sense to attribute this to a manifestation of selflessness when it is instead simply a preference for how you wish to exist as.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
|
psyka
Praetorian
Registered: 06/09/03
Posts: 1,652
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Why do you think that some people are decided to believe it exists, or why do you think it is real?
Personally, I think it has its roots in our need to feel loved and important. When this need, which I think is present in all of us more or less, is mixed with feelings of confusion and personal insecurity, people tend to believe, as a misunderstood measure of self-protection, that there's actually someone else besides them on this planet that could care so much about them that they are able to do acts from which they get absolutely no reward (be it psychological or material). Wishful and potentially dangerous thinking, because one might end up holding such irrational and unreal expectations about the world, that one might end up having their perception of the world crushed and their minds in terror, or even inflict pain on others, when severely confronted with reality.
Of course, I have this impression based on the fact that in my early teens I used to believe that altruism was real, along with believing in other self-destructive crap, and after a deep and honest analysis of myself made by me, I realized that these were the reasons I was holding such ridiculous beliefs.
I'm more than interested in hearing other's opinions, both believers and non-believers.
I am more altruistic now than I was in the past, because of the simple reason that it brings up wholesome states of mind.
--------------------
As the life of a candle,
my wick will burn out.
But, the fire of my mind
shall beam into infinite.
 
|
fireworks_god
SexyButt McDanger
Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 23,677
Loc: Red Panda Village
Last seen: 8 hours, 19 minutes
|
|
Quote:
adjust said:
That's not true. You spend money on pets when you could spend it solving the problems of our world. You are also typing from a laptop I bet, with tantalum capacitors in it. I bet there are MANY things that are in your power to change but you choose not to. You rationalize this by saying you can't do anything, or it's too much of a bother but you're really no different than all the other ignorant people who sustain the current systems and organizations by not thinking.
You seem to have a happy outlook that is partly delusional, based on this idea that you can't effect meaningful change or that somehow it's okay to live in an isolated fantasy bubble. Perhaps one day this bubble will pop and you won't like it so much.
This is an entirely baseless and unreasonable perspective. She stated that she changes what is within her direct influence if she wants to, and rules out what would be too consuming of time and resources while still living her life in accordance with her basic preferences for how she wishes to. To propose that it is somehow delusional, evil, or resultant from thinking one lives within an isolated reality bubble to have this sort of perspective and to act upon it is completely ridiculous.
Why is it completely ridiculous? There is a finite amount of resources on this planet at any one time. The fact that one human being exists and, subsequently, consumes resources necessarily implies that these resources will not be available to support another person. Ultimately, if a human being wanted to "solve" the "problems" of the world, they could simply commit suicide to not impose upon this planet and to not consume resources that others could consume. Or, perhaps you feel it would be better if one dedicated the entirety of their lives to assuming responsibility for everyone else and the opportunities that their existence creates, only serving others?
How would that be?
Tell me, exactly what ratio of dedicating oneself to saving the world vs. living one's life as one prefers is best? At which point would you feel that an individual has satisfied this conflict that you see, between living their own life and assuming responsibility for the problems of others? How much of this time and this energy and these resources do you feel a person should only reserve for themselves before they are simply being delusional and isolated?
I think it is absolutely remarkable that you feel that sustaining the life of an animal is somehow evidence of not doing enough to "solve the problems of our world". I think this is only evidence of a greatly distorted perspective of how much of the world's "problems" one individual should assume responsibility for.
Not even The Bible held such a distorted perspective of how much one should dedicate themselves to charity.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
|
Kukaracha
Cat wannabe
Registered: 12/18/08
Posts: 1,554
Loc: France
Last seen: 21 days, 22 hours
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
So, in your opinion, since we live in a society it means that it is more important that the self? I fail to see how claiming that we're making part of society could lead you to the conclusion that it has to have a greater importance than us.
Most of us also live in houses, does this mean that our houses are more important than us?
Also, I wanna know how you measure the importance of the interactions. Also, who is affected by this interactions? Could it be the individual?
Actually, we live as a society. You don't live as buildings do you? : )
As for individual's interactions, let's say that a conflict between two persons could result in a fight, whereas a conflict between two societies would more likely result in a war, and maybe in genocides, massacres, anhilation, in fact greater destruction. Society is a group, it multiplies the consequences.
Societies are affected by these interactions; individuals are affected as part of that whole.
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
Society doesn't have a will in itself. There are only the wills of individuals interacting together and influencing the actions of other individuals. From a distant point of view, it is possible to notice these trends and how individuals are making decisions that, in turn, alter the experience of other individuals and then they, in turn, make further decisions, but yet decisions themselves are only being made by individuals. Thus, society doesn't have a will in and of itself. Society only exists as an abstract concept.
[...]
Like I said, give the example and I will critique it. What exactly was the deal with these savage childs who supposedly had no sense of individuality, how was it determined that they did not have a sense of individuality, and what does it have to do with your expression that society is a fact and that individuality is only a concept?
Ethnocentrism for example does not come from an individual's will, nor does xenophobia.
As for my example, I can't find anything to back up what I'm saying. Many savage childs weren't really savage childs, I was hoping on relying to Victor's case but what I saw comes from a quote I heard in class. I can try to look for the book if you want, I'll ask the concerned teacher.
My point was that there is no evidence of the individuality since it's removable - and maybe only possible in a group.
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
|
Quote:
Kukaracha said:
Actually, we live as a society. You don't live as buildings do you? : )
We live as a society? Just saying that doesn't make it so, sorry.
I live as an individual, that sometimes makes part of a society, but can exist on my own. Society is NOT what makes me live.
Quote:
As for individual's interactions, let's say that a conflict between two persons could result in a fight, whereas a conflict between two societies would more likely result in a war, and maybe in genocides, massacres, anhilation, in fact greater destruction. Society is a group, it multiplies the consequences.
Societies are affected by these interactions; individuals are affected as part of that whole.
A person fighting another person can find another person, which calls his friend, that comes with their friend, and his brother finds out and gets into the fight; this can turn our into a real war, all of this was started by individuals. You're making absolutely no point.
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
Bernackums
The universe will have its way.
Registered: 08/06/07
Posts: 865
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Poid]
#9777110 - 02/11/09 06:50 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
"No. Should is a result of one view imposed upon another, often it's a person of rank or authority who's should we pay attention to because it yields in our greatest interest, causing a desire to do so."
If a man's child is hungry, and he feeds his child because he knows he should, would it still considered an example of one's will being imposed upon by another? Even if the the child is willing to be fed, and the man is willing to feed his child?
The view points don't neccessarily have to conflict, nor do they have to come from someone else. The conscience is a good example of should in action, when one feels guilt or shame they may feel a conflict inside. They have acted on one account, but they feel they shouldn't have, for whatever reason the have justified.
More on topic, the should is merely the motive and will to commit an act, with the justification (becuase there is nothing we don't rationalize) of the act in mind we create a desire, and we do not act without the desire to do so.
Quote:
We mostly feel desire in this organism, from my experience.
But is desire inherent to our being, or is it the result (however directly or indirectly) of societal conditioning?
It is inherent to our being and presumably alot of others on this planet. We need desire to find food, shelter, to take a shit, to survive, etc. Society has done alot of conditioning, but atleast for myself, most of my desires revolve around food & shelter, sex, and death anxiety. Three things that would be present in the organism without the society.
--------------------
Let's get the fuck out of here.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
|
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
Honestly, this statement is ridiculous. The Norwegian population would never "accept" Mugabe as their dictator, but they did "accept" Hitler as their dictator? Or is it that the values of the Norwegian people radically changed in the last few years regarding dictators?
Hitler might have been cynical racist, but he wasn't as stupid as Mugabe is. Anyhow, it was for the Germans not to accept Hitler as their dictator. We were occupied by Germany. Germany had a supreme military compared to us, and they had a lot more people, so we didn't have much of a chance against them. I wouldn't have fought against Germany myself, because I don't believe in solving conflicts with war. War is primitive, and I believe in more civilized ways to solve conflicts.
I would have fought the nazy society from within with arguments against their ideology, not with weapons to murder people. I think it is primitive to fight against people with weapons, and much more civilized to fight against ideologies with argumentation. Much less people would have died in the second world war, if everybody had focused upon fighting against the nazy ideology with argumentation, instead of murdering German people with weapons.
--------------------
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Yeah, right, because it isn't in your desire to have a clean apartment, for your own comfort. And you don't want to exercise because you don't want to look like Peter Griffin.
Actually, my emotional desire at any moment is often to be lazy, rather than to fulfill my obligations, but I try to fulfill them anyhow. Yes, you could say that by fulfilling my obligations I am serving my long-term desires, but they are not necessarily what I want to do in a short-term perspective. The frontal cortex might be planning far into the future, but we have more primitive parts of our brains, which are dominating our desires in a short-term perspective.
--------------------
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Zanthius]
#9777166 - 02/11/09 07:16 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
This means absolutely nothing. One way or another, you're still fulfilling your desires.
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
|
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
A "chaotic" system? The only manner in which one is able to classify one thing as "chaotic" and another thing as "orderly" is a decision as to exactly what constitutes "order". Once more, we return to the fact that it is only a question of what someone feels "order" is, and then we face the question of how one has determined that their sense of what constitutes order is based in objective truth.
Do you know anything about thermodynamics? Order is very clearly defined, as being the opposite of an increase in entropy. If you have 10 red particles, and 10 blue particles, then order is when all the red particles are at one side, while all the blue particles are at the other side. Disorder is when the red and the blue particles are mixed together randomly. There are basically two driving forces in the universe, one is that every particle wants to be in the lowest possible energy level, the other one is that a collective of particles always wants to evolve towards an increase in disorder, due to the random motion of particles.
When you combine these two driving forces of the universe ( an increase in entropy, and a decrease in enthalpy ), you can determine what reactions will happen spontaneously.
--------------------
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
This means absolutely nothing. One way or another, you're still fulfilling your desires.
Yes, but fulfilling the long-term desires of your frontal cortex, is much more sophisticated than fulfilling the short-term desires of your reptilian brain. Different parts of our brains are influencing us in different ways.
Neuroscientists have also found that the neocortex promotes altruistic behavior, while the reptilian brain promotes egoistical behavior. I am now using the word "altruism" according to the biological definition, which is related to behavior, not feelings.
Triune Brain
--------------------
Edited by Zanthius (02/11/09 07:44 AM)
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
|
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
Care to explain how your subjective conclusion as to how everyone should act and how society as a whole should be is an objective truth
Why must it be based on objective truth? Science is not based upon objective truth, it is based upon inductive truth. So, do you think we should dismiss science because it is based upon inductive truth, rather than objective truth? I think science has given a lot to mankind, even if it is just based upon inductive truth, and I think our society should be based partially upon inductive truth, not just objective truth.
Maybe you can find the objective truth in mathematics, but most of the progress for mankind has been due to a symbiosis between the objective truth of mathematics and the inductive truth of science.
--------------------
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
|
Quote:
fireworks_god said:There are communists who want more state-control and a lot of individuals in the western part of the country that would love for Oslo to stop making all of their decisions for them.
And there are people like me, who want to convert our democracy into a technocracy, where people must have a minimum amount of IQ and scientific knowledge, in order to be allowed to vote.
--------------------
Edited by Zanthius (02/11/09 09:31 AM)
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Zanthius]
#9777579 - 02/11/09 09:45 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Yes, but fulfilling the long-term desires of your frontal cortex, is much more sophisticated than fulfilling the short-term desires of your reptilian brain. Different parts of our brains are influencing us in different ways.
Again, what are you trying to prove with this?
Just because you prefer to make long-term decisions (BTW, it isn't a guarantee that they're always the most preferable), and you say that these kinds of decisions are "better", is still a personal appreciation and it doesn't mean that everybody should believe the same thing. People are all free to think the way they want and know best, and imposing your will on others is no more pathetic than any other dictatorship
Quote:
Neuroscientists have also found that the neocortex promotes altruistic behavior, while the reptilian brain promotes egoistical behavior. I am now using the word "altruism" according to the biological definition, which is related to behavior, not feelings.
And behavior is created by what? Little Jesuses in the skies? 
Quote:
And there are people like me, who want to convert our democracy into a technocracy, where people must have a minimum amount of IQ and scientific knowledge, in order to be allowed to vote.
In other words, your dictatorship is better than others', just because it's yours. This, of course, is nothing more but a bunch of crap, and thankfully, nobody's listening to it.
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger
Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
|
"Self-interest" is a meaningless tautology.
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
|
Care to elaborate?
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
People are all free to think the way they want and know best, and imposing your will on others is no more pathetic than any other dictatorship
Almost nobody decides what they are thinking themselves. Almost everybody are thinking according to the data that was imprinted into their brains when they were children.
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
In other words, your dictatorship is better than others', just because it's yours. This, of course, is nothing more but a bunch of crap, and thankfully, nobody's listening to it.
It is not a dictaroship, it is a technocracy, and I am not supposed to rule it. People with a minimum of IQ and scientific knowledge are supposed to rule it.
Where do you find more rationality than in mathematics and scientific knowledge? Certainly not in a normal democracy!
--------------------
Edited by Zanthius (02/11/09 11:03 AM)
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Zanthius]
#9777677 - 02/11/09 10:06 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Almost nobody decides what they are thinking themselves. Almost everybody are thinking according to the data that was imprinted into their brains when they were children.
You mean that our environment and culture influence the way we're thinking, not that we're completely without discernment.
If you meant the latter, then I'm just going to call bullshit on it and ask for evidence.
Quote:
It is not a dictaroship, it is a technocracy, and I am not supposed to rule it. People with a minimum of IQ and scientific knowledge are supposed to rule it.
Where do you find more objective truth than in mathematics and scientific knowledge? Certainly not in a normal democracy!
Why should people live objectively? I think that both irrational and rational people are free to live and leave their print on this world, and frankly I see no reason for things to be different.
Your statements are getting more and more absurd, and they're quite lacking of any rationality, you're never able to explain why things should be like this, and yet you insist that this is the way to go about things. This is getting boring.
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Why should people live objectively? I think that both irrational and rational people are free to live and leave their print on this world, and frankly I see no reason for things to be different.
Even if irrational people should be free to live and leave their print on this world, it doesn't necessarily mean that they should be allowed to vote in a democracy, as they might lack the rationality to vote on what is best for themselves and their society.
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Your statements are getting more and more absurd, and they're quite lacking of any rationality, you're never able to explain why things should be like this, and yet you insist that this is the way to go about things. This is getting boring.
Yes, and that is why people lacking rationality shouldn't be allowed to vote in a democracy. We are never able to explain why things should be they way they should be.
--------------------
Edited by Zanthius (02/11/09 10:37 AM)
|
lIllIIIllIlIIlIlIIllIllIIl
Stranger
Registered: 12/16/04
Posts: 11,123
Loc: Texas
|
|
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
She stated that she changes what is within her direct influence if she wants to, and rules out what would be too consuming of time and resources while still living her life in accordance with her basic preferences for how she wishes to. To propose that it is somehow delusional, evil, or resultant from thinking one lives within an isolated reality bubble to have this sort of perspective and to act upon it is completely ridiculous.
I disagree! I think that those options I listed (delusional/evil/isolationist) are pretty much spot on for the behavior you described, although evil may be a bit too strong a word.
It's not like I misread what she wrote. When a person succumbs to the idea that it's okay to just go with the flow as long as that flow is a raging torrent that would be very hard to resist, even if the direction of that flow will have serious harmful consequences for others, that is evil. It's kind of like all the academics that sided with the national socialists, such as Heidegger. To resist would be to put oneself in a terrible position in contradiction of their hopes and dreams of the life they wanted.
I never said this is wrong! All I said was that to call this anything other than evil/selfish/delusional/isolationist would be inaccurate. Yet whenever I describe it in that way all of a sudden you don't like it, haha. Seems like you didn't think your philosophy through, which is what I've asserted many times and will assert again.
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
There is a finite amount of resources on this planet at any one time. The fact that one human being exists and, subsequently, consumes resources necessarily implies that these resources will not be available to support another person. Ultimately, if a human being wanted to "solve" the "problems" of the world, they could simply commit suicide to not impose upon this planet and to not consume resources that others could consume. Or, perhaps you feel it would be better if one dedicated the entirety of their lives to assuming responsibility for everyone else and the opportunities that their existence creates, only serving others?
Or maybe I should kill you?
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
I think it is absolutely remarkable that you feel that sustaining the life of an animal is somehow evidence of not doing enough to "solve the problems of our world". I think this is only evidence of a greatly distorted perspective of how much of the world's "problems" one individual should assume responsibility for.
Not even The Bible held such a distorted perspective of how much one should dedicate themselves to charity.
Understandable, since you love animals. You don't see the inherent selfishness in spending time looking after one life form for your own pleasure, and ignoring vast millions of your own kind because they happen to live in a place where you can't interact with them? Ahh fwg...
I'm not saying you should spend ANY time on humanitarian things, but if you live selfishly call it what it is, that's all I'm saying.
|
Kukaracha
Cat wannabe
Registered: 12/18/08
Posts: 1,554
Loc: France
Last seen: 21 days, 22 hours
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Quote:
Kukaracha said:
Actually, we live as a society. You don't live as buildings do you? : )
We live as a society? Just saying that doesn't make it so, sorry.
I live as an individual, that sometimes makes part of a society, but can exist on my own. Society is NOT what makes me live.
Quote:
As for individual's interactions, let's say that a conflict between two persons could result in a fight, whereas a conflict between two societies would more likely result in a war, and maybe in genocides, massacres, anhilation, in fact greater destruction. Society is a group, it multiplies the consequences.
Societies are affected by these interactions; individuals are affected as part of that whole.
A person fighting another person can find another person, which calls his friend, that comes with their friend, and his brother finds out and gets into the fight; this can turn our into a real war, all of this was started by individuals. You're making absolutely no point.
I doubt you can just go in a cave and live the rest of your life happily. You need a minimum of human contact, it's your need of society.
And yeah, the person can call another one, and another one, but when you have ten people it starts to get ridicoulous and unlikely to happen.
Don't deny the size of society. It implies a culture, common beliefs...
|
MarkostheGnostic
Elder
Registered: 12/09/99
Posts: 8,634
Loc: South Florida
Last seen: 2 days, 4 hours
|
|
Thanks for that!
|
MarkostheGnostic
Elder
Registered: 12/09/99
Posts: 8,634
Loc: South Florida
Last seen: 2 days, 4 hours
|
|
In my opinion, the compassion that you mention is a reward in itself, in the moment when you're actively taking a position in helping someone, because you don't want them to feel that sorrow anymore, and you want to help alleviate it.
Yes, that is pretty much it. And for me, I ascribe a metaphysical value to compassion, and so I become a vessel through which this motive can operate.
|
MarkostheGnostic
Elder
Registered: 12/09/99
Posts: 8,634
Loc: South Florida
Last seen: 2 days, 4 hours
|
 Re: Altruism [Re: Poid]
#9778785 - 02/11/09 01:56 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Thanks for the compliment!
|
MarkostheGnostic
Elder
Registered: 12/09/99
Posts: 8,634
Loc: South Florida
Last seen: 2 days, 4 hours
|
|
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
Quote:
MarkostheGnostic said:
The obverse is to walk away from a crying child and go home.
The reason why you would not prefer this isn't selfless. Your disposition is such that you would prefer not to see that outcome when you know you could affect the situation differently. Obviously, this satisfies some sense within you of what you prefer your identity to be - someone who sympathizes with the state of being of others and will take action when possible to benefit their welfare. It doesn't make sense to attribute this to a manifestation of selflessness when it is instead simply a preference for how you wish to exist as.
You seem to be confounding your own quest for identity with action taken by another individual - me. I do not, at this point of my development, have to be self-consciously preoccupied by acting in accordance with a Rogerian 'idealized self-concept.' Moreover, the action I described is not about me, it is about the child who required assistance in that moment.
Your baseline of reference for inner motivationseems to be exclusively ego-consciousness. Perhaps you do not appreciate the simplicity of 'transcendence in everyday life,' which translates into serving others. The action is paradoxically method and reward simultaneously, and it does not serve the purpose of the "pleasure principle," or the egoic "reality principle." Altruism proceeds from a center which transcends the center of the 'conscious personality,' and is governed by the 'Self' which is a transcendental center.
So, I am using Jungian terms to 'transcend' Freudian terms here, because we are describing the motivations of two different kinds of psychology. The Jungian description describes my predominating psychological motives, not the ego-based Freudian model that you appear to be wed to. It always refers back to the psychophysical being whereas Jung's model allows for a psychospiritual motive - one that transcends the embodied egoic-centered personality. Here, you are doing nothing more than projecting your own psychological make-up onto me while you reduce altruism to a apparition of the egoic mind. I am under no such constraints in matters of relative selflessness, they are conditions of reduced egoic mind. This is everyday selflessness, a minor daily 'crucifixion of the ego' that does not produce a very significant halo around my head. It is disconcerting that you do not recognize this in others, because how would you recognize it in yourself?
--------------------
γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Sauton - Know Thyself
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
|
Quote:
Kukaracha said:
I doubt you can just go in a cave and live the rest of your life happily. You need a minimum of human contact, it's your need of society.
I would probably love to live all alone with some girls and all my technology. I don't find much fascination in this global society we live in, where people only cares about trivial work and trivial entertainment.
It probably feels good when you are asleep and dreaming, but I am too awake for this materialistic society we live in, where there are no spiritual values, and magic mushrooms are illegal.
--------------------
Edited by Zanthius (02/11/09 02:40 PM)
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
|
Quote:
MarkostheGnostic said:
So, I am using Jungian terms to 'transcend' Freudian terms here, because we are describing the motivations of two different kinds of psychology. The Jungian description describes my predominating psychological motives, not the ego-based Freudian model that you appear to be wed to. It always refers back to the psychophysical being whereas Jung's model allows for a psychospiritual motive - one that transcends the embodied egoic-centered personality. Here, you are doing nothing more than projecting your own psychological make-up onto me while you reduce altruism to a apparition of the egoic mind. I am under no such constraints in matters of relative selflessness, they are conditions of reduced egoic mind. This is everyday selflessness, a minor daily 'crucifixion of the ego' that does not produce a very significant halo around my head. It is disconcerting that you do not recognize this in others, because how would you recognize it in yourself?
I think it is your ego that strives so hard to convince others that you have no ego. If you had no ego, you probably wouldn't feel any desire to convince others that you are without any ego.
When we are trying to convince others that we aren't a certain thing, it is usually because we are exactly that thing.
--------------------
|
fireworks_god
SexyButt McDanger
Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 23,677
Loc: Red Panda Village
Last seen: 8 hours, 19 minutes
|
|
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
The reason why you would not prefer this isn't selfless. Your disposition is such that you would prefer not to see that outcome when you know you could affect the situation differently. Obviously, this satisfies some sense within you of what you prefer your identity to be - someone who sympathizes with the state of being of others and will take action when possible to benefit their welfare. It doesn't make sense to attribute this to a manifestation of selflessness when it is instead simply a preference for how you wish to exist as.
Quote:
MarkostheGnostic said:
I do not, at this point of my development, have to be self-consciously preoccupied by acting in accordance with a Rogerian 'idealized self-concept.'
If you re-read my statement you replied to, you'll notice that I never referred to a need to be self-consciously preoccupied with acting in accordance with an ideal conception of one's identity. I was simply affirming the fact that any human being makes decisions regarding the life they wish to lead and, thus, every human being has a conscious and subconscious concept of who they are, what they identify with, that subsequently determines how they choose to act. This doesn't need to always be conscious, although I'm sure you have consciously reflected on who you are and how you choose to act.
Quote:
Moreover, the action I described is not about me, it is about the child who required assistance in that moment.
Obviously the action is in the interest of the child and is about them. My point is simply that the action isn't "selfless", because obviously the action is also about you. You are the one making the decision as to how you will invest your time and your resources, and obviously helping the child means something to you and is something you value. My observing that taking the action satisfies within you some sense of how you prefer to be doesn't conflict that, and it is evident in the fact that, if it conflicted with your sense of identity, you would have experienced some degree of discontent with making the decision to act in such a way, or to have simply decided it wasn't important enough for you to help the child at all. Making the observation isn't simply confusing my own, purported "quest for identity" with the nature of another or a projection of my own psychological makeup, but simply an acknowledgment of the nature of being an individual, distinct human being.
Quote:
So, I am using Jungian terms to 'transcend' Freudian terms here, because we are describing the motivations of two different kinds of psychology. The Jungian description describes my predominating psychological motives, not the ego-based Freudian model that you appear to be wed to.
While I admit that I do not fully understand the Freudian model of "ego", I do know that I simply do not feel that it is an effective model for the nature of the mind, and pretty much reject it. Having said that, what I feel is the ironic thing about this discussion is that what you affirm as the Jungian description that describes your predominating psychological motives is precisely what I was referring to with my statement that I left quoted at the beginning of this post.
Which leaves me to wonder exactly what it was regarding my statement that you found objectionable. Was it the idea that, as a conscious and unconscious being, you would have a preference for the form you choose to exist as and the actions you choose to take, or was it that I objected to the usage of the term "selfless" to describe why you would choose to take action that would not simply leave the kid without your help?
The simple fact that an action and the motivations for the action can transcend a more limited conception of one's personality and one's identity doesn't mean that it then is selfless.
Adjust and Zanthius, I'm not going to be able to get to your replies for awhile because I've got more pressing, personal commitments to attend to, but you'll both be replied to, all in due time.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
|
Kukaracha
Cat wannabe
Registered: 12/18/08
Posts: 1,554
Loc: France
Last seen: 21 days, 22 hours
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Zanthius]
#9779475 - 02/11/09 03:47 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Quote:
Kukaracha said:
I doubt you can just go in a cave and live the rest of your life happily. You need a minimum of human contact, it's your need of society.
I would probably love to live all alone with some girls and all my technology. I don't find much fascination in this global society we live in, where people only cares about trivial work and trivial entertainment.
It probably feels good when you are asleep and dreaming, but I am too awake for this materialistic society we live in, where there are no spiritual values, and magic mushrooms are illegal.
I'm not really talking about our society, which many may not like, but about society in general.
You said it yourself, you would bring girls. I know some dudes say they have no soul but I don't want any problems with scary feminists.
My point is that you need people around; a vaste majority of people would be driven crazy by an extreme loneliness.
|
fireworks_god
SexyButt McDanger
Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 23,677
Loc: Red Panda Village
Last seen: 8 hours, 19 minutes
|
|
Ahh, forgot to mention your name in my list of future replies.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
|
Quote:
Kukaracha said:
I'm not really talking about our society, which many may not like, but about society in general.
You said it yourself, you would bring girls. I know some dudes say they have no soul but I don't want any problems with scary feminists.
My point is that you need people around; a vaste majority of people would be driven crazy by an extreme loneliness.
But, but... you said that a few people could never have the importance of a society, so like, yeah.
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
|
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
The simple fact that an action and the motivations for the action can transcend a more limited conception of one's personality and one's identity doesn't mean that it then is selfless.
Nor does it mean that it is selfish. Photons and electrons have both wave-properties and properties of matter. Actually, all matter and energy in the universe exhibits both wave-like and particle-like properties.
It is the same with the self. You have the particle property of a self, and you have the wave property of transcendence. People are both separate individuals, and a unified collective at the same time.
Why must the world be either/or? Can't you see that the world isn't either black or white, but a gradient of different colors. If selfishness is black, while selflessness is white, then people are shades of gray in between, while I am a rainbow.
Zanthius Casting A Rainbow
--------------------
Edited by Zanthius (02/11/09 04:19 PM)
|
Kukaracha
Cat wannabe
Registered: 12/18/08
Posts: 1,554
Loc: France
Last seen: 21 days, 22 hours
|
|
You're confusing the idea of society with the idea of... a bunch of individuals. That doesn't immediatly make sense, but to explain shortly:
Society is a groupe that shares the same culture and organization.
A group can be called society, if there isn't anything bigger; if it's the whole, even a family could be called society.
But you rarely find a group of four persons living in autarcy; most of the time society is vaste.
To make it clearer, society is the biggest group; above it is the human species. If a group locates itself in a bigger one, then it's not a society.
I'm pointing out that people need human contact; why is that? Some other animals spend most of their lives alone. It must be because humans are social animals. Society occurs naturally through the phenomenon of gathering and cooperation.
Are you comparing four people to hundreds of thousands? Then in your opinion, I could wipe off half of the earth just to save the life of someone I love. Smells nazi.
(Joking, by the way)
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Zanthius]
#9780152 - 02/11/09 05:34 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
Not exactly. Can't a man do something that he logically knows he should do without necessarily having the desire to do so?
Like I know that I should work on my studies, keep my apartment clean, and exercise?
Yes, those are good examples of doing things you logically know you should do without necessarily having the desire to do them, but they don't relate to altruism very well because those are all things you do for yourself.
I think dutifulness is about doing things you logically know you should do, even when you have a desire to do something else.
du⋅ti⋅ful
/ˈdutəfəl, ˈdyu-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [doo-tuh-fuhl, dyoo-]
–adjective
1. performing the duties expected or required of one; characterized by doing one's duty: a dutiful citizen; a dutiful child.
2. required by duty; proceeding from or expressive of a sense of duty:
Very true, obligations should be taken care of first.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
Surely, if you decided to stay and help the kid, it was because you thought it was the best thing to do, and because you wanted to help (reaching this conclusion in a rational way is even more admirable), but it means that it must have produced some feelings in you, and these feelings are exactly the reward I am talking about.
Does it really necessarily mean this?
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
"This is an entirely baseless and unreasonable perspective. She stated that she changes what is within her direct influence if she wants to, and rules out what would be too consuming of time and resources while still living her life in accordance with her basic preferences for how she wishes to. To propose that it is somehow delusional, evil, or resultant from thinking one lives within an isolated reality bubble to have this sort of perspective and to act upon it is completely ridiculous."
There's nothing inherently wrong with that.
"Why is it completely ridiculous? There is a finite amount of resources on this planet at any one time. The fact that one human being exists and, subsequently, consumes resources necessarily implies that these resources will not be available to support another person. Ultimately, if a human being wanted to "solve" the "problems" of the world, they could simply commit suicide to not impose upon this planet and to not consume resources that others could consume. Or, perhaps you feel it would be better if one dedicated the entirety of their lives to assuming responsibility for everyone else and the opportunities that their existence creates, only serving others?
How would that be?"
Maybe that particular portion will not be available for someone else, but there is likely still much more from where that portion came from to be available for everyone.
Are you positing that the problems of the world are fundamentally material-based, and that the only way to solve said problems is through material means?
Quote:
Or, perhaps you feel it would be better if one dedicated the entirety of their lives to assuming responsibility for everyone else and the opportunities that their existence creates, only serving others?
How would that be?
Clarify this quote. What are you saying here? Are you asserting that dedication to selflessly serving others is wrong?
How would what be? How would selflessly serving others be better, is that what you're asking? Better than/for what?
"Tell me, exactly what ratio of dedicating oneself to saving the world vs. living one's life as one prefers is best? At which point would you feel that an individual has satisfied this conflict that you see, between living their own life and assuming responsibility for the problems of others? How much of this time and this energy and these resources do you feel a person should only reserve for themselves before they are simply being delusional and isolated?"
How is "saving the world" any different than "living one's life"?
Delusional in terms of what? Isolated from whom?
Can not an individual's personal/private life involve helping others? And can not an individual's public life involve the same?
"I think it is absolutely remarkable that you feel that sustaining the life of an animal is somehow evidence of not doing enough to "solve the problems of our world". I think this is only evidence of a greatly distorted perspective of how much of the world's "problems" one individual should assume responsibility for.
Not even The Bible held such a distorted perspective of how much one should dedicate themselves to charity. "
I don't know where this came from, but I agree that "living the life of an animal" has nothing to do with "solving the problems of the world". As different drugs induce varied particular states of consciousness, different animals do different things; one animal may be a beast, while another may be kind and generous.
That being said, the Holy Bible, as it is called, said many things about charity, but one of the things that stand out is the giving of "tithes". This means that you give one tenth of what you make over to charity. However, there was a character in the Holy Bible who gave his all to everyone; that character was named Jesus Christ (Christ means "Messiah").
Is anybody here asserting that attempting to model oneself after Jesus Christ is merely psychologically delusional?
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
"No. Should is a result of one view imposed upon another, often it's a person of rank or authority who's should we pay attention to because it yields in our greatest interest, causing a desire to do so."
If a man's child is hungry, and he feeds his child because he knows he should, would it still considered an example of one's will being imposed upon by another? Even if the the child is willing to be fed, and the man is willing to feed his child?
More on topic, the should is merely the motive and will to commit an act, with the justification (becuase there is nothing we don't rationalize) of the act in mind we create a desire, and we do not act without the desire to do so.
The "should" isn't the motive; the "should" is born out of logical reasoning. What, then is the motive? Again, the motive is also born out of logical reasoning.
Desire comes from the conclusion out of logical reasoning that reciprocation of a desired phenomenon will result in positive feelings, and if not reciprocated once its already been desired, negative feelings will result.
"It is inherent to our being and presumably alot of others on this planet. We need desire to find food, shelter, to take a shit, to survive, etc. Society has done alot of conditioning, but atleast for myself, most of my desires revolve around food & shelter, sex, and death anxiety. Three things that would be present in the organism without the society."
de⋅sire
/dɪˈzaɪər/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [di-zahyuhr]
verb, -sired, -sir⋅ing, noun
–verb (used with object)
1. to wish or long for; crave; want.
2. to express a wish to obtain; ask for; request: The mayor desires your presence at the next meeting.
–noun
3. a longing or craving, as for something that brings satisfaction or enjoyment: a desire for fame.
4. an expressed wish; request.
5. something desired.
6. sexual appetite or a sexual urge.
From this definition, one can easily discern that desire is closely related to wishful thinking, which can eventually manifest into psychological problems. Every thought an individual thinks isn't wishful (or at least I hope so!), therefore, it isn't necessary to think wishfully (i.e., to desire) in order to obtain basic needs (food, shelter, releasing of bowels, survival, sex etc.).
Are you sure that society hasn't at all influence your desires pertaining to food, shelter, sex, and death anxiety? At least a little?
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Lakefingers
Registered: 08/26/05
Posts: 5,660
Loc: mumuland
Last seen: 4 months, 30 days
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Zanthius]
#9782592 - 02/12/09 12:06 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Quote:
MarkostheGnostic said:
So, I am using Jungian terms to 'transcend' Freudian terms here, because we are describing the motivations of two different kinds of psychology. The Jungian description describes my predominating psychological motives, not the ego-based Freudian model that you appear to be wed to. It always refers back to the psychophysical being whereas Jung's model allows for a psychospiritual motive - one that transcends the embodied egoic-centered personality. Here, you are doing nothing more than projecting your own psychological make-up onto me while you reduce altruism to a apparition of the egoic mind. I am under no such constraints in matters of relative selflessness, they are conditions of reduced egoic mind. This is everyday selflessness, a minor daily 'crucifixion of the ego' that does not produce a very significant halo around my head. It is disconcerting that you do not recognize this in others, because how would you recognize it in yourself?
I think it is your ego that strives so hard to convince others that you have no ego. If you had no ego, you probably wouldn't feel any desire to convince others that you are without any ego.
When we are trying to convince others that we aren't a certain thing, it is usually because we are exactly that thing.
It's easy to suspect that, but maybe something is lost over the net.
Having seen MarkostheGnostic's posts for a few years I
believe I can accurately claim that he's in the Shroomery's highest percentile for selflessness.
Sure, it could be a facade, we all have internet personalities--
I doubt this though.
Is self-insight and sharing experience always egotistical?
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
|
Quote:
Lakefingers said:
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Quote:
MarkostheGnostic said:
So, I am using Jungian terms to 'transcend' Freudian terms here, because we are describing the motivations of two different kinds of psychology. The Jungian description describes my predominating psychological motives, not the ego-based Freudian model that you appear to be wed to. It always refers back to the psychophysical being whereas Jung's model allows for a psychospiritual motive - one that transcends the embodied egoic-centered personality. Here, you are doing nothing more than projecting your own psychological make-up onto me while you reduce altruism to a apparition of the egoic mind. I am under no such constraints in matters of relative selflessness, they are conditions of reduced egoic mind. This is everyday selflessness, a minor daily 'crucifixion of the ego' that does not produce a very significant halo around my head. It is disconcerting that you do not recognize this in others, because how would you recognize it in yourself?
I think it is your ego that strives so hard to convince others that you have no ego. If you had no ego, you probably wouldn't feel any desire to convince others that you are without any ego.
When we are trying to convince others that we aren't a certain thing, it is usually because we are exactly that thing.
It's easy to suspect that, but maybe something is lost over the net.
Having seen MarkostheGnostic's posts for a few years I
believe I can accurately claim that he's in the Shroomery's highest percentile for selflessness.
Sure, it could be a facade, we all have internet personalities--
I doubt this though.
Is self-insight and sharing experience always egotistical?
I believe that he is striving very hard to be selfless, and is quite selfless, even if he hasn't necessarily reached nirvana yet.
I think it is the ego that is usually striving to convince other people that you are right while they are wrong, but I think a selfless person can give insight to other people, without striving to convince them that he is right while they are wrong.
I don't believe myself to be perfect, because I can see many weaknesses in myself, and I believe that the more enlightened you are, the more you are able to see the weaknesses in yourself. When my own ego is striving to convince other people that I am right while they are wrong, I see weakness in myself.
--------------------
Edited by Zanthius (02/12/09 02:15 AM)
|
fireworks_god
SexyButt McDanger
Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 23,677
Loc: Red Panda Village
Last seen: 8 hours, 19 minutes
|
|
Quote:
Kukaracha said:
Ethnocentrism for example does not come from an individual's will, nor does xenophobia.
...
As for individual's interactions, let's say that a conflict between two persons could result in a fight, whereas a conflict between two societies would more likely result in a war, and maybe in genocides, massacres, anhilation, in fact greater destruction. Society is a group, it multiplies the consequences.
Societies are affected by these interactions; individuals are affected as part of that whole.
Yes, these things do come from an individual's will. They result from the wills of many individuals. The only factor responsible for the manner in which society manifests is the decisions each individual chooses to make. I'm not disputing that very real effects occur as a result of how individuals choose to interact with each other and their environment, and I think it is more than accurate to label these effects as societal effects.
However, society is only a concept to describe the interactions of individuals. Society has no will.
Quote:
My point was that there is no evidence of the individuality since it's removable - and maybe only possible in a group.
Individuality isn't removable, and the fact that the existence of one human being implies the existence of other human beings doesn't negate individuality. Without knowing specifically what you were referring to with this example of savage children, it isn't clear how you have come to the conclusion that their "individuality" was "removed". While I acknowledge that it is difficult for you to obtain the original source upon which you based your conclusion, why not just elaborate as to the understanding of the source that you took, and how the example relates to the point you were trying to make?
--------------------
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
|
fireworks_god
SexyButt McDanger
Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 23,677
Loc: Red Panda Village
Last seen: 8 hours, 19 minutes
|
|
Quote:
adjust said:
When a person succumbs to the idea that it's okay to just go with the flow as long as that flow is a raging torrent that would be very hard to resist, even if the direction of that flow will have serious harmful consequences for others, that is evil. It's kind of like all the academics that sided with the national socialists, such as Heidegger. To resist would be to put oneself in a terrible position in contradiction of their hopes and dreams of the life they wanted.
Could you make a more irrelevant statement? What exactly does this mean regarding the real world? What precisely is it about what you assume to be the lives that we lead that you assume is succumbing to the perpetuation of horrible, harmful consequences for others?
Quote:
I never said this is wrong! All I said was that to call this anything other than evil/selfish/delusional/isolationist would be inaccurate. Yet whenever I describe it in that way all of a sudden you don't like it, haha.
Of course I object to the baseless, unsubstantiated assignment of bullshit adjectives to the perspective that was expressed. You were specifically questioned as to how it is in any way reasonable to reach these conclusions, and you completely avoided presenting any line of rationality for how they fit.
Quote:
Or maybe I should kill you?
You could certainly try.
Quote:
Understandable, since you love animals. You don't see the inherent selfishness in spending time looking after one life form for your own pleasure, and ignoring vast millions of your own kind because they happen to live in a place where you can't interact with them?
Caring for the life of another animal isn't only for the pleasure of the company of the animal, but is also in benefit to the animal of a secure, loving home in which their biological and psychological needs are provided for to the greatest extent. Symbiotic relationships FTW.
Caring for an animal isn't ignoring millions of humans. This is nothing more than a false dichotomy.
Quote:
I'm not saying you should spend ANY time on humanitarian things, but if you live selfishly call it what it is, that's all I'm saying.
I never objected to the idea that I live my life in a selfish manner. I objected to referring to living one's life in the way that MT outlined it as "delusional", "evil", and "a bubble of isolation". As you haven't even attempted to substantiate these claims, they continue to remain entirely irrelevant and baseless.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
Edited by fireworks_god (02/12/09 05:56 AM)
|
fireworks_god
SexyButt McDanger
Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 23,677
Loc: Red Panda Village
Last seen: 8 hours, 19 minutes
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Zanthius]
#9783481 - 02/12/09 05:54 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Do you know anything about thermodynamics? Order is very clearly defined, as being the opposite of an increase in entropy. If you have 10 red particles, and 10 blue particles, then order is when all the red particles are at one side, while all the blue particles are at the other side. Disorder is when the red and the blue particles are mixed together randomly. There are basically two driving forces in the universe, one is that every particle wants to be in the lowest possible energy level, the other one is that a collective of particles always wants to evolve towards an increase in disorder, due to the random motion of particles.
Clearly, "order" is very clearly defined in the field of thermodynamics, relevant to the field of thermodynamics. This, of course, contradicts nothing regarding what you replied to, wherein I expressed that the only manner in which one is able to classify one thing as "chaotic" and another thing as "orderly" is a decision as to exactly what constitutes "order".
As people are not simply different colored particles that are being lined up on different sides, simply citing the definition of order within the realm of thermodynamics does not substantiate your subjective sense of what you feel social order should be.
Quote:
Why must it be based on objective truth?
I worded my statements regarding the answer I was seeking from you in an ineffective manner. You had implied that your sense of how everyone should be was not just based in your subjective opinion. What I want to know is how precisely have you determined that your sense of how everyone should be is more than just your opinion, but rather an inductive truth regarding the nature of reality?
Furthermore, you neglected to reply to what I feel a pivotal critique of the point of view you have put forth on this:
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
You see a danger in giving the world to a system regulated by a principle you disagree with? Who is doing the giving, in your opinion? Didn't you already admit that you are not afraid of admitting that it is in your self-interest to provide for the welfare of others and the environment as a whole that influences the course of your life and supports you? If it is in someone's self-interest to be a steward to all of these things, then why do you feel there is a great danger in allowing people to care about their self-interest? Isn't it rather that you feel no danger in allowing you to care about your self-interest, because you feel your self-interest is more in tune with how things should be, but that you simply feel there is danger in allowing others to care about their self-interest, because they don't think the same way you do?
What are you proposing as an alternative, exactly? Force? Coercion?
I'll be replying later to your views on implementing technocracy when I have time to fully express my point of view on the matter.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Zanthius]
#9783530 - 02/12/09 06:12 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Even if irrational people should be free to live and leave their print on this world, it doesn't necessarily mean that they should be allowed to vote in a democracy, as they might lack the rationality to vote on what is best for themselves and their society.
Why? Just because you say so? 
Not to mention the fact that education or the IQ are in no way guarantees for people making the best decision regarding voting, and saying that there should be other people dictating what other people should so is idiotic.
You go on with your holistic crap, rainbows, and other meaningless idiocies, you pretend that you're all for the well-being of humanity, yet you are able to say that some people shouldn't have the right to be free and take decisions regarding their own lives.
Furthermore, if humanity was to live their lives according to the "scientific evidence" you have presented in this thread, and the thread called "Magic Mushrooms and Human Evolution", the world would go to shit.
Quote:
Yes, and that is why people lacking rationality shouldn't be allowed to vote in a democracy
Are you aware of the meaning of your answer? 
You said that the reason why irrational people shouldn't vote is because your statements are irrational and absurd. Let's review:
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Your statements are getting more and more absurd, and they're quite lacking of any rationality, you're never able to explain why things should be like this, and yet you insist that this is the way to go about things. This is getting boring.
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Yes, and that is why people lacking rationality shouldn't be allowed to vote in a democracy.
Quote:
We are never able to explain why things should be they way they should be.
We? Just because you can't explain your claims, it doesn't mean that "we are never able to explain why". 
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
zen buddy
not a buddhist
Registered: 01/22/09
Posts: 704
|
|
Why has this thread gone so incredibly far off topic?
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:Why? Just because you say so? Not to mention the fact that education or the IQ are in no way guarantees for people making the best decision regarding voting, and saying that there should be other people dictating what other people should so is idiotic.
Well, people with a high IQ and a lot of education usually think they know better than people with a low IQ and no education. It doesn't really matter what you think, because high IQ societies, like the mega society for people with more than 170 in IQ, is planning to take over the world, and there is nothing people with a lower IQ can do to stop them. How are normal people supposed to outsmart people with such a high IQ? They can't!
But maybe they can reach the same level of intelligence, if they eat a lot of magic mushrooms.
--------------------
Edited by Zanthius (02/12/09 08:30 AM)
|
zen buddy
not a buddhist
Registered: 01/22/09
Posts: 704
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Zanthius]
#9784029 - 02/12/09 08:51 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:Why? Just because you say so? Not to mention the fact that education or the IQ are in no way guarantees for people making the best decision regarding voting, and saying that there should be other people dictating what other people should so is idiotic.
Well, people with a high IQ and a lot of education usually thinks they know better than people with a low IQ and no education. It doesn't really matter what you think, because high IQ societies, like the mega society for people with more than 170 in IQ, is planning to take over the world, and there is nothing people with a lower IQ can do to stop them. How are normal people supposed to outsmart people with such a high IQ? They can't!
Well if their IQ is really that high they would realize that taking over the world will do no one any good. I guess this all depends on their methods of calculating IQ. As far as I'm concerned any good IQ test would include questions such as "do you think slavery is a good thing?" and if you answer yes to this question, you automatically fail the IQ test. As far as I'm concerned a high IQ means nothing unless you are an enlightened individual with superior morals and ethics. Good for you, you can score high on a test, so this means you're smart enough to work with money or control economics in such a way to fill your selfish desires, all this really says is that you are a horribly rotten and evil human being. Power corrupts and it doesn't matter how smart you think you are, if you lack love and compassion, whatever your plans are will fail eventually. Many intelligent individuals have been in control of the world for long enough and this is the reason why there is so much suffering in the world. Someday soon the system will crash and those people who think they have everything will quickly realize how little they actually have.
The question is not how are normal people supposed out smart people with such a high IQ. The question is, when will the enlightened intellectuals, artists, musicians, spiritual leaders, authors, poets, saviors and prophets lead the world away from these arrogant, power-hungry ass holes with a high IQ and give the power back to the people. Eventually the world as we know it will crumble and many small sections of humanity will begin to build free societies. All these idiots with incredibly high IQs and no love in their heart can unite and try to take over but inevitably they will once again fail as their ideas are fundamentally flawed.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
|
Quote:
zen buddy said:
Well if their IQ is really that high they would realize that taking over the world will do no one any good. I guess this all depends on their methods of calculating IQ. As far as I'm concerned any good IQ test would include questions such as "do you think slavery is a good thing?" and if you answer yes to this question, you automatically fail the IQ test. As far as I'm concerned a high IQ means nothing unless you are an enlightened individual with superior morals and ethics. Good for you, you can score high on a test, so this means you're smart enough to work with money or control economics in such a way to fill your selfish desires, all this really says is that you are a horribly rotten and evil human being. Power corrupts and it doesn't matter how smart you think you are, if you lack love and compassion, whatever your plans are will fail eventually. Many intelligent individuals have been in control of the world for long enough and this is the reason why there is so much suffering in the world. Someday soon the system will crash and those people who think they have everything will quickly realize how little they actually have.
You think they want to take over the world because they are power hungry, but you are mistaken. They don't want to take over the world anymore than you want to clean your room, but they understand that if they leave the world to a democracy, the world will eventually be destroyed by humans. They see it as their obligation to take care of the world, when our democracy is destroying the world.
Quote:
zen buddy said:
The question is not how are normal people supposed out smart people with such a high IQ. The question is, when will the enlightened intellectuals, artists, musicians, spiritual leaders, authors, poets, saviors and prophets lead the world away from these arrogant, power-hungry ass holes with a high IQ and give the power back to the people. Eventually the world as we know it will crumble and many small sections of humanity will begin to build free societies. All these idiots with incredibly high IQs and no love in their heart can unite and try to take over but inevitably they will once again fail as their ideas are fundamentally flawed.
Again you are mistaken. These individuals aren't power hungry, they are doing what they believe is their duty for the planet and the global ecosystem. You might think that intelligence and education rules the world, but actually it is populism and money that rules the world today. Intelligence and education is a far better choice than populism and money.
If you feel love in your heart, then you want to do what is best for the world, and these individuals believe that they should do what they believe is best for the world, which is to convert the world from a system ruled by money and populism, into a world ruled by intelligence and education.
--------------------
|
zen buddy
not a buddhist
Registered: 01/22/09
Posts: 704
|
|
The world should not be ruled, period.
and what exactly did you mean by "take over the world"?
Your arrogant intellectuals can clean their own room all they like while they stay the hell out of mine!
Edited by zen buddy (02/12/09 09:56 AM)
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
|
Quote:
zen buddy said:
The world should not be ruled, period.
I am sure an anarchy would be nice, but that is that is not a choice. Sometimes we must make a choice between the lesser of two evils, and if intelligence and education doesn't rule the world, then money and populism will rule the world. Of course some of the people with high intelligence are immoral, but those individuals that only cares about money are always immoral.
Trust me, those people who cares only about money, and tries to control people by populism, are far more power hungry and far more corrupted in their souls, than those individuals with high intelligence and a lot of education. Power hungry people usually hunger for money, while highly educated people usually hunger for knowledge.
--------------------
Edited by Zanthius (02/12/09 11:57 AM)
|
Kickle
A Growing Hope
Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 11,345
Last seen: 32 minutes, 49 seconds
|
|
I got to page 6 before I couldn't read any more.
Sheesh.
All I have to add is, why?
Why must altruism be proven or disproven?
You claimed in the first post that it can be dangerous and wishful to believe it exists.
It has yet to be dangerous for me, because while I have no set belief one way or the other, I exist in a world where individuals have the capacity to help each other.
When this occurs, I have a hard time imagining someone going, on any level, 'Wow, that was very altruistic of them.'
Or 'Wow, they must have needed to feel better about themselves.'
I don't see you arguing that kindness from others doesn't exist. So why is it dangerous to believe in what form that kindness manifests?
Illusions of self are in all aspects of life, not just in the form of altruism. It has been shown that they are positive for our interactions with the world, as long as they remain at low levels.
For example: If you give a a list of positive traits to a group of individuals and ask them to rate themselves between 1 and 10 on each of the traits, and then add all of the values together and derive the mean, almost no one, if any, will be below 5. How can that possibly be? Some individuals should be lower on some scales, and higher on others, but not everyone should be above average on the whole. Everyone thinks, to some degree, that they are better than they are.
If someone is taking it to an extreme, believing they are the BEST at everything, then yes, it will start to conflict with reality, that's generally what happens. But then we're talking about something else, those internal motivations you described, and altruism is just one of many forms that they can manifest in. While I can see how altruism can be dangerous, I can also see how it can be beneficial, which leaves me believing that people should make their own minds up about altruism, rather than 'proving' or 'disproving' its existence.
Edited by Kickle (02/12/09 11:30 AM)
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Kickle]
#9785055 - 02/12/09 12:43 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Why must altruism be proven or disproven?
Why must anything be proven or disproved? Because it's detrimental to hold baseless beliefs, because it clouds the ways we're taking decisions, and because it's unhealthy to believe in crap that doesn't exist.
I have yet to see a circumstance in which delusion has contributed to anything good in one's life, and your example is too vague and fabricated to be taken seriously.
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Zanthius]
#9785088 - 02/12/09 12:52 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
But maybe they can reach the same level of intelligence, if they eat a lot of magic mushrooms.
Your posts are getting so stupid that I really think you're just making fun. If you're serious though, well then, I'm sorry.
Quote:
You think they want to take over the world because they are power hungry, but you are mistaken.
Right, you just happen to know what all those people are thinking and what intentions they have. 
Quote:
They don't want to take over the world anymore than you want to clean your room, but they understand that if they leave the world to a democracy, the world will eventually be destroyed by humans. They see it as their obligation to take care of the world, when our democracy is destroying the world.
It sounds like these individuals are pretty fucked up, having the beliefs you're mentioning.
What I would really love to hear from you is how exactly is democracy destroying the world? As detailed as possible please.
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
Silversoul
Holon
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 22,562
Loc: Mostly harmless
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Your posts are getting so stupid that I really think you're just making fun. If you're serious though, well then, I'm sorry.
Now who's getting into personalisms?
--------------------
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:Your posts are getting so stupid that I really think you're just making fun. If you're serious though, well then, I'm sorry.
Sorry? You shouldn't be feeling sorry for stupid people like me! We deserve to be punished for our stupidity!
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Right, you just happen to know what all those people are thinking and what intentions they have.
I don't know anything, because I am stupid, and stupid people like me shouldn't be allowed to vote in a democracy.
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
What I would really love to hear from you is how exactly is democracy destroying the world? As detailed as possible please.
Tradege of the commons
--------------------
Edited by Zanthius (02/12/09 01:40 PM)
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
|
Quote:
Silversoul said:
Now who's getting into personalisms?
Can you locate the personalism?
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
Kukaracha
Cat wannabe
Registered: 12/18/08
Posts: 1,554
Loc: France
Last seen: 21 days, 22 hours
|
|
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
Yes, these things do come from an individual's will. They result from the wills of many individuals. The only factor responsible for the manner in which society manifests is the decisions each individual chooses to make. I'm not disputing that very real effects occur as a result of how individuals choose to interact with each other and their environment, and I think it is more than accurate to label these effects as societal effects.
However, society is only a concept to describe the interactions of individuals. Society has no will.
Quote:
My point was that there is no evidence of the individuality since it's removable - and maybe only possible in a group.
Individuality isn't removable, and the fact that the existence of one human being implies the existence of other human beings doesn't negate individuality. Without knowing specifically what you were referring to with this example of savage children, it isn't clear how you have come to the conclusion that their "individuality" was "removed". While I acknowledge that it is difficult for you to obtain the original source upon which you based your conclusion, why not just elaborate as to the understanding of the source that you took, and how the example relates to the point you were trying to make?
"Yes, these things do come from an individual's will. They result from the wills of many individuals." I would be ethnocentrist because I choose to? And what individuality do you see in ethnocentrism? It's about the norms of a group!
As for my example:
The idea of infividuality being removable would be related to psychedelic ego loss. I thought you'd make a link.
About the savage children, it was more the idea that, if human contact was interrupted, a human being would return to a more animalistic state, not being aware of his indivuduality. I don't remeber what was said about the absence of ego though. : (
I do remember that they would not cry nor laugh, and show no emotions, except sometimes fear. About not being aware of the "I", it wasn't probably anything accurate, but maybe as accurate as saying that ants don't have an "I".
|
Silversoul
Holon
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 22,562
Loc: Mostly harmless
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Quote:
Silversoul said:
Now who's getting into personalisms?
Can you locate the personalism?
Yes. It's in the post that I quoted. Here it is again, in case you missed it:
Quote:
Your posts are getting so stupid that I really think you're just making fun. If you're serious though, well then, I'm sorry.
--------------------
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
|
Where was the personal attack made? Or maybe you're confusing personalisms with attacking one's ideas? You're either able to show me exactly where I have made a personal reference, or you stop wasting my time.
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
Kickle
A Growing Hope
Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 11,345
Last seen: 32 minutes, 49 seconds
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Quote:
Why must altruism be proven or disproven?
Why must anything be proven or disproved? Because it's detrimental to hold baseless beliefs, because it clouds the ways we're taking decisions, and because it's unhealthy to believe in crap that doesn't exist.
I have yet to see a circumstance in which delusion has contributed to anything good in one's life, and your example is too vague and fabricated to be taken seriously.
What kind of an example would you like?
Taylor and Brown (1988) concluded: “The overriding implication that we draw from our analysis … is that certain biases in perception that have previously been thought of as amusing peccadillos at best and serious flaws in information processing at worst may actually be highly adaptive under many circumstances” (p. 205).
Illusions about the self—unrealistically positive self-evaluations, exaggerated perceptions of control or mastery, and unrealistic optimism—were said to be the key elements that help bring about and maintain psychological well-being despite the inaccuracy of these self-evaluations.(p. 194).
Citation
Taylor, S. E. & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193-210.
Edited by Kickle (02/12/09 04:38 PM)
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Quote:
Why must altruism be proven or disproven?
Why must anything be proven or disproved? Because it's detrimental to hold baseless beliefs, because it clouds the ways we're taking decisions, and because it's unhealthy to believe in crap that doesn't exist.
I have yet to see a circumstance in which delusion has contributed to anything good in one's life, and your example is too vague and fabricated to be taken seriously.
So you're positing that altruism is merely a psychological delusion?
Even after the plenty examples you were given? Did you refuse to read what everyone posted, or what?
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Bernackums
The universe will have its way.
Registered: 08/06/07
Posts: 865
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Poid]
#9786950 - 02/12/09 06:22 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
You guys didn't make any points. All I've seen in this thread is semantic contourtion of the first two pages.
--------------------
Let's get the fuck out of here.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Kickle]
#9786951 - 02/12/09 06:22 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kickle said:
What kind of an example would you like?
She would like the kind that proves that altruism is merely a psychological delusion. 
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Bernackums
The universe will have its way.
Registered: 08/06/07
Posts: 865
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Poid]
#9786977 - 02/12/09 06:26 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
It's been addressed.
--------------------
Let's get the fuck out of here.
Edited by Bernackums (02/12/09 06:27 PM)
|
Kickle
A Growing Hope
Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 11,345
Last seen: 32 minutes, 49 seconds
|
|
Quote:
Bernackums said:
You guys didn't make any points. All I've seen in this thread is semantic contourtion of the first two pages.
Eh?
The point was, even if altruism doesn't truly exist, it can be beneficial for humans to believe that it does.
I thought that was directly linked to the very first post in the thread.
I'm not interested in proving whether or not altruism exists, because to me, it can't be applied to the general population. Rather, what can be, is what effect that belief has on individuals.
I don't see any semantic contortion there.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
Quote:
Bernackums said:
It's been addressed.
What? Scientific evidence that suggests that it is merely a psychological delusion?
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Kickle]
#9787102 - 02/12/09 06:51 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kickle said:
I'm not interested in proving whether or not altruism exists, because to me, it can't be applied to the general population. Rather, what can be, is what effect that belief has on individuals.
That's because society, as it is, would not be able to maintain its stability if all its members were altruists; isn't that something? 
And part of the mechanism that prevents many from becoming altruistic is psychology; it conditions people (e.g. - MushroomTrip) to accept altruism as being "crazy" (i.e. - delusional).
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
Edited by Poid (02/12/09 10:48 PM)
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
"Because it's detrimental to hold baseless beliefs, because it clouds the ways we're taking decisions, and because it's unhealthy to believe in crap that doesn't exist."
Baseless beliefs?
What is your stance on woman's intuition?
"I have yet to see a circumstance in which delusion has contributed to anything good in one's life, and your example is too vague and fabricated to be taken seriously."
Define: delusion
And then, give everyone a hypothetical example where a delusion significantly detrimentally affects a person's life.
"Can you locate the personalism?"
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Your posts are getting so stupid that I really think you're just making fun. If you're serious though, well then, I'm sorry.
This is a direct personal attack on a user's ability to make serious, intellectually driven, intelligible posts; it is called a personalism.
Edited by Poid (02/12/09 07:05 PM)
|
Kickle
A Growing Hope
Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 11,345
Last seen: 32 minutes, 49 seconds
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Poid]
#9787156 - 02/12/09 07:01 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
That's not much different than saying your belief that delusion holds a negative connotation, makes it negative.
edit: This was to your post about psychology conditioning people to see altruism as crazy.
Edited by Kickle (02/12/09 07:03 PM)
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Kickle]
#9787193 - 02/12/09 07:09 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kickle said:
That's not much different than saying your belief that delusion holds a negative connotation, makes it negative.
edit: This was to your post about psychology conditioning people to see altruism as crazy.
Either way, I'm not quite sure what you're saying here....
Are you saying that positing that psychology conditions people to see altruism as crazy is not much different than positing that since I believe the word delusion holds negative connotations, it is necessarily a negative term?
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Kickle
A Growing Hope
Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 11,345
Last seen: 32 minutes, 49 seconds
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Poid]
#9787473 - 02/12/09 07:56 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I'm saying that the internal system of beliefs we build may or may not reflect the reality.
The studies I'm relying on to describe self-delusions as positive aspects of mental health, are from psychology. Not only that, but they're stating that every single person utilizes them in their life, making delusions the norm. That is dating back into the 80's.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Kickle]
#9787597 - 02/12/09 08:15 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kickle said:
I'm saying that the internal system of beliefs we build may or may not reflect the reality.
This statement holds true for science, as well. Psychology is a science, and it defines what is or isn't a delusion.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
zen buddy
not a buddhist
Registered: 01/22/09
Posts: 704
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Where was the personal attack made? Or maybe you're confusing personalisms with attacking one's ideas? You're either able to show me exactly where I have made a personal reference, or you stop wasting my time.
When you say that a person's posts are stupid you are saying that the person is being stupid.
Why did you feel it was unnecessary to address the point he was making? You attack his words for being stupid but you don't take the time to explain why you disagree with the point he was making. You could have left out the stupid part and intelligently addressed the point he was making. Instead, you choose to insult his intelligence by suggesting that his point is stupid.
Maybe I should have written my post differently like instead of saying 'you attack his words' I could have said 'your post attacks his words' but would that change the point I was making?
It would be good of us to consider that the people who post in this forum have feelings and most people do not appreciate being told that their words are stupid. I'm thinking that this post might be too personal, I hope it's okay as I have the best of intentions with the feelings of everyone considered and you asked us to show you where you made personal reference.
I think it would be altruistic of us not to suggest that a person's words are stupid but I'm sure that we can come up with more than a few benefits to respecting other people and the points they make, so you will probably disagree.
|
zen buddy
not a buddhist
Registered: 01/22/09
Posts: 704
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Zanthius]
#9788351 - 02/12/09 10:30 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Quote:
zen buddy said:
The world should not be ruled, period.
I am sure an anarchy would be nice, but that is that is not a choice. Sometimes we must make a choice between the lesser of two evils, and if intelligence and education doesn't rule the world, then money and populism will rule the world. Of course some of the people with high intelligence are immoral, but those individuals that only cares about money are always immoral.
Trust me, those people who cares only about money, and tries to control people by populism, are far more power hungry and far more corrupted in their souls, than those individuals with high intelligence and a lot of education. Power hungry people usually hunger for money, while highly educated people usually hunger for knowledge.
"I am sure an anarchy would be nice"
What's wrong with anarchy? Are you saying that freedom is wrong?
You really have to start another thread about this one!
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
|
Quote:
zen buddy said:
"I am sure an anarchy would be nice"
What's wrong with anarchy? Are you saying that freedom is wrong?
I am saying that if intelligence and education doesn't rule the world, then money and populism will rule the world.
Anarchy is not going to happen, because there are too many power hungry individuals in the world.
--------------------
|
fireworks_god
SexyButt McDanger
Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 23,677
Loc: Red Panda Village
Last seen: 8 hours, 19 minutes
|
|
Quote:
Kukaracha said:
"Yes, these things do come from an individual's will. They result from the wills of many individuals." I would be ethnocentrist because I choose to? And what individuality do you see in ethnocentrism? It's about the norms of a group!
Yes, holding and acting upon ethnocentric views is a choice an individual is making, consciously or subconsciously, insomuch as any view or action an individual has or takes is their choice. Obviously, the tendency to think through the terms of one's own culture is a tendency that is very much influenced by the actions of others around them. This is no different from the way in which everything that comprises us has been greatly influenced and affected by our environment and those around us. If one considers how culture is propagated, the specific mechanism that causes it to be propagated, the only answer is the decisions that individuals make regarding how they will think and how they will act.
This is my point - society is only an abstract concept that describes the ways in which individuals interact with each other. Thus, what determines how society manifests is simply the ways in which individuals interact with each other.
Quote:
The idea of infividuality being removable would be related to psychedelic ego loss. I thought you'd make a link.
Why would I make a link to something that was not explicitly stated or implied by the context of what was expressed?
Quote:
About the savage children, it was more the idea that, if human contact was interrupted, a human being would return to a more animalistic state, not being aware of his indivuduality. I don't remeber what was said about the absence of ego though. : (
I do remember that they would not cry nor laugh, and show no emotions, except sometimes fear. About not being aware of the "I", it wasn't probably anything accurate, but maybe as accurate as saying that ants don't have an "I".
It sounds more like a loss of the preconceived notion of how a human being "should" act than an actual loss of the animal's sense of individuality. Not conforming to the observer's sense of how a human is to be doesn't negate the experience the human would have had of being an individual being.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Zanthius]
#9789455 - 02/13/09 06:55 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Tradege of the commons
This doesn't really prove anything, it doesn't tell that democracy is destroying the world, but rather that some individuals aren't making the best decisions, which is because of their own fault and not because of democracy.
Not to mention that the article is pretty biased and contains lots of inconsistencies, such as:
Quote:
Crucially, the division of these costs and benefits is unequal: the individual herder gains all of the advantage, but the disadvantage is shared among all herders using the pasture. Consequently, for an individual herder the rational course of action is to continue to add additional animals to his or her herd. However, since all herders reach the same rational conclusion, overgrazing and degradation of the pasture is its long-term fate. Nonetheless, the rational response for an individual remains the same at every stage, since the gain is always greater to each herder than the individual share of the distributed cost. The overgrazing cost here is an example of an externality.
This is a crude deformation of the term rational, since, of course, anyone who's actually using their brains can see that this description of rational self interest is, in fact, a pretty non-rational self interest. What really sucks is that the non-informed and uneducated could actually believe that this is what rationality stands for and decide to stop applying any kind of rationality in their lives.
A rational decision would have to take to consideration all the other herders and their decisions, and would find a resolution that would fit all these data in such a manner that the outcome is the most productive but at the same time less environment harmful.
Also, maybe you need to become aware of all the environmental measures of protection the world keeps coming up with, new technological inventions which are more preforming and at the same time safer... All these things are taking time, of course, but this doesn't mean that change isn't producing at all time. Only those who decide to be ignorant of both constructive and non-constructive sides of reality, and choose to focus on revealing the "bad", are able to become with ideas in which some people should not be let to take decisions, preferring some form of dictatorship over another.
You present technocracy as being the last solution for this world that needs to be saved, but still you can't explain how this technocracy will work in real terms, how it will remain immune to all the obstacles that will be on the way, or what exactly makes you think that this world needs saved. Having a higher IQ doesn't mean that those people will be protected from all the emotional problems and how they will react to them. Your idealistic view of how the world should be is no more efficient that the good old Pepperland.
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
|
Didn't we have this discussion in the past? For the last time, insulting one's ideas is NOT a personal attack, it doesn't insult the mind of the individual who's presenting them, it is just an opinion expressed about that actual idea, and also the reason why there are stupid ideas and smart ideas - for people to judge them, discuss them, and determine what's the most preferable way to go about things.
As for the fact that maybe some people might get their feelings hurt... well, I couldn't give a shit about this.
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
zen buddy
not a buddhist
Registered: 01/22/09
Posts: 704
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Didn't we have this discussion in the past? For the last time, insulting one's ideas is NOT a personal attack, it doesn't insult the mind of the individual who's presenting them, it is just an opinion expressed about that actual idea, and also the reason why there are stupid ideas and smart ideas - for people to judge them, discuss them, and determine what's the most preferable way to go about things.
As for the fact that maybe some people might get their feelings hurt... well, I couldn't give a shit about this.
As for the fact that maybe some people might get their feelings hurt... well, I couldn't give a shit about this.
So you don't give a shit about people's feelings!,,, I wonder why you apologized?
Caring about another person's feelings is a wonderful quality. Don't you like it when people care about you and your feelings? Maybe it doesn't matter because you don't care about what people think anyways.
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
|
Quote:
I wonder why you apologized?
Where did I apologized?
Quote:
Caring about another person's feelings is a wonderful quality. Don't you like it when people care about you and your feelings? Maybe it doesn't matter because you don't care about what people think anyways.
Having empathy is a wonderful thing. Encouraging people's butt-hurt-fullness is not empathetic and completely detrimental, especially when it obstructs real exchange of ideas and information. I am not responsible for how other people choose to react to my words, and I am not holding others responsible for how I feel.
If you have anything to add to the subject you're welcome, if you just want to ask me why I do things the way I do, then hold all these questions to yourself as I am not interested in answering anymore.
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
zen buddy
not a buddhist
Registered: 01/22/09
Posts: 704
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Quote:
I wonder why you apologized?
Where did I apologized?
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Quote:
Zanthius said:
But maybe they can reach the same level of intelligence, if they eat a lot of magic mushrooms.
Your posts are getting so stupid that I really think you're just making fun. If you're serious though, well then, I'm sorry.
Believe it or not we can control our affect on one another.
If we can express ourselves in a way that is likely not to hurt someone's feelings then why not? I'm just trying to help but I understand why you would like to leave this alone.
Peace.:)
|
Lakefingers
Registered: 08/26/05
Posts: 5,660
Loc: mumuland
Last seen: 4 months, 30 days
|
|
why did you back down?
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
You present technocracy as being the last solution for this world that needs to be saved, but still you can't explain how this technocracy will work in real terms, how it will remain immune to all the obstacles that will be on the way, or what exactly makes you think that this world needs saved. Having a higher IQ doesn't mean that those people will be protected from all the emotional problems and how they will react to them. Your idealistic view of how the world should be is no more efficient that the good old Pepperland.
Of course there are some people with a high IQ and a lot of education that are emotionally unstable, or have other problems which makes them less than ideal candidates for voting. But if you take all the people with high intelligence and a lot of education together, you will get more rational votes from this pool, than from the pool of the entire population.
There is a higher percentage of rationality in the pool of votes from people with high intelligence and a lot of education, than in the pool of votes from the entire population.
This is statistically reason enough to say that it is a better system. Technocracy is a more rational system than democracy.
|
Lakefingers
Registered: 08/26/05
Posts: 5,660
Loc: mumuland
Last seen: 4 months, 30 days
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Zanthius]
#9789730 - 02/13/09 08:30 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
ie for technocrats
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
|
Quote:
Lakefingers said:
ie for technocrats
I think it is a better system for everybody, because even irrational people are better off in a system with a rational government.
|
Lakefingers
Registered: 08/26/05
Posts: 5,660
Loc: mumuland
Last seen: 4 months, 30 days
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Zanthius]
#9789764 - 02/13/09 08:38 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
sounds all too rational
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Zanthius]
#9789864 - 02/13/09 09:03 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Of course there are some people with a high IQ and a lot of education that are emotionally unstable, or have other problems which makes them less than ideal candidates for voting. But if you take all the people with high intelligence and a lot of education together, you will get more rational votes from this pool, than from the pool of the entire population.
If it is so, then why not narrow this down even more? Why not eliminate all the people with high IQ that have emotional problems from voting? They will have to take all kinds of psychological tests, and repeat them every two or three moths, as a psychological disorder can surface out of the blue at any time.
Quote:
There is a higher percentage of rationality in the pool of votes from people with high intelligence and a lot of education, than in the pool of votes from the entire population.
Really? Can you present some of those statistics that you're talking about?
Quote:
This is statistically reason enough to say that it is a better system. Technocracy is a more rational system than democracy.
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Really? Can you present some of those statistics that you're talking about?
Of the people with high intelligence and a lot of education, there are almost nobody believing in creationism. In the American population as a whole, there is a quite large percentage of people believing in creationism.
This is just one example of how there is more rationality in the pool of votes from people with high intelligence and a lot of education.
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Zanthius]
#9789964 - 02/13/09 09:23 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I wanna see actual correlation between IQ and those beliefs.
All the info I ever read about this was pointing to the fact that those who believe in things like creationism usually come from uninstructed environments, and the lack of education is a total different issue than the IQ.
Also, you forgot to reply this:
Quote:
If it is so, then why not narrow this down even more? Why not eliminate all the people with high IQ that have emotional problems from voting? They will have to take all kinds of psychological tests, and repeat them every two or three moths, as a psychological disorder can surface out of the blue at any time.
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
Kickle
A Growing Hope
Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 11,345
Last seen: 32 minutes, 49 seconds
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
I have yet to see a circumstance in which delusion has contributed to anything good in one's life, and your example is too vague and fabricated to be taken seriously.
For your reading pleasure:
http://io.uwinnipeg.ca/~morton/modern_drama/depression2.pdf
A preview:
Decades of psychological wisdom have established contact with reality as a hallmark of mental health. In this view, the well-adjusted person is thought to engage in accurate reality testing, whereas the individual whose vision is clouded by illusion is regarded as vulnerable to, if not already a victim of, mental illness. Despite its plausibility, this viewpoint is increasingly difficult to maintain (cf. Lazarus, 1983 ). A substantial amount of research testifies to the prevalence of illusion in normal human cognition (see Fiske & Taylor, 1984 ; Greenwald, 1980 ; Nisbett & Ross, 1980 ; Sackeim, 1983 ; Taylor, 1983 ).
Moreover, these illusions often involve central aspects of the self and the environment and, therefore, cannot be dismissed as inconsequential.
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Kickle]
#9790230 - 02/13/09 10:54 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I don't have time to read all that now, but from reading the review I can answer you.
First off, the paper is old as fuck and since then all kinds of new research has been done that proves quite the opposite. I will look for sources later, but the main idea is that having a distorted perception about reality or oneself, even though some might think it helps them be more confident, is not so efficient, and in some cases can turn to be quite dangerous, if the delusion is getting fed and added to over time. What proves to be most efficient is reaching a state of acceptance of one's flaws, learning to cope with them, and train themselves not to feel and act out of an inferiority complex.
Quote:
A substantial amount of research testifies to the prevalence of illusion in normal human cognition
Just because the majority of people choose to delude themselves (because this is what "normal" refers to), it doesn't mean that it also serves a good purpose.
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
Kickle
A Growing Hope
Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 11,345
Last seen: 32 minutes, 49 seconds
|
|
I don't argue with much of what you said, but I do disagree on a few points.
1) It is an old article, and it has been used for thousands of future studies. The result? This is being taught as a social psychology principle. Future research confirmed what this article discussed. Small amounts of positive illusions are helpful. Future research also showed that individuals who do this to an extreme have a very difficult time with interpersonal relationships.
I await the research that disproves this article, as I don't see it being possible. The article was a very broad theory which sprouted research on both ends of the spectrum. For every counter to it, there will be one in support.
Quote:
having a distorted perception about reality or oneself, even though some might think it helps them be more confident, is not so efficient, and in some cases can turn to be quite dangerous, if the delusion is getting fed and added to over time.
That's not what the article is trying to show.
The article is saying, every person to some extent hold positive illusions. Thus redefining our sense of 'normal' as being clear with reality. That is not to say that it is always positive, or negative.
Quote:
Just because the majority of people choose to delude themselves (because this is what "normal" refers to), it doesn't mean that it also serves a good purpose.
And just because a few 'choose' to take delusion too far, doesn't mean it's always a bad thing, either. I use the word 'choose' only because you did. According to this theory, it isn't a choice at all.
I'd like to see your evidence for some of these claims.
Edited by Kickle (02/13/09 11:14 AM)
|
2muchTea4ME
Stranger
Registered: 02/03/09
Posts: 28
Last seen: 3 years, 3 months
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Kickle]
#9790332 - 02/13/09 11:34 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I once bought a pendant when i was on holiday in spain,europe and it had a little list of characteristics of my zodiac the Ram and Altuistic was on it at first i didn't know what it meant, but looked it up and like you say did some self analysis and decided that i was quite altuistic. Although i think u r asking is it possible to be like jesus and i think it is possible to do this but goes against our nature. I understand that peeps aren't as altruistic as some because we are all different in nature and thus its easier for some to be kinder people than others. Lol this used to make me really pissEd off when no 1 seemed as tender and caring as myself...as if they didn't care but tbh i just cared to much. as humans we all have a degree of altruism bcos we are social animals and survive better if we look out for one another......like meerkats!. but i honestly believe that altruism comes with more misery you experience. you open ur eyes to how lonely it is 2 live and other humans keep us comforted and healthy minded.
So don't do drugs Kids
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
I wanna see actual correlation between IQ and those beliefs.
All the info I ever read about this was pointing to the fact that those who believe in things like creationism usually come from uninstructed environments, and the lack of education is a total different issue than the IQ.
Well, I said intelligent people with a lot of education, and there is a correlation between IQ and the amount of education people take. Even if people have a lot of education, they still need some intelligence to process the information.
Intelligence Quotient
Quote:
If it is so, then why not narrow this down even more? Why not eliminate all the people with high IQ that have emotional problems from voting? They will have to take all kinds of psychological tests, and repeat them every two or three moths, as a psychological disorder can surface out of the blue at any time.
Good idea. Actually I was planning to test people for their intelligence, their scientific knowledge, and their moral convictions.
You can find two of the tests at the bottom of my page. The knowledge test isn't ready yet, and I am going to improve all of the tests a lot.
The Rainbow Party
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Zanthius]
#9790667 - 02/13/09 12:51 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Good idea. Actually I was planning to test people for their intelligence, their scientific knowledge, and their moral convictions.
You?
I thought you said you'll let the smart people in charge...
Oh yeah, and the morality test is a stupid joke
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
You?
I thought you said you'll let the smart people in charge...
The voters are in charge, and if only smart people are allowed to vote, then the smart people will be in charge.
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Oh yeah, and the morality test is a stupid joke
I said that I am going to improve all the tests a lot.
|
zannennagara
Found in Space
Registered: 09/25/08
Posts: 424
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Why do you think that some people are decided to believe it exists, or why do you think it is real?
Personally, I think it has its roots in our need to feel loved and important. When this need, which I think is present in all of us more or less, is mixed with feelings of confusion and personal insecurity, people tend to believe, as a misunderstood measure of self-protection, that there's actually someone else besides them on this planet that could care so much about them that they are able to do acts from which they get absolutely no reward (be it psychological or material). Wishful and potentially dangerous thinking, because one might end up holding such irrational and unreal expectations about the world, that one might end up having their perception of the world crushed and their minds in terror, or even inflict pain on others, when severely confronted with reality.
Of course, I have this impression based on the fact that in my early teens I used to believe that altruism was real, along with believing in other self-destructive crap, and after a deep and honest analysis of myself made by me, I realized that these were the reasons I was holding such ridiculous beliefs.
I'm more than interested in hearing other's opinions, both believers and non-believers.
These beliefs are the foundation for a straw man argument, which is common yet unrecognized with any debate about words, and so this discussion continues for fifteen pages. (For a less soporific explanation, stop reading now and watch Daytripper's video again, if you can stand that guy (the guy in the video)).
Why do people think that altruism exists? Because look, there it is, "altruism," it's in dictionaries and people use it a lot to mean something. Maybe that's not what you think you mean by questioning its existence, but as an abstract concept it is a word that is assigned to a certain set of characteristics.
By saying the concept doesn't exist you are attempting to negate this set of characteristics which has already been observed - this is why these arguments get pages and pages of undying disagreement, because the characteristics are clearly there, we're all familiar with them, so how could you say the concept doesn't exist are you crazy what's wrong with you etc ad nauseam (i.e. after about 1.5 pages out of fifteen).
MushmantheManic said that self-interest is a meaningless tautology because in your argument you have already assumed, begged the question, that self-interest permeates every action; self-interest is the concept underlying everything we do. Obviously in this sense it is impossible to contradict the idea of self-interest, since you have tautologously assigned self-interest to everything, and of course, how could you not, we're all selves and interested in things.
The straw man is the assumption, then, that anyone who uses a concept that emphasizes interest in others must be completely negating the idea of self-interest - insane if we've already decided that everything has to be self-interested. But people do not think of altruism this way, in absolute opposition to any form of personal will - that would be closer to slavery - which should be obvious in their actions and speech. Service to others is encouraged, and that encouragement is offered with the tacit assumption that thinking of others betters the world, the world in which the altruist lives.
It's important to question language, and it is a worthwhile exercise to deconstruct words and concepts to relate them to supposed opposites, but this is worthless if only one half of the "sides" is critically examined. Yes, altruism is very much allied with personal betterment, but self-interest is very much allied with interests of others, when you think of where it comes from and what it relates to - even Ayn Rand, probably the most blaring trumpeter of selfishness, foisted her ideas upon society in the hope of changing it for the better. There is little point in insisting on hegemony for your words and your concepts only, the others being delusions, when all words are illusions in breaking the world into discrete portions. We can see what functionally works for individuals and societies, and whether you want to call this altruism or self-interest is trivial when both are clearly both at play, that is, both are being used to describe actions and mindsets which improve or worsen things.
--------------------
No debe haber separación, no puede haber definición.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Didn't we have this discussion in the past? For the last time, insulting one's ideas is NOT a personal attack, it doesn't insult the mind of the individual who's presenting them, it is just an opinion expressed about that actual idea, and also the reason why there are stupid ideas and smart ideas - for people to judge them, discuss them, and determine what's the most preferable way to go about things.
As for the fact that maybe some people might get their feelings hurt... well, I couldn't give a shit about this.
Quote:
Diploid said:
Needling
This is simply attempting to make the other person angry, without trying to address the argument at hand. Sometimes this is a delaying tactic.
Needling is also Ad Hominem if you insult your opponent. You may instead insult something the other person believes in (Argumentum Ad YourMomium), interrupt, clown to show disrespect, and numerous other tricks. All of these work better if you are running things - for example, if it is your radio show, and you can cut off microphones. A competent moderator is almost as good.
..."and also the reason why there are stupid ideas and smart ideas - for people to judge them, discuss them, and determine what's the most preferable way to go about things."
All I've seen around here is judgment; there has hardly been any discussion about and/or determination of what the most preferable way to go about things is.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
Edited by Poid (02/13/09 06:43 PM)
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Poid]
#9792317 - 02/13/09 06:42 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
but the main idea is that having a distorted perception about reality or oneself, even though some might think it helps them be more confident, is not so efficient, and in some cases can turn to be quite dangerous, if the delusion is getting fed and added to over time. What proves to be most efficient is reaching a state of acceptance of one's flaws, learning to cope with them, and train themselves not to feel and act out of an inferiority complex.
What is a distorted perception "about" reality? You said earlier on in this thread that reality is different for everybody, so having said that, from which standards/postulates would you say people's reality becomes distorted?
Inferiority complexes and superiority complexes are very similar, and they're both closely related to narcissism; I just wanted to point that out.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
Edited by Poid (02/13/09 11:51 PM)
|
zen buddy
not a buddhist
Registered: 01/22/09
Posts: 704
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Zanthius]
#9793483 - 02/13/09 11:40 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
You present technocracy as being the last solution for this world that needs to be saved, but still you can't explain how this technocracy will work in real terms, how it will remain immune to all the obstacles that will be on the way, or what exactly makes you think that this world needs saved. Having a higher IQ doesn't mean that those people will be protected from all the emotional problems and how they will react to them. Your idealistic view of how the world should be is no more efficient that the good old Pepperland.
Of course there are some people with a high IQ and a lot of education that are emotionally unstable, or have other problems which makes them less than ideal candidates for voting. But if you take all the people with high intelligence and a lot of education together, you will get more rational votes from this pool, than from the pool of the entire population.
There is a higher percentage of rationality in the pool of votes from people with high intelligence and a lot of education, than in the pool of votes from the entire population.
This is statistically reason enough to say that it is a better system. Technocracy is a more rational system than democracy.
I learn a lot more through experience then I ever have in a classroom. An education might qualify you for an entry-level position in a career of choice (or second or third choice) but this is not always the case. With certain things in life, the things that are most important, experience and common sense are far better than an education. Love and relationships, philosophy and spirituality are learned mostly through experience in following your heart, unless of course we take a step in the wrong direction while we adopt the ideas of someone else that we have almost completely misunderstood. Of course there are many ideas, concepts and ways of looking at things that can be presented in a textbook or classroom setting in a way that helps the learning process but this does not work for everyone. I think more of a guided experience/self-education strategy or method would be more beneficial than a typical classroom setting. You could have one or a few mentors who are experienced in an area of interest that you would form bonds with as they help guide you through your experiences and research. This is actually how many of our lives naturally unfold anyways so it makes sense that we could expand on this idea as an alternative to the classroom. I guess this is my long way of saying that I don't think that education is a prerequisite to an ingenious mind. I believe that wisdom is gained through experience and that wisdom works well with knowledge but knowledge without wisdom can be scary if you're not humble enough to learn your lessons.
An education is useless if you can't think for yourself!
The idea that we should have to pass an IQ test before we are given the right to vote is as ludicrous as the idea that your right to vote means that you live in a free country. This idea of yours might just work and if I had to choose between what we have right now and this scenario I would definitely choose the IQ test. Unfortunately for me I would not be satisfied with this either because my view of the ideal society is much more basic and simple without any form of rule or control. I do not agree that we need to pick a lesser of evil because freedom is not possible. Freedom is more than possible, it is inevitable that eventually we will achieve this. There is no reason to settle for anything less than absolute freedom and just because it seems impossible for most people does not mean that it is impossible. The government and our system of control does not want us to believe that we could get along fine without them. Our education system has a lot to do with society's insane acceptance of government control (some call this necessary law for our protection) and slavery (some call it tax and interest).
As long as all you have to do is pass an IQ test (a fair IQ test) with nothing to do with your level of education, you got my vote. Sometimes all you have is a choice between two evils but that doesn't mean that you should be happy about or that you should stop doing whatever you can do to give us all more options. In other words I like the idea that's better than what we have now but I still don't think it's the answer we are looking for. Maybe this could be a step in the right direction.
I'm not sure if anarchy is the answer either but I'm sure of this - crime and punishment, laws and religion, money and tax - all these things have to go.
As for technocracy, that all depends on what these scientists and technical experts are in control of. I definitely think that these people should have very important roles in society but I do not believe that they should be in control of people's lives.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
|
Quote:
zen buddy said:
I learn a lot more through experience then I ever have in a classroom. An education might qualify you for an entry-level position in a career of choice (or second or third choice) but this is not always the case. With certain things in life, the things that are most important, experience and common sense are far better than an education. Love and relationships, philosophy and spirituality are learned mostly through experience in following your heart, unless of course we take a step in the wrong direction while we adopt the ideas of someone else that we have almost completely misunderstood. Of course there are many ideas, concepts and ways of looking at things that can be presented in a textbook or classroom setting in a way that helps the learning process but this does not work for everyone. I think more of a guided experience/self-education strategy or method would be more beneficial than a typical classroom setting. You could have one or a few mentors who are experienced in an area of interest that you would form bonds with as they help guide you through your experiences and research. This is actually how many of our lives naturally unfold anyways so it makes sense that we could expand on this idea as an alternative to the classroom. I guess this is my long way of saying that I don't think that education is a prerequisite to an ingenious mind. I believe that wisdom is gained through experience and that wisdom works well with knowledge but knowledge without wisdom can be scary if you're not humble enough to learn your lessons.
An education is useless if you can't think for yourself!
The idea that we should have to pass an IQ test before we are given the right to vote is as ludicrous as the idea that your right to vote means that you live in a free country. This idea of yours might just work and if I had to choose between what we have right now and this scenario I would definitely choose the IQ test. Unfortunately for me I would not be satisfied with this either because my view of the ideal society is much more basic and simple without any form of rule or control. I do not agree that we need to pick a lesser of evil because freedom is not possible. Freedom is more than possible, it is inevitable that eventually we will achieve this. There is no reason to settle for anything less than absolute freedom and just because it seems impossible for most people does not mean that it is impossible. The government and our system of control does not want us to believe that we could get along fine without them. Our education system has a lot to do with society's insane acceptance of government control (some call this necessary law for our protection) and slavery (some call it tax and interest).
As long as all you have to do is pass an IQ test (a fair IQ test) with nothing to do with your level of education, you got my vote. Sometimes all you have is a choice between two evils but that doesn't mean that you should be happy about or that you should stop doing whatever you can do to give us all more options. In other words I like the idea that's better than what we have now but I still don't think it's the answer we are looking for. Maybe this could be a step in the right direction.
I'm not sure if anarchy is the answer either but I'm sure of this - crime and punishment, laws and religion, money and tax - all these things have to go.
As for technocracy, that all depends on what these scientists and technical experts are in control of. I definitely think that these people should have very important roles in society but I do not believe that they should be in control of people's lives.
Very nice reply, and I tent to agree with you a lot here. I also think we learn a lot from our experiences, especially when make mistakes. Wisdom is a quality that is maybe even more important than intelligence and education, but it is not necessarily as easy to test people for wisdom.
Also, I don't think it would be a fair system, if we only let those people with a Ph.D. vote, as it is fully possible for people to learn science on their own, without ever going to a university. Rather, people should be tested independently for their scientific knowledge and their intelligence, before voting. This could easily be done by a computer program in a completely anonymous process, so that nobody knows "who were allowed to vote", and "who weren't allowed to vote".
Edited by Zanthius (02/14/09 02:23 AM)
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Zanthius]
#9793912 - 02/14/09 02:30 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Don't you mean, "who was allowed to vote", and "who wasn't allowed to vote"?
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Poid]
#9793951 - 02/14/09 02:39 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
Don't you mean, "who was allowed to vote", and "who wasn't allowed to vote"?
I am not a native English speaker, but shouldn't I use "were", when I am talking about a multitude of people.
They "were" allowed to vote, while I "wasn't" allowed to vote.
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Poid]
#9794051 - 02/14/09 03:18 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
All I've seen around here is judgment; there has hardly been any discussion about and/or determination of what the most preferable way to go about things is.
Just because some people feel angry as a result of reading this thread, it doesn't mean that I'm needling. Buh bye now 
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Zanthius]
#9794066 - 02/14/09 03:25 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Quote:
Poid said:
Don't you mean, "who was allowed to vote", and "who wasn't allowed to vote"?
I am not a native English speaker, but shouldn't I use "were", when I am talking about a multitude of people.
They "were" allowed to vote, while I "wasn't" allowed to vote.
"They were" is correct, "who weren't" and "they wasn't" is incorrect.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Poid]
#9794072 - 02/14/09 03:27 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
"They were" is correct, "who weren't" and "they wasn't" is incorrect.
Are you sure? When I am asking "Who were allowed to vote?", I am not asking for a single individual, but for a group of people.
The answer I am seeking is, "they were allowed to vote", not "he was allowed to vote".
Is this correct english? "Question: Who was allowed to vote? Answer: They were allowed to vote".
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Zanthius]
#9794093 - 02/14/09 03:37 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
"Who were" is incorrect, but you can use "which were" as long as it is properly fitted into context; it would be incorrect to begin a sentence with "who were" unless it was followed by a statement such as "...those people _____".
"Who was" can be plural as well as singular.
"Is this correct english? "Question: Who was allowed to vote? Answer: They were allowed to vote"."
Yes.
I think it would also be correct to begin a sentence with "whom were", but I'm not so sure....
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Poid]
#9794104 - 02/14/09 03:44 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
"Is this correct english? "Question: Who was allowed to vote? Answer: They were allowed to vote"."
Yes.
Then your language is inconsistent.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Zanthius]
#9794107 - 02/14/09 03:46 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
It makes perfect sense once you've got the hang of it, and though I'm bilingual, I prefer English!
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
Edited by Poid (02/14/09 04:52 AM)
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
|
Quote:
These beliefs are the foundation for a straw man argument, which is common yet unrecognized with any debate about words, and so this discussion continues for fifteen pages. (For a less soporific explanation, stop reading now and watch Daytripper's video again, if you can stand that guy (the guy in the video)).
Thos fifteen pages were focusing on more than this subject, and the ones that were about altruism and in which I was personally posting, were replies to people like you, who even reading my detailed explanations regarding the non-existence of altruism, were asking me the same shit.
Quote:
Why do people think that altruism exists? Because look, there it is, "altruism," it's in dictionaries and people use it a lot to mean something. Maybe that's not what you think you mean by questioning its existence, but as an abstract concept it is a word that is assigned to a certain set of characteristics.
By saying the concept doesn't exist you are attempting to negate this set of characteristics which has already been observed - this is why these arguments get pages and pages of undying disagreement, because the characteristics are clearly there, we're all familiar with them, so how could you say the concept doesn't exist are you crazy what's wrong with you etc ad nauseam (i.e. after about 1.5 pages out of fifteen).
The word "god" in also in the dictionary, and there's noting out here, in real life, to show that something like this would actually exist. It is stupid, in my opinion, to think that just because a word exists in the dictionary, its existence shouldn't be disputed. you're not making a strong case here, and it is not question I have not answered in the past, on one or more of these fifteen pages. It is also hilarious that you're judging the content of this thread as if you knew what you were talking about, when you obviously don't know what has been discussed and ask the same questions that have been already asked and answered.
Quote:
The straw man is the assumption, then, that anyone who uses a concept that emphasizes interest in others must be completely negating the idea of self-interest
I am really interested to see where you have seen such an "assumption", since, personally, all that I argued about was that having interest in others' well being doesn't contradict self-interest. This is the main idea upon which I am sustaining that altruism doesn't exist, did you even read anything from what has been posted here? 
The definition that the dictionary provides is, once again:
Quote:
al⋅tru⋅ism
/ˈæltruˌɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [al-troo-iz-uhm] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others (opposed to egoism ).
2. Animal Behavior. behavior by an animal that may be to its disadvantage but that benefits others of its kind, as a warning cry that reveals the location of the caller to a predator.
It is this definition that implies that, in order for altruism ti exist, it has to be opposed to egoism. To my knowledge, self-interest is a pretty egoistical preoccupation, so how can you go on and say that altruism exists regardless, when at the same time you admit that self-interest exists in every action that we're making?
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
I just thought I'd point out that you make a lot of typos and grammatical errors in your posts; I'm only telling you this out of altruism, not egoism. 
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Poid]
#9794153 - 02/14/09 04:14 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Listen, you're either posting related to the topic, or you get the fuck out of my thread. I'm growing tired of all these meaningless posts of yours.
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
But that post had a meaning; altruism is real.
My other posts had meanings, too, all of which were related to altruism.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Listen, you're either posting related to the topic, or you get the fuck out of my thread. I'm growing tired of all these meaningless posts of yours.
I kinda agree with you. Talking about typos and grammatical errors only diverges the the thread from its topic. It is quite childish too.
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Poid]
#9794161 - 02/14/09 04:20 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
No, they weren't related to altruism. Simply saying, at the end of your post, "I'm only telling you this out of altruism, not egoism.", doesn't make the post related to altruism.
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Zanthius]
#9794162 - 02/14/09 04:21 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Me mentioning the grammatical errors and typos was an act of altruism, which was my point; altruism is (or at least altruistic acts are) real.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
No, they weren't related to altruism. Simply saying, at the end of your post, "I'm only telling you this out of altruism, not egoism.", doesn't make the post related to altruism.
It doesn't necessarily make the post related to altruism, you are correct, but since I said that in order to give you an example of an altruistic act, it does.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Poid]
#9794167 - 02/14/09 04:24 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
Me mentioning the grammatical errors and typos was an act of altruism, which was my point; altruism is (or at least altruistic acts are) real.
I don't believe you. I think you mention the grammatical errors and the typos of other people, only in order to ridicule them.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Zanthius]
#9794170 - 02/14/09 04:26 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
"....you mention the grammatical errors and the typos of other people, only in order to ridicule them."
That's not true at all, I only want to help whoever, whenever, wherever, and however I am able to help.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
fireworks_god
SexyButt McDanger
Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 23,677
Loc: Red Panda Village
Last seen: 8 hours, 19 minutes
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Poid]
#9794172 - 02/14/09 04:27 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
It doesn't necessarily make the post related to altruism, you are correct, but since I said that in order to give you an example of an altruistic act, it does.
It isn't an example of altruism. It is only an action. 
--------------------
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
Like I said:
Quote:
Poid said:
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
No, they weren't related to altruism. Simply saying, at the end of your post, "I'm only telling you this out of altruism, not egoism.", doesn't make the post related to altruism.
It doesn't necessarily make the post related to altruism, you are correct, but since I said that in order to give you an example of an altruistic act, it does.
If an altruistic act isn't relevant to the topic of altruism, then I don't know what is.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
Edited by Poid (02/14/09 04:56 AM)
|
fireworks_god
SexyButt McDanger
Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 23,677
Loc: Red Panda Village
Last seen: 8 hours, 19 minutes
|
|
Quote:
zannennagara said:
MushmantheManic said that self-interest is a meaningless tautology because in your argument you have already assumed, begged the question, that self-interest permeates every action; self-interest is the concept underlying everything we do. Obviously in this sense it is impossible to contradict the idea of self-interest, since you have tautologously assigned self-interest to everything, and of course, how could you not, we're all selves and interested in things.
I think it is completely incorrect to dismiss an axiom of a perspective to a logical fallacy, "begging the question", and I also do not agree that it would be impossible to disprove the axiom, unless, of course, it really is a self-evident truth. Self-interest was also not assigned to "everything", but simply recognized as the foundation of how an individual chooses what to think and how to act. Thus, what would be in the self-interest of an individual is what they determine to be in their self-interest, dependent upon their nature, their needs, and their preferences.
Do you or do you not feel that this is the nature of reality? I personally assume the idea to be axiomatic because the nature of an individual as it has been observed to me is that we are a distinct being that acts in accordance to our own internal processes which determine for us what value we find in the sensory data our senses collect and how we will act in accordance to that data. Until evidence arises that suggests that what determines our actions is not completely the result of our internal processes, but, perhaps, some sort of collective consciousness that would somehow make our decisions for us, at least in certain circumstances, then I feel that to assume this idea to be axiomatic is only reasonable.
Would you agree or disagree?
Quote:
The straw man is the assumption, then, that anyone who uses a concept that emphasizes interest in others must be completely negating the idea of self-interest - insane if we've already decided that everything has to be self-interested.
Of course, that assumption would be a straw man, but I would be more than interested if you could locate for us any point in this thread where anyone explicitly or implicitly made this assumption.
I personally had simply proposed (as I believe MT had also) that the definition of altruism as the dictionary refers to it, as well as anyone holding a similar viewpoint, belies the nature of reality. The dictionary refers to altruism as an unselfish act that is in opposition to an act rooted in egoism, which it refers to as the habit of always valuing everything in regards to one's personal interest.
As the latter is the only way in which an individual is capable of determining the value in anything, regardless of how an individual determines that value, then, altogether quite clearly, we can see that the concept of altruism as an unselfish act that lies in opposition to the idea of acting in accordance with one's personal interest is completely bunk.
Quote:
But people do not think of altruism this way
Regarding the dictionary definition as referred to above, there are plenty of people who do think this way, as demonstrated in this very thread. I personally already asserted that if others want to use the word to describe simply taking action that benefits the welfare of others, then they can feel free to do so.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
|
fireworks_god
SexyButt McDanger
Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 23,677
Loc: Red Panda Village
Last seen: 8 hours, 19 minutes
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Poid]
#9794206 - 02/14/09 04:59 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
If an altruistic act isn't relevant to the topic of altruism, then I don't know what is.
That's your problem. Simply citing an act doesn't in any way substantiate the notion that the act is "altruistic", as opposed to being rooted in "egoism".
--------------------
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
|
Kukaracha
Cat wannabe
Registered: 12/18/08
Posts: 1,554
Loc: France
Last seen: 21 days, 22 hours
|
|
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
Yes, holding and acting upon ethnocentric views is a choice an individual is making, consciously or subconsciously, insomuch as any view or action an individual has or takes is their choice. Obviously, the tendency to think through the terms of one's own culture is a tendency that is very much influenced by the actions of others around them. This is no different from the way in which everything that comprises us has been greatly influenced and affected by our environment and those around us. If one considers how culture is propagated, the specific mechanism that causes it to be propagated, the only answer is the decisions that individuals make regarding how they will think and how they will act.
This is my point - society is only an abstract concept that describes the ways in which individuals interact with each other. Thus, what determines how society manifests is simply the ways in which individuals interact with each other.
I still don't see why you consider a reaction as a choice! You'd tell me my mother just died, I would maybe cry, but it's a reaction, not a choice. People don't choose to be ethnocentrists, it's a reaction, it's spontaneous. I don't think I can choose something "subconsciously". If so, then it's not because of my free will (let's say that I have one). Then it's not really a strict choice.
About culture, doesn't it grow like what we call personnality? It is made of interactions, but so is our personnality.
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
Why would I make a link to something that was not explicitly stated or implied by the context of what was expressed?
I thought you'd guess! : )
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
It sounds more like a loss of the preconceived notion of how a human being "should" act than an actual loss of the animal's sense of individuality. Not conforming to the observer's sense of how a human is to be doesn't negate the experience the human would have had of being an individual being.
Sure, it's nothing very accurate nor certain.
|
Bernackums
The universe will have its way.
Registered: 08/06/07
Posts: 865
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Poid]
#9796404 - 02/14/09 02:44 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
But that post had a meaning; altruism is real.
My other posts had meanings, too, all of which were related to altruism.
Meaning is subjective, mate, if you're not willing to explain it then don't bother posting.
--------------------
Let's get the fuck out of here.
|
Bernackums
The universe will have its way.
Registered: 08/06/07
Posts: 865
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Poid]
#9796412 - 02/14/09 02:46 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
Quote:
Poid said:
If an altruistic act isn't relevant to the topic of altruism, then I don't know what is.
That's your problem. Simply citing an act doesn't in any way substantiate the notion that the act is "altruistic", as opposed to being rooted in "egoism".
Agreed, this also goes to show you don't have a full understanding of either.
--------------------
Let's get the fuck out of here.
|
Grapefruit
Obliviated
Registered: 05/09/08
Posts: 4,276
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
|
I think that i still wouldn't want to subject others to suffering even if the benefits were massive to my mental and personal health in every way. Does that count? Seeing as that would not be beneficial to me though in real life i do nothing altruistic. There is nothing wrong with "rational self-interest" though it's about striking a balance.
Another interesting question would be does the opposite exist, doing everything purely for oneself?
--------------------
"So man's insanity is heaven's sense; and wandering from all mortal reason, man comes at last to that celestial thought, which, to reason, is absurd and frantic; and weal or woe, feels then uncompromised, indifferent as his God." - Herman Melville
|
Bernackums
The universe will have its way.
Registered: 08/06/07
Posts: 865
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
|
|
Another interesting question would be does the opposite exist, doing everything purely for oneself?
This seems to be how it is all the time. I only do things for myself. This does not mean that doing things that are beneficial for others cannot be beneficial for me, in fact, they must be or I wouldn't do them.
I feel good and find gratification in all places in this life, I don't think I've ever done anything that didn't have this effect. I am human, this is how I am. I feel that altruism as a concept conflicts with the nature of the human being, and observably many other animals on this planet. We are emotionally driven desire filled creatures and ultimately we are self-concerned, but this does not mean that more happiness cannot be obtained through benevolence than selfishness and an unconcern for others' well being. I find much pleasure in helping others, that's probably why I do it.
Altruism has come to feel like a mechanism of our human mind, to assume the extremes of things and wonder if they exist. I have nothing on this idea though, it is new and foriegn to me, but I know our minds assume many things. For example (and perhaps this is a topic for another day), does it not feel oh-so-natural to assume that because we have existence, there is non-existence? The concept of infinity also strikes this feeling with me, and the way our mind pushes it's own limits conceptually. Currently, all I can do is speculate.
Let's pretend this is all I've said thus far.
--------------------
Let's get the fuck out of here.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
Quote:
Poid said:
If an altruistic act isn't relevant to the topic of altruism, then I don't know what is.
That's your problem. Simply citing an act doesn't in any way substantiate the notion that the act is "altruistic", as opposed to being rooted in "egoism".
Should I explain, then, how the act was altruistic, as opposed to being rooted in egoism?
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
zannennagara
Found in Space
Registered: 09/25/08
Posts: 424
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Thos fifteen pages were focusing on more than this subject, and the ones that were about altruism and in which I was personally posting, were replies to people like you, who even reading my detailed explanations regarding the non-existence of altruism, were asking me the same shit.
The word "god" in also in the dictionary, and there's noting out here, in real life, to show that something like this would actually exist. It is stupid, in my opinion, to think that just because a word exists in the dictionary, its existence shouldn't be disputed. you're not making a strong case here, and it is not question I have not answered in the past, on one or more of these fifteen pages. It is also hilarious that you're judging the content of this thread as if you knew what you were talking about, when you obviously don't know what has been discussed and ask the same questions that have been already asked and answered.
Questions? I believe the only question in the post was a rhetorical quotation of your original question, which I answered in the next sentence. In macabre, absurd fact I did read every post of the fifteen pages before I decided to add - as if I knew what I was talking about - and the points I made were extensions of brief postings from two other users, which I cannot see had been addressed. But, OK, I'll assume that I'm blind to my own idiotic and ignorant echoes of others and move on.
"God" is an important example: the point made by fireworks_god earlier that an argument for God presumes God exists (/is omnipotent/is creator) everywhere, that everything is self-evident proof of God, applies to your own argument. Every human action, it is obvious to you, is an example of self-interest, because you have presumed it exists within every human action, that everything we do is self-evident proof of self-interest. It is just as easy to ridicule the concept of self-interest as it is to ridicule the concept of God, as it is to ridicule every word in the dictionary.
For instance, there is no such as a distinct "self." Every "individual" is born out of age-old genetic codes with a primordial-soup/something-or-other ancestry and wholly dependent on environmental elements and society for survival. It is impossible to generate any interest that is derived from the self, as all of the self's interests depend on and emerge from external factors or external coding. Any will or interest is completely illusion based on biology, or God, the obvious true creator and oneness of the cosmos. Self can't exist, so self-interest can't exist.
Except we have the perspective of individual selves and we have those terms in the dictionary, although the conception is vastly different in the languages of different cultures. We say, well, everyone else uses self-interest to mean that (illusion of) will/interest, so we shall too, and we can make it axiomatic just like "God's will" is to others referring to the same (illusion of) will/interest.
Did someone say this already? I am sorry to waste your time if they did.
Quote:
I am really interested to see where you have seen such an "assumption", since, personally, all that I argued about was that having interest in others' well being doesn't contradict self-interest. This is the main idea upon which I am sustaining that altruism doesn't exist, did you even read anything from what has been posted here?
is exactly how I felt after reading everything that had been posted here. If "interest in others' wellbeing doesn't contradict self-interest" is all you argued, that is a fine argument that I completely agree with. What I disagree with is the extrapolation of that non-contradiction to the destruction of a term that doesn't claim to wholly contradict self-interest. Let's look:
Quote:
The definition that the dictionary provides is, once again:
Quote:
al⋅tru⋅ism
/ˈæltruˌɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [al-troo-iz-uhm] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others (opposed to egoism ).
2. Animal Behavior. behavior by an animal that may be to its disadvantage but that benefits others of its kind, as a warning cry that reveals the location of the caller to a predator.
It is this definition that implies that, in order for altruism ti exist, it has to be opposed to egoism. To my knowledge, self-interest is a pretty egoistical preoccupation, so how can you go on and say that altruism exists regardless, when at the same time you admit that self-interest exists in every action that we're making?
"Opposed to egoism" is used to distinguish altruism from a concept that is used to distinguish behavior from some saner balance of helping others to benefit the self. This I know has been said already, but "egoism" is not usually used to refer to every action of a person with an ego; it puts emphasis on a more ignorant self-interest that alienates other people instead of helping them, which would be a little more altruistic.
Assuming that "altruism" is a bogus concept and that "egoism" legitimately refers to everything we do, we would simply have to come up with new adjectives to describe behavior to distinguish those who think of others and act accordingly from those who do not think of others and act with only short-term self-serving attitudes. Here is a question I do not believe has been asked in this thread: how would you describe these differences in behavior and why would this be better?
--------------------
No debe haber separación, no puede haber definición.
|
zannennagara
Found in Space
Registered: 09/25/08
Posts: 424
|
|
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
I think it is completely incorrect to dismiss an axiom of a perspective to a logical fallacy, "begging the question", and I also do not agree that it would be impossible to disprove the axiom, unless, of course, it really is a self-evident truth. Self-interest was also not assigned to "everything", but simply recognized as the foundation of how an individual chooses what to think and how to act. Thus, what would be in the self-interest of an individual is what they determine to be in their self-interest, dependent upon their nature, their needs, and their preferences.
Do you or do you not feel that this is the nature of reality? I personally assume the idea to be axiomatic because the nature of an individual as it has been observed to me is that we are a distinct being that acts in accordance to our own internal processes which determine for us what value we find in the sensory data our senses collect and how we will act in accordance to that data. Until evidence arises that suggests that what determines our actions is not completely the result of our internal processes, but, perhaps, some sort of collective consciousness that would somehow make our decisions for us, at least in certain circumstances, then I feel that to assume this idea to be axiomatic is only reasonable.
Would you agree or disagree?
I agree that it is reasonable to form individualized self-interest axioms to describe reality, but as above I disagree with the idea of exclusivity for that axiomatic description, in that there are non-individualized ways of viewing self, will and existence. "Begging the question" comes into play when one ontological model's axioms are declared as self-evidently superior to another's.
Quote:
Of course, that assumption would be a straw man, but I would be more than interested if you could locate for us any point in this thread where anyone explicitly or implicitly made this assumption.
I personally had simply proposed (as I believe MT had also) that the definition of altruism as the dictionary refers to it, as well as anyone holding a similar viewpoint, belies the nature of reality. The dictionary refers to altruism as an unselfish act that is in opposition to an act rooted in egoism, which it refers to as the habit of always valuing everything in regards to one's personal interest.
As the latter is the only way in which an individual is capable of determining the value in anything, regardless of how an individual determines that value, then, altogether quite clearly, we can see that the concept of altruism as an unselfish act that lies in opposition to the idea of acting in accordance with one's personal interest is completely bunk.
Regarding the dictionary definition as referred to above, there are plenty of people who do think this way, as demonstrated in this very thread.
The straw man is inherent to the belief that axioms of self-interest and individualization are obviously superior to axioms of interest not localized to the "self;" these words "selfish" and "selfless" mean very different things to these different views, and accepting your axioms makes the encouragement of selflessness ridiculous, self-contradictory. Perhaps to those who think of themselves as altruistic and selfless, interconnected selflessness is the obvious natural state rather than the individualized self.
Quote:
I personally already asserted that if others want to use the word to describe simply taking action that benefits the welfare of others, then they can feel free to do so.
I'll pose the same question to you: how do you propose we distinguish between behavior that profits the self while screwing over the others and behavior that does not immediately profit the self while assisting others? How do you do this while avoiding biases inherent to differing views of self?
--------------------
No debe haber separación, no puede haber definición.
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
|
Quote:
zannennagara said:
In macabre, absurd fact I did read every post of the fifteen pages before I decided to add ....
Your post is better than mine then. This "argument" was resolved weeks ago in another thread.
Redefining altruism into a strawman isn't much of an argument. This section of Wiki amply refutes the idea:
Quote:
Psychological egoism can be accused of using circular logic. For instance, an egoist would not disagree with the following syllogism: "If a person has willingly performed an act, then he/she has manifested such intent in the form of that act. Fulfillment of one's desires is the primary requisite of satisfaction. Ergo, a person can only willingly perform acts that result in his/her personal enjoyment." This logic is sometimes viewed as circular or presumptuous. Specifically, egoism leans on the assumption that satisfaction is synonymous with self-satisfaction. Such a precept automatically sidesteps counterpoint, however, and remains unfalsifiable. Thus, until empirical evidence favors one view or the other, egoism must acquiesce to uncertainty.
Nice seeing your posts.
--------------------
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
Quote:
Bernackums said:
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
Quote:
Poid said:
If an altruistic act isn't relevant to the topic of altruism, then I don't know what is.
That's your problem. Simply citing an act doesn't in any way substantiate the notion that the act is "altruistic", as opposed to being rooted in "egoism".
Agreed, this also goes to show you don't have a full understanding of either.
The reason I made MushroomTrip aware of her typos and grammatical errors was, first of all, that I wasn't even sure if she was aware of them herself (and even now, I still am not sure if she was aware of them or not). I then told her that her post contained typos and grammatical errors in order to have her look over her posts and realize her mistakes so that she may improve her writing skills; if I told her that she made typos and grammatical errors, and then showed them to her, it wouldn't have been much help for her. If anything, she might have been offended by me doing that.
Because this was an unselfish act which was based on my practical concern for her writing skills, and not based on any sort of personal interest, that means it was an altruistic one. I didn't expect (nor did I desire) anything in return.
Quote:
al⋅tru⋅ism
1. the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others
Quote:
e⋅go⋅ism
1. the habit of valuing everything only in reference to one's personal interest; selfishness
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Bernackums
The universe will have its way.
Registered: 08/06/07
Posts: 865
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Poid]
#9801632 - 02/15/09 08:20 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Flaunting this above her and using it as leverage was the reason you did it, it seems. But who really cares at this point, you did what you did because you did what you did.
--------------------
Let's get the fuck out of here.
Edited by Bernackums (02/15/09 08:37 AM)
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
"Flaunting this above her and using it as leverage was the reason you did it, it seems."
I just want to assure you (and everybody else) that is wasn't. Why would it be so hard for everybody to believe me?
"But who really cares at this point, you did what you because you did what you did."
Anyone who's serious about engaging themselves into the discussion at hand should care because what I did (and why I did it) is indefatigably relevant to the discussion at hand.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Bernackums
The universe will have its way.
Registered: 08/06/07
Posts: 865
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Poid]
#9801687 - 02/15/09 08:45 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I've already given you my two cents on altruism three times, and no one has even so much as responded to the idea I proposed. At this point I don't really give a shit anymore.
Why couldn't you just give an example of an act you think is altruistic to begin with? Thus far you haven't made a point on altruism, and we're 17 pages into a thread that barely got off the ground. Now you want to start talking about it? Well not with me, sir.
--------------------
Let's get the fuck out of here.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
"Why couldn't you just give an example of an act you think is altruistic to begin with?"
If you read the whole thread, from beginning to end, you might understand why.
But, to sum it up briefly, a lot of it had to do with MushroomTrip and fireworks_god's behavior. Also, for the sake of (relevant) discussion, I did what I did. Is that so bad?
"Thus far you haven't made a point on altruism, and we're 17 pages into a thread that barely got off the ground. Now you want to start talking about it? Well not with me, sir."
I most certainly did, and it was that altruism is real. Read my first post, if you so wish to:
Quote:
Poid said:
"Why do you think that some people are decided to believe it exists, or why do you think it is real?"
How isn't altruism real? Do you mean to ask instead, "Why do some people choose to live altruistic lives?"
"Personally, I think it has its roots in our need to feel loved and important. When this need, which I think is present in all of us more or less, is mixed with feelings of confusion and personal insecurity, people tend to believe, as a misunderstood measure of self-protection, that there's actually someone else besides them on this planet that could care so much about them that they are able to do acts from which they get absolutely no reward (be it psychological or material). Wishful and potentially dangerous thinking, because one might end up holding such irrational and unreal expectations about the world, that one might end up having their perception of the world crushed and their minds in terror, or even inflict pain on others, when severely confronted with reality."
When severely confronted with what reality?
If someone does something to "....feel loved and important", then by definition, they aren't being altruistic.
Is everything you do based on the belief you somehow will be rewarded?
"Of course, I have this impression based on the fact that in my early teens I used to believe that altruism was real, along with believing in other self-destructive crap, and after a deep and honest analysis of myself made by me, I realized that these were the reasons I was holding such ridiculous beliefs. "
So you "believed altruism was real", while at the same time "believing in self-destructive crap", and you say these things are the reasons you were holding such ridiculous beliefs? What ridiculous beliefs were you holding?
"I'm more than interested in hearing other's opinions, both believers and non-believers."
I still don't understand what you mean by this.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Poid]
#9801735 - 02/15/09 09:03 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
But, to sum it up briefly, a lot of it had to do with MushroomTrip and fireworks_god's behavior. Also, for the sake of (relevant) discussion, I did what I did. Is that so bad?
So, the reason why you mentioned that I made grammatical was errors because you were being altruistic, or because you were butt-hurt about my behavior? You can't have them both since altruism isn't about irrational adversity to one's attitude.
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
Grapefruit
Obliviated
Registered: 05/09/08
Posts: 4,276
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
|
If i we're too say that i try not to inflict suffering on others because otherwise i feel guilty, doesn't that mean guilt is an altruistic emotion?
--------------------
"So man's insanity is heaven's sense; and wandering from all mortal reason, man comes at last to that celestial thought, which, to reason, is absurd and frantic; and weal or woe, feels then uncompromised, indifferent as his God." - Herman Melville
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Quote:
Poid said:
But, to sum it up briefly, a lot of it had to do with MushroomTrip and fireworks_god's behavior. Also, for the sake of (relevant) discussion, I did what I did. Is that so bad?
So, the reason why you mentioned that I made grammatical was errors because you were being altruistic, or because you were butt-hurt about my behavior? You can't have them both since altruism isn't about irrational adversity to one's attitude.
That quote wasn't in reference to my altruistic act.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Poid]
#9801763 - 02/15/09 09:12 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
"If i we're too say that i try not to inflict suffering on others because otherwise i feel guilty, doesn't that mean guilt is an altruistic emotion?"
An emotion is a subjective experiential phenomenon, therefore, it cannot easily be related to altruism.
If the reason you try not to inflict suffering on others is because you wish not to feel guilty, then your wish not to feel guilty is based upon personal interest; you're personally interested in not feeling guilty.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
Edited by Poid (02/15/09 09:20 AM)
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
|
Quote:
Grapefruit said:
If i we're too say that i try not to inflict suffering on others because otherwise i feel guilty, doesn't that mean guilt is an altruistic emotion?
No, I would say that guilt is, in my opinion, an irrational feeling that only clouds our minds, becoming a treat to good decision making.
Also, wouldn't you say that, since you're feeling guilty, and it is the bad feeling that YOU want to avoid, this is a selfish choice? You're doing this for yourself, because by doing this, you're protecting yourself from feeling guilt.
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
Grapefruit
Obliviated
Registered: 05/09/08
Posts: 4,276
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
|
Quote:
wouldn't you say that, since you're feeling guilty, and it is the bad feeling that YOU want to avoid, this is a selfish choice?
I realize this is a selfish choice but surely i wouldn't be feeling guilty in the first place if i did not care whether the other person suffered or not?
--------------------
"So man's insanity is heaven's sense; and wandering from all mortal reason, man comes at last to that celestial thought, which, to reason, is absurd and frantic; and weal or woe, feels then uncompromised, indifferent as his God." - Herman Melville
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
Quote:
Grapefruit said:
I realize this is a selfish choice but surely i wouldn't be feeling guilty in the first place if i did not care whether the other person suffered or not?
That doesn't matter, because if being good to others is the result (however direct or indirect) if your personal interest of avoiding the feeling of guilt, then by definition, you are not being altruistic.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Grapefruit
Obliviated
Registered: 05/09/08
Posts: 4,276
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Poid]
#9801814 - 02/15/09 09:25 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
My argument was that guilt was an altruistic emotion not that i was being altruistic.
--------------------
"So man's insanity is heaven's sense; and wandering from all mortal reason, man comes at last to that celestial thought, which, to reason, is absurd and frantic; and weal or woe, feels then uncompromised, indifferent as his God." - Herman Melville
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
|
Actually, guilt doesn't have almost anything to do with caring for one's well being. It has a lot to do with bad programming, unhealthy education followed in some cases by a life lived without awareness... Studies show that guilt can very easily drive one to manifesting violence, which not only that's not concerned with the well being of others, but on the contrary.
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
Grapefruit
Obliviated
Registered: 05/09/08
Posts: 4,276
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
|
So are you saying, to give an extreme example, that if someone who was perfectly programmed was in a situation where there was no chance of being caught or seen by anyone else then they could torture someone for their personal gain without guilt?
IMO guilt can be both rational and irrational.
--------------------
"So man's insanity is heaven's sense; and wandering from all mortal reason, man comes at last to that celestial thought, which, to reason, is absurd and frantic; and weal or woe, feels then uncompromised, indifferent as his God." - Herman Melville
Edited by Grapefruit (02/15/09 09:30 AM)
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
|
No, I am not saying this in any way. I said that there are very high chances, for people who feel guilt to start being violent, given certain conditions which vary from individual to individual. Fear of getting caught was never mentioned. Guilt doesn't have anything to do with knowing that you're watched and behaving accordingly.
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
Grapefruit
Obliviated
Registered: 05/09/08
Posts: 4,276
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
|
So why do we feel guilty in your opinion?
--------------------
"So man's insanity is heaven's sense; and wandering from all mortal reason, man comes at last to that celestial thought, which, to reason, is absurd and frantic; and weal or woe, feels then uncompromised, indifferent as his God." - Herman Melville
|
Bernackums
The universe will have its way.
Registered: 08/06/07
Posts: 865
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
|
|
I agree, and would like to add that guilt is a result of the should. It's someone else's (or your own) idea imposed upon your own idea; the feeling that you shouldn't have done that results from conflicting view points. This seems to be what a conscience is, the ideas of morality that our so engrained in us that acting against them conflicts and causes the feeling of guilt. These engrained morals however, are a result of the ubringing and cultural programming, they are not inherent to our being.
Remove the should.
--------------------
Let's get the fuck out of here.
|
fireworks_god
SexyButt McDanger
Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 23,677
Loc: Red Panda Village
Last seen: 8 hours, 19 minutes
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Poid]
#9801890 - 02/15/09 09:47 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
That doesn't matter, because if being good to others is the result (however direct or indirect) if your personal interest of avoiding the feeling of guilt, then by definition, you are not being altruistic.
Typo.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
|
Maybe even some rotten understanding of basic grammar 
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
Grapefruit
Obliviated
Registered: 05/09/08
Posts: 4,276
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
|
The morals have to have come from somewhere originally though. They might be a thing created in society now but there must have been a starting point of them, making your point null.
--------------------
"So man's insanity is heaven's sense; and wandering from all mortal reason, man comes at last to that celestial thought, which, to reason, is absurd and frantic; and weal or woe, feels then uncompromised, indifferent as his God." - Herman Melville
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
Quote:
Grapefruit said:
My argument was that guilt was an altruistic emotion not that i was being altruistic.
Quote:
Poid said:
"If i we're too say that i try not to inflict suffering on others because otherwise i feel guilty, doesn't that mean guilt is an altruistic emotion?"
An emotion is a subjective experiential phenomenon, therefore, it cannot easily be related to altruism.
If the reason you try not to inflict suffering on others is because you wish not to feel guilty, then your wish not to feel guilty is based upon personal interest; you're personally interested in not feeling guilty.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
Quote:
Poid said:
That doesn't matter, because if being good to others is the result (however direct or indirect) if your personal interest of avoiding the feeling of guilt, then by definition, you are not being altruistic.
Typo.
Thank you.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
|
Quote:
Bernackums said:
I agree, and would like to add that guilt is a result of the should. It's someone else's (or your own) idea imposed upon your own idea; the feeling that you shouldn't have done that results from conflicting view points. This seems to be what a conscience is, the ideas of morality that our so engrained in us that acting against them conflicts and causes the feeling of guilt. These engrained morals however, are a result of the ubringing and cultural programming, they are not inherent to our being.
Remove the should.
Yes, even though I think that guilt can be personal too. After all, the first human that felt it, and which supposedly transferred this negative emotion on to others, must have had a genuine, personal feeling of guilt.
I remember, as a kid, I would feel feelings very similar to guilt, without that idea really being imprinted on me. I think it is just unexplained emotions which sometimes feel bad without a rational reason, and that anyone can have on their own. I am mentioning this because I think that's important to know that maybe we have some responsibility in this mess too, and pay closer attention to our thoughts.
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Maybe even some rotten understanding of basic grammar
Nope. Just a typo.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Bernackums
The universe will have its way.
Registered: 08/06/07
Posts: 865
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
|
|
Math. There are many scenarios in this life where it's simply smarter to act a certain way that is beneficial for all, rather than selfishly. I just feel that those morals that seem inherent to our being are common because we are all human, and in most scenarios the same decisions produce the best outcome.
--------------------
Let's get the fuck out of here.
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
|
Quote:
Grapefruit said:
The morals have to have come from somewhere originally though. They might be a thing created in society now but there must have been a starting point of them, making your point null.
I don't see the correlation between these two. Even if guilt is individually generated in some cases, it still doesn't mean that it isn't a negative and irrational emotion.
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Studies show that guilt can very easily drive one to manifesting violence, which not only that's not concerned with the well being of others, but on the contrary.
Interesting.
Not that I deny that, but can you provide us with some sources?
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Poid]
#9801928 - 02/15/09 10:01 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
Grapefruit
Obliviated
Registered: 05/09/08
Posts: 4,276
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Poid]
#9801941 - 02/15/09 10:06 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I don't see the correlation between these two. Even if guilt is individually generated in some cases, it still doesn't mean that it isn't a negative and irrational emotion.
I was responding to Berckanums saying that the emotion was created by society.
Quote:
Math. There are many scenarios in this life where it's simply smarter to act a certain way that is beneficial for all, rather than selfishly. I just feel that those morals that seem inherent to our being are common because we are all human, and in most scenarios the same decisions produce the best outcome.
Good answer . I think you got me .
--------------------
"So man's insanity is heaven's sense; and wandering from all mortal reason, man comes at last to that celestial thought, which, to reason, is absurd and frantic; and weal or woe, feels then uncompromised, indifferent as his God." - Herman Melville
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
Quote:
Bernackums said:
I agree, and would like to add that guilt is a result of the should. It's someone else's (or your own) idea imposed upon your own idea; the feeling that you shouldn't have done that results from conflicting view points. This seems to be what a conscience is, the ideas of morality that our so engrained in us that acting against them conflicts and causes the feeling of guilt. These engrained morals however, are a result of the ubringing and cultural programming, they are not inherent to our being.
Remove the should.
Are you denying the existence of morals which are inherent to our being? What about the "Golden Rule", "Do not do something to another that you wouldn't want another do to you."? Elementary logic denotes that this is a sensible "rule" to live by, and I might even go as far as to say that it's instinctual for humans to realize this; I don't think it is necessary for a human to be conditioned to behave based on this "rule" in order to realize that it is a sensible "rule" to live by.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Bernackums
The universe will have its way.
Registered: 08/06/07
Posts: 865
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Poid]
#9801964 - 02/15/09 10:14 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Are you denying the existence of morals which are inherent to our being?
Yes, again.
Also, responding to all, I wasn't implying morality is only influcenced by ubringing and culture, but that plus math. Mostly math, though.
--------------------
Let's get the fuck out of here.
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Poid]
#9801969 - 02/15/09 10:16 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
Are you denying the existence of morals which are inherent to our being?
That's just a bunch of old crap. Unless you can prove that this actually exists...
Quote:
What about the golden rule, "Do not do something to another that you wouldn't want another do to you."? Elementary logic denotes that this is a sensible rule to live by, and I might even go as far as to say that it's instinctual for humans to realize this; I don't think it is necessary for a human to be conditioned to behave based on this "rule" in order to realize that it is a sensible "rule" to live by.
Elementary logic? From where?
Aren't you aware of the fact that different people have different tastes, and, even if I might hate for something to happen to me, others would LOVE it, and vice-versa? How does this "golden rule" apply to that stuff?
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
Quote:
Bernackums said:
Are you denying the existence of morals which are inherent to our being?
Yes, again.
Also, responding to all, I wasn't implying morality is only influcenced by ubringing and culture, but that plus math. Mostly math, though.
What about instinctual logic?
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
"That's just a bunch of old crap. Unless you can prove that this actually exists..."
Honestly, I probably could, but that's a whole other topic that would probably be best discussed in a thread of its own.
"Elementary logic? From where?
Aren't you aware of the fact that different people have different tastes, and, even if I might hate for something to happen to me, others would LOVE it, and vice-versa? How does this "golden rule" apply to that stuff?"
I think that being nice and fair to people is self-evidently a logical way to live one's life.
Maybe the "rule" should instead be, "Do not do things to an individual that an individual does not want done to them.", which is sort of analogous to the saying, "If you don't have something nice to say, then don't say anything at all".
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
MarkostheGnostic
Elder
Registered: 12/09/99
Posts: 8,634
Loc: South Florida
Last seen: 2 days, 4 hours
|
 Re: Altruism [Re: Zanthius]
#9802116 - 02/15/09 11:11 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
I think it is your ego that strives so hard to convince others that you have no ego. If you had no ego, you probably wouldn't feel any desire to convince others that you are without any ego.
When we are trying to convince others that we aren't a certain thing, it is usually because we are exactly that thing.
Ridiculous. Of course I have an ego. All horizontal communication between people requires a 'point of view,' a 'perspective,' which is what the ego is. Egotism, egoism, ego-defenses are the encrustations that people seek to 'kill,' not the perspective, which, during ego-death or physical death can potentially expand to infinity.
Please do not attempt to school me on the nature of projection, or an amateur analysis of my ego-defenses, you are not up to the task.
|
zen buddy
not a buddhist
Registered: 01/22/09
Posts: 704
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Poid]
#9802232 - 02/15/09 11:32 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
Quote:
Bernackums said:
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
Quote:
Poid said:
If an altruistic act isn't relevant to the topic of altruism, then I don't know what is.
That's your problem. Simply citing an act doesn't in any way substantiate the notion that the act is "altruistic", as opposed to being rooted in "egoism".
Agreed, this also goes to show you don't have a full understanding of either.
The reason I made MushroomTrip aware of her typos and grammatical errors was, first of all, that I wasn't even sure if she was aware of them herself (and even now, I still am not sure if she was aware of them or not). I then told her that her post contained typos and grammatical errors in order to have her look over her posts and realize her mistakes so that she may improve her writing skills; if I told her that she made typos and grammatical errors, and then showed them to her, it wouldn't have been much help for her. If anything, she might have been offended by me doing that.
Because this was an unselfish act which was based on my practical concern for her writing skills, and not based on any sort of personal interest, that means it was an altruistic one. I didn't expect (nor did I desire) anything in return.
Quote:
al⋅tru⋅ism
1. the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others
Quote:
e⋅go⋅ism
1. the habit of valuing everything only in reference to one's personal interest; selfishness
Myself being someone who used to have difficulty with the use of the English language, I completely understand where you're coming from with this. When someone takes the time to point out errors in my communication I'm very thankful for this as it can only help me become better at communicating. Only a very insecure individual will think that when someone is trying to enlighten them that they are really doing this to feel better about themselves. This is a classic case of denial when someone will distract themselves from what is really going on so that they don't have to admit that maybe there are flaws in their own communication. Like I mentioned in another post I'm not the kind of person who learns well in a classroom setting and that I learn better through experience. On top of this, English was my worst subject in high school. I did only what I needed to do in order to get a passing grade and nothing more. A lot of the reason for this was that I felt like a lot of what was being taught was a waste of my time. Most likely this also had to do with the fact that I was a slow learner when it came to English and instead of struggling to keep up with the class it was easier to just give up. Of course throughout my life I've learned the importance of good communication and I'm constantly in the process of refining my communication skills. If it wasn't for people taking the time to help me understand the flaws in my own communication my English would not be as good as it is.
When a group of people are having a healthy debate it is actually very acceptable to address any flaws in communication as this is getting in the way of communicating the topic at hand. At this point in my life I use a layman vocabulary because this ensures that more people will understand what it is that I am saying. If you want to communicate a message to a group people there is not much sense in using a word that only half of them will understand. Of course some people will see my limited vocabulary to mean that I am an unintelligible human being not worth listening to but that is because they are not intelligent enough to understand that I'm not just talking to people like them, I'm talking to everyone. I don't like having to repeat myself so I will just use words that I know people will understand.
Some words are commonly misunderstood by many people and I find that eliminating these words from my vocabulary makes life a lot easier. The word addiction is commonly used as an excuse not to take control of your life. If someone thinks they are addicted they usually think that the drug or substance has more control than they do and this makes it very easy to pick it up and do it again. I don't use this word because I don't like the effect it has. The word opinion is commonly misunderstood or misused so I no longer use the word. For example, when I took the time to help a young friend of mine understand that her current behavior in regards to sleeping with a bunch of different guys for money or drugs at the age of 16 was a bad idea in that was very dangerous, she replied with "that is your opinion and you have the right to your opinion". This completely undermines the seriousness of the message that I have for her. Although in regards to her life the consequences to her choices have not happened yet, the fact that this is a bad life choice has been proven time and time again just not in her life yet. It is only one example of many examples as to why I don't like the word opinion and I'm not even sure if this is the best example but I will leave it at that.
This brings me to the word altruism which we can see by this thread is commonly misunderstood. I can live my life in a way that is beneficial to others while I am constantly aware of my effect on those around me without ever using the word altruism. My unselfish concern for others is so rooted in who I am that I do it constantly without even thinking about it and people notice that I do this as some of them start to adopt it as one of their own qualities. Sometimes I will bring up how someone could have been more aware of their effect on another human being but I always do this without using the word altruism. It might take a few seconds longer for me to get my sentence out but it sure is a lot better than having the person completely misunderstand because they don't know what the word altruism means and it's a good way to avoid an unnecessary week long debate over semantics.
There are more than a few selfish people in the world who have no idea what it feels like to be nice, while they assume that everything that everyone does has some sort of selfish intent just like we see here when people suggest that you taking the time to mention the flaws in someone's communication means that you're being anything but kind and generous. The reason why some people have a hard time imagining that others are trying to help them without any selfish motives is because they themselves are not capable of such things or just haven't tried for themselves.
No one says that you have to be nice or that people who lack love, compassion and empathy should not be accepted but there will always be people around who are there to help these people awaken to the idea that being nice, kind and generous with our words is always a better option.
When someone takes the time to enlighten us, no matter what it is, even if they are wrong or only partially right, it would be better of us to accept this as a loving gesture. They are taking time out of their life to try and help you understand yourself better and this is in your own best interest as the only people who would see this as an ego trip designed to make the other person feel better about themselves are insecure people who spend most of their day distracting themselves from what's really going on, denying the truth right in front of their eyes or insulting others so that they can feel better about themselves.
In addition to thinking that people should be more accepting and understanding of others who are genuinely trying to help them out of love, I also think that the people who are acting out of love might consider that the way they are trying to help could be better. In other words, maybe you could have included more in your post or worded what you had to say differently to ensure a better reaction. I understand that a lot of times it doesn't matter how you say it the person's denial is so strong that they will use whatever tactics necessary to avoid listening to what you have to say but even when that is the case it can't hurt to consider that maybe there is a better way to say what you're trying to say. And let's not forget that communication is only used to convey a message and if you understood what the person was trying to say, I guess the communication was effective.
|
MarkostheGnostic
Elder
Registered: 12/09/99
Posts: 8,634
Loc: South Florida
Last seen: 2 days, 4 hours
|
|
Selflessness does not mean that a personal ego is absent and that 'I' am now God acting through my mind-body in some Hindu monistic idiom. This was the nature of all those absurd theological arguments about the dual natures of Jesus Christ that was carried on through the centuries (whether his ego was human and divine, or whether two egos were operating in complete harmony, or if he had no human ego at all, etc.). Selfless action means a subduing of the egoic-mind, which is an amalgam of the needs and desires of the mind-body. Instead of acting in the usual mode of 'me-first,' one chooses to act for the needs and desires of another or others. Most people require becoming a parent to learn this (if they are responsible parents). Others learn by service to others, whether in the military or in some human service.
The quest for identity is accomplished by late adolescence. Once that task was completed in my own development, the natural consequence was to enter a helping profession, which I did. My "objection" was to the suggestion that helping entails some process in the formation of a self-identity that formed long ago. I may or may not derive feelings of satisfaction from assisting someone. More often than not, it is a thankless job, which is OK because 1) adolescents are not even developed sufficiently in most cases to NOT take assistance for granted and 2) I did not become a professional helper to feed my need to be liked, appreciated, etc. I chose to become a counselor in order to manifest compassionate action on a regular basis. I get paid for my skills and time, not for caring.
As an 'experiment in truth,' it is a metaphysical experiment to see if service to others (selfless action) really does result in the accruing of 'good karma,' or at least the reduction of 'bad karma.' I work with intense emotional drama, but I do not want any of it in my own life (and neither does my Lady). My occupation is seamless with my lifestyle and values. I do not take holidays from it to go whoring and gambling in Vegas. If I had to work in The Home Depot, I would help customers, but the depth of my helpfulness would be greatly reduced. I am therefore grateful to God for the opportunity to be of service in the capacity that I am. The 'getting' is in the 'giving,' and any reward entails this paradox of loving service.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
|
Quote:
MarkostheGnostic said:
Ridiculous. Of course I have an ego. All horizontal communication between people requires a 'point of view,' a 'perspective,' which is what the ego is. Egotism, egoism, ego-defenses are the encrustations that people seek to 'kill,' not the perspective, which, during ego-death or physical death can potentially expand to infinity.
Please do not attempt to school me on the nature of projection, or an amateur analysis of my ego-defenses, you are not up to the task.
Perhaps I am not, but this crude need you feel to defend yourself now, and this hostility you are projecting towards me now, only seems to originate from your ego-defenses.
|
fireworks_god
SexyButt McDanger
Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 23,677
Loc: Red Panda Village
Last seen: 8 hours, 19 minutes
|
|
Quote:
zannennagara said:
I agree that it is reasonable to form individualized self-interest axioms to describe reality, but as above I disagree with the idea of exclusivity for that axiomatic description, in that there are non-individualized ways of viewing self, will and existence. "Begging the question" comes into play when one ontological model's axioms are declared as self-evidently superior to another's.
What I've personally presented in this discussion is not begging the question. To distill it down, I'm making the point that no selfless action exists because every action an individual makes is based in their self-interest because this is the manner in which a human being functions. There is no circular reasoning because whether or not every action an individual makes is resultant from self-interest is being lied upon the condition of the manner in which a human being functions, which is something that, in the manner that I've put it forth, can be investigated, criticized, to some extent proven, etc.
There's no circular logic in this, so there is no begging the question.
Quote:
The straw man is inherent to the belief that axioms of self-interest and individualization are obviously superior to axioms of interest not localized to the "self;" these words "selfish" and "selfless" mean very different things to these different views, and accepting your axioms makes the encouragement of selflessness ridiculous, self-contradictory. Perhaps to those who think of themselves as altruistic and selfless, interconnected selflessness is the obvious natural state rather than the individualized self.
It isn't a straw-man for me to specifically express that which I am replying to and the definitions of the terms that I am using. A straw-man is to exaggerate or simply make up what another individual is conveying.
Personally, I clearly specified precisely which concept of "altruism" I was criticizing. If you are interested in debating any of my points regarding this, then feel free to do so. Also, if you were referring to another poster as being responsible for posing a straw-man, I'd be interested to see you quote it.
Quote:
I'll pose the same question to you: how do you propose we distinguish between behavior that profits the self while screwing over the others and behavior that does not immediately profit the self while assisting others? How do you do this while avoiding biases inherent to differing views of self?
I'd suggest simply avoiding the dichotomy, as it is terribly vague and incapable of getting to the truth of actions and the motivations behind them. "Immediately profit" and "screwing over the others" are language that I feel are completely blunt and inadequate in representing truth of personal psychology.
Quote:
For instance, there is no such as a distinct "self." Every "individual" is born out of age-old genetic codes with a primordial-soup/something-or-other ancestry and wholly dependent on environmental elements and society for survival. It is impossible to generate any interest that is derived from the self, as all of the self's interests depend on and emerge from external factors or external coding. Any will or interest is completely illusion based on biology, or God, the obvious true creator and oneness of the cosmos. Self can't exist, so self-interest can't exist.
The fact that we beings arise from our environment and only exist dependent upon our relationship with our environment doesn't negate the existence of the self. This form we hold now is still this form. The functioning of this form occurs in very specific ways as a distinct system, even if the material that this form consists of and is supported by originated from elsewhere and at different times.
You cannot deny the specific manner in which a form functions by saying the form doesn't exist as anything but an illusion.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
|
Kukaracha
Cat wannabe
Registered: 12/18/08
Posts: 1,554
Loc: France
Last seen: 21 days, 22 hours
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Zanthius]
#9802508 - 02/15/09 12:27 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Some of you guys are just too serious about it, it messes all up!
|
fireworks_god
SexyButt McDanger
Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 23,677
Loc: Red Panda Village
Last seen: 8 hours, 19 minutes
|
|
Hey buddy, I'll have a reply for you tomorrow.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
|
MarkostheGnostic
Elder
Registered: 12/09/99
Posts: 8,634
Loc: South Florida
Last seen: 2 days, 4 hours
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Zanthius]
#9803383 - 02/15/09 03:31 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I'm not feelimg hostility, I'm addressing someone's erroneous understanding and presumption. The emotional tone is accurately conveyed then, but my BP is not effected by the reading and typing I assure you. I embrace clarity, and I surely do wax defensive at times, as my Lady likes to point out, but only when I am being misperceived and someone is reacting against their mispercerception of me. That is the defense mechanism of projective identification. I react strongly against people who do this because this was one of the major defenses used by my Borderline Personality Disordered ex-wife. Her perception of me was distorted by her pathology and she reacted towards me 'as if' I WAS her projected false ideas. Since that long exposure to her BPD madness, I still do react to others' whom I perceive (or misperceive) who regard me accordingly.
|
zannennagara
Found in Space
Registered: 09/25/08
Posts: 424
|
|
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
What I've personally presented in this discussion is not begging the question. To distill it down, I'm making the point that no selfless action exists because every action an individual makes is based in their self-interest because this is the manner in which a human being functions. There is no circular reasoning because whether or not every action an individual makes is resultant from self-interest is being lied upon the condition of the manner in which a human being functions, which is something that, in the manner that I've put it forth, can be investigated, criticized, to some extent proven, etc.
There's no circular logic in this, so there is no begging the question.
The manner in which a human being functions is self-interest.
Every action an individual makes is based in their self-interest.
Therefore, no selfless action exists.
The conclusion of the argument is assumed in the premises, which is begging the question. How can this concept of self-interest be investigated and disproved (I can't believe there's no such word as "disproven;" that's ridiculous) if your assumption is that all actions display self-interest? You pointed out yourself that assuming the existence of God as a premise for its own conclusion is faulty, and rightly pointed out the flawed assumption of altruism too, yet you didn't bring the same scrutiny to self-interest.
You said something interesting about altruism being "a matter of semantics;" how is it decided which words are exempt from this distinction?
Quote:
It isn't a straw-man for me to specifically express that which I am replying to and the definitions of the terms that I am using. A straw-man is to exaggerate or simply make up what another individual is conveying.
Personally, I clearly specified precisely which concept of "altruism" I was criticizing. If you are interested in debating any of my points regarding this, then feel free to do so. Also, if you were referring to another poster as being responsible for posing a straw-man, I'd be interested to see you quote it.
Quote:
Personally, I think it has its roots in our need to feel loved and important. When this need, which I think is present in all of us more or less, is mixed with feelings of confusion and personal insecurity, people tend to believe, as a misunderstood measure of self-protection, that there's actually someone else besides them on this planet that could care so much about them that they are able to do acts from which they get absolutely no reward (be it psychological or material). Wishful and potentially dangerous thinking, because one might end up holding such irrational and unreal expectations about the world, that one might end up having their perception of the world crushed and their minds in terror, or even inflict pain on others, when severely confronted with reality.
This is the quote to which I originally replied with "straw man." This association of belief in altruism with a fantastic belief in heroes who save believers for absolutely no reward certainly appears to make up or exaggerate an altruist's position, when proponents would suggest that serving others is its own noble cause or own reward, a suggestion offered perhaps to encourage service from others, not a kind of ultimate insurance policy where you can just kick back and wait for the next Gandhi to take care of you. It may be true that there is no rescuer waiting for your every moment of distress, but that nonexistence does not equate with the nonexistence of a concept that is not supported on such grounds.
That's not something you said, but you have repeated your above argument, which in its presumption that all human action is self-interested makes an altruist completely blind to obvious understandings of human behavior, which is very clearly a straw man if you ask any altruist.
Quote:
I'd suggest simply avoiding the dichotomy, as it is terribly vague and incapable of getting to the truth of actions and the motivations behind them. "Immediately profit" and "screwing over the others" are language that I feel are completely blunt and inadequate in representing truth of personal psychology.
Concretely, we can say that Enron executives immediately profited from screwing over the others in their company; if they had not been caught, they might have escaped with fortunes, golden parachutes, and relatively inexpensive settlements (hmm), but being caught happened to oppose their self-interest. Or they might have been honest the whole time, never lying about real earnings and worth, and had a more moderately profitable position for years. Yes, there are different motivations behind the different choices, to be evaluated psychologically, yet succinct terms to differentiate the choices will always arise to describe them quickly.
Quote:
The fact that we beings arise from our environment and only exist dependent upon our relationship with our environment doesn't negate the existence of the self. This form we hold now is still this form. The functioning of this form occurs in very specific ways as a distinct system, even if the material that this form consists of and is supported by originated from elsewhere and at different times.
You cannot deny the specific manner in which a form functions by saying the form doesn't exist as anything but an illusion.
But you can deny the specific manner in which a concept functions as illusory, even though "form" is also a conceptual distinction of a physical existence? Or you can deny one concept but obviously not another, because it's self-evident that what we do is this concept? No, I agree with you; you cannot deny the specific manner in which altruism functions by saying altruism doesn't exist as anything but an illusion.
--------------------
No debe haber separación, no puede haber definición.
|
zannennagara
Found in Space
Registered: 09/25/08
Posts: 424
|
|
Quote:
Mr. Mushrooms said:
Nice seeing your posts.
Muchas gracias.
Quote:
This "argument" was resolved weeks ago in another thread.
I remember now. I think a post there bears quoting:
Quote:
It is amusing, and a little frustrating, to see people hold to their positions with such tenacity. I think much of that stems from either a frustration with the other side being unable to see their view or thinking that others are like us. And, again, all of these statements are hidebound, i.e. unyielding, to the definitions.
"I recognize I am selfish. Therefore, everyone is selfish all the time."  
"I am a pure creature performing selfless acts. NO ONE can or should accuse me of selfishness."
The idea of either is risible.
--------------------
No debe haber separación, no puede haber definición.
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
|
Precisely, and thanks for finding that post. This thread seemed to be created off the tail of that one where not much time was given to rebut the above quote. Perhaps now an answer will be forthcoming.
It is instructive that certain ideas give evidence for "hot buttons" in certain persons. It's as if they are compelled to argue for or against a certain point or issue ad infinitum ad nauseum. The more a person types or invests in a certain subject or viewpoint, the more it looks like emotional investment. I always find myself wondering: why?
--------------------
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
"Myself being someone who used to have difficulty with the use of the English language, I completely understand where you're coming from with this. When someone takes the time to point out errors in my communication I'm very thankful for this as it can only help me become better at communicating. Only a very insecure individual will think that when someone is trying to enlighten them that they are really doing this to feel better about themselves."
Exactly, right?
"This is a classic case of denial when someone will distract themselves from what is really going on so that they don't have to admit that maybe there are flaws in their own communication. Like I mentioned in another post I'm not the kind of person who learns well in a classroom setting and that I learn better through experience. On top of this, English was my worst subject in high school. I did only what I needed to do in order to get a passing grade and nothing more. A lot of the reason for this was that I felt like a lot of what was being taught was a waste of my time. Most likely this also had to do with the fact that I was a slow learner when it came to English and instead of struggling to keep up with the class it was easier to just give up. Of course throughout my life I've learned the importance of good communication and I'm constantly in the process of refining my communication skills. If it wasn't for people taking the time to help me understand the flaws in my own communication my English would not be as good as it is."
Yes, compulsory education has got to be the worst way of teaching our kids.
It's true, sometimes, we need our flaws to be explicitly pointed out to us by others in order to grow.
"When a group of people are having a healthy debate it is actually very acceptable to address any flaws in communication as this is getting in the way of communicating the topic at hand. At this point in my life I use a layman vocabulary because this ensures that more people will understand what it is that I am saying. If you want to communicate a message to a group people there is not much sense in using a word that only half of them will understand. Of course some people will see my limited vocabulary to mean that I am an unintelligible human being not worth listening to but that is because they are not intelligent enough to understand that I'm not just talking to people like them, I'm talking to everyone. I don't like having to repeat myself so I will just use words that I know people will understand."
I'm sort of the same way, sometimes; I like to be as literal as possible whenever I can so that what I'm saying can make sense to all.
"Some words are commonly misunderstood by many people and I find that eliminating these words from my vocabulary makes life a lot easier. The word addiction is commonly used as an excuse not to take control of your life. If someone thinks they are addicted they usually think that the drug or substance has more control than they do and this makes it very easy to pick it up and do it again. I don't use this word because I don't like the effect it has. The word opinion is commonly misunderstood or misused so I no longer use the word. For example, when I took the time to help a young friend of mine understand that her current behavior in regards to sleeping with a bunch of different guys for money or drugs at the age of 16 was a bad idea in that was very dangerous, she replied with "that is your opinion and you have the right to your opinion". This completely undermines the seriousness of the message that I have for her. Although in regards to her life the consequences to her choices have not happened yet, the fact that this is a bad life choice has been proven time and time again just not in her life yet. It is only one example of many examples as to why I don't like the word opinion and I'm not even sure if this is the best example but I will leave it at that."
I see what you're getting at here; sometimes people choose to listen only to your words, sometimes they choose to listen to what the words are actually saying, and still sometimes they choose to outright ignore you.
"This brings me to the word altruism which we can see by this thread is commonly misunderstood. I can live my life in a way that is beneficial to others while I am constantly aware of my effect on those around me without ever using the word altruism. My unselfish concern for others is so rooted in who I am that I do it constantly without even thinking about it and people notice that I do this as some of them start to adopt it as one of their own qualities. Sometimes I will bring up how someone could have been more aware of their effect on another human being but I always do this without using the word altruism. It might take a few seconds longer for me to get my sentence out but it sure is a lot better than having the person completely misunderstand because they don't know what the word altruism means and it's a good way to avoid an unnecessary week long debate over semantics."
Sometimes those week long debates over semantics are a good thing though; it may seem that it draws the parties involved apart from each other, but in actuality, it draws them nearer to each other.
"There are more than a few selfish people in the world who have no idea what it feels like to be nice, while they assume that everything that everyone does has some sort of selfish intent just like we see here when people suggest that you taking the time to mention the flaws in someone's communication means that you're being anything but kind and generous. The reason why some people have a hard time imagining that others are trying to help them without any selfish motives is because they themselves are not capable of such things or just haven't tried for themselves."
Exactly! Everyone wants you to be just like them, and if you're not, then they will expect you to be.
"No one says that you have to be nice or that people who lack love, compassion and empathy should not be accepted but there will always be people around who are there to help these people awaken to the idea that being nice, kind and generous with our words is always a better option."
Let's not get carried away here; I think that being overly nice is not fundamentally much different than being mean. Both being overly nice and being mean are behaviors whose purpose is to compensate for some sort of loss.
"When someone takes the time to enlighten us, no matter what it is, even if they are wrong or only partially right, it would be better of us to accept this as a loving gesture. They are taking time out of their life to try and help you understand yourself better and this is in your own best interest as the only people who would see this as an ego trip designed to make the other person feel better about themselves are insecure people who spend most of their day distracting themselves from what's really going on, denying the truth right in front of their eyes or insulting others so that they can feel better about themselves."
What can I say, people don't like to be told that they're wrong.
"In addition to thinking that people should be more accepting and understanding of others who are genuinely trying to help them out of love, I also think that the people who are acting out of love might consider that the way they are trying to help could be better. In other words, maybe you could have included more in your post or worded what you had to say differently to ensure a better reaction. I understand that a lot of times it doesn't matter how you say it the person's denial is so strong that they will use whatever tactics necessary to avoid listening to what you have to say but even when that is the case it can't hurt to consider that maybe there is a better way to say what you're trying to say. And let's not forget that communication is only used to convey a message and if you understood what the person was trying to say, I guess the communication was effective."
Anyone can improve themselves, not just "bad" people.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Poid]
#9806139 - 02/16/09 01:29 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
Honestly, I probably could, but that's a whole other topic that would probably be best discussed in a thread of its own.
Oh no, you're not getting away with this. Bring on the evidence if you have it, it doesn't bother me if the thread gets off-topic.
Quote:
I think that being nice and fair to people is self-evidently a logical way to live one's life.
The reasoning behind this is...?
Quote:
Maybe the "rule" should instead be, "Do not do things to an individual that an individual does not want done to them."
First of all, how is someone supposed to know exactly what someone else wants and what they don't want, and why should anyone follow this rule? What about the times when something like this would imply acting against one's personal security and well being, or the safety of the loved ones? Wouldn't it be much better if there were no crappy rules like these, and people actually got to judging each and every situation on its own? 
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
"Oh no, you're not getting away with this. Bring on the evidence if you have it, it doesn't bother me if the thread gets off-topic. "
In due time, my good friend. 
"The reasoning behind this is...?"
Would one expect to be respected if one disrespects others? No, so if one wants to be respected, one would realize through the use of logic that in order to be respected, you must show respect, too.
"First of all, how is someone supposed to know exactly what someone else wants and what they don't want, and why should anyone follow this rule? What about the times when something like this would imply acting against one's personal security and well being, or the safety of the loved ones? Wouldn't it be much better if there were no crappy rules like these, and people actually got to judging each and every situation on its own? "
If you read my thread, "On Vibes", you may understand how someone might know what some else wants and doesn't want.
Well, in order to be able to be a "good person", you have to be "good", right? A good person would never choose to put human a being in danger (including him/herself), and to help him/her do this, s/he must be good at discerning what the right choices are pertaining to any given situation.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
fireworks_god
SexyButt McDanger
Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 23,677
Loc: Red Panda Village
Last seen: 8 hours, 19 minutes
|
|
Quote:
zannennagara said:
The manner in which a human being functions is self-interest.
Every action an individual makes is based in their self-interest.
Therefore, no selfless action exists.
The conclusion of the argument is assumed in the premises, which is begging the question. How can this concept of self-interest be investigated and disproved (I can't believe there's no such word as "disproven;" that's ridiculous) if your assumption is that all actions display self-interest?
It can be investigated and potentially disproved if one explores the condition upon which the assumption is placed.
Once again, the assumption that every action an individual makes is based in their self-interest is resting on the condition of the nature of how a human being functions.
Your distillation of my point is incomplete.
It should read like this:
The manner in which human beings function supports the view that humans can only act in their self-interest.
Therefore, no selfless action exists.
This manner of thinking is no different than any conclusion we draw from reality.
An example would be:
Throughout recorded history, the Sun has always appeared to travel through the sky from East to West.
Therefore, the Sun does not appear to travel through the sky from West to East.
Whether or not my conclusion is true is another matter, but one that can be determined by subjecting the manner in which human beings function to critical inquiry. There is no begging the question here.
Also, why not simply use the word "disproven"? It is ridiculous that it isn't officially a word, although I do not study etymology, and language is an evolving phenomenon through its usage. I'll start using it if you do.
Quote:
You pointed out yourself that assuming the existence of God as a premise for its own conclusion is faulty, and rightly pointed out the flawed assumption of altruism too, yet you didn't bring the same scrutiny to self-interest.
Actually, what I pointed out regarding g*d was that it contributes nothing to an ideological discussion to propose that "g*d is real, and that some don't comprehend g*d's existence doesn't negate g*d's existence". This is different line of thinking than the one you are proposing I made regarding g*d, although I'd be inclined to suggest that the one you refer to would be a flawed assumption as well without specifying some source beyond "g*d" that would establish its validity.
However, once again, there is a fundamental difference between this flawed assumption and the line of thinking that I put forth, as my assumption was expressed to rest contingent upon an aspect of reality that can be observed and debated to determine the validity of the assumption.
Quote:
You said something interesting about altruism being "a matter of semantics;" how is it decided which words are exempt from this distinction?
No word is exempt from its meaning being a matter of semantics. Words have the meaning we associate with them, many words have more than one meaning, and new meanings can be represented by words over time while other meanings no longer tend to be represented by words even though they once were.
Like I said regarding altruism, whether or not it exists is simply a matter of what aspect of reality is being referenced by the word. The same goes for any word.
Quote:
This is the quote to which I originally replied with "straw man." This association of belief in altruism with a fantastic belief in heroes who save believers for absolutely no reward certainly appears to make up or exaggerate an altruist's position, when proponents would suggest that serving others is its own noble cause or own reward, a suggestion offered perhaps to encourage service from others, not a kind of ultimate insurance policy where you can just kick back and wait for the next Gandhi to take care of you. It may be true that there is no rescuer waiting for your every moment of distress, but that nonexistence does not equate with the nonexistence of a concept that is not supported on such grounds.
I personally recognize that there are certainly more than one concept alluded to by the word altruism. I am with the assumption that the kind of altruism that she was speaking against that you cite was the only kind that she was dismissing. I don't recall if this was specifically stated by her to be the case, but I found it implied by the context of what she meant. Anyways, that's a matter for someone else to speak for; I was simply interested in knowing what you meant as being the straw-man in this thread.
Quote:
That's not something you said, but you have repeated your above argument, which in its presumption that all human action is self-interested makes an altruist completely blind to obvious understandings of human behavior, which is very clearly a straw man if you ask any altruist.
It isn't a straw-man when I identified only a specific concept being referred to as altruism and made clear that it was the only one I was dismissing.
If other individuals who consider themselves to be "altruists" hold to a different concept they represent with the word, that's a different story, which I already explicitly stated, so it would be incorrect to misconstrue what I've proposed as being a straw-man.
Quote:
Concretely, we can say that Enron executives immediately profited from screwing over the others in their company; if they had not been caught, they might have escaped with fortunes, golden parachutes, and relatively inexpensive settlements (hmm), but being caught happened to oppose their self-interest. Or they might have been honest the whole time, never lying about real earnings and worth, and had a more moderately profitable position for years. Yes, there are different motivations behind the different choices, to be evaluated psychologically, yet succinct terms to differentiate the choices will always arise to describe them quickly.
I'd propose terms like "short-sightedness" in determining how it would be most beneficial for the individual to act long-term, or simply being aware of the risks but seeking what they saw as rewards under the impression that things would work out their way regardless of said risks. These possibilities, to me, carry with them much more insight into the decision-making processes of specific individuals in specific circumstances than the option of describing the course they chose to take as being "egoist" while describing the alternate course that would have not come with the risk of being busted as the "altruist" option, unless you were heading in a different direction with which labels to use and how to apply them in this situation.
Quote:
But you can deny the specific manner in which a concept functions as illusory, even though "form" is also a conceptual distinction of a physical existence?
"Form" is a conceptual distinction insomuch that any experience or representation of reality is an abstract concept being produced by a human being, but obviously "form" is specifically rooted in our most basic observations and conclusions of the nature of reality and is "validated" by the extremely successful, predictive value that holding this conception of our form and the distinct form of other phenomena provides us.
Thus, it is altogether possible to deny the validity of one conception of how a form functions through considering observations and subsequent conclusions regarding said form that perform with predictive value.
Quote:
Or you can deny one concept but obviously not another, because it's self-evident that what we do is this concept?
Essentially, yes.
Quote:
No, I agree with you; you cannot deny the specific manner in which altruism functions by saying altruism doesn't exist as anything but an illusion.
Depends upon your definition of altruism, once again, but if you are referring to the specific meaning implied by the word altruism that I have identified and subsequently challenged, then it was not denied on the assumption that it doesn't exist as anything but an illusion, but rather that it was denied because it conflicts with a model explaining the human decision-making process that is based upon observation and understanding of how humans function and make decisions.
As I already stated, until evidence arises which supports the notion of a collective conscious that somehow influences our decisions, or any other example of a way that the localized processes of a distinct human being are not solely responsible for the decision-making process, then there is no substantiation for assuming that a human being can perform "selfless" actions whose motivations manifest from beyond their individual selves.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Poid]
#9806291 - 02/16/09 03:05 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Would one expect to be respected if one disrespects others? No, so if one wants to be respected, one would realize through the use of logic that in order to be respected, you must show respect, too.
Why would someone expect to be respected anyways?
Also, what if someone has a fetish about being slapped and spit? Should they slap and spit, because of the same rule you're mentioning?
Quote:
If you read my thread, "On Vibes", you may understand how someone might know what some else wants and doesn't want.
Well, guess what?
I am not going to read that thread, so you might begin explaining this stuff in this thread, where this discussion is taking place.
Quote:
Well, in order to be able to be a "good person", you have to be "good", right? A good person would never choose to put human a being in danger (including him/herself), and to help him/her do this, s/he must be good at discerning what the right choices are pertaining to any given situation.
There will always be conflicting interests, simply because everyone has a different view on life and things that should or shouldn't be, that it would be impossible to act in such a manner in which ALL the individuals will have a gain. What is good for me, is another man's loss, and I honestly don't see how your recipe would actually fit reality.
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
zen buddy
not a buddhist
Registered: 01/22/09
Posts: 704
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Poid]
#9806815 - 02/16/09 07:49 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
Sometimes those week long debates over semantics are a good thing though; it may seem that it draws the parties involved apart from each other, but in actuality, it draws them nearer to each other.
I guess I hear what you're saying but it would be nice if everyone who is partaking in the conversation was included in the conversation. I've made more than a few good points on the subject, all of them being overlooked by a couple people who love a lot to say on the subject. I guess I should take it as a complement. 
|
zen buddy
not a buddhist
Registered: 01/22/09
Posts: 704
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Quote:
Would one expect to be respected if one disrespects others? No, so if one wants to be respected, one would realize through the use of logic that in order to be respected, you must show respect, too.
Why would someone expect to be respected anyways?
Also, what if someone has a fetish about being slapped and spit? Should they slap and spit, because of the same rule you're mentioning?
Quote:
If you read my thread, "On Vibes", you may understand how someone might know what some else wants and doesn't want.
Well, guess what?
I am not going to read that thread, so you might begin explaining this stuff in this thread, where this discussion is taking place.
Quote:
Well, in order to be able to be a "good person", you have to be "good", right? A good person would never choose to put human a being in danger (including him/herself), and to help him/her do this, s/he must be good at discerning what the right choices are pertaining to any given situation.
There will always be conflicting interests, simply because everyone has a different view on life and things that should or shouldn't be, that it would be impossible to act in such a manner in which ALL the individuals will have a gain. What is good for me, is another man's loss, and I honestly don't see how your recipe would actually fit reality.
I kind of said something on that subject, maybe you missed it.
Quote:
zen buddy said:
No one says that you have to be nice or that people who lack love, compassion and empathy should not be accepted but there will always be people around who are there to help these people awaken to the idea that being nice, kind and generous with our words is always a better option.
When someone takes the time to enlighten us, no matter what it is, even if they are wrong or only partially right, it would be better of us to accept this as a loving gesture. They are taking time out of their life to try and help you understand yourself better and this is in your own best interest as the only people who would see this as an ego trip designed to make the other person feel better about themselves are insecure people who spend most of their day distracting themselves from what's really going on, denying the truth right in front of their eyes or insulting others so that they can feel better about themselves.
When we act or speak in a way that we do not care about the feelings of others we will probably not be treated with respect.
No one is saying that you have to be nice but it sure as hell gets you more respect when you do!
Did you just argue that it is impossible to know how be nice or treat people with respect "because everyone has a different view on life and things that should or shouldn't be" or am I confused??? When someone is insulted or treated with disrespect, a lot of times they will speak up and let you know, maybe next time instead of arguing why they should not be insulted or how you meant no disrespect you could listen to what others have to say so that you will know what others consider nice and respectful.
Most people are very similar in the ways that they would like to be treated. Being respectful is generally accepted by most individuals. Not many people enjoy being slapped or spit in the face so it would not make much sense to slap and spit in everyone's face because there are a select few who might enjoy this. Actually I would go as far to say that you should be respectful of the people who would rather you slap and spit in their face even if for the small chance that you might snap them out of their abusive tendencies.
Basically, taking your frustrations out on other people by disrespecting them or insulting them is not gonna get you much respect in life and justifying your actions by suggesting that some people like to be treated like shit seems pretty desperate.
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
|
Quote:
When we act or speak in a way that we do not care about the feelings of others we will probably not be treated with respect.
No one is saying that you have to be nice but it sure as hell gets you more respect when you do!
Did you just argue that it is impossible to know how be nice or treat people with respect "because everyone has a different view on life and things that should or shouldn't be" or am I confused???
I never said that is less preferable to be nice to people, friendly, or whatever.
I was arguing against the belief that there are morals which are inherent to our being. Also, I was stating that it is impossible to know, each time, what people want and what emotional needs they have, and I was also asking why should we take these emotional needs to consideration? This is not arguing against being nice to people, it is arguing against saying that we must.
No one is saying that you have to be nice? did you read what post I was replying to? If not, let me refresh your memory:
Quote:
Poid said:
Well, in order to be able to be a "good person", you have to be "good", right? A good person would never choose to put human a being in danger (including him/herself), and to help him/her do this, s/he must be good at discerning what the right choices are pertaining to any given situation.
...
What about the "Golden Rule", "Do not do something to another that you wouldn't want another do to you."? Elementary logic denotes that this is a sensible "rule" to live by, and I might even go as far as to say that it's instinctual for humans to realize this
...
I think that being nice and fair to people is self-evidently a logical way to live one's life.
Quote:
When someone is insulted or treated with disrespect, a lot of times they will speak up and let you know, maybe next time instead of arguing why they should not be insulted or how you meant no disrespect you could listen to what others have to say so that you will know what others consider nice and respectful.
What if, in some circumstances, I think that their expectations are ridiculous? Words never hurt people, their reaction to them do. If someone chooses to feel offended by the way in which I talk, then this is their responsibility and emotional baggage to deal with. I think that the one that's confused here is you, since you seem to think that simply asking WHY should anyone be polite equates with them thinking that it is ok to be verbally aggressive on purpose.
Quote:
Most people are very similar in the ways that they would like to be treated. Being respectful is generally accepted by most individuals. Not many people enjoy being slapped or spit in the face so it would not make much sense to slap and spit in everyone's face because there are a select few who might enjoy this.
This is exactly why I was serving it as an example - because, even if not so many, there are some people who are into this stuff, and that it is naive to be thinking that all the people want the same thing, and, most of all, that each of us have the same measurements regarding respectfulness and how it should be applied.
As a side note to this, from personal experience and observation, I have learned that wanting respect is the product of personal emptiness, of a mental state which determines one to go looking for approval and admiration on the outside, because of being unable to provide with emotional stability coming from the self. I for one try to avoid contact with people who demand respect or have an offended psyche, because they don't make good company. Also, when I get in a defensive mood, I try to bring myself sooner to the realization that the problem is mine, not caused by someone else, and that having the apologies I impulsively think I deserve won't fill the emptiness that I fell - only I can do this.
Quote:
Actually I would go as far to say that you should be respectful of the people who would rather you slap and spit in their face even if for the small chance that you might snap them out of their abusive tendencies.
I fail to see why anyone should do this (personally I prefer a joking and playful attitude to see if there's a common ground with that person, if not, simply ignoring them seems to do the trick for me ), and I also fail to see how being "respectful" would snap them out if their abusive tendencies.
If you personally prefer to display respect, then it's your choice but it doesn't mean that this is the golden path to success for everyone else.
Quote:
Basically, taking your frustrations out on other people by disrespecting them or insulting them is not gonna get you much respect in life and justifying your actions by suggesting that some people like to be treated like shit seems pretty desperate.
This is just you missing my point. Hopefully this post has managed to shed some understanding for you.
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
zen buddy
not a buddhist
Registered: 01/22/09
Posts: 704
|
|
No, I did not miss the point. Maybe you did!
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
|
Excellent and very well articulated argument
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
"Why would someone expect to be respected anyways?
Also, what if someone has a fetish about being slapped and spit? Should they slap and spit, because of the same rule you're mentioning?"
I think it's fair to say that everyone wants to be respected; if someone fairly respects others, then it's likely that person would expect to be respected in return.
Should who slap and spit?
"There will always be conflicting interests, simply because everyone has a different view on life and things that should or shouldn't be, that it would be impossible to act in such a manner in which ALL the individuals will have a gain. What is good for me, is another man's loss, and I honestly don't see how your recipe would actually fit reality."
Are you saying that reality is full of mean people?
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
Quote:
zen buddy said:
Quote:
Poid said:
Sometimes those week long debates over semantics are a good thing though; it may seem that it draws the parties involved apart from each other, but in actuality, it draws them nearer to each other.
I guess I hear what you're saying but it would be nice if everyone who is partaking in the conversation was included in the conversation. I've made more than a few good points on the subject, all of them being overlooked by a couple people who love a lot to say on the subject. I guess I should take it as a complement.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
zannennagara
Found in Space
Registered: 09/25/08
Posts: 424
|
|
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
No word is exempt from its meaning being a matter of semantics. Words have the meaning we associate with them, many words have more than one meaning, and new meanings can be represented by words over time while other meanings no longer tend to be represented by words even though they once were.
Like I said regarding altruism, whether or not it exists is simply a matter of what aspect of reality is being referenced by the word. The same goes for any word.
See, behind all the stuffy fallacy-calling and highfalutin logical terminology is the desire to make this point. We are in agreement!
Your replies clarifying the dependence of altruism's existence upon its assumed meaning are highly reasonable.
Why stop there? You deny a specific definition of altruism which would have us believe that a person can do something a person has no interest in doing - what you mean by this is simply that you can't remove a person from his or her actions; signified by any personal action is some form of personal drive.
At the same time it seems appropriate to deny a specific definition of self-interest which would have us believe that a person can do something completely unrelated to interests outside the self - what I mean by this is simply that you can't remove a person from the universe in which a person's (abstracted and conceptual) form exists; signified by any personal action is some form of selflessness.
Selfless!? But the self is always there doing stuff! Well, yes, what you mean by that is obvious, but what I mean by selfless is not that the self has disappeared but that its actions have transcended self's mere abstract nature, which does in fact serve what we mean by self.
What I mean is that what is meant is the important thing, not the words used to describe it, as words are so fickle, and transient, and ambiguous. Keeping that in mind, I would go for the idea that what people mean by the words they use is mostly the same thing as what I mean by the words I use, even though our words may be different. We appear to have opposite meanings for our terminologies sometimes, and that's interesting, so we try to figure out how my words are yours and how their contradictions overlap into a gooey conglomerated amalgam of sameness.
The sun rises in the west, you say? That's interesting, show me your west and I'll show you mine, and we'll take a look at the sunrise together - ah, that's what you meant by "west" or "rise," because standing here together we can see the sun rising in the same spot.
This is all God's will, you say? That's interesting, show me your God's will and I'll show you what I find all of this to be, and we'll take at look at it all together - ah, that's what you meant by "God's will," because standing here together we can see it all unfolding in the same way. (If you want to tell me about parting the Red Sea, that would be interesting, because things like that don't usually happen, so we might have to disagree on the significance of that being in the Bible, but we can both see it in there and we have access to the same historical and geological research, and here's what obviously usually happens, so maybe we can talk about it mostly in terms of what obviously usually happens.)
Let these superficial distinctions melt away. I think we are agreed.
--------------------
No debe haber separación, no puede haber definición.
|
nath1an
Stranger
Registered: 02/13/09
Posts: 3
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
|
|
anyone can be a shaman. having a spiritual awakening is a gift you can only obtain from inside yourself and can take a lifetime and never happen. i know many of people who go to mexico and see a "shaman" only to come back and think they changed.
shroms help the mind to awaken and the shaman can be a psychiatrist or yourself. personally ive been trying and havent gotten there yet. i can only come close or what i think is close is from strong shrooms. the liberty caps are what i need. any help in this regard is most appreciated.
|
Kickle
A Growing Hope
Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 11,345
Last seen: 32 minutes, 49 seconds
|
|
Quote:
zen buddy said:
I've made more than a few good points on the subject, all of them being overlooked by a couple people who have a lot to say on the subject.
My train ended when no one could discuss articles with me
Edited by Kickle (02/16/09 11:49 PM)
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Kickle]
#9812485 - 02/17/09 02:28 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kickle said:
My train ended when no one could discuss articles with me
Your train ended when you turned everything around by saying that you're not in disagreement with the fact that delusions are usually very dangerous for the individual and how he wishes to take decisions based on these delusions, and that what the study shows is only that there are small positive delusions which aren't necessarily harmful. Since I never mentioned that ALL delusions will male one behave totally irresponsible, but that each of these illusions that are being help have the potential of turning into something much more serious, I don't see what else can go on with being disputed.
This is exactly your words:
Quote:
That's not what the article is trying to show.
The article is saying, every person to some extent hold positive illusions. Thus redefining our sense of 'normal' as being clear with reality. That is not to say that it is always positive, or negative.
I also have never claimed that people must, in order to maintain mental health, not have any kind of distorted perception, because IMO this is impossible, but it is best to try and eliminate every bit of un-real thinking that we're aware of, which requires a closed inspection of one's mind.
Quote:
And just because a few 'choose' to take delusion too far, doesn't mean it's always a bad thing, either.
There is nothing to show that only few choose to take delusion too far, nor that it isn't bad for how their life and understanding will evolve as a result of this.
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Poid]
#9812493 - 02/17/09 02:32 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I am, like almost always, not saying or implying anything from what you asked,and you never answered my questions. Also, you never came back with any piece of research to show that humans are born with some sort of sense of morality, which is even the same in ALL of us. I am growing tired of discussing in the manner that we do, because you don't contribute with anything and avoid all the questions I'm asking you, in a visible, ridiculous, and laughable way. You're either starting to contribute are sustain your claims, or I will have to call bullshit on them.
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
I am, like almost always, not saying or implying anything from what you asked,and you never answered my questions. Also, you never came back with any piece of research to show that humans are born with some sort of sense of morality, which is even the same in ALL of us. I am growing tired of discussing in the manner that we do, because you don't contribute with anything and avoid all the questions I'm asking you, in a visible, ridiculous, and laughable way. You're either starting to contribute are sustain your claims, or I will have to call bullshit on them.
You're not answering any of my questions, either, so what's the difference?
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Kukaracha
Cat wannabe
Registered: 12/18/08
Posts: 1,554
Loc: France
Last seen: 21 days, 22 hours
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Poid]
#9812541 - 02/17/09 03:07 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Is this some sort of competition?
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
No, it's a philosophically/spiritually-oriented debate forum.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Poid]
#9812601 - 02/17/09 03:48 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
You're not answering any of my questions, either, so what's the difference?
Can you perhaps show me which questions I didn't answer? I even provided with a study case about guilt and violence, when you asked. You did absolutely to sustaining any of your claims. You're either doing it in your next post, or this discussion is over, leaving all your assertions uncovered and unsubstantiated.
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
Kukaracha
Cat wannabe
Registered: 12/18/08
Posts: 1,554
Loc: France
Last seen: 21 days, 22 hours
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Poid]
#9812602 - 02/17/09 03:51 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Haha, good one!
|
fireworks_god
SexyButt McDanger
Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 23,677
Loc: Red Panda Village
Last seen: 8 hours, 19 minutes
|
|
Quote:
zannennagara said:
At the same time it seems appropriate to deny a specific definition of self-interest which would have us believe that a person can do something completely unrelated to interests outside the self
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "completely unrelated to interests outside the self". Are you stating that a person couldn't do something that would not have subsequent effects on aspects of reality beyond oneself? Or are you implying that an individual is capable of acting on interests that do not arise from within their localized system of perception and cognitive processes?
Quote:
Selfless!? But the self is always there doing stuff! Well, yes, what you mean by that is obvious, but what I mean by selfless is not that the self has disappeared but that its actions have transcended self's mere abstract nature, which does in fact serve what we mean by self.
I think you'll need to clarify on an action transcending an individual's "mere abstract nature". What is this process of transcendence and by what mechanism does it occur?
--------------------
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
|
fireworks_god
SexyButt McDanger
Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 23,677
Loc: Red Panda Village
Last seen: 8 hours, 19 minutes
|
|
Quote:
Kukaracha said:
I still don't see why you consider a reaction as a choice! You'd tell me my mother just died, I would maybe cry, but it's a reaction, not a choice. People don't choose to be ethnocentrists, it's a reaction, it's spontaneous. I don't think I can choose something "subconsciously". If so, then it's not because of my free will (let's say that I have one). Then it's not really a strict choice.
I think you're confusing the difference between a conscious and subconscious choice. The consciousness is capable of making an increasing amount of decisions as to how we perceive our sensory information, how we interpret what that information means to us, and how we will subsequently think and act regarding this information and interpretations.
Clearly, our subconscious affects this process as well, just as much, less, or more depending upon the specific instance in question, but the understanding that I find some people lacking is that our consciousness progressively affects and changes the subconscious and the role it plays in our decision-making processes.
Thus, there is a constant interplay between both the conscious and unconscious that determine how each manifests and how we manifest in the moment.
Obviously, subconscious choices are not made in the same manner as conscious decisions. If they were, then they would be conscious decisions.
Obviously, subconscious decisions are made in the moment without conscious awareness of the decision-making process itself, or that decision would have been made consciously. However, our consciousness directly experiences what is occurring in this moment, which consists of what is occurring in our environment, what is occurring within ourselves, the way we act and the way this simultaneously changes our environment. As our consciousness is capable of making decisions and taking action too, it is only for it to determine how to act in the moment, as well as how to change the subconscious over time. Whether or not the consciousness does so is its decision too.
Both our conscious and our subconscious are us. Thus, the decisions they make together are our decisions, our choices. The fact that some are not aware of the entirety of how they make their decisions doesn't mean that something other than themselves is making those choices for them, or rather that they do not have a choice.
Quote:
About culture, doesn't it grow like what we call personnality? It is made of interactions, but so is our personnality.
Culture is personality. Culture is the similarities of individual personalities shared amongst a group of individuals.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
|
norml840
sex toy guru
Registered: 10/19/07
Posts: 3,128
Loc: lost
|
|
everyone go back to the first page and watch the beetle in a box video. each individual's idea of what is true is just that.........his/her idea.
p.s. i believe altruism is very real. lol!!!
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
Re: Altruism [Re: norml840]
#9812853 - 02/17/09 06:26 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
everyone go back to the first page and watch the beetle in a box video. each individual's idea of what is true is just that.........his/her idea.
And what's this exactly supposed to mean?
Is this supposed to imply that there's no such thing as reality, or that people are completely unable to observe it? Because, otherwise, I thought it was quite obvious that one's idea is... one's idea, no need for stupid videos like the one on the first page to explain this.
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
norml840
sex toy guru
Registered: 10/19/07
Posts: 3,128
Loc: lost
|
Re: Altruism [Re: norml840]
#9812971 - 02/17/09 06:57 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
it means that reality is whatever the individual perceives. his/her ideas are nothing more than that. don't over complicate it.
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
Re: Altruism [Re: norml840]
#9812993 - 02/17/09 07:03 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
don't over complicate it.
Don't just say that simply because you don't have a clue what you're saying. Are you able to answer this simple question? Does this mean that people are completely unable to understand reality, or that there's no reality at all?
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
norml840
sex toy guru
Registered: 10/19/07
Posts: 3,128
Loc: lost
|
|
not completely unable to understand it, but it seems pretty difficult from my end of the spectrum. it's really not complicated to get what i'm saying. try not to get butthurt over such simple statements. KISS
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
Re: Altruism [Re: norml840]
#9813039 - 02/17/09 07:23 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
So, in your opinion, if I am asking you to explain a statement that you made, it means I'm butt-hurt? Interesting
Seriously though, your answer is very vague. Is this your final answer?
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
zen buddy
not a buddhist
Registered: 01/22/09
Posts: 704
|
|
Human beings are born with a natural understanding of the difference between right and wrong and this is usually referred to as common sense. Altruism comes very natural to human beings as we can see evidence of this in nature with such animals as monkeys and apes. Except for a select few sociopaths who are most likely damaged from childhood trauma or some sort of harsh upbringing, most human beings understand when they are doing something wrong by feeling guilty about it or lying about it. I'm sure if I wanted to I could find a whole bunch of articles on this subject that some people might see as evidence but what's the point? If you believe that right and wrong is subjective and that there is no such thing as altruism you're probably going to deny any perspective presented on the subject on the existence of altruism because the last thing you want is to have to admit that you should start being a nice person who does good things. It is very difficult to change the mind of someone who has been acting out of their self-serving ways for so long. Not only would it be very difficult for someone to back down after so much has been argued on the subject why would someone start doing something that would benefit someone other than themselves when they have been serving only themselves for so long?
If you don't believe that altruism exists it is most likely because your ways are so self-serving that it is impossible for you to imagine that others could put other people before themselves. If you were to believe that altruism exists you would have to feel guilty about being so selfish.
|
zen buddy
not a buddhist
Registered: 01/22/09
Posts: 704
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Quote:
everyone go back to the first page and watch the beetle in a box video. each individual's idea of what is true is just that.........his/her idea.
And what's this exactly supposed to mean?
Is this supposed to imply that there's no such thing as reality, or that people are completely unable to observe it? Because, otherwise, I thought it was quite obvious that one's idea is... one's idea, no need for stupid videos like the one on the first page to explain this.
It's funny how someone can label something as stupid when they don't understand it. Try disproving it instead of saying that it is stupid.
|
Kukaracha
Cat wannabe
Registered: 12/18/08
Posts: 1,554
Loc: France
Last seen: 21 days, 22 hours
|
|
MushroomTrip, I find you sometimes a little aggressive towards people here.
What he's saying is not stupid at all, reality is a belief after all.
To the other panda person, I'll be replying later. : )
|
norml840
sex toy guru
Registered: 10/19/07
Posts: 3,128
Loc: lost
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
So, in your opinion, if I am asking you to explain a statement that you made, it means I'm butt-hurt? Interesting
Seriously though, your answer is very vague. Is this your final answer?
no no.......the butthurt comment is from this quote.
Quote:
Don't just say that simply because you don't have a clue what you're saying.
that has butthurt pouring out of it.
now that that's cleared up, back to your last question. is that my final answer.......no. eckhart tolle summed it up better than i can. so i will use his saying for my final answer.
"The truth needs no defense. It just is."
|
norml840
sex toy guru
Registered: 10/19/07
Posts: 3,128
Loc: lost
|
|
Quote:
zen buddy said:
Human beings are born with a natural understanding of the difference between right and wrong and this is usually referred to as common sense. Altruism comes very natural to human beings as we can see evidence of this in nature with such animals as monkeys and apes. Except for a select few sociopaths who are most likely damaged from childhood trauma or some sort of harsh upbringing, most human beings understand when they are doing something wrong by feeling guilty about it or lying about it. I'm sure if I wanted to I could find a whole bunch of articles on this subject that some people might see as evidence but what's the point? If you believe that right and wrong is subjective and that there is no such thing as altruism you're probably going to deny any perspective presented on the subject on the existence of altruism because the last thing you want is to have to admit that you should start being a nice person who does good things. It is very difficult to change the mind of someone who has been acting out of their self-serving ways for so long. Not only would it be very difficult for someone to back down after so much has been argued on the subject why would someone start doing something that would benefit someone other than themselves when they have been serving only themselves for so long?
If you don't believe that altruism exists it is most likely because your ways are so self-serving that it is impossible for you to imagine that others could put other people before themselves. If you were to believe that altruism exists you would have to feel guilty about being so selfish.
Edited by norml840 (02/17/09 08:05 AM)
|
zen buddy
not a buddhist
Registered: 01/22/09
Posts: 704
|
Re: Altruism [Re: norml840]
#9813149 - 02/17/09 07:51 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
norml840 said:
Quote:
zen buddy said:
Human beings are born with a natural understanding of the difference between right and wrong and this is usually referred to as common sense. Altruism comes very natural to human beings as we can see evidence of this in nature with such animals as monkeys and apes. Except for a select few sociopaths who are most likely damaged from childhood trauma or some sort of harsh upbringing, most human beings understand when they are doing something wrong by feeling guilty about it or lying about it. I'm sure if I wanted to I could find a whole bunch of articles on this subject that some people might see as evidence but what's the point? If you believe that right and wrong is subjective and that there is no such thing as altruism you're probably going to deny any perspective presented on the subject on the existence of altruism because the last thing you want is to have to admit that you should start being a nice person who does good things. It is very difficult to change the mind of someone who has been acting out of their self-serving ways for so long. Not only would it be very difficult for someone to back down after so much has been argued on the subject why would someone start doing something that would benefit someone other than themselves when they have been serving only themselves for so long?
If you don't believe that altruism exists it is most likely because your ways are so self-serving that it is impossible for you to imagine that others could put other people before themselves. If you were to believe that altruism exists you would have to feel guilty about being so selfish.
?
|
norml840
sex toy guru
Registered: 10/19/07
Posts: 3,128
Loc: lost
|
|
there. i fixed it.
|
zen buddy
not a buddhist
Registered: 01/22/09
Posts: 704
|
Re: Altruism [Re: norml840]
#9813197 - 02/17/09 08:08 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
norml840 said:
there. i fixed it.
At a loss for words? ,,, sorry, still not getting your point.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Quote:
Poid said:
You're not answering any of my questions, either, so what's the difference?
Can you perhaps show me which questions I didn't answer? I even provided with a study case about guilt and violence, when you asked. You did absolutely to sustaining any of your claims. You're either doing it in your next post, or this discussion is over, leaving all your assertions uncovered and unsubstantiated.
Quote:
Poid said:
"Why would someone expect to be respected anyways?
Also, what if someone has a fetish about being slapped and spit? Should they slap and spit, because of the same rule you're mentioning?"
I think it's fair to say that everyone wants to be respected; if someone fairly respects others, then it's likely that person would expect to be respected in return.
Should who slap and spit?
"There will always be conflicting interests, simply because everyone has a different view on life and things that should or shouldn't be, that it would be impossible to act in such a manner in which ALL the individuals will have a gain. What is good for me, is another man's loss, and I honestly don't see how your recipe would actually fit reality."
Are you saying that reality is full of mean people?
The underlined questions are but two examples; those aren't the only ones you have ignored or otherwise failed to answer/address.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
norml840
sex toy guru
Registered: 10/19/07
Posts: 3,128
Loc: lost
|
|
i was just saying that the comment you posted was spot on. i couldn't agree more.
Edited by norml840 (02/17/09 08:28 AM)
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
|
Quote:
zen buddy said:
Human beings are born with a natural understanding of the difference between right and wrong and this is usually referred to as common sense. Altruism comes very natural to human beings as we can see evidence of this in nature with such animals as monkeys and apes. Except for a select few sociopaths who are most likely damaged from childhood trauma or some sort of harsh upbringing, most human beings understand when they are doing something wrong by feeling guilty about it or lying about it. I'm sure if I wanted to I could find a whole bunch of articles on this subject that some people might see as evidence but what's the point? If you believe that right and wrong is subjective and that there is no such thing as altruism you're probably going to deny any perspective presented on the subject on the existence of altruism because the last thing you want is to have to admit that you should start being a nice person who does good things. It is very difficult to change the mind of someone who has been acting out of their self-serving ways for so long. Not only would it be very difficult for someone to back down after so much has been argued on the subject why would someone start doing something that would benefit someone other than themselves when they have been serving only themselves for so long?
If you don't believe that altruism exists it is most likely because your ways are so self-serving that it is impossible for you to imagine that others could put other people before themselves. If you were to believe that altruism exists you would have to feel guilty about being so selfish.
Here's a good article on morality which seems to be at the center of this argument:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism
Please note that this section of Altruism has been left unaddressed in two separate threads dealing with the subject:
Quote:
Psychological egoism can be accused of using circular logic. For instance, an egoist would not disagree with the following syllogism: "If a person has willingly performed an act, then he/she has manifested such intent in the form of that act. Fulfillment of one's desires is the primary requisite of satisfaction. Ergo, a person can only willingly perform acts that result in his/her personal enjoyment." This logic is sometimes viewed as circular or presumptuous. Specifically, egoism leans on the assumption that satisfaction is synonymous with self-satisfaction. Such a precept automatically sidesteps counterpoint, however, and remains unfalsifiable. Thus, until empirical evidence favors one view or the other, egoism must acquiesce to uncertainty.
Egoism, the argument against altruism, is circular at best.
You brought up lying. I think that's a good example of inherent morality. When we lie, we substitute what isn't for what is and enter a world of fantasy attempting to take others with us. Or as Royce says, a person who willfully misplaces their ontological predicates. At first, we know immediately we have done wrong. Later, after a person has committed such a wrong doing repeatedly, over and over and over and over and over again, their conscience becomes seared and they enter into a world of fantasy with no way out.
You mentioned sociopathy. It is inextricably linked to lying. Here's another interesting link:
http://yourtotalhealth.ivillage.com/pathological-liar.html
Quote:
....chronic lying in adults is often a manifestation of antisocial personality disorder (also known as sociopathy). Sociopaths are often deceitful and manipulative in order to gain personal profit or pleasure.
There are literally thousands of websites outlining treatment for such a behavior. If there was nothing wrong it with, why treat it?
--------------------
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
|
Quote:
Human beings are born with a natural understanding of the difference between right and wrong and this is usually referred to as common sense.
Common sense which differs from person to person.
Quote:
Altruism comes very natural to human beings as we can see evidence of this in nature with such animals as monkeys and apes.
Evidence which nobody could actually post until now. Posting about the existence of an evidence is not presenting the evidence.
Quote:
Except for a select few sociopaths who are most likely damaged from childhood trauma or some sort of harsh upbringing, most human beings understand when they are doing something wrong by feeling guilty about it or lying about it.
I already had a few posts about guilt, no need to repeat myself. If you're interested, you can browse the other pages.
There are better ways (such as being aware of one's feelings and surroundings, recognizing that one's a sentient being, applying reason to one's life) to find out if one's acting in a constructive or destructive manner. However, stating that one SHOULD act in a way in which someone else's interests come before his, otherwise he is being a sociopath, is completely naive and delusional.
Quote:
I'm sure if I wanted to I could find a whole bunch of articles on this subject that some people might see as evidence but what's the point? If you believe that right and wrong is subjective and that there is no such thing as altruism you're probably going to deny any perspective presented on the subject on the existence of altruism because the last thing you want is to have to admit that you should start being a nice person who does good things.
That is pretty presumptuous of you!
Bring on the articles that say that not thinking about other peoples' interests before your own is being a sociopath. Bring on the articles that say that there is a good and there is a bad, and that they are objective and definite.
Also, I would appreciate it if you would leave what I should do or any I am doing something out of the discussion, and find the mind to argue against the ideas presented.
Quote:
It is very difficult to change the mind of someone who has been acting out of their self-serving ways for so long. Not only would it be very difficult for someone to back down after so much has been argued on the subject why would someone start doing something that would benefit someone other than themselves when they have been serving only themselves for so long?
Read the above.
Quote:
If you don't believe that altruism exists it is most likely because your ways are so self-serving that it is impossible for you to imagine that others could put other people before themselves. If you were to believe that altruism exists you would have to feel guilty about being so selfish.
Read the above.
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
Re: Altruism [Re: norml840]
#9813543 - 02/17/09 09:49 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
that has butthurt pouring out of it.
That's only your interpretation.
Quote:
now that that's cleared up, back to your last question. is that my final answer.......no. eckhart tolle summed it up better than i can. so i will use his saying for my final answer.
"The truth needs no defense. It just is."
Now this makes sense
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Poid]
#9813564 - 02/17/09 09:54 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Should who slap and spit?
Those who want to be slapped and spit upon... you're not reading what I'm saying, do you? Let's review the context in which I made this statement:
Quote:
Poid said:
Would one expect to be respected if one disrespects others? No, so if one wants to be respected, one would realize through the use of logic that in order to be respected, you must show respect, too.
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Also, what if someone has a fetish about being slapped and spit? Should they slap and spit, because of the same rule you're mentioning?
Quote:
Are you saying that reality is full of mean people?
No.
Are you going to actually present any evidence for your claims, or not?
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
I already forgot exactly which claims you want me to present evidence for; I don't know if this is relevant or not, but I've been awake for almost 24 hours....
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
norml840
sex toy guru
Registered: 10/19/07
Posts: 3,128
Loc: lost
|
|
Quote:
Now this makes sense
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Poid]
#9813696 - 02/17/09 10:16 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
You said that we are all born with a set of morals, and that they are the same for everyone.
Source or bullshit.
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
Like I said earlier, this is a philosophically/spiritually-oriented debate forum, not a scientifically-oriented debate forum; I've provided enough philosophical and spiritual evidence to back up my position, which you have yet to logically refute.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Poid]
#9813921 - 02/17/09 11:06 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Nice cop out, I knew you didn't have any evidence 
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Kukaracha
Cat wannabe
Registered: 12/18/08
Posts: 1,554
Loc: France
Last seen: 21 days, 22 hours
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Nice cop out, I knew you didn't have any evidence
There aren't much evidences, in my opinion. : )
|
Kickle
A Growing Hope
Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 11,345
Last seen: 32 minutes, 50 seconds
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Quote:
Kickle said:
My train ended when no one could discuss articles with me
Your train ended when you turned everything around by saying that you're not in disagreement with the fact that delusions are usually very dangerous for the individual and how he wishes to take decisions based on these delusions, and that what the study shows is only that there are small positive delusions which aren't necessarily harmful. Since I never mentioned that ALL delusions will male one behave totally irresponsible, but that each of these illusions that are being help have the potential of turning into something much more serious, I don't see what else can go on with being disputed.
My argument is based around the following question:
If altruism is nothing more than a delusion, is it positive or negative for an individual?
In order to determine this, I brought up a social psychology principle that states low levels of illusion are a key factor in maintaining mental health. Seeing as altruism is a pretty minor part of an individuals belief system, and one that allows them to view the world in a more positive light, I can see a potential connection. We can't eliminate all illusions but altruism in order to study it directly, so we have to run on speculation.
I do agree that a delusion can turn negative. And I do agree that major delusions can be very detrimental for an individual and their choices. However, something as inconsequential as altruism? I don't buy it. Without specific personality factors coming in to play, I don't believe for a second that a belief in selfless aid is going to hurt someone. If believing you're better than you actually are (see my previous study) is beneficial for an individual, then why wouldn't altruism be? I've provided backing for my end of this.
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
This is exactly your words:
Quote:
That's not what the article is trying to show.
The article is saying, every person to some extent hold positive illusions. Thus redefining our sense of 'normal' as being clear with reality. That is not to say that it is always positive, or negative.
See above. Other factors come into play when we look at positive and negative. I'm saying, a delusion is neutral until it begins to interact within the individuals life. Each individual will be unique in this regard. However, certain delusions will correlate with positive mental health more often, and some will correlate with disorders.
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
I also have never claimed that people must, in order to maintain mental health, not have any kind of distorted perception, because IMO this is impossible, but it is best to try and eliminate every bit of un-real thinking that we're aware of, which requires a closed inspection of one's mind.
Fair enough. I'm counter to that stance though. I believe the events which warrant close inspection will vary for each of us. To bring it more to the topic we're discussing, each individuals delusions, and the mix of which they have, will vary drastically. Some will allow them to survive in the world just fine, some will spring up as a drastic defense. When that drastic defense is pressed with alternative information, something will need to be done, and introspection can be an answer.
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Quote:
And just because a few 'choose' to take delusion too far, doesn't mean it's always a bad thing, either.
There is nothing to show that only few choose to take delusion too far, nor that it isn't bad for how their life and understanding will evolve as a result of this.
I suppose I can't really argue that. However, since 'too far' is a relative term, and given our cultural context, not everyone has a disorder including delusion, which indicates only a few take it 'too far'.
|
Kukaracha
Cat wannabe
Registered: 12/18/08
Posts: 1,554
Loc: France
Last seen: 21 days, 22 hours
|
|
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
Quote:
Kukaracha said:
I still don't see why you consider a reaction as a choice! You'd tell me my mother just died, I would maybe cry, but it's a reaction, not a choice. People don't choose to be ethnocentrists, it's a reaction, it's spontaneous. I don't think I can choose something "subconsciously". If so, then it's not because of my free will (let's say that I have one). Then it's not really a strict choice.
I think you're confusing the difference between a conscious and subconscious choice. The consciousness is capable of making an increasing amount of decisions as to how we perceive our sensory information, how we interpret what that information means to us, and how we will subsequently think and act regarding this information and interpretations.
Clearly, our subconscious affects this process as well, just as much, less, or more depending upon the specific instance in question, but the understanding that I find some people lacking is that our consciousness progressively affects and changes the subconscious and the role it plays in our decision-making processes.
Thus, there is a constant interplay between both the conscious and unconscious that determine how each manifests and how we manifest in the moment.
Obviously, subconscious choices are not made in the same manner as conscious decisions. If they were, then they would be conscious decisions.
Obviously, subconscious decisions are made in the moment without conscious awareness of the decision-making process itself, or that decision would have been made consciously. However, our consciousness directly experiences what is occurring in this moment, which consists of what is occurring in our environment, what is occurring within ourselves, the way we act and the way this simultaneously changes our environment. As our consciousness is capable of making decisions and taking action too, it is only for it to determine how to act in the moment, as well as how to change the subconscious over time. Whether or not the consciousness does so is its decision too.
Both our conscious and our subconscious are us. Thus, the decisions they make together are our decisions, our choices. The fact that some are not aware of the entirety of how they make their decisions doesn't mean that something other than themselves is making those choices for them, or rather that they do not have a choice.
I wouldn't call that a strict choice, but rather instinct, for example. I don't choose to be hungry. Part of me is free to decide, but another part of me is bound to systematic behaviour.
That does not mean it's not me, but it's a part of me I don't control; I can't say what this part chooses is "my" choice. I would rather say it's nature (or even DNA, to some extent?)'s choice.
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
Quote:
About culture, doesn't it grow like what we call personnality? It is made of interactions, but so is our personnality.
Culture is personality. Culture is the similarities of individual personalities shared amongst a group of individuals.
This sounds a bit weird to me. I see culture as a tradition made of contingent and necessary elements. Even though millions of people eventually died, culture still evolves like would someone's personnality; and even if it does evolve, it evolves slightly, without major changes.
Plus, individuals are very different; should be something transcendent in society for it to show clear characteristics (culture).
The similarities between individual's personalities would be, for example, aggressivity; but then again, if out of four people, two are pretty aggressive, the group is going to be aggressive? Mildly aggressive? Or aren't enough aggressive people in the group? Or does the aggressive person prevails? Pretty complex question, I think.
Despite the huge differences between individuals, society sometimes clearly reacts as a whole. And even when it doesn't, the cohesion remains.
|
Bernackums
The universe will have its way.
Registered: 08/06/07
Posts: 865
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Poid]
#9814801 - 02/17/09 01:54 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
Like I said earlier, this is a philosophically/spiritually-oriented debate forum, not a scientifically-oriented debate forum; I've provided enough philosophical and spiritual evidence to back up my position, which you have yet to logically refute.
I am still yet to see you make a point.
--------------------
Let's get the fuck out of here.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
If you consider the context behind that quote, you may understand its point.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Bernackums
The universe will have its way.
Registered: 08/06/07
Posts: 865
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Poid]
#9815151 - 02/17/09 02:58 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Well, debate is a scientifically oriented thing, and this is a forum for debate on philosophy and spirituality. You really twisted that there.
--------------------
Let's get the fuck out of here.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
This is a debate forum related to all things philosophical/spiritual; I assumed when I came here that you can choose to debate on relevant matters, or via relevant means.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Poid]
#9815195 - 02/17/09 03:06 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
What was your philosophical/spiritual evidence that we're all innately born with the same set of morals?
And what set of morals, specifically, do you think we're all born with?
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Altruism [Re: deCypher]
#9815214 - 02/17/09 03:10 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I've been awake for about 24 hours, so sorry if I can't tell you off the top of my head right now, but I think your questions may be at least partially answered if you refer to some of my earlier posts.
One of the things, though, that I touched upon was that since we are all the same being, it should not be surprising that we live by the same, or at least indefatigably similar "rules"; our individual human experiences may be unique, but at the same time, they are still indefatigably similar.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Poid]
#9815223 - 02/17/09 03:12 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I'm perfectly fine with waiting until you're rested to hear your reasons, rather than scan through twenty-some odd pages when various people have apparently stated that your reasons do not exist.
At any rate, how do you explain the existence of sociopaths if you assume that everyone innately has the same morals?
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Bernackums
The universe will have its way.
Registered: 08/06/07
Posts: 865
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Poid]
#9815231 - 02/17/09 03:13 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Dogdged it yet again.
--------------------
Let's get the fuck out of here.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
It wasn't a dodge, I'm just not used to sleep deprivation.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Altruism [Re: deCypher]
#9815255 - 02/17/09 03:17 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
I'm perfectly fine with waiting until you're rested to hear your reasons, rather than scan through twenty-some odd pages when various people have apparently stated that your reasons do not exist.
At any rate, how do you explain the existence of sociopaths if you assume that everyone innately has the same morals?
People break rules, what's hard to understand about that?
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Poid]
#9815281 - 02/17/09 03:21 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Are you saying sociopaths have the same morals as everybody else, but choose to act immorally?
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Altruism [Re: deCypher]
#9815295 - 02/17/09 03:23 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Are you saying that they are possessed by some sort of evil spirit which forces them to act in such a way?
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Poid]
#9815304 - 02/17/09 03:24 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I would argue that certain sociopaths have no morals.
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Altruism [Re: deCypher]
#9815370 - 02/17/09 03:34 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Since they were born?
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Poid]
#9815383 - 02/17/09 03:36 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Arguable. I would certainly disagree that everyone is born with the same set of morals like you're implying, though. And do you have an answer to my original question?
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Altruism [Re: deCypher]
#9815479 - 02/17/09 03:53 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
"What was your philosophical/spiritual evidence that we're all innately born with the same set of morals?"
I don't think I ever uttered, nor claimed to possess such evidence on these boards, yet.
But you failed to address what I said here, which is highly relevent to this whole discussion:
Quote:
Poid said:
One of the things, though, that I touched upon was that since we are all the same being, it should not be surprising that we live by the same, or at least indefatigably similar "rules"; our individual human experiences may be unique, but at the same time, they are still indefatigably similar.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Poid]
#9815501 - 02/17/09 03:56 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
"What was your philosophical/spiritual evidence that we're all innately born with the same set of morals?"
I don't think I ever uttered, nor claimed to possess such evidence on these boards, yet.
Quote:
Poid said: I've provided enough philosophical and spiritual evidence to back up my position
Quote:
Poid said:
since we are all the same being
Says who?
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Altruism [Re: deCypher]
#9815614 - 02/17/09 04:16 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Remember, I am sleep deprived; it was an honest mistake on my part, and I deserve to be  for it!
What I think I meant to say is that I know I can explain what I'm thinking, it's just that, right now, for whatever reason, I'm having trouble articulating my thoughts.
"Says who?"
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Poid]
#9815634 - 02/17/09 04:19 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
'Says who' is an idiom meaning, what proof or substantiation do you have for your statement 'we are all the same being'?
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Altruism [Re: deCypher]
#9815666 - 02/17/09 04:24 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I know that, I just thought you were putting forth the claim that not all human beings are human beings.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Poid]
#9815671 - 02/17/09 04:25 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
'All human beings are human beings' means something very different from 'we are all the same being'.
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Altruism [Re: deCypher]
#9815719 - 02/17/09 04:37 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
We are all the same being; the human being.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Poid]
#9815728 - 02/17/09 04:39 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
There is not one, single, human being that we all are. Instead, we are all separate human beingS.
Just correcting your terminology.
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Altruism [Re: deCypher]
#9815750 - 02/17/09 04:43 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Thank you.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
zannennagara
Found in Space
Registered: 09/25/08
Posts: 424
|
|
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "completely unrelated to interests outside the self". Are you stating that a person couldn't do something that would not have subsequent effects on aspects of reality beyond oneself? Or are you implying that an individual is capable of acting on interests that do not arise from within their localized system of perception and cognitive processes?
Here is what I'm saying:
If one thinks altruism means that an altruist has no personal will for altruism, that's ridiculous, and obviously not true. This is why we can so emphatically say that this particular type of belief in altruism is nonsensical. Incidentally, to revisit the fallacy-calling, the reason this looks like a straw man is because it is so obviously false that nobody who uses "altruism" could intend it.
If one thinks self-interest means that a self has no connection to the selfless, that everything it does completely originates within itself free of all external cause or influence, that's just as ridiculous, and obviously not true. You question "completely unrelated to interests outside the self" because it's so obviously ridiculous, and for me to criticize usage of self-interest by claiming that many mean this by it would look a lot like a straw man.
Quote:
I think you'll need to clarify on an action transcending an individual's "mere abstract nature". What is this process of transcendence and by what mechanism does it occur?
The point is that "transcendence" is really a backwards way of saying that concepts of "individual" and "self" have been abstracted from existence. "I" means the CNS-bound bag of flesh walking down the street rather than the whole experience of "I" which includes the street as well as the bag's cellular origin within its ancestors and the work "I" does and the interactions it has ad infinitum (literally). This business about everything stopping and cutting off at "self," an abstraction, makes self-interest just as meaningless in a certain way as the certain way in which altruism is.
Zen Buddy: It's very easy in posting to concentrate on the particular poster who responds and calls you out, but this doesn't mean other posts aren't read and appreciated. You have made good posts in this thread; I'm attempting to address different points.
--------------------
No debe haber separación, no puede haber definición.
|
zen buddy
not a buddhist
Registered: 01/22/09
Posts: 704
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Quote:
Human beings are born with a natural understanding of the difference between right and wrong and this is usually referred to as common sense.
Common sense which differs from person to person.
Quote:
Altruism comes very natural to human beings as we can see evidence of this in nature with such animals as monkeys and apes.
Evidence which nobody could actually post until now. Posting about the existence of an evidence is not presenting the evidence.
Quote:
Except for a select few sociopaths who are most likely damaged from childhood trauma or some sort of harsh upbringing, most human beings understand when they are doing something wrong by feeling guilty about it or lying about it.
I already had a few posts about guilt, no need to repeat myself. If you're interested, you can browse the other pages.
There are better ways (such as being aware of one's feelings and surroundings, recognizing that one's a sentient being, applying reason to one's life) to find out if one's acting in a constructive or destructive manner. However, stating that one SHOULD act in a way in which someone else's interests come before his, otherwise he is being a sociopath, is completely naive and delusional.
Quote:
I'm sure if I wanted to I could find a whole bunch of articles on this subject that some people might see as evidence but what's the point? If you believe that right and wrong is subjective and that there is no such thing as altruism you're probably going to deny any perspective presented on the subject on the existence of altruism because the last thing you want is to have to admit that you should start being a nice person who does good things.
That is pretty presumptuous of you!
Bring on the articles that say that not thinking about other peoples' interests before your own is being a sociopath. Bring on the articles that say that there is a good and there is a bad, and that they are objective and definite.
Also, I would appreciate it if you would leave what I should do or any I am doing something out of the discussion, and find the mind to argue against the ideas presented.
Quote:
It is very difficult to change the mind of someone who has been acting out of their self-serving ways for so long. Not only would it be very difficult for someone to back down after so much has been argued on the subject why would someone start doing something that would benefit someone other than themselves when they have been serving only themselves for so long?
Read the above.
Quote:
If you don't believe that altruism exists it is most likely because your ways are so self-serving that it is impossible for you to imagine that others could put other people before themselves. If you were to believe that altruism exists you would have to feel guilty about being so selfish.
Read the above.
stating that one SHOULD act in a way in which someone else's interests come before his
I did not say this, nor did I imply it.
Sometimes being altouristic is the right thing to do and people who do not understand the difference between right and wrong are referred to as sociopaths. I was talking about how most human beings understand when they're doing something wrong and that the exceptions are sociopaths. I did not say or even suggest that putting yourself before someone else would mean that you are a sociopath. If someone was hanging off the side of a building screaming for your help and you could easily help them but instead you choose to call that hot date of yours you are obviously in the wrong and could be referred to as a sociopath. Of course there are many examples of when thinking of yourself is the best option as long as no one will suffer from your action. I don't know what kind of idiot you think I am when you assume that I would believe such things.
I don't think there really is any concrete evidence on this subject and it is more a matter of how we word our understanding of things. I guess there are more credible references than my words but for some reason I really don't care to present any evidence on the subject anyways. There is a good link in the post that I will refer to in my next post.
Also, I would appreciate it if you would leave what I should do or any I am doing something out of the discussion, and find the mind to argue against the ideas presented.
When I said 'you' in that post I was referring to anyone who is reading the post, read it again. Why did you talk about what I was doing in your post? Maybe I should have worded it this way instead - people who believe in altruism... and - people should... I will make every effort to start addressing things in such a way from now on and I think you for telling me what I should do.
Edited by zen buddy (02/17/09 11:04 PM)
|
zen buddy
not a buddhist
Registered: 01/22/09
Posts: 704
|
|
Quote:
Mr. Mushrooms said:
Quote:
zen buddy said:
Human beings are born with a natural understanding of the difference between right and wrong and this is usually referred to as common sense. Altruism comes very natural to human beings as we can see evidence of this in nature with such animals as monkeys and apes. Except for a select few sociopaths who are most likely damaged from childhood trauma or some sort of harsh upbringing, most human beings understand when they are doing something wrong by feeling guilty about it or lying about it. I'm sure if I wanted to I could find a whole bunch of articles on this subject that some people might see as evidence but what's the point? If you believe that right and wrong is subjective and that there is no such thing as altruism you're probably going to deny any perspective presented on the subject on the existence of altruism because the last thing you want is to have to admit that you should start being a nice person who does good things. It is very difficult to change the mind of someone who has been acting out of their self-serving ways for so long. Not only would it be very difficult for someone to back down after so much has been argued on the subject why would someone start doing something that would benefit someone other than themselves when they have been serving only themselves for so long?
If you don't believe that altruism exists it is most likely because your ways are so self-serving that it is impossible for you to imagine that others could put other people before themselves. If you were to believe that altruism exists you would have to feel guilty about being so selfish.
Here's a good article on morality which seems to be at the center of this argument:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism
Please note that this section of Altruism has been left unaddressed in two separate threads dealing with the subject:
Quote:
Psychological egoism can be accused of using circular logic. For instance, an egoist would not disagree with the following syllogism: "If a person has willingly performed an act, then he/she has manifested such intent in the form of that act. Fulfillment of one's desires is the primary requisite of satisfaction. Ergo, a person can only willingly perform acts that result in his/her personal enjoyment." This logic is sometimes viewed as circular or presumptuous. Specifically, egoism leans on the assumption that satisfaction is synonymous with self-satisfaction. Such a precept automatically sidesteps counterpoint, however, and remains unfalsifiable. Thus, until empirical evidence favors one view or the other, egoism must acquiesce to uncertainty.
Egoism, the argument against altruism, is circular at best.
You brought up lying. I think that's a good example of inherent morality. When we lie, we substitute what isn't for what is and enter a world of fantasy attempting to take others with us. Or as Royce says, a person who willfully misplaces their ontological predicates. At first, we know immediately we have done wrong. Later, after a person has committed such a wrong doing repeatedly, over and over and over and over and over again, their conscience becomes seared and they enter into a world of fantasy with no way out.
You mentioned sociopathy. It is inextricably linked to lying. Here's another interesting link:
http://yourtotalhealth.ivillage.com/pathological-liar.html
Quote:
....chronic lying in adults is often a manifestation of antisocial personality disorder (also known as sociopathy). Sociopaths are often deceitful and manipulative in order to gain personal profit or pleasure.
There are literally thousands of websites outlining treatment for such a behavior. If there was nothing wrong it with, why treat it?
Thanks for that link... my beliefs are more along the lines of Consequentialism, I don't believe that it is wrong to lie to a cop about drug use or drug possession.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
|
Thanks.
Why do you lean towards consequentialism?
--------------------
|
fireworks_god
SexyButt McDanger
Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 23,677
Loc: Red Panda Village
Last seen: 8 hours, 19 minutes
|
|
Quote:
zannennagara said:
If one thinks altruism means that an altruist has no personal will for altruism, that's ridiculous, and obviously not true. This is why we can so emphatically say that this particular type of belief in altruism is nonsensical. Incidentally, to revisit the fallacy-calling, the reason this looks like a straw man is because it is so obviously false that nobody who uses "altruism" could intend it.
Yes, it is true. I've encountered before, numerous times, individuals that have asserted that acts of altruism transcend personal will and personal interests. I specifically identified that it is this concept of altruism that I have been referring to, and not others, so, once again, for you to assert that speaking against this form is a straw-man to address other kinds of altruism is pretty disingenuous, especially as we have already went over this.
Quote:
If one thinks self-interest means that a self has no connection to the selfless, that everything it does completely originates within itself free of all external cause or influence, that's just as ridiculous, and obviously not true. You question "completely unrelated to interests outside the self" because it's so obviously ridiculous, and for me to criticize usage of self-interest by claiming that many mean this by it would look a lot like a straw man.
I never said "many mean this" regarding the concept of altruism that I was addressing, so your point is irrelevant.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
|
fireworks_god
SexyButt McDanger
Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 23,677
Loc: Red Panda Village
Last seen: 8 hours, 19 minutes
|
|
Quote:
Kukaracha said:
I wouldn't call that a strict choice, but rather instinct, for example. I don't choose to be hungry. Part of me is free to decide, but another part of me is bound to systematic behaviour.
Which would you call instinct, instead of choice? The sensation and drive of hunger certainly is instinct, but we weren't talking about innate physical responses.
I don't think you are proposing that subconscious decisions are instinctual in and of themselves, so what instances are you saying that these decisions are instinctual?
For example, the fight vs. flight response is instinctual behavior, but the patterns that are associated to be triggers for this response aren't instinctual and can be changed subconsciously and consciously.
Quote:
This sounds a bit weird to me. I see culture as a tradition made of contingent and necessary elements. Even though millions of people eventually died, culture still evolves like would someone's personnality; and even if it does evolve, it evolves slightly, without major changes.
Culture does exist and transform through the process of individuals influencing other individuals and then dying. This is the same way that language evolves and is passed along, or any meme. The only point that I've been sustaining regarding this is that these phenomena (culture, language, society) do not have wills of their own, but are only manifested by the individual decisions as to how they will think and act and subsequently influence others. I don't see any other mechanism responsible for this, and no one has yet demonstrated some other influence, as far as I know.
Quote:
Pretty complex question, I think.
Definitely a complex question, as we exist in (and as) a dynamic system of interrelating and interdependent variables.
Quote:
Despite the huge differences between individuals, society sometimes clearly reacts as a whole. And even when it doesn't, the cohesion remains.
How does "society" ever act as a whole?
--------------------
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Kickle]
#9818452 - 02/18/09 03:42 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
My argument is based around the following question:
If altruism is nothing more than a delusion, is it positive or negative for an individual?
In order to determine this, I brought up a social psychology principle that states low levels of illusion are a key factor in maintaining mental health. Seeing as altruism is a pretty minor part of an individuals belief system, and one that allows them to view the world in a more positive light, I can see a potential connection.
I think it is completely impossible to determine how much of a role believing in altruism plays in one's life, since these things differ so much from person to person. I think that most delusions one holds are because one needs to see the world in a more positive light, so I don't see why this kind of perspective should be limited only to the cases in which people believe in altruism.
Quote:
I do agree that a delusion can turn negative. And I do agree that major delusions can be very detrimental for an individual and their choices. However, something as inconsequential as altruism? I don't buy it. Without specific personality factors coming in to play, I don't believe for a second that a belief in selfless aid is going to hurt someone. If believing you're better than you actually are (see my previous study) is beneficial for an individual, then why wouldn't altruism be? I've provided backing for my end of this.
Because usually reality has its way of showing people their real value, and if their real value is lower than they want to believe, then it can turn into a traumatic experience for them. I do agree that it all depends on the level the delusion is going on, and how inflated a person is, but, like I said, this differs from person to person, which is why I think that labeling belief is altruism as being harmless doesn't make much sense. Of course that I don't think that all the individuals who believe in altruism will face a drama sooner or later in their lives, but some will. I simply don't see why there's this need to think that deluding yourself regarding altruism is less harmful than other delusions, since what represents the danger here is the way the delusion is manifesting, and not regarding what.
Quote:
See above. Other factors come into play when we look at positive and negative. I'm saying, a delusion is neutral until it begins to interact within the individuals life
Are you suggesting that one's beliefs aren't playing an active role in one's life and the way they choose to interact with others as a result of those beliefs? I really can't think of many situations in which someone's holding an irrational belief completely isolated from their day to day life and emotional structure.
Quote:
Fair enough. I'm counter to that stance though. I believe the events which warrant close inspection will vary for each of us. To bring it more to the topic we're discussing, each individuals delusions, and the mix of which they have, will vary drastically. Some will allow them to survive in the world just fine, some will spring up as a drastic defense.
Agreed. Not all delusions are harmful, since some are minor and don't really have the chance to crush the individual's balance.
What I don't agree with is that delusions will allow one to have a better life with less trauma, and I wouldn't advice anyone to submit to this kind of life style. Delusions, by definition, are those thoughts that are off-track with reality, and which, as a result of this, can't allow one to understand and accept those fragments of reality. When this happens (of course, like I already agreed, depending on which measure one is unable to perceive reality), one's understanding is being clouded, and one can't operate at one's full capacity, making one unable to make the best decisions.
It is very much like having a map that doesn't fit the location you're into, and when you're trying to get somewhere by following the directions of the map, you end up somewhere else. This just can't be good.
Quote:
I suppose I can't really argue that. However, since 'too far' is a relative term, and given our cultural context, not everyone has a disorder including delusion, which indicates only a few take it 'too far'.
In fact, there are more people than you might be inclined to think who engage themselves into wishful and delusional thinking. This study, while not so related with this topic, shows a measurement of delusional ideation in the normal population.
Also, as a side note, from my own experience with people that believe in altruism, I have noticed that they are inclined to feel more miserable than people who don't, and that they live with the feeling that terrible injustices (that they're, of course, unable to locate and identify when asked for exact examples ) are happening to them. All of them have this fascination about relating to the others, to the smallest detail, their altruist acts, and their attitude is begging for approval and admiration. I'm in no way saying that this is the way in which all the people engaging in such a belief are, but that this seems to be the case with the ones that I personally know.
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
|
Quote:
Sometimes being altouristic is the right thing to do and people who do not understand the difference between right and wrong are referred to as sociopaths. I was talking about how most human beings understand when they're doing something wrong and that the exceptions are sociopaths.
First off, you have yet to present some evidence that shows that altruism actually exists. I think it is nowhere in this thread that I stated that there's no such thing as wanting to help others. What I have said was that, even in the cases in which, at first view, it would look like person A helped person B in such a way that person A was being disadvantaged, it doesn't mean that person A got absolutely nothing, no reward whatsoever, from helping person B. There will always be emotional rewards (which are not visible to the eye) that will come into play, and since such a reward exists, it means that the act wasn't altruistic. Now, if you (or other people that you're aware of) are helping others without feeling good about it, then I am interested to know how the whole process goes, and what are the reasons for which it happens.
Quote:
I did not say or even suggest that putting yourself before someone else would mean that you are a sociopath. If someone was hanging off the side of a building screaming for your help and you could easily help them but instead you choose to call that hot date of yours you are obviously in the wrong and could be referred to as a sociopath.
While at first view I agree that such a action sounds heartless, I still don't entirely buy the sociopath story, and I still do sustain that, even in this case, being in the wrong or being in the right are subjective and can vary.
What if the person hanging off the side of the building was a terrorist, or the person that raped your family? Would you still have the same determination to save them?
Quote:
Of course there are many examples of when thinking of yourself is the best option as long as no one will suffer from your action.
But we are always thinking about ourselves, even when we help others and when we don't. Something has to resonate within our being, in order to decide that we want to help someone. All the animal kind is doing this, this is the result of observation, and it doesn't mean it is bad. Maybe, if we were to be more honest with ourselves and realize that we are interested, first and foremost, in our well-being, we would drop some of the guilt on the way there, and replace it with rational thinking that would allow us to see that there doesn't have to be a conflict between self interest and helping others. Also, maybe we'll realize that, despite how much we'd love to think that our actions will always be beneficial for everyone, there will always be someone who will be at loss as a result of our actions. Even when we help another person, that action can harm some people whose interests were conflicting the person we helped.
Quote:
I don't think there really is any concrete evidence on this subject and it is more a matter of how we word our understanding of things. I guess there are more credible references than my words but for some reason I really don't care to present any evidence on the subject anyways.
Saying that you don't care to present that evidence is one thing, and saying that you don't care to present that evidence because I will dismiss it anyways is another thing. Which of these two is the truth?
Quote:
When I said 'you' in that post I was referring to anyone who is reading the post, read it again.
It is very hard to tell to which "you" you were referring, when it was only a few paragraphs before where you said that you won't present any article because I will dismiss it. Or were you talking to all the readers in that case too?
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
Edited by MushroomTrip (02/18/09 04:22 AM)
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Poid]
#9818539 - 02/18/09 04:59 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I don't think I ever uttered, nor claimed to possess such evidence on these boards, yet.
Oh really?
Quote:
Poid said:
Are you denying the existence of morals which are inherent to our being?
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
That's just a bunch of old crap. Unless you can prove that this actually exists...
Quote:
Poid said:
Honestly, I probably could, but that's a whole other topic that would probably be best discussed in a thread of its own.
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
zen buddy
not a buddhist
Registered: 01/22/09
Posts: 704
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
First off, you have yet to present some evidence that shows that altruism actually exists. I think it is nowhere in this thread that I stated that there's no such thing as wanting to help others. What I have said was that, even in the cases in which, at first view, it would look like person A helped person B in such a way that person A was being disadvantaged, it doesn't mean that person A got absolutely nothing, no reward whatsoever, from helping person B. There will always be emotional rewards (which are not visible to the eye) that will come into play, and since such a reward exists, it means that the act wasn't altruistic. Now, if you (or other people that you're aware of) are helping others without feeling good about it, then I am interested to know how the whole process goes, and what are the reasons for which it happens.
Just because the people who do not believe in altruism have not addressed the many good points that suggest that altruism does exist does not mean that we have not presented enough on the subject. If you're looking for some sort of concrete evidence to suggest that altruism exists you are gonna be waiting a long time. People have been debating over this for many years now and I'm sure if there was any evidence for either side it would have been presented by now. Based on the fact that neither side can present any evidence, maybe we could drop the whole lack of evidence argument.
The reason I addressed my point in such a way is that many of the people presenting arguments to suggest that altruism does exist have had their beliefs disrespected. To me this suggests that some of the people who do not believe in altruism have difficulty understanding and caring about other people's beliefs.
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
While at first view I agree that such a action sounds heartless, I still don't entirely buy the sociopath story, and I still do sustain that, even in this case, being in the wrong or being in the right are subjective and can vary.
What if the person hanging off the side of the building was a terrorist, or the person that raped your family? Would you still have the same determination to save them?
This example of the person hanging off the side of the building being a terrorist or person that raped your family does not suggest that right and wrong is subjective but that right and wrong is determined by the consequences to an action. In other words right and wrong is not determined by the individual deciding whether or not to take action but rather right and wrong is determined by what happens after the action. I commented briefly on this in my previous post about consequentialism. Maybe you could present an example of when right and wrong would be subjective.
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
But we are always thinking about ourselves, even when we help others and when we don't. Something has to resonate within our being, in order to decide that we want to help someone. All the animal kind is doing this, this is the result of observation, and it doesn't mean it is bad. Maybe, if we were to be more honest with ourselves and realize that we are interested, first and foremost, in our well-being, we would drop some of the guilt on the way there, and replace it with rational thinking that would allow us to see that there doesn't have to be a conflict between self interest and helping others. Also, maybe we'll realize that, despite how much we'd love to think that our actions will always be beneficial for everyone, there will always be someone who will be at loss as a result of our actions. Even when we help another person, that action can harm some people whose interests were conflicting the person we helped.
If there are absolutely no unselfish acts than altruism would mean an act that is as far from purely selfish as you can get. There are certain things that people can do that are very selfish that actually cause other people suffering and an altruistic act would be the opposite of this. At this point we might want to admit that we are arguing over semantics. I honestly do not believe that altruism means that the person who goes out of their way for the concern and welfare of others is not benefiting from this act and nowhere in any definition does it suggest this. If people don't like the word they shouldn't use it, it really is as simple as that.
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Saying that you don't care to present that evidence is one thing, and saying that you don't care to present that evidence because I will dismiss it anyways is another thing. Which of these two is the truth?
Both, I know what I believe and I'm sure that most of you understand why sometimes it is a good thing to put others before yourself and I see no reason to search for words that are more credible than mine or search for evidence that probably does not exist for either side.
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
It is very hard to tell to which "you" you were referring, when it was only a few paragraphs before where you said that you won't present any article because I will dismiss it. Or were you talking to all the readers in that case too?
From my perspective and the way I worded it, it seems very obvious to me that I was speaking generally to anyone who believes that altruism does not exist. As you might notice, in this post I have changed the way that I communicate to better suit those I am communicating with. This benefits me because I am communicating a message so that other people will understand what I'm saying and if I can word things differently to enhance this effect then why not. Sometimes it is a good idea to listen to the advice of others, I wouldn't be who I am today if it was not for people like you and you and you and you...
|
zen buddy
not a buddhist
Registered: 01/22/09
Posts: 704
|
|
Quote:
Mr. Mushrooms said:
Thanks.
Why do you lean towards consequentialism?
First off I should mention that I don't like to categorize my beliefs as I am a unique individual who may see or understand things differently than the accepted definition of consequentialism.
I do not believe that right and wrong is subjective but I also do not believe that any certain act can be absolutely right or wrong as it depends on the situation and an infinite number of possible variables. In most cases we have a good idea of whether or not a certain action is right or wrong by looking at each situation as a unique set of variables. Of course sometimes we can be wrong in our assertion and only with the test of time can we know for sure whether or not something was right or wrong, a little of both or sometimes a little more in one direction than the other. This is why it is acceptable for us to make mistakes and learn by them. As long as we are open-minded as we pay attention to the consequences of our actions so that when we have to make a similar decision we can confidently make the right choice again or we can make sure we do not repeat our mistakes by learning from them.
I would like to thank you again for those links as reading them has helped me better understand how to communicate my own beliefs.
|
zannennagara
Found in Space
Registered: 09/25/08
Posts: 424
|
|
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
Yes, it is true. I've encountered before, numerous times, individuals that have asserted that acts of altruism transcend personal will and personal interests. I specifically identified that it is this concept of altruism that I have been referring to, and not others, so, once again, for you to assert that speaking against this form is a straw-man to address other kinds of altruism is pretty disingenuous, especially as we have already went over this.
Quote:
The point is that "transcendence" is really a backwards way of saying that concepts of "individual" and "self" have been abstracted from existence. "I" means the CNS-bound bag of flesh walking down the street rather than the whole experience of "I" which includes the street as well as the bag's cellular origin within its ancestors and the work "I" does and the interactions it has ad infinitum (literally). This business about everything stopping and cutting off at "self," an abstraction, makes self-interest just as meaningless in a certain way as the certain way in which altruism is.
Was it disingenuous for you not to have responded to this part of the post? Transcendence does not mean that the things transcended no longer exist, rather that their abstracted limitations have been surpassed or forgotten. If there is someone who believes that personal will has absolutely nothing to do with altruistic deeds, I would like to see an example.
Here was part of another post, by Markos, left unanswered:
Quote:
Selflessness does not mean that a personal ego is absent and that 'I' am now God acting through my mind-body in some Hindu monistic idiom. This was the nature of all those absurd theological arguments about the dual natures of Jesus Christ that was carried on through the centuries (whether his ego was human and divine, or whether two egos were operating in complete harmony, or if he had no human ego at all, etc.). Selfless action means a subduing of the egoic-mind, which is an amalgam of the needs and desires of the mind-body. Instead of acting in the usual mode of 'me-first,' one chooses to act for the needs and desires of another or others. Most people require becoming a parent to learn this (if they are responsible parents). Others learn by service to others, whether in the military or in some human service.
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
I never said "many mean this" regarding the concept of altruism that I was addressing, so your point is irrelevant.
Well, if not many believe in this faulty conception of altruism, this would seem to diminish the relevance of pointing out its flaws...
Quote:
I personally had simply proposed (as I believe MT had also) that the definition of altruism as the dictionary refers to it, as well as anyone holding a similar viewpoint, belies the nature of reality. The dictionary refers to altruism as an unselfish act that is in opposition to an act rooted in egoism, which it refers to as the habit of always valuing everything in regards to one's personal interest.
As the latter is the only way in which an individual is capable of determining the value in anything, regardless of how an individual determines that value, then, altogether quite clearly, we can see that the concept of altruism as an unselfish act that lies in opposition to the idea of acting in accordance with one's personal interest is completely bunk.
...And I would think a dictionary definition - as well as any definition similar to it - would implicate many people in such a belief. By setting up the people who agree with such words as beliars (let's make that one up too; disproven and beliars in one thread, who said these debates were unproductive) of the nature of reality, in your argument that opposing egoism is equivalent to acting out of accordance with one's personal interest you have claimed that anyone who agrees with the dictionary on altruism believes that altruism involves no personal interest, which seems a lot like the straw man that I keep coming back to because it ascribes beliefs to people which have not been demonstrated and the holding of which is quite clearly contradicted by their statements as well as their willingness to make them.
--------------------
No debe haber separación, no puede haber definición.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Quote:
I don't think I ever uttered, nor claimed to possess such evidence on these boards, yet.
Oh really?
Quote:
Poid said:
Are you denying the existence of morals which are inherent to our being?
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
That's just a bunch of old crap. Unless you can prove that this actually exists...
Quote:
Poid said:
Honestly, I probably could, but that's a whole other topic that would probably be best discussed in a thread of its own.
Key word: "probably".
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
|
Quote:
zen buddy said:
Quote:
Mr. Mushrooms said:
Thanks.
Why do you lean towards consequentialism?
First off I should mention that I don't like to categorize my beliefs as I am a unique individual who may see or understand things differently than the accepted definition of consequentialism.
I do not believe that right and wrong is subjective but I also do not believe that any certain act can be absolutely right or wrong as it depends on the situation and an infinite number of possible variables. In most cases we have a good idea of whether or not a certain action is right or wrong by looking at each situation as a unique set of variables. Of course sometimes we can be wrong in our assertion and only with the test of time can we know for sure whether or not something was right or wrong, a little of both or sometimes a little more in one direction than the other. This is why it is acceptable for us to make mistakes and learn by them. As long as we are open-minded as we pay attention to the consequences of our actions so that when we have to make a similar decision we can confidently make the right choice again or we can make sure we do not repeat our mistakes by learning from them.
I would like to thank you again for those links as reading them has helped me better understand how to communicate my own beliefs.
You're more than welcome. I think your answers throughout have been cogent and inspiring. Good job.
If you strictly appealed to consequentialism I was going to have a few more pointed questions. As it is you disabled them before they were asked. Nice.
--------------------
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
|
Yeah, pretty much. I haven't spent a lot of time reading this thread but some great points were made by a few.
Just as a note, and I know you know this, not every post will be answered by everyone, sometimes no one. Nothing disingenuous about that. Character descriptions, perilously close to personalisms, should be avoided at all costs. That includes disingenuousity.
--------------------
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
The person in that video is ugly. 
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Poid]
#9822995 - 02/18/09 09:08 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
That was intentional. Glad you noticed.
--------------------
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Butterfly Agaric
Stranger
Registered: 02/13/09
Posts: 8
Last seen: 5 months, 29 days
|
|
I like this idea.
Quote:
A biological understanding seems to back this up: The actions of the "species" can always be considered in terms of the "individual" organism. But just the same, the acts of the individual organism are can be considered in terms of the species. Saying that individual is more important than species or vice versa, is ridiculous. So again, my point is that either of these supposed inclinations are in the end really only dependent upon context.
In just three years of university, I've been taught about altruism four times! In my experience, my science education seems to push a sort of instinctive attack behaviour on weird ideas. The biological aspect of 'altruistic behaviour' doesn't seem to satisfy the question of the nature of altruism, imo. It seems that only an individual can classify their behaviours as altruistic or selfish, but if the individual fully accepts them as altruistic, they are assuming free-will, which may or may not exist.
My boyfriend and I were discussing this yesterday (extremely stoned  ) and it brought up some ideas. I don't believe these ideas, am just playing around.
I've been listening to many of the McKenna/Sheldrake talks on the morphogenetic field, novelty, attractors, etc. lately and it made me wonder if we are being pulled out towards a final form or location or attractor. If this is the case, maybe everything is a process, including 'altruism'. Maybe 'altruism' began as altruistic behaviour, for the group, automatic, without the ego, and once the 'consciousness' shifted to the individual, then the behaviour became 'mine', as altruism.
It seems like the same type of events are occurring now, which occured before the concept of 'altruism' emerged, but they are perceived in a different light. To me, it comes down to truth and reality. If truth and reality are 'out there', then I would feel less confident that altruism exists, but if truth is found in our perceptions, then we decide.
Maybe I'm still stoned.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
Don't let MushroomTrip or your college education brainwash you, altruism is very real.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Butterfly Agaric
Stranger
Registered: 02/13/09
Posts: 8
Last seen: 5 months, 29 days
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Poid]
#9824121 - 02/19/09 12:08 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
It does feel real to me.
We spent hours learning and applying various formulas, using 'quotients of relatedness' and other variables and things to try to reduce our actions to a natural selection paradigm (and it was fun!), but I can't accept that as The Truth. It seems like just another belief, now with 48% more empirical evidence!
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
Ah...
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
|
Quote:
Butterfly Agaric said:
We spent hours learning and applying various formulas, using 'quotients of relatedness' and other variables and things to try to reduce our actions to a natural selection paradigm....
When religions do this, it's called catechism. When science does it, it's called learning. Both are indoctrination. Don't be fooled by the masks they wear. I'm sure you're not.
--------------------
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
Quote:
Mr. Mushrooms said:
Quote:
Butterfly Agaric said:
We spent hours learning and applying various formulas, using 'quotients of relatedness' and other variables and things to try to reduce our actions to a natural selection paradigm....
When religions do this, it's called catechism. When science does it, it's called learning. Both are indoctrination. Don't be fooled by the masks they wear. I'm sure you're not.
Science and Religion - their similarities and their differences
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Poid]
#9824474 - 02/19/09 01:31 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I read, even when I don't post.
--------------------
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
fireworks_god
SexyButt McDanger
Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 23,677
Loc: Red Panda Village
Last seen: 8 hours, 19 minutes
|
|
Quote:
zannennagara said:
Quote:
The point is that "transcendence" is really a backwards way of saying that concepts of "individual" and "self" have been abstracted from existence. "I" means the CNS-bound bag of flesh walking down the street rather than the whole experience of "I" which includes the street as well as the bag's cellular origin within its ancestors and the work "I" does and the interactions it has ad infinitum (literally). This business about everything stopping and cutting off at "self," an abstraction, makes self-interest just as meaningless in a certain way as the certain way in which altruism is.
Was it disingenuous for you not to have responded to this part of the post? Transcendence does not mean that the things transcended no longer exist, rather that their abstracted limitations have been surpassed or forgotten. If there is someone who believes that personal will has absolutely nothing to do with altruistic deeds, I would like to see an example.
No, I don't feel that it was insincere for me to not reply to a part of a post that I felt didn't make a clear statement regarding the points in contention.
As Mr. Mushrooms said, it was not appropriate for me to assert that your continuing to accuse me of propping up a strawman despite my clarifications to the contrary was disingenuous, so I apologize for that.
Regarding your statement, it simply made no sense to me to reference "an abstraction" as being "the self" and distinguishing between it and everything else somehow makes "self-interest" meaningless in the same way that altruism is. I find this to be blurring the lines of how a human being actually functions. You can't "surpass or forget" how a human being functions by taking into consideration the other aspects of the system a human being exists within.
The point I was making regarding how a human being functions and "self-interest" was that the decision-making process and the value-ascribing processes of a human being occur solely within an internal system, even if this system lies dependent upon a system existing beyond that internal system for existence and input of sensory data.
Decisions don't come from outside this internal system and meaning is generated from within this internal system.
Thus, every action and thought is made in consideration of the interests and values of the individual system.
For you to say that this definition of self-interest is just as meaningless as the particular view of altruism that I was objecting to because one can forget the specific ways in which this internal system functions because it relies upon external existence in order to perform does not make sense.
I didn't reply to this earlier because my interest in continuing this discussion is waning and I felt it was a side-point.
Quote:
Here was part of another post, by Markos, left unanswered:
Quote:
Selflessness does not mean that a personal ego is absent and that 'I' am now God acting through my mind-body in some Hindu monistic idiom. This was the nature of all those absurd theological arguments about the dual natures of Jesus Christ that was carried on through the centuries (whether his ego was human and divine, or whether two egos were operating in complete harmony, or if he had no human ego at all, etc.). Selfless action means a subduing of the egoic-mind, which is an amalgam of the needs and desires of the mind-body. Instead of acting in the usual mode of 'me-first,' one chooses to act for the needs and desires of another or others. Most people require becoming a parent to learn this (if they are responsible parents). Others learn by service to others, whether in the military or in some human service.
It was left unanswered because I had already made a statement in response to Markos that perfectly resembled my viewpoint on this later statement of his, which is quoted below. It obviously isn't specifically tailored to the later statement of his. I chose not to reply because I pretty much agreed with what he said and make decisions to conserve the time I spend in this thread, as to not do so would mean spending more time in this thread than I want to spend on the computer at all. The definition of "selfless" that I had been employing at the time was to literally not act as a self, and when he clarified what selflessness he was referring to, the discord was resolved.
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
Having said that, what I feel is the ironic thing about this discussion is that what you affirm as the Jungian description that describes your predominating psychological motives is precisely what I was referring to with my statement that I left quoted at the beginning of this post.
Which leaves me to wonder exactly what it was regarding my statement that you found objectionable. Was it the idea that, as a conscious and unconscious being, you would have a preference for the form you choose to exist as and the actions you choose to take, or was it that I objected to the usage of the term "selfless" to describe why you would choose to take action that would not simply leave the kid without your help?
The simple fact that an action and the motivations for the action can transcend a more limited conception of one's personality and one's identity doesn't mean that it then is selfless.
Quote:
Well, if not many believe in this faulty conception of altruism, this would seem to diminish the relevance of pointing out its flaws...
Perhaps to you, but sometimes I feel reiteration has its place simply to clarify what is being excluded, or to ensure ground that is implied to be covered is specifically covered.
Quote:
I personally had simply proposed (as I believe MT had also) that the definition of altruism as the dictionary refers to it, as well as anyone holding a similar viewpoint, belies the nature of reality. The dictionary refers to altruism as an unselfish act that is in opposition to an act rooted in egoism, which it refers to as the habit of always valuing everything in regards to one's personal interest.
As the latter is the only way in which an individual is capable of determining the value in anything, regardless of how an individual determines that value, then, altogether quite clearly, we can see that the concept of altruism as an unselfish act that lies in opposition to the idea of acting in accordance with one's personal interest is completely bunk.
Quote:
...And I would think a dictionary definition - as well as any definition similar to it - would implicate many people in such a belief.
This isn't necessarily true, as there are sure to be some fringe beliefs that have specific terms to represent them that would consequently be defined in the dictionary, regardless of the number that hold the belief. Perhaps the beliefs had been held by a larger number of people at an earlier time, before the beliefs had been disproven?
Added that to Firefox's dictionary, by the way.
Anyways, that's just a hypothetical side-point operating with vague, relative terms like "many".
Quote:
By setting up the people who agree with such words as beliars of the nature of reality, in your argument that opposing egoism is equivalent to acting out of accordance with one's personal interest you have claimed that anyone who agrees with the dictionary on altruism believes that altruism involves no personal interest, which seems a lot like the straw man that I keep coming back to because it ascribes beliefs to people which have not been demonstrated and the holding of which is quite clearly contradicted by their statements as well as their willingness to make them.
Actually, what I proposed regarding the dictionary definition was involving the meaning I took from the phrase "the habit of valuing everything only in reference to one's personal interest". At the time, I was not taking the statement to be given synonymous meaning with their definition of the word "selfishness", which they also provided in the definition.
When I gave the definition more scrutiny, I came to realize that it was altogether possible that "personal interest" was being defined by the dictionary through the context of the rest of the definition as interests that are specifically regardless of the interests or welfare of others, as expressed by the definition of "selfishness".
To me, though, this implication is kind of unclear and definitely was more unclear at the time, before I dug into the definition of selfishness.
At the very least, the strawman you are asserting was nothing more than my confusion of what was specifically meant by the dictionary, but even so, I think I made clear throughout my references to my (mis)understanding of the dictionary definition the specific idea that I was continuing to address and never implied that my objections to this idea were pertaining to other ideas of what the word could mean.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
|
zannennagara
Found in Space
Registered: 09/25/08
Posts: 424
|
|
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
Regarding your statement, it simply made no sense to me to reference "an abstraction" as being "the self" and distinguishing between it and everything else somehow makes "self-interest" meaningless in the same way that altruism is. I find this to be blurring the lines of how a human being actually functions. You can't "surpass or forget" how a human being functions by taking into consideration the other aspects of the system a human being exists within.
The point I was making regarding how a human being functions and "self-interest" was that the decision-making process and the value-ascribing processes of a human being occur solely within an internal system, even if this system lies dependent upon a system existing beyond that internal system for existence and input of sensory data.
Decisions don't come from outside this internal system and meaning is generated from within this internal system.
Thus, every action and thought is made in consideration of the interests and values of the individual system.
For you to say that this definition of self-interest is just as meaningless as the particular view of altruism that I was objecting to because one can forget the specific ways in which this internal system functions because it relies upon external existence in order to perform does not make sense.
I didn't reply to this earlier because my interest in continuing this discussion is waning and I felt it was a side-point.
I think you're right that this is a side point, though I consider it crucial to our views, to be elaborated upon and discussed elsewhere.
The other things mentioned are really just clarifications of your views, and I think I'm satisfied with them.
Thanks for the intelligent and civil conversation.
--------------------
No debe haber separación, no puede haber definición.
|
Kukaracha
Cat wannabe
Registered: 12/18/08
Posts: 1,554
Loc: France
Last seen: 21 days, 22 hours
|
|
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
Quote:
Kukaracha said:
I wouldn't call that a strict choice, but rather instinct, for example. I don't choose to be hungry. Part of me is free to decide, but another part of me is bound to systematic behaviour.
Which would you call instinct, instead of choice? The sensation and drive of hunger certainly is instinct, but we weren't talking about innate physical responses.
I don't think you are proposing that subconscious decisions are instinctual in and of themselves, so what instances are you saying that these decisions are instinctual?
For example, the fight vs. flight response is instinctual behavior, but the patterns that are associated to be triggers for this response aren't instinctual and can be changed subconsciously and consciously.
The "simplest" humans work a lot with their instincts. And what is an instinct? I would say that instinct is not an action, but a strong drive. One can recognize these drives (such as sexual instinct, or survival instinct), but if you look at the lives of most of the people from a distant point of view, you can notice that even if they think they are acting freely, they actually follow their instincts. I don't call this a true choice. A true choice comes from a reasoning, and not from natural drives.
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
Quote:
Kukaracha said:
This sounds a bit weird to me. I see culture as a tradition made of contingent and necessary elements. Even though millions of people eventually died, culture still evolves like would someone's personnality; and even if it does evolve, it evolves slightly, without major changes.
Culture does exist and transform through the process of individuals influencing other individuals and then dying. This is the same way that language evolves and is passed along, or any meme. The only point that I've been sustaining regarding this is that these phenomena (culture, language, society) do not have wills of their own, but are only manifested by the individual decisions as to how they will think and act and subsequently influence others. I don't see any other mechanism responsible for this, and no one has yet demonstrated some other influence, as far as I know.
Yet personnality could be related to culture and lead to think that individuality might be the idea, and society the concrete.
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
Quote:
Kukaracha said:
Despite the huge differences between individuals, society sometimes clearly reacts as a whole. And even when it doesn't, the cohesion remains.
How does "society" ever act as a whole?
Ethnocentrism, mass movements... I also noticed that in periods of crisis (like funerals) everyone acts exactly the same.
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
|
That's interesting. I have always found the opposite at funerals. The "laughers" are the ones that piss me off. I imagine they are just the type of person that uses humor when they are uncomfortable. I find it highly insulting to the family of the deceased. They should practice a bit of self-control and restrain themselves. I've even heard people in the waiting line cracking jokes and howling with laughter in the same room as the corpse. Oblivious, self-centered assholes that they are.
--------------------
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
|
Quote:
Mr. Mushrooms said:
That's interesting. I have always found the opposite at funerals. The "laughers" are the ones that piss me off. I imagine they are just the type of person that uses humor when they are uncomfortable. I find it highly insulting to the family of the deceased. They should practice a bit of self-control and restrain themselves. I've even heard people in the waiting line cracking jokes and howling with laughter in the same room as the corpse. Oblivious, self-centered assholes that they are.
I'd rather have my funeral be celebrated with laughter and fond remembrances of the happy times in my life than with tears.
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
|
I've been to one funeral and laughed my ass off.
Something in seeing a drunken priest that didn't know the dead dude - but still tried to praise him, and his relatives that were pretending to be sad while at the same time making remarks about who's getting the fortune, made me lose the last bit of respect for the whole thing. 
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
Re: Altruism [Re: deCypher]
#9832412 - 02/20/09 09:21 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
I'd rather have my funeral be celebrated with laughter and fond remembrances of the happy times in my life than with tears.
I'd rather not have a funeral at all, but I won't care if the opposite will happen, since I'll be dead already.
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
Lakefingers
Registered: 08/26/05
Posts: 5,660
Loc: mumuland
Last seen: 4 months, 30 days
|
|
well, as we see, many people can only deal with death/funerals through superficial laughter
why force a regime of sadness or happiness upon them?
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
|
Who was forcing any regime on them?
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
Lakefingers
Registered: 08/26/05
Posts: 5,660
Loc: mumuland
Last seen: 4 months, 30 days
|
|
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
|
Reading it for the second time makes more sense
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
Lakefingers
Registered: 08/26/05
Posts: 5,660
Loc: mumuland
Last seen: 4 months, 30 days
|
|
gnarly
|
Kukaracha
Cat wannabe
Registered: 12/18/08
Posts: 1,554
Loc: France
Last seen: 21 days, 22 hours
|
|
Well, the latest was the funeral of one of my friends -who's 18- mother (heart attack).
His dad had previously committed suicide when he was 7.
He is such a nice and strong guy, so yeah, we were not laughing at all. Sorry guys if you live around assholes.
Thing that struck me was that, whatever we might want to say, everything we expressed was so... commonplace.
The speeches were ridiculous (it was in a church, half of them were just about praising Jesus, which disgusted me), and it felt as everything I wanted to say would remain stuck inside.
So most the time, people remained speechless. But the little they said, everyone was saying the same.
|
Lakefingers
Registered: 08/26/05
Posts: 5,660
Loc: mumuland
Last seen: 4 months, 30 days
|
|
churchs aren't ideal for secular people
but the structure they provide can be useful at these times
we do need other structures for mourning though, as several of your have pointed out
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
I've been to one funeral and laughed my ass off.
Something in seeing a drunken priest that didn't know the dead dude - but still tried to praise him, and his relatives that were pretending to be sad while at the same time making remarks about who's getting the fortune, made me lose the last bit of respect for the whole thing.
How many loved ones have you lost?
There's a fair bit of psychology that goes into this. I gave a eulogy for a dear friend that passed away. Part of it was recalling some humorous events between the deceased and myself. The whole church broke up laughing. I didn't. And I told the stories as way to commemorate the man, bring reality to the situation and ease the family's burden. They laughed and cried tears of joy because they knew their loved one was at peace with Jesus. I saw nothing wrong with that.
Disrespecting the dead by laughing could be seen as the hallmark of sociopathy, a chilling reminder of those without compassion or conscience.
--------------------
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
|
Quote:
How many loved ones have you lost?
It doesn't make any difference to the topic.
Quote:
Disrespecting the dead by laughing could be seen as the hallmark of sociopathy, a chilling reminder of those without compassion or conscience.
So, laughing at a funeral, because of the situation revolving around a dead person, with close relatives fighting over fortune is disrespecting the dead? Not to mention that I see absolutely no reason why a person should earn my respect just because they died. If they had my love or respect before they were dead, then the situation completely changes, and it most definitely doesn't mean that a person can't feel both love for the dead person and irony or sarcasm or even humor while laughing about a completely different situation, even if it is taking place at their funeral. Being aware that we have a multitude of feelings at the same time is not a sign of sociopathy.
Having to have respect for the dead, because that's the nice thing to do, is merely a masked fear of one's own death. I choose not to fear my death and I choose not to act foolishly, giving my respect to situations or people that require it.
What about the cultures that worship dead, and celebrate in joy and laughters the death of their close ones? Are they sociopaths, or does it mean that fearing death or suffering because of it is nothing more than a cultural conditioning?
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
It doesn't make any difference to the topic.
How you respond to death has a lot to do with your experience with it. Like the idiots who tell you, "I know how you feel," when you've lost a spouse, child, parent, etc and they haven't. A person can't truly understand that until they have experienced it. Even then, it isn't always possible. It's like trying to explain color to a blind person or a mushroom trip to someone who's never taken them. You can approximate, nothing more.
Quote:
So, laughing at a funeral, because of the situation revolving around a dead person, with close relatives fighting over fortune is disrespecting the dead? Not to mention that I see absolutely no reason why a person should earn my respect just because they died. If they had my love or respect before they were dead, then the situation completely changes, and it most definitely doesn't mean that a person can't feel both love for the dead person and irony or sarcasm or even humor while laughing about a completely different situation, even if it is taking place at their funeral. Being aware that we have a multitude of feelings at the same time is not a sign of sociopathy.
Having to have respect for the dead, because that's the nice thing to do, is merely a masked fear of one's own death. I choose not to fear my death and I choose not to act foolishly, giving my respect to situations or people that require it.
What about the cultures that worship dead, and celebrate in joy and laughters the death of their close ones? Are they sociopaths, or does it mean that fearing death or suffering because of it is nothing more than a cultural conditioning?
I wasn't referring to your behavior unless you were joyous the person was dead. Nothing you said indicated that. Some occasions carry with them an air of respectability. It's like attending a funeral. Sometimes I don't go to respect the dead. I go to show my respect for the family. If I have no respect for either, I don't go. Why would I?
--------------------
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
I've been to one funeral and laughed my ass off.
Something in seeing a drunken priest that didn't know the dead dude - but still tried to praise him, and his relatives that were pretending to be sad while at the same time making remarks about who's getting the fortune, made me lose the last bit of respect for the whole thing.
Sorry, but:
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Quote:
deCypher said:
I'd rather have my funeral be celebrated with laughter and fond remembrances of the happy times in my life than with tears.
I'd rather not have a funeral at all, but I won't care if the opposite will happen, since I'll be dead already.
Wouldn't you like to be buried in a huge granite mausoleum dedicated to the memory of your legacy?
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
Re: Altruism [Re: Poid]
#9836895 - 02/21/09 01:19 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
No, I'll leave that to you, you seem to be enjoying that kind of stuff so much
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
You forgot to end your sentence with a period.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit 
Reply 
