|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger


Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
Re: Social Interaction [Re: NiamhNyx]
#7673344 - 11/24/07 02:09 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Those who like to give and give and expect nothing in return usually find pleasure and satisfaction in giving, it makes them feel good about themselves, morally superior. Why do you want to believe that there is such a thing as true selflessness? Does this somehow make giving more meaningful? I think this attitude our culture carries is unhealthy, and it is the reason a lot of women tend to sacrafice themselves to thier partners and children, or why people give themselves to thier careers or a 'cause.' As if one can only feel truly good about oneself by denying oneself completely and make the lives of others more important.
There is a difference between denying oneself and transcending oneself.
Quote:
Only by being utterly self focused can one relate authentically to another, finding ourselves reflected in others, and give reciprocally and authentically.
o rly?
Quote:
Let everyone understand this and 'each for himself' taken to its ultimate conclusion will be transformed into 'all for each.'
This beloved argument of ethical egoists was put down by the Prisoner's dilemma. As Dawkin says, nice guys finish first. It does not take much observation to see that a group of purely self-interested beings are going to have conflicts between themselves.
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger


Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
Re: Social Interaction [Re: Merkin]
#7673353 - 11/24/07 02:13 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Merkin said: We are born selfish. The genes within us are selfish.
Having "selfish genes" does not necessarily make us selfish.
|
NiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'


Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
|
|
Quote:
There is a difference between denying oneself and transcending oneself.
Care to explain?
Quote:
o rly?
uhuh. Solid critique you got here.
Quote:
This beloved argument of ethical egoists was put down by the Prisoner's dilemma. As Dawkin says, nice guys finish first. It does not take much observation to see that a group of purely self-interested beings are going to have conflicts between themselves.
Care to explain the prisoner's dilemma and we'll see if I can't tear some holes in it? How do you define self interest, and what does self interested behaviour looks like, in your opinion?
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger


Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
Re: Social Interaction [Re: NiamhNyx]
#7673392 - 11/24/07 02:33 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
This beloved argument of ethical egoists was put down by the Prisoner's dilemma. As Dawkin says, nice guys finish first. It does not take much observation to see that a group of purely self-interested beings are going to have conflicts between themselves.
Care to explain the prisoner's dilemma and we'll see if I can't tear some holes in it? Your argument hinges strongly upon how you define self interest, and what you think self interested behaviour looks like.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners_dilemma
"In game theory, the prisoner's dilemma (sometimes abbreviated PD) is a type of non-zero-sum game in which two players may each "cooperate" with or "defect" (i.e. betray) the other player. In this game, as in all game theory, the only concern of each individual player ("prisoner") is maximizing his/her own payoff, without any concern for the other player's payoff. The unique equilibrium for this game is a Pareto-suboptimal solution—that is, rational choice leads the two players to both play defect even though each player's individual reward would be greater if they both played cooperate. In equilibrium, each prisoner chooses to defect even though both would be better off by cooperating, hence the dilemma."
Sorry, but I'm too damn lazy to right my own summary. The Prisoner's Dilemma has been used by evolutionary theorists to explain the evolution of morality. In the repeated version of the Prisoner's Dilemma, which is closer to real-life, one of the best strategies is to cooperate on the first turn and then mimic your opponents decision for the remainder of the turns. (Basically, cooperate but take revenge.)
|
daytripper23
?


Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc:
|
Re: Social Interaction [Re: igwna]
#7673394 - 11/24/07 02:34 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I am not sure if you intentionally articulated this as such, but I do not agree with your assumption that this is what "I want to believe". My own perspective on this, is that it has been what I have chosen to believe. Instinct and emotion might always be interpreted as a delusional mans hope, so I suppose there is no way to change your use of labels.
As I previously stated, the dualistic state of self and other is completely valid. I cannot logically argue with this. I agree that all action, concept, or sensation is inextricably tied to the self, and should be realized as such.
Does the existance of true selflessness make giving more meaningful?
No I am not attached to this idea out of some search for the kind of external meaning which I think you are implying. Glad to get that out of the way.
What is wrong with sacrifice for your loved ones? If you are ultimately selfish, isnt this a good thing for you? Maybe someone will sacrifice for you...
|
daytripper23
?


Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc:
|
|
And heres one for you Niamh..
Is it impossible for an athiest to sacrifice his life for another?
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger


Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
Re: Social Interaction [Re: NiamhNyx]
#7673436 - 11/24/07 02:58 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
NiamhNyx said:
Quote:
There is a difference between denying oneself and transcending oneself.
Care to explain?
A person who denies oneself does so out of inferiority. He or she cannot cope with their environment and has to abandon some aspect of his or her self in order to survive. (Ex: anyone trapped in an abusive environment.) I do not think many people willingly deny their self of anything. A few religious zealots and mystics probably do, but only with the goal of reaching some higher state - nirvana, heaven, etc.
If you have an emotional connection with others and/or feel as if they compose some aspect of your identity, then I think it is possible to sacrifice yourself without denying yourself. By "self" I am referring to the physical body of a person, not their self-concept. Essentially, because you include other beings in your identity, you're willing to alleviate their suffering at your own expense. The classic example is the relationship between a parent and a child. (Genetically, this makes a lot of sense.) In denying oneself, you subtract part of your identity. In transcending oneself, you add to your identity.
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs



Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
|
|
Quote:
What is wrong with sacrifice for your loved ones? If you are ultimately selfish, isnt this a good thing for you? Maybe someone will sacrifice for you...
There's nothing wrong except that it's impossible. It's impossible to call that sacrifice. You choose to do something (which might be seen as detrimental to your well being) for the person you love, because you find joy in seeing them happy or safe. Because you set priorities. So if we take a closer look we'll realize that your choice is not really detrimental to yourself, because you receive something in return: the feeling of happiness that you did something to help the one you love. In my opinion those who say that there are selfless acts out there do it because of a huge feeling on insecurity, the need to feel important and unique. That and the social imprint which feeds people's minds with fairy tales such as 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: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
|
|
Quote:
daytripper23 said: And heres one for you Niamh..
Is it impossible for an athiest to sacrifice his life for another?
Wtf is this? A quiz? Please make sense not riddles.
--------------------
   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:
|
|
What if you sacrifice your existance?
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs



Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
|
|
Jesus dude  The way I see it, is that even sacrificing your existence brings you at least a feeling of accomplishment. You do it for a reason right? Let's say for the girl you love. Well it is because knowing that she will be ok due to your act makes you happy. So there is something in return. Let's say you do it for your country. It's the same thing. You do it because you believe you're doing the right thing. And this gives you a good feeling about yourself, about what you do and about the entire meaning of the situation. Getting something in return doesn't refer only to material things, it also refers to how it makes you feel, how it makes you think and the emotional impact it has to someone. Thinking that we do something in a totally selfless manner is very dangerous in my opinion. It is what makes people stop making use of reason and common sense. It is what makes people quit being the masters of their own lives and decisions, leaving room for fairytales with heroes and victims and kind kings to occupy their minds. This is the main motivation of those who go to war.
--------------------
   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:
|
|
Quote:
sacrificing your existence brings you at least a feeling of accomplishment.
Hmmmmm
|
Merkin
neep.



Registered: 07/04/03
Posts: 27,537
Loc: Ass Flavoured Pie Factory
|
|
the arrogance and the generalizations in this forum are ridiculous 
Quote:
MushmanTheManic said:
Quote:
Merkin said: We are born selfish. The genes within us are selfish.
Having "selfish genes" does not necessarily make us selfish.
BAHAhahahAHAHAHAAa
you're kidding right? i suggest the first thing you can do is understand the meaning of the word "gene".
-------------------- Wheels of cheese wheeels of cheeeeese!!!
|
psyka
Praetorian


Registered: 06/09/03
Posts: 1,652
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said: No, selflessness is just an illusion. Everything we do, we do with our "selves"... Helping others just to be nice gives makes you feel good so you still get something in return.
But you see, everything we do directly effects the world around us. It can be argued that selfishness is the illusion.
-------------------- As the life of a candle, my wick will burn out. But, the fire of my mind shall beam into infinite.

|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs



Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
|
Re: Social Interaction [Re: psyka] 1
#7673720 - 11/24/07 07:23 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Selfishness is misunderstood and blamed by culture because of this exaggerated need to create the idea of morality and settle what's moral and not. Now being selflessness is one of the most appreciated qualities by every repressed and confused individual. This aim is a huge virtue. And some people push it to extremes into lying to themselves that what they do is totally selfless. When in fact this concept comes in contradiction with the most basic and natural attributes of what being human means. We can be selfish and still aim through our selfishness the well being of others. In fact, if we're smart, we'll realize that it is in our best interest that those around us are in a state of well being.
--------------------
   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
|
psyka
Praetorian


Registered: 06/09/03
Posts: 1,652
|
|
Typical "selfish" propaganda.
Have you ever cooked dinner for someone and wanted them to enjoy what you cooked?
They are both present in all moments, in different degree's.
-------------------- As the life of a candle, my wick will burn out. But, the fire of my mind shall beam into infinite.

|
daytripper23
?


Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc:
|
|
This to me is all very interesting.
Quote:
Let's say for the girl you love. Well it is because knowing that she will be ok due to your act makes you happy.
Why exactly would you do it though? Isn't you being happy is necessarily the result of this, no matter what the order of events? I argue that the sacrificer being happy is a (time transcending?) consequence because it isn't tied into the reasoning itself.
This other situation sort of reflects this same thing: If you sacrificed your existence for another, Of course you wouldn't ever actually feel accomplished, because your dead.
You might argue that in your head, the notion that you are going to do this in the future makes you content before you do it, and thats why you do it. In this case, if you were doing it for your own well being, how could you ever actually go through with it though? It is one thing to say "I am not afraid of death", and another to actually die.
It can't be argued that the act of true self sacrifice (Not for divine points) in the present moment could ever be done for one's own well being, because this would be effectively annihilating one's own well being.
Though it might feel heroic to think that "I one day might sacrifice myself", in between this point in time, and the point where you have to actually go through with it, you must realize that this is going to end your existence, and so it is NOT for your own well being. I argue that nobody would ever rationally go through with this if they were doing it for their self, because the act ends their self.
Edited by daytripper23 (11/24/07 08:45 AM)
|
shakercee
Atheistic Mystic



Registered: 04/08/07
Posts: 606
Loc: Here and there
Last seen: 10 years, 11 months
|
|
Here is an example of how selflessness can go horribly wrong.
A 26-year-old man in my city, Chennai, commited suicide so that his younger brother, who is partially blind, can see again. The dead man was ill and in bed, and he loved his brother so much.
But his act of love was of no use.
The doctors had previously informed the family that it may not be possible for the younger brother to regain his sight even through retinal replacement as the connecting nerves were damaged.
What's more, the dead man eyes could not be used for anyone else because the body was taken to the hospital beyond the stipulated time to remove the eyes for a transplant.
-------------------- Pray, v.: To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy - Ambrose Bierce Medical science has confirmed what the male world has known intuitively for millenia: that scratching your ass is a great aid to complex thinking. Its God's responsibility to forgive the terrorist organizations such as Jaish, Lashkar etc. Its our responsibility to arrange the meeting between them and god." - Indian Armed Forces "Hey Monkey!! Get Funky" - Tarzan and Jane
|
daytripper23
?


Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc:
|
Re: Social Interaction [Re: shakercee]
#7673786 - 11/24/07 07:57 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
O we all know it can go horribly wrong, you know, Catholicism, things like that...
|
daytripper23
?


Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc:
|
|
Ive been reading Aldous Huxley's Island, and thought maybe some of you might get a kick out of this selection, as it seems highly relevant, though its not necessarily meant to be part of the debate so to say. So I typed it up.
This is taken from the novel, taken from Old Raja's Notes on What's What, and on What It Might be Reasonable to Do about What's What."
Quote:
I
"Nobody needs to go anywhere else. We are all, if we only knew it, already there.
If I only knew who in fact I am, I should cease to behave as what I think I am; and if I stopped behaving as what I think I am, I should know who I am,
What in fact I am, if only the manichee I think I am would allow me to know it, is the reconciliation of yes and no lived out in total acceptance and the blessed experience of Not-Two.
In relation all words are dirty Words. Anybody who gets eloquent about Buddha, or God, or Christ, ought to have his mouth washed out with carbolic soap.
Because his aspiration to perpetuate only the "yes" in every pair of opposites can never, in the nature of things, be realized, the insulated Manichee I think I am condemns himself to endlessly repeated frustration, endlessly repeated conflicts with other aspiring and frustrated Manichees.
Conflicts and frustrations - The theme of all history and almost all biography. "I show you sorrow," said the Buddha realistically. But he also showed the ending of sorrow - Self-knowledge, total acceptance, the blessed experience of Not-Two.
II
Knowing who in fact we are results in Good Being, and Good Being results in the most appropriate kind of good doing. But good doing does not of itself result in Good Being. We can be virtuous without knowing who in fact we are. The beings who are merely good are not Good beings; they are just pillars of society.
Most Pillars are their own Samsons. They hold up, but sooner or later they pull down. There has never been a society in which most good doing was the product of Good Being and therefore constantly appropriate. This does not mean that there will never be such a society or that we in Pala are fools for trying to call it into existence.
III
The Yogin and the Stoic - Two righteous egos who achieve their very considerable results by pretending, systematically, to be someone else. But it is not by pretending to be somebody else, even somebody supremely good and wise, that we can pass from insulated Manichee-hood to Good Being.
Good Being is knowing who in fact we are; and in order to know who in fact we are, we must first know, moment by moment, who we think we are and what this bad habit of thought compels us to feel and do. A moment of clear and complete knowledge of what we think we are, but in fact are not, puts a stop, for the moment, to the Manichean charade. If we renew, until they become a continuity, these moments of the knowledge of what we are not, we may find ourselves all of a sudden, knowing who in fact we are.
Concentration, abstract thinking, spiritual exercises - systematic exclusions in the realm of thought. Asceticism and hedonism - systematic exclusions in the realms of sensation, feeling and action. But Good Being is in the knowledge of who in fact one is in relation to all experiences. So be aware - aware in every context, at all times and whatever, creditable or discreditable, pleasant or unpleasant, you may be doing or suffering. This is the only genuine yoga, the only spiritual exercise worth practicing.
The more a man knows about individual objects, the more he knows about God. Translating Spinoza's language into ours, we can say: The more a man knows about himself in relation to every kind of experience, the greater his chance of suddenly, one fine morning, realizing who in fact he is - or rather Who (capital W) in Fact (capital F) "he" (between quotation marks) Is (capital I).
St. John was right. In a blessedly speechless universe, the Word was not only with God; it was God. As a something to be believed in. God is a projected symbol, a reified name. God = "God" Faith is something very different from belief. Belief is the systematic taking of unanalyzed words much to seriously. Paul's words, Mohammed's words, Marx's words, Hitler's words - people take them to seriously, and what happens? What happens is the senseless ambivalence of history - sadism versus duty, or (incomparably worse) sadism as duty; devotion counterbalanced by organized paranoia; sisters of charity selflessly tending the victims of their own church's inquisitors and crusaders. Faith, on the contrary, can never be taken to seriously. For faith is the empirically justified confidence in our capacity to know who in fact we are, to forget the belief intoxicated Manichee in Good Being. Give us this day our daily Faith, But deliver us, dear God, from Belief.
|
|