Such thing as true altruism?

[AThingForCashmere]

Originally Posted by brandall10

How is selfishness negative? I think having children is a wonderful thing. But it is far from selfless.
How would you know? By studying your navel?

Unless you've been through it, you're utterly clueless.

 

[bach]

Originally Posted by JonHecht

but you are claiming that at no point in their lives (nor anyone else's!) did they ever act altruistically.
Correctamundo! 1. Altruism is being truly selfless 2. Every act is, on some level, motivated by self interest C. Therefore, there are no altruistic acts. Your gut reaction is probably like "O my gawddd, he's saying Ghandi wasn't altruistic??!?", but it's just because of the way we're defining altruism. It's not to say people like Ghandi, MLK, etc, didn't have any concern for others.

 

[brandall10]

Originally Posted by AThingForCashmere

Jon, it goes far beyond that. This mentality is the result of a complete absence of love in one's life: loving no one and having no one love you. Existence becomes nothing more than a web of infinite selfishness for such people.

Guys, I thought this was supposed to be a discussion/argument.

Attributing qualities to the participants is not really forwarding things. Or is it you just wanted your own viewpoints to be justified, the choir to sing only your tune?

 

[bach]

Originally Posted by brandall10

Guys, I thought this was supposed to be a discussion/argument. Attributing qualities to the participants is not really forwarding things. Or is it you just wanted your own viewpoints to be justified, the choir to sing only your tune?
I agree, that dude needs to STFU or say something useful.

 

[JonHecht]

Originally Posted by bach

2. Every act is, on some level, motivated by self interest
Can you justify this in some way that is (theoretically) falsifiable? Or are we taking it as an axiom? If the latter, then we have nothing to talk about and we can simply agree that our foundational assumptions are different, therefore we will come to different conclusions. Edit: Though I must wonder about those who jump in front of an oncoming vehicle to save a stranger.

 

[brandall10]

Originally Posted by AThingForCashmere

How would you know? By studying your navel?

Yes, I did. Thanks for reminding me.

 

[AThingForCashmere]

Originally Posted by brandall10

Guys, I thought this was supposed to be a discussion/argument.

Attributing qualities to the participants is not really forwarding things. Or is it you just wanted your own viewpoints to be justified, the choir to sing only your tune?

The point is, people who have love in their lives know perfectly well that true selflessness exists. For God's sake, look at how ants react when their nest is attacked, or when they need to cross a stream of water. Without hesitation they give up their individual lives for the sake of the nest.

And this is just blind natural instinct. Humans are capable of infinitely greater acts of true selflessness.

 

[bach]

Originally Posted by JonHecht

Edit: Though I must wonder about those who jump in front of an oncoming vehicle to save a stranger.
Because they think it's their duty, that they're obligated to help someone in need. And to go against that code would leave them feeling guilty or angry with themselves. They act in order to keep feeling good about themselves. BTW, I don't know if I really believe that, just keeping up the other side of the argument lol.

 

[JonHecht]

Originally Posted by bach

Because they think it's their duty, that they're obligated to help someone in need. And to go against that code would leave them feeling guilty or angry with themselves. They act in order to keep feeling good about themselves.
Hah, perhaps I'm the selfish one, but I'd rather feel bad about myself for a week or a month and be alive than be dead permanently.

 

[brandall10]

Originally Posted by AThingForCashmere

The point is, people who have love in their lives know perfectly well that true selflessness exists. For God's sake, look at how ants react when their nest is attacked, or when they need to cross a stream of water. Without hesitation they give up their individual lives for the sake of the nest. And this is just blind natural instinct. Humans are capable of infinitely greater acts of true selflessness.
Awesome, something of substance. "The point is, people who have love in their lives know perfectly well that true selflessness exists. " They do? You speak for them all, do you? Even when we talk about the heros of the world, are they not in some sense acting to their identity? And for those who lead far from heroic lives but have the off chance heroic transgression, are they not acting in the human spirit, which they do have some self-interest in? Why the need for things to be so black/white? Everyone has an ego, but some are bigger and more constricting than others. The biggest problem I see is introducing the idea of morality into this - selfish = bad, selfless = good. It just doesn't work that way. RE: ants - that's a concept called swarm intelligence. Essentially, an ant colony, beehive, flock of geese, etc, is a higher order construct, that has its own intelligence that goes beyond the individual constituents. With people, we have communities, cultures, nations, humanity, etc, that exist at different levels, all with varying degrees of order and coupling. If one identifies with one of these groups, and they act in accordance with the success of that group, they are still placating their ego to some degree.

 

[MetroStyles]

Perhaps Osho's writing on selfishness will help illuminate what some of us are saying.

Osho wrote: "Selfishness is natural. Yes, there comes a moment when you are sharing by being selfish. When you are in a state of overflowing joy, then you can share. Right now miserable people are helping other miserable people, the blind leading others who are blind. What help can you give? It is a very dangerous idea, which has prevailed throughout the centuries." "...I am not against sharing, but I am absolutely against altruism. I am for sharing, but first you must have something to share."

And

This is perversion! This is the unreal personality speaking to you. The unreal personality is always against enjoying anything. It is always against you: you must not enjoy. It is always for sacrificing things, for your sacrificing yourself for others. It looks beautiful because you have been brought up in it: "Sacrifice yourself for others." This is altruism. If you are trying to enjoy yourself this is selfish. And the moment someone says, "This is selfish," it becomes a sin.

But I tell you, tantra is a basically different approach. Tantra says that unless you can enjoy yourself you cannot help anyone to enjoy. Unless you are really contented with yourself, you cannot serve others; you cannot help others toward their contentment. Unless you are overflowing with your own bliss you are a danger to society, because a person who sacrifices always becomes a sadist. If your mother goes on talking to you and says that "I have sacrificed myself for you," she will torture you. If the husband goes on saying to the wife that "I am sacrificing," he will be a sadistic torturer. He will torture because sacrifice is just a trick to torture the other.

So those who are always sacrificing are very dangerous - potentially dangerous. Be aware of them, and do not sacrifice. The very word is ugly. Enjoy yourself; be bliss-filled. And when you are overflowing with your own bliss, that bliss will reach to others also. But that is not a sacrifice. No one is obliged to you; no one needs to thank you. Rather, you will feel grateful to others because they have been participating in your bliss. Words like ′sacrifice′, ′duty′, ′service′ are ugly; they are violent. Tantra says that unless you are filled with light, how can you help others to be enlightened?

Be selfish, only then can you be altruistic. Otherwise the whole concept of altruism is nonsense. Be happy; only then can you help others to be happy. If you are sad, unhappy, bitter, you are going to be violent with others and you will create misery for others.
You may become a Mahatma, a so-called great saint; that is not very difficult. But look at your Mahatmas. They are trying in every way to torture everyone who comes to them, but their torturing is very deceptive. They torture you for your own sake; they torture you for your own good. And because they are torturing themselves you cannot say to them, "you are preaching something to us which you are not practicing." They are already practicing it. They are torturing themselves; now they can torture you. And when a torture is for your own good, that is the most dangerous torture: you cannot escape it.
And what is wrong with enjoying yourself? What is wrong in being happy? If there is anything wrong it is always in your unhappiness, because an unhappy person creates ripples of unhappiness all around him. Be happy! And the sex act, the act of love, can be one of the deepest means through which bliss can be attained.

 

[JonHecht]

Originally Posted by brandall10

Awesome, something of substance.

Well now I'm feeling ignored.

Either that or my arguments are being dismissed as insubstantial, in which case I would appreciate a clean refutation so that I may correct my foolish behavior.

 

[bach]

Originally Posted by JonHecht

Well now I'm feeling ignored.

Either that or my arguments are being dismissed as insubstantial, in which case I would appreciate a clean refutation so that I may correct my foolish behavior.

I think you're reading into it too much, dude's just e-fighting with the other guy and was obviously sarcastic. I'd like to stay and think about it more, but I have serious **** to do.

 

[globetrotter]

Originally Posted by Dakota rube

Every single day. I like the idea of random acts of kindness.

Why wouldn't I?

damn right.

rube is a good man, we should all try to be more like him.


I try to carry out the occasional good deed. I certainly do things like help old ladies and people with kids and so on when they need the door held, that is jsut part of being a gentleman. I give to charity, and I serve in a soup kitchen several times a year. do I get anything from it? I admit that I feel it contributes to my children's education, and that I get a good feeling from it.

a big part of being in the military is being "altruistic" about a lot of things. but, to be honest, I think that the benifit that your character gets from shrinking your ego to the smallest possible unit for a time is immense.

 

[JonHecht]

Eh, I was just being sarcastic due to the fact that I think this has changed from something that had potential to be a philosophical debate to a thread full of silly claims in which legitimate arguments are ignored, because they might harm one's beliefs. Have a great day.