Ignorance or Knowledge

[Cowutopia]

Maybe that is why they seem to do so much better than Christians. They don't have all that self hate.

But they have 90 times the guilt! j/k. I've never condsidered this before though. guess the whole concept of Jewish guilt comes from that philosophy, that when they err they can't blame it on their nature, it's all on them.

I have a reaaaallly long reply cooking in response to Rezo's post, but I'll let it wait until after the concert tonight. Maybe I'll even put it up somewhere else and then link to it if it's too long.

Right now I'm just thrilled that there's a serious, intellectual discussion occuring on the TNL boards that hasn't been marred by any trolling. Yet.

[Fe 26]

I don't think selflessness is ruled out simply because everything we do is something we want to do for a reason. If you want to do something for the sake of someone else, then it's selfless. Whether or not you are happy that you've done something for them doesn't negate that unless you do it for that reason and not for them. It's rather like the question at the beginning of this topic. If you did not feel good about doing a "good" deed and so forth, would you still consider it something that ought to be done? I believe there are plenty of people that would answer that with a yes, and I believe there are people that sacrifice themselves or put themselves through torment for the sake of other people. Giving up your life to save someone isn't an unselfless act simply because you want the other person to live. You wanting that other person to live is the reason why you would perform a selfless act. Saving them so that you can be remembered as a hero is a different story, perhaps. 's how I look at it.

But why are they doing such a thing? They either do it to avoid a negative or to achieve a positive. Normal sain people don't just run around doing crap with no emotional attatchment for what they are doing.

It is attachment, a sense for the greater good, love, and being aware of others that turn selfishness into something positive. You go from being motivated to ONLY help yourself, to feeling and thinking like you are part of a community.

I wonder how aware people who argue other wise, are of why they do anything.

[rezo]

I never said they did something with no emotional attachment or care for what they're doing. Whatever reason they have is the reason why they do something selfless. Follow me: A selfless act is not an act done for no reason. It is an act that is done for the sake of someone else for a reason that is staked in the welfare or benefit of that other person and not oneself. Maybe they love them, maybe they love everybody, maybe they hate everybody but stubbornly think they ought to help people regardless, it doesn't matter. If that drives them to act for the sake of another person and not themselves, then it is selfless. Consider any types of suicide scenarios(I'm not giving them to you, create your own!) where people want to give themselves up entirely for the sake of something else if you still find the concept troubling. =|

[Fe 26]

I never said they did something with no emotional attachment or care for what they're doing. Whatever reason they have is the reason why they do something selfless. Follow me: A selfless act is not an act done for no reason. It is an act that is done for the sake of someone else for a reason that is staked in the welfare or benefit of that other person and not oneself.

They still do it for a personal reasons, regardless if they get anything physical out of it. Their motivation is selfish.

maybe they hate everybody but stubbornly think they ought to help people regardless,

You sound like Kant now.

it doesn't matter. If that drives them to act for the sake of another person and not themselves, then it is selfless.

impossible, they have a reason for doing it, and even if it is emotional, it is in some way for them. That makes it selfish

Consider any types of suicide scenarios(I'm not giving them to you, create your own!) where people want to give themselves up entirely for the sake of something else if you still find the concept troubling. =|

I can't help it if they think that no feelings are better than bad feelings. They are still doing it to end something negative. They ar doing it for themself.

[rezo]

You sound like Kant now.

Some people think like Kant,he's pretty popular and Nick carried the categorical imperative around in his wallet, so that's why I put that in the examples(though I wasn't thinking of the fellow at all when I did). Many people think in many different ways and you can't just pick one or two and lump everyone in together. Someone could help someone else for the all important reason of "BLUE!!!!"(Because they're mad, you see). Who bloody knows.

You're calling having an interest in something "doing it for themselves", even though what they are interested in is not themselves, why they are interested in it is not for their personal benefit, and what they expect to accomplish is not done for their own gain. It's a silly argument. Essentially it's just taking something someone has done and responding rotely: "that's selfish". So I'm going to repeat once again:

Selfless is not an act done for no reason. Similarly, something is not selfish simply because it is something that you want to do. Something is selfish when you want to do it for your own gain. People are interested in a wide variety of things that are not themselves, and so even though they want to do something, and are interested in doing something, it isn't selfish unless it's done for themselves. It's simple. A kid is in danger. If you save the kid because you're worried about the kid's well-being and would do anything to save him, then it's selfless. If you save the kid because you want to be seen in the papers and try to use the publicity to help your one man show, and the kid is a means to an end, it's selfish. The mere fact that you are interested in saving the kid regardless of reason, however, is not grounds to say that it's selfish. Selfish means there's a primary concern for yourself and I repeat that people do not always put themselves above others.

I can't help it if they think that no feelings are better than bad feelings. They are still doing it to end something negative. They ar doing it for themself.

I trusted you to pick a scenario and you let me down. =\ Try a suicide scenario where the person isn't killing themselves because they want to escape their "bad feelings". Try to think of one where they love life but give themselves up for the sake of something more important. That "something" that is more important doesn't make their act selfish simply because it's something they like. That promotion of something above their own wellbeing is what makes giving their life up not selfish. =|

[Fe 26]

Clearly you don't really have much of any idea of why people do anything. You're only looking at this from a purely physical perspective.

There is no such thing as a sane, purely selfless act. The doer always gets something out of it, and they know that on a conscience or sub-conscience level.

[rezo]

getting something out of it doesn't mean anything unless they do it to get that something. You're just rattling off the same conclusion over and over again, no kind of argument at all. If someone sacrifices themselves entirely the only thing thing they get is whatever they sacrificed continuing on. Which isn't something they get at all. They've given up their mind and body entirely for the sake of something else that they consider more important than themselves. Vaguely saying that there's "something" they get from that isn't any kind of counter argument. You have to say what that something is, why it applies to every scenario, and why you know the person is acting for the sake of getting that particular thing for themselves rather than it being something they simply get even though they did not act for the sake of getting it. =|

[Fe 26]

Some people think like Kant,he's pretty popular and Nick carried the categorical imperative around in his wallet, so that's why I put that in the examples(though I wasn't thinking of the fellow at all when I did). Many people think in many different ways and you can't just pick one or two and lump everyone in together. Someone could help someone else for the all important reason of "BLUE!!!!"(Because they're mad, you see). Who bloody knows.

Other than insane people, everyone thinks basically the same way. Lots of little things are different from person to person, but people still search out positives, and try to avoid negatives. Everyone is different but at some base mental level we are all very much alike.

You're calling having an interest in something "doing it for themselves", even though what they are interested in is not themselves, why they are interested in it is not for their personal benefit, and what they expect to accomplish is not done for their own gain. It's a silly argument. Essentially it's just taking something someone has done and responding rotely: "that's selfish". So I'm going to repeat once again:

A person can do something for themself with out consciencelly knowing they are. A person could place high importance on justice and doing the right thing. A person like that would help someone else out with out thinking. They would still be doing it for themself because to throw away their values would bother them. They want to be what they want to be, and by doing so, they are doing something for themself.

Selfless is not an act done for no reason.

A true selfless act is.

something is not selfish simply because it is something that you want to do.

Something is selfish when you want to do it for your own gain.

You gain in everything you decide to do, be it physical or in principle, you gain. If you achieve what you set out to do, you gain.

You are not thinking deeply enough into this.

getting something out of it doesn't mean anything unless they do it to get that something.

But they are. In everything you do, you do it for a reason. You are doing it to get something, if only to live under you own ethics.

You're just rattling off the same conclusion over and over again, no kind of argument at all.

Dude I can't make you think. I can't go into your head and make you put some deep thought into how yours feelings, values, emotions, and ideals effect each other, and how mixed with logical thinking decide the things you do.

If someone sacrifices themselves entirely the only thing thing they get is whatever they sacrificed continuing on. Which isn't something they get at all. They've given up their mind and body entirely for the sake of something else that they consider more important than themselves. Vaguely saying that there's "something" they get from that isn't any kind of counter argument. You have to say what that something is, why it applies to every scenario, and why you know the person is acting for the sake of getting that particular thing for themselves rather than it being something they simply get even though they did not act for the sake of getting it. =|

He gets to be the man he wants to be. If he does not live up to his own ideals then he loses himself. To many men, the concept of who they are, and the world that they love means more to them than their life. To that person those things mean more than life. His choices are to lose himself and the world he cares about, or to do something that could kill him.

[rezo]

Dude I can't make you think.

I'm not asking you to make me think. I was asking you to actually explain your position so that I can see what you're thinking

To many men, the concept of who they are, and the world that they love means more to them than their life.

If someone's ideas are more important than themselves than how does supporting them make their actions selfish? While he may "Be the man he wants to be", it does not mean he acted for the sake of realizing that he was such a person, or to prove anything to himself. He could simply be the type of person that would sacrifice himself and be quite assured of his nature. You're taking each possibilty and unifying them in reasoning that supports the idea of acting for their own sake when there are many other possible reasons that aren't for their own sake and very little reason to insist that it is always one over the other. Someone could act "in pursuit of a positive" without that positive being their own and they could try to stop a negative that wouldn't negatively influence them. Or they could act to protect themselves. That basic idea you're repeatedly touting does not make every act selfish.

The entire idea of "no selflessness" is often based on the idea that because someone wants to do something, it is selfish. And perhaps there is also the idea that because someone benefits from something, they acted to gain that benefit. I've said that since the beginning, and I'm assuming you agree if you think that the only selfless act is one that is acted on without any personal interest, but that's not what selfless or selfish is based on. They're not based on simply wanting to do something,They're actually based on why you want to do something. There is no defining the self-concious "why" because it could be literally anything and isn't up to direct judgement. But the concious decisions of why is much easier to see and there are plenty of situations where you can imagine someone doing something for someone else while putting themselves entirely at risk for the sake of the other person.Not because they want to uphold a certain self-image. they may already have a sufficient enough ego to be satisfied with themselves and that sort of character may be what allows them to act, and not something they still feel they have to prove to themselves.You can't argue against that by lumping every single person in every single scenario into a group that chooses fairly particular reasons to act that serve themselves. =|

[Fe 26]

question, do you consider being selfish a negative thing?

we may have different ideas of the meaning of the word.