Ignorance or Knowledge

**rezo** · 15 Oct 2004, 03:37 AM

I consider selfish being something done for the sake of yourself. In some cases it's negative perhaps, like if it's at the expense of someone else or something, but in most cases it isn't. =|

**Fe 26** · 15 Oct 2004, 03:50 AM

Originally Posted by rezo

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

I don't really know how to explain it to you. I'm simply stating the end result of my observations. Asking me to explain my argument is like asking me to explain to you why people can see in a select number of colors. I don't know the reason why I just know that it does from my observations.

Originally Posted by rezo

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.

You continue to try to debunk my argument but you have yet to put forth a good counter argument. If you want me to consider what you are saying you are going to have to come up with something better than "some other reason"

You have also continued to ignore the third and forth parts of the original post you are arguing against. The part that talked about how awareness and intelligence make us realize that we are connected to others, and extend our selfishness to include the needs of others.

Originally Posted by rezo

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. =|

So you are admitting that you are limiting you argument to top layer decision making skills? I'm talking about the bare-bones way the mind works. How it chooses between things, not only about inner dialog. I’m not saying everyone sets down and thinks out every little way something can benefit them. I’m talking about something much more basic.

And dude, please use paragraph form. You are going to kill me with those books you keep posting.

**rezo** · 15 Oct 2004, 04:31 AM

It's not limiting. You can't define the scope of subconcious thought as limited to purely selfish behavior. At best you can only look at that as a possibility, and so it isn't grounds to say that everything is selfish. And I'll admit that freely, but that's not where the disagreement is. Unless you have a way to explain how you know everyone at a subconcious level is being selfish then it's not a point that can be pressed at all.

If you want me to consider what you are saying you are going to have to come up with something better than "some other reason"

You provided an example of someone acting to meet their expectations of what sort of person they want to be. To prove themselves to themselves, so "some other reason" would be any reason someone would have that doesn't involve proving themselves to themselves. Which is why I mentioned someone that was confident in their self image and wouldn't need feel the need to prove anything to themselves. From your position, you have to find a universal selfish reason that exists for everyone in all scenarios, and you'd have to explain why that reason must exist in all scenarios. Otherwise, any reason that is contrary to the one you provided counts as a proof that you're wrong.

Your own use of the phrase "many men" counts against your argument unless by "many" you meant "all". I shouldn't have to say what "some reason" is since anything that isn't what you said will do. From acting because he's saving a pregnant woman and can't bear to see her die without giving birth to any other number of reasons. I shouldn't have to make a list. The onus is on you to explain why one reason is absolute.

You have also continued to ignore the third and forth parts of the original post you are arguing against.

I don't quote everything but that doesn't mean I'm intentionally ignoring anything.If you want me to address anything I may have missed just point me to it. But selfishness can't be extended to include the needs of others. Selfish acts are done for the self. If you're including something done for others as selfish it's warping the meaning unnecessarily. It'd be like saying that selfless was also extended to the self and so doing something for yourself would be a selfless act. What you call the extension of selfishness is actually the relinquishing of selfishness... since selfishness is acting for the self and you're talking about intelligence causing us to also act for the sake of others =|

And if you don't know how to explain your own point of view, it's not surprising that someone talking to you doesn't understand it. A conclusion could be supported by any number of explanations. Just hearing the conclusion on it's own is worth very little. I was aware of the idea that everyone is selfish before talking to you, and I've heard arguments by people that could explain why they thought that before I started talking to you, and most of them had different ways they took towards reaching the same end. Some more sound than others.

**Cowutopia** · 15 Oct 2004, 04:38 AM

Go to bed, guys. Come on. You probably have things to do in the morning. This thread will be here.

**Rocca** · 15 Oct 2004, 03:13 PM

Knowledge I guess, although ignorance would be suitable as well cause "What they don't know cant hurt em". But knowledge would be better so I could learn from my mistakes, unlike in Eternal Sunshine when Joel and Clementine are wusses and forget everything. Relations like that have to happen for, oh what's it called...Experience!

+1 Knowledge.