|
mushroomplume
Stranger

Registered: 10/16/06
Posts: 1,395
Last seen: 14 years, 19 days
|
Social Interaction
#7671390 - 11/23/07 05:06 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Do we socialize with people to meet our needs or theirs?
We compliment our friends, listen to them when they are upset, and offer them help when they need it. Is all of this done unconditionally or is it done hoping to receive something in return?
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs



Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
|
|
Of course we receive something in return, otherwise we wouldn't do it. Now it might not be the same thing (what we get) for everybody, but there's always something, depending on what each of us is looking for.
--------------------
   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
|
a_guy_named_ai
Stranger

Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 767
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
|
|
Quote:
Do we socialize with people to meet our needs or theirs?
We compliment our friends, listen to them when they are upset, and offer them help when they need it. Is all of this done unconditionally or is it done hoping to receive something in return?
I think it's natural to desire both.
|
igwna
The Cap'n


Registered: 06/19/07
Posts: 8,016
Loc: New England, USA
Last seen: 9 years, 5 months
|
|
sometimes when i'm happy.. or even when i'm sad.. i do things for people where i don't recieve anything at all except a smile or a thanks.
however, i like people to think good of me.. so maybe i receive that? but i also love to see people smile. i especially love cheering people up.
when i'm really happy i naturally do all sorts of stuff for people, because i feel like a champ.
-------------------- I don't believe in cops, bosses, or politicians. Some call that anarchism. I call it having a fucking heart that beats.
|
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: igwna] 1
#7671926 - 11/23/07 06:52 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
a smile or a thanks.
however, i like people to think good of me.. so maybe i receive that?
because i feel like a champ.
There you have 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
|
igwna
The Cap'n


Registered: 06/19/07
Posts: 8,016
Loc: New England, USA
Last seen: 9 years, 5 months
|
|
:P i kinda meant when i feel like a champ, i'm nice for no reason at all just because i'm already happy and when i'm happy i want people around me to be happy.
but still. your point is still made and makes sense. you're too smart.
-------------------- I don't believe in cops, bosses, or politicians. Some call that anarchism. I call it having a fucking heart that beats.
|
NiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'


Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
|
|
Relationships are a mutual exchange. Giving endlessly without recieving the same sort of consideration in return isn't 'selfless,' it's fucked up.
Being kind for the sake of being kind is a great thing to do, but people do it because they believe it will come back to them. We enact what we want see more of. Like Sartre said, when we choose something, we choose it for the whole world.
|
JoseLibrado
return


Registered: 04/21/07
Posts: 569
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
|
Re: Social Interaction [Re: NiamhNyx]
#7672742 - 11/23/07 10:07 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
You cannot give to someone, without recieving...the reception that preceeds the gift.
Love is always. Love is there. When its yours, you wont have it. When you play with it, it will present its gift to you.
-------------------- The mind is a creative tool. It searches to protect you, through message sensations(feelings). It is no different than a computer, you need to make sure its anti-virus program is in check and that it doesnt have a script that limits your experience, because of to much precaution. And remember the computer does not appear to respond to words of anger and frustration - just give it input, in the form of new meanings that you know to be true and its messages to you and the limits it lays out for you, will change. Guilt is an outcome of believing you are the cause of the problems. Yet, we are not a cause to something, we see is negative or bad - Unless you believe your intentions are directed towards a bad outcome....
|
daytripper23
?


Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc:
|
|
On one level, everything is going to be an exchange of emotional energy between ourselves and others, so I suppose this might necessarily infer its duality. But if this might be interpreted as singular relationship, two sides of the same emotion, then it possibly is not.
Is there such thing as true selflessness? I think so.
|
NiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'


Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
|
|
Quote:
daytripper23 said:
Is there such thing as true selflessness?
I think not. 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.
Much better for each one of us to be completely self centred, as that self-love brings us towards one another honestly and openly. Only by being utterly self focused can one relate authentically to another, finding ourselves reflected in others, and give reciprocally and authentically.
"For others to interest me I must find in myself the energy for such an interest. What binds me to others must grow out of what binds me to the most exuberant and demanding part of my will to live; not the other way around. It is always myself that I am looking for in other people; my enrichment; my realization. Let everyone understand this and 'each for himself' taken to its ultimate conclusion will be transformed into 'all for each.' The freedom of one will be the freedom of all. A community which is not built on the demands of individuals and their dialectic can only reinforce the oppressive violence of Power. The Other in whom I do not find myself is nothing but a thing, and altruism leads me to the love of things, to the love of my isolation.... For myself, I recognize no equality except that which my will to live according to my desires recognizes in the will to live of others." - The Right to be Greedy: Theses on the Practical Necessity of Demanding Everything.
|
igwna
The Cap'n


Registered: 06/19/07
Posts: 8,016
Loc: New England, USA
Last seen: 9 years, 5 months
|
Re: Social Interaction [Re: NiamhNyx]
#7673119 - 11/24/07 12:55 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
i believe there is selflessness..
you can do things just to be nice without even caring about what you get in return... its just a plus that whenver you do something good, you really always get something.
-------------------- I don't believe in cops, bosses, or politicians. Some call that anarchism. I call it having a fucking heart that beats.
|
Great Scott
Trigger Lover


Registered: 05/05/03
Posts: 19,797
Loc: Control Grid
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
|
Re: Social Interaction [Re: NiamhNyx]
#7673241 - 11/24/07 01:37 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
NiamhNyx said:
Quote:
daytripper23 said:
Is there such thing as true selflessness?
I think not. 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.
Much better for each one of us to be completely self centred, as that self-love brings us towards one another honestly and openly. Only by being utterly self focused can one relate authentically to another, finding ourselves reflected in others, and give reciprocally and authentically.
"For others to interest me I must find in myself the energy for such an interest. What binds me to others must grow out of what binds me to the most exuberant and demanding part of my will to live; not the other way around. It is always myself that I am looking for in other people; my enrichment; my realization. Let everyone understand this and 'each for himself' taken to its ultimate conclusion will be transformed into 'all for each.' The freedom of one will be the freedom of all. A community which is not built on the demands of individuals and their dialectic can only reinforce the oppressive violence of Power. The Other in whom I do not find myself is nothing but a thing, and altruism leads me to the love of things, to the love of my isolation.... For myself, I recognize no equality except that which my will to live according to my desires recognizes in the will to live of others." - The Right to be Greedy: Theses on the Practical Necessity of Demanding Everything.
I think so. But it would require some faith maybe?
--------------------
|
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: igwna] 1
#7673253 - 11/24/07 01:41 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
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.
--------------------
   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:
I think so. But it would require some faith maybe? 
What does faith have to do with 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
|
Great Scott
Trigger Lover


Registered: 05/05/03
Posts: 19,797
Loc: Control Grid
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
|
|
Ehh, nevermind...
--------------------
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs



Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
|
|
--------------------
   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
|
Merkin
neep.



Registered: 07/04/03
Posts: 27,537
Loc: Ass Flavoured Pie Factory
|
|
If this was in another sense a question asking whether we're selfish creatures, then yes, yes we are. We are born selfish. The genes within us are selfish.
-------------------- Wheels of cheese wheeels of cheeeeese!!!
|
Merkin
neep.



Registered: 07/04/03
Posts: 27,537
Loc: Ass Flavoured Pie Factory
|
Re: Social Interaction [Re: Merkin]
#7673293 - 11/24/07 01:53 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
so next time you come screaming about how fucking self centered I am, or egocentric I am, remember what I said, cos I can't fucking help it alright?
-------------------- Wheels of cheese wheeels of cheeeeese!!!
|
NiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'


Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
|
Re: Social Interaction [Re: Merkin]
#7673309 - 11/24/07 01:57 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Being self-centred and caring for others are not mutually exclusive orientations. To requote the quote I already posted: "Let everyone understand this and 'each for himself' taken to its ultimate conclusion will be transformed into 'all for each.'"
|
NiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'


Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
|
Re: Social Interaction [Re: Merkin] 1
#7673329 - 11/24/07 02:05 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Merkin said: so next time you come screaming about how fucking self centered I am, or egocentric I am, remember what I said, cos I can't fucking help it alright?
There is a difference between egoism, and being an asshole. Egoism is inherently self-reflective, and assholery is inherently self-denying/avoidant. The asshole attempts to dominate and hoard because they feel powerless and afraid. The self-reflective egoist is willing to own up to thier shit and move past it, as it is, of course, in thier own interest to do so. The egoist is better able to have authentic relationships because they are more aware of themselves, thier desires, and their need to share and find themselves reflected in others. It is delightful to engage authentically.
When I say "egoist" I do not mean "egoTist" or Machiavellian.
|
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.
|
Boundless
Stranger
Registered: 01/04/06
Posts: 38
Last seen: 15 years, 11 months
|
|
If you like to sow, then sow, just be mindful to pick good seeds.
|
daytripper23
?


Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc:
|
Re: Social Interaction [Re: Boundless]
#7674061 - 11/24/07 10:12 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Jeez dude, not everything is an agenda.
Edited by daytripper23 (11/24/07 10:21 AM)
|
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]
#7674103 - 11/24/07 10:34 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
psyka said: 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.
Both what? Both persons or what are you talking about? And what does this have to do with what we were discussing?
--------------------
   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:
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.
Of course you wouldn't feel accomplished after. I thought it was already all too obvious to point out. But maybe you forgot that there's a before death moment, the moment which coincides with the moment when you (for example) decide to give your life for the sake of somebody else. You make that decision with that feeling of accomplishment. I don't understand where I lost you here. Become honest about your intentions and leave guilt aside. Yes, guilt, because it is that feeling of guilt that we're not good enough (that we can't be like some darn hero or Jesus or who know what else) that's making us delude ourselves into thinking that some our acts might be selfless. It is not so and in the same time being selfless in not wrong. It's just reality.
Quote:
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.
I am sorry but what you just said simply doesn't have any logic. Your thinking: If I were to die for somebody and I would find in that something to make me feel good about myself, respectable or you name it, I don't see how I would do it because I would still know that we're talking about MY death happening here. May I ask you... as opposed to what? As opposed to dying for someone without feeling like a hero for example? And this would make you accept your own death more easily?  Something's not right in this chain of reasoning. 
Quote:
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.
Huh? I thought I made it clear enough that it is all about priorities. For some it is far more important to know that the one they could save will be ok, than to remain alive. We are not talking here about what one might consider the well being of a species (surviving) or other commonly accepted values of the like. We are talking about subjective well being. What makes one happier. How many choices in your life were guided by this commonly accepted definition of that's good did you make? 
Quote:
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.
Again, we're not talking about "rational" (though I would argue enough about this term too) choices. We're talking about personal, emotional, maybe even on impulse choices that people make. Which are as valid as any other, at least in the context of how they feel about it (i.e. accomplished).
--------------------
   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
|
Re: Social Interaction [Re: shakercee] 1
#7674152 - 11/24/07 10:56 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
shakercee said: 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.
No, this might be an example of being not so intelligent.  However, I don't consider it a selfless act, for all the reasons that I stated 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
|
daytripper23
?


Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc:
|
|
my point was, that in self sacrifice, sometime in between the point that you decide you are going to go through with it, and when you finally do it, your going to have to come to terms with your non-existance, so how could you do this selfishly?
|
daytripper23
?


Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc:
|
|
Quote:
For some it is far more important to know that the one they could save will be ok, than to remain alive.
This can easily be percieved as selflessness.
Quote:
Again, we're not talking about "rational" (though I would argue enough about this term too) choices.
But I am. Who says that emotions and instincts are not rational? All rationalities eventually tie back to our will of life, which is completely emotional and instinctual. Our rationalities are completely based upon these states.
Edited by daytripper23 (11/24/07 11:09 AM)
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs



Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
|
|
Huh?  Because exactly of that feeling that you're doing the right thing, this is the inflation of the self. Everything we do, we do it with the perspective of our own death, even we choose to acknowledge it or not. What should be the difference in this case?
--------------------
   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:
Huh?  Because exactly of that feeling that you're doing the right thing
This does not make sense to me...
Quote:
this is the inflation of the self.
Quote:
Everything we do, we do it with the perspective of our own death, even we choose to acknowledge it or not. What should be the difference in this case?
I am arguing there should be a difference? In what case? I assure you that your posts are equally incomprehensable as mine
Edited by daytripper23 (11/24/07 11:20 AM)
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs



Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
|
|
Dude, you say that you can't do a selfless act when it comes to picking your own death. You've been saying that for quite a while, each time in a different form but the argument was the same. Each time I answered you on how this happens and you still as the same question. This discussion is leading nowhere in this manner.
--------------------
   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:
|
|
Ok forget all that.
Quote:
For some it is far more important to know that the one they could save will be ok, than to remain alive.
You seem to think that when they do this, they necessarily do it in order to feel good, therefore this, like all action is selfish.
Edited by daytripper23 (11/24/07 11:58 AM)
|
daytripper23
?


Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc:
|
|
Again:
Quote:
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.
In this sense everything is like you say, selfish. I understood that this logic is flawless from the get go.
But it is up to us to possibly question what the true self actually is. Perhaps the true concept of self, confounds any previously determined secular notion of it. I think thats all I can really say.
|
NiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'


Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
|
|
Quote:
MushmanTheManic said:
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.)
There are several major flaws with this dilemma. The first is that the prisoners are not in communication, they are not able to discuss the situation with one another,neither did they discuss anything before as there was no real situation they were involved in.
The second is that anyone with half a brain knows never to trust a cop, and would know that it is never in thier best interest to rat. If they were doing anything illegal with another person, they would also hopefully have a significant degree of trust in the other person and believe that thier friend would have thier back. It is in one's own self interest to be a trustworthy friend and accomplice. Being a weak little rat would damage one's social relationships, so even if they didn't end up in the slammer they would come home to nothing but animosity and distrust which, depending on the severity of the friend's punishment, would cause them to have lost all social support.
There are also a number of real life examples of how cooperation did not help the rats, and holding true and keeping thier mouth shut benefitted the other defendants. See the "Green Scare". The rats went down for years, and the others either got off clean, or if they were sentenced got similar terms as the rats. Those who held strong also have a great deal more support and the trust of thier communities.
Also, people playing this game don't have any real stakes, it's a game. Games are about winning and there are no consequences from the way one chooses to play. It isn't real life. I can be competitive and dominating in a game, but in real life I strongly believe that it is in my own best interest to have trusting, cooperative relationships. I am satisfied and fulfilled by relating to others.
|
shakercee
Atheistic Mystic



Registered: 04/08/07
Posts: 606
Loc: Here and there
Last seen: 10 years, 11 months
|
Re: Social Interaction [Re: NiamhNyx]
#7674338 - 11/24/07 12:12 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Let's hope that there is no one like Jigsaw (Saw movies) for the whom the line between a game and real life blurs.
-------------------- 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
|
shakercee
Atheistic Mystic



Registered: 04/08/07
Posts: 606
Loc: Here and there
Last seen: 10 years, 11 months
|
|
Quote:
No, this might be an example of being not so intelligent. 
Yep, he let his emotions get the better of reason. Unfortunately an outlook that is all too common in societies. Some dubious men become national heroes.
-------------------- 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
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger


Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
Re: Social Interaction [Re: Merkin]
#7674646 - 11/24/07 01:53 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Merkin said: 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".
Do you understand the concept of a "selfish gene" or are you ethologically illiterate? Either you're refering to the concept of "selfish genes" or a gene for selfishness. Regardless, in both cases, you are incorrect.
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger


Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
Re: Social Interaction [Re: NiamhNyx]
#7674660 - 11/24/07 01:59 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
NiamhNyx said:
Quote:
MushmanTheManic said:
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.)
There are several major flaws with this dilemma. The first is that the prisoners are not in communication, they are not able to discuss the situation with one another,neither did they discuss anything before as there was no real situation they were involved in.
The second is that anyone with half a brain knows never to trust a cop, and would know that it is never in thier best interest to rat. If they were doing anything illegal with another person, they would also hopefully have a significant degree of trust in the other person and believe that thier friend would have thier back. It is in one's own self interest to be a trustworthy friend and accomplice. Being a weak little rat would damage one's social relationships, so even if they didn't end up in the slammer they would come home to nothing but animosity and distrust which, depending on the severity of the friend's punishment, would cause them to have lost all social support.
There are also a number of real life examples of how cooperation did not help the rats, and holding true and keeping thier mouth shut benefitted the other defendants. See the "Green Scare". The rats went down for years, and the others either got off clean, or if they were sentenced got similar terms as the rats. Those who held strong also have a great deal more support and the trust of thier communities.
Also, people playing this game don't have any real stakes, it's a game. Games are about winning and there are no consequences from the way one chooses to play. It isn't real life. I can be competitive and dominating in a game, but in real life I strongly believe that it is in my own best interest to have trusting, cooperative relationships. I am satisfied and fulfilled by relating to others.
This all seems non-sequitur.
|
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: shakercee]
#7674673 - 11/24/07 02:02 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
shakercee said:
Quote:
No, this might be an example of being not so intelligent. 
Yep, he let his emotions get the better of reason. Unfortunately an outlook that is all too common in societies. Some dubious men become national heroes.
Yup, that's pretty much the history of mankind.
--------------------
   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
|
mushroomplume
Stranger

Registered: 10/16/06
Posts: 1,395
Last seen: 14 years, 19 days
|
|
My take on this whole shabang is this:
Selflessness is an illusion and so is the idea that all of our actions are motivated by what is in our best interest.
I do not think there is another and I do not think there is an I. I think there is only one. When we give to others, we are actually giving to ourselves.
None of us look at a leaf and think that it is driven by its self-interest. What it gains, the plant does, the well-being of the plant dictates the well-being of leaf.
I think we are all tied together and the idea of helping "another" or doing something for "us" is just a misconception. Whenever we start viewing the world in terms of us and others, it just doesn't add up logically, we are inherently tied together.
That's just my two cents.
|
NiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'


Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
|
|
Quote:
MushmanTheManic said:
This all seems non-sequitur.
No it doesn't. There is a difference between playing a game and living life. There are no consequences to the manner in which on plays a game, there are consequences in the manner in which one lives life. Therefore, the strategy one may choose when playing the "prisoner's dilemma" will likely be different than the strategy chosen in an authentic situation.
|
daytripper23
?


Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc:
|
|
Nevermind.
Edited by daytripper23 (11/24/07 05:18 PM)
|
mushroomplume
Stranger

Registered: 10/16/06
Posts: 1,395
Last seen: 14 years, 19 days
|
|
Quote:
Then isn't the real illusion our ordinary conception of the self?
I think so.
Quote:
Isn't selfishness in an ordinary sense just as much of an illusion as selflessness by these parameters?
That's what I hope came out of my last post.
---
There is a lot of confusion in this thread, mainly in due to the part I think, that we do not understand what the self actually is. We keep thinking in terms of I and them.
Mushroomtrip has realized that selflessness is impossible. Even when we seemingly offer ourselves to the world, we have still gotten something in return. A sense of doing the right thing. We can't be selfless or selfish because we are the world. When we help others, we help ourselves.
That's my current position, it could change, maybe...?
|
daytripper23
?


Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc:
|
|
Right on, I miss read.
|
a_guy_named_ai
Stranger

Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 767
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
|
|
Certain "selfish" mechanisms are being blamed here for enticing love.
There's the desire to be loved in return. There's the desire to to good and feel good according to ones value system.
And this is all true. But there is other love that is indeed selfless.
For instance there are moments of compassion, or mercy, where you would instinctively reach out and have a desire to help, with no regard for your reward or what the person thinks or will think of you.
For instance someone is about to get hit by a car, so you run quick to save them, feeling danger for that person. It's an immediate response that brings out unpremeditated compassion for that person.
But it's not limited to momentary acts of compassion either. For instance, taking care of a small animal that's not very intelligent a pet insect for instance or perhaps even a mouse. You want to take care of it and don't want it to be in pain for it's sake. The animal isn't smart enough to give you thanks and you don't know if it will ever be able to, but you feed it and care for it and feel worried for it when it's in the way of danger.
There is also someone you love so very much, that they cause you to love them so much that you love them more than your own life.
And there is someone you care about so much that you die for them.
Someone you love so much, they are your heart to you. That is pure love.
There is selfless love, and it's a beautiful thing. It doesn't mean though, that other types of motivations for loving someone can't be going on also. They are all natural functions of a healthy person.
Edited by jonathan_206 (11/24/07 09:44 PM)
|
shakercee
Atheistic Mystic



Registered: 04/08/07
Posts: 606
Loc: Here and there
Last seen: 10 years, 11 months
|
|
I agree with most of what you said, but i would add a caveat.
Compassion with discretion.
What if someone sends a email describing so and so is in desparate need of money for an operation, and you respond without thinking, letting the natural function overide common sense. People have been conned like this, con men feeding on peoples gulliblity.
-------------------- 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
|
a_guy_named_ai
Stranger

Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 767
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
|
Re: Social Interaction [Re: shakercee]
#7676374 - 11/24/07 11:00 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
What if someone sends a email describing so and so is in desparate need of money for an operation, and you respond without thinking, letting the natural function overide common sense. People have been conned like this, con men feeding on peoples gulliblity.
It's true. We must have discretion. But there are also times when we should put our safety on the line, just as you might wish for someone else.
I would also like to add, that the bible commands us to love selflessly. I don't think many people think about it, but to love someone else as your own life annuls any selfishness you might possibly have. How can you be selfish for anything when you love him just as much as you love yourself?
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger


Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
Re: Social Interaction [Re: NiamhNyx]
#7680163 - 11/25/07 11:07 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
NiamhNyx said:
Quote:
MushmanTheManic said:
This all seems non-sequitur.
No it doesn't. There is a difference between playing a game and living life. There are no consequences to the manner in which on plays a game, there are consequences in the manner in which one lives life. Therefore, the strategy one may choose when playing the "prisoner's dilemma" will likely be different than the strategy chosen in an authentic situation.
I gave you a situation were rational self-interest resulted in both individuals achieving less than they could have if they acted altruistically. Imagining a different situation in which rational self-interest leads to a positive outcome for both members does not refute that there are a number of situations in which rational self-interest creates negative consequences for one or more individuals.
Lets examine the flaws you saw in the Prisoner's dilemma:
Quote:
The first is that the prisoners are not in communication
I do not see how this is a flaw. When questioning prisoners it is routine to not allow them to communicate with others involved in the same crime.
Quote:
The second is that anyone with half a brain knows never to trust a cop, and would know that it is never in thier best interest to rat.
I can think of many situations where it would be in ones self-interest to rat.
Quote:
Being a weak little rat would damage one's social relationships, so even if they didn't end up in the slammer they would come home to nothing but animosity and distrust which, depending on the severity of the friend's punishment, would cause them to have lost all social support.
First, this is assuming one's friends would know that one ratted. Secondly, I personally know a number of people that have been police informants and none of them have experienced what you describe here.
Quote:
Also, people playing this game don't have any real stakes, it's a game.
The game is just an illustration.
|
Boots
Disenchanted


Registered: 07/25/07
Posts: 1,137
Loc: Northwood, Ohio, U.S.A.
Last seen: 15 years, 2 months
|
Re: Social Interaction [Re: NiamhNyx]
#7680819 - 11/26/07 07:48 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I agree with MushroomTrip.
|
Clean
the lense


Registered: 05/11/03
Posts: 2,374
|
Re: Social Interaction [Re: NiamhNyx]
#7681256 - 11/26/07 10:24 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
NiamhNyx said: Being self-centred and caring for others are not mutually exclusive orientations. To requote the quote I already posted: "Let everyone understand this and 'each for himself' taken to its ultimate conclusion will be transformed into 'all for each.'"
i think you've touched on a key point here. people go around preaching "Service To Others vs. Service To Self" as though you should just forget about yourself. imo this is a dreadful mistake. often one can create more harm than good by constantly "serving others" if they have not first come to terms with, and have a healthy relationship with the self. the idea of Service to Others becomes a mask, a quick fix in order to feel that one is doing good when it is mainly an excuse to ignore one's own inner conflict.
we think of all kinds of feel-good ways to "help" other people, but it takes a really keen sense to know how to best help another in a way that will have a positive long-term impact. we like to envision "help" as always being nice and coddling the other's feelings, when in fact sometimes the most effective assistance comes in the form of telling someone what they don't want to hear. sometimes the best help is to do nothing and allow a person to figure shit out for themselves.
Edited by Clean (11/26/07 10:35 AM)
|
NiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'


Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
|
Re: Social Interaction [Re: Clean]
#7681352 - 11/26/07 10:59 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Thank you, Clean! You understood and elaborated what I was getting at, and put it in terms people might be a bit more receptive to. 
I used to be the most self-sacrificial neurotic freakshow ever, and then I realized that it wasn't shameful to take care of myself, and in fact the only way I could ever help anyone else was to get myself together and be strong and healthy. That is the number one task all of us are faced with. We can't help anyone else unless we love and help ourselves primarily. We aren't even capable of knowing what help is until we treat ourselves to it.
|
cube talk
Stranger

Registered: 10/11/07
Posts: 1,223
Last seen: 1 month, 12 days
|
Re: Social Interaction [Re: NiamhNyx]
#7681355 - 11/26/07 11:01 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I hardly ever recieve anything out of a social interaction. I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that man needs some sort of interaction because without it.. lifes pretty tasteless
--------------------
|
Clean
the lense


Registered: 05/11/03
Posts: 2,374
|
Re: Social Interaction [Re: NiamhNyx]
#7681389 - 11/26/07 11:09 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
well you're welcome always a pleasure.
i've been chewing on this issue for a couple years now ever since i was introduced to the service to self / service to others paradigm that is all the rage in "new agey" literature. i eventually came to this conclusion we are talking about. you will not find too many "channelers" and spiritual gurus saying this because it is not as happy and rainbow filled as our ideas of what it means to be in service to others. encouraging people to come to terms with their inner demons is not a good way to sell books and tickets to weekend seminars.
|
machination
Stranger
Registered: 09/17/07
Posts: 705
Loc: Hringhorni
|
|
i suppose its all a matter of perception is a nice way of how id describe what id describe as a predicament, but perhaps thereis no struggle
-------------------- "Have you not learned that your word is bond? Yes, my word is bond and bond is life, I shall give my life, before my word shall fail."
|
|