Self centered human
0
"Everything we do, consciously or not, is always for our own benefit or to preserve a condition that is favorable to us"
Even at times when it 'seems' we are merely doing it for the benefit of another, in our minds - we have arrived at the decision because it satisfies a need or prevents trouble or hassle for us.
Charity for example, what benefit would you get out of throwing money away - there can be a lot, personal pride and gratification, believing the religious idea that charity helps you earn a place in heaven, its not about the beggar its... you. It may even be just about tax deductions
Even at times when we are doing the seemingly opposite, like getting drunk or drugged up, why do we? maybe at the time the need for the feeling it brings is more important to us (much more) than the others, like dealing with grief or youre stressed out and you need to relax big time.
Im not saying that we 'always' lead to the right conclusions that they really do benefit us, what im saying is our heads thought they were and so we did/will do them - relative to the person performing the action.
Humans, have complicated and multiple needs with varying degrees of importance from person to person, and I guess thats what makes it hard to see this.
I actually am against this idea, but I am still yet to find a way of proving it wrong and so I ask
Even at times when it 'seems' we are merely doing it for the benefit of another, in our minds - we have arrived at the decision because it satisfies a need or prevents trouble or hassle for us.
Charity for example, what benefit would you get out of throwing money away - there can be a lot, personal pride and gratification, believing the religious idea that charity helps you earn a place in heaven, its not about the beggar its... you. It may even be just about tax deductions
Even at times when we are doing the seemingly opposite, like getting drunk or drugged up, why do we? maybe at the time the need for the feeling it brings is more important to us (much more) than the others, like dealing with grief or youre stressed out and you need to relax big time.
Im not saying that we 'always' lead to the right conclusions that they really do benefit us, what im saying is our heads thought they were and so we did/will do them - relative to the person performing the action.
Humans, have complicated and multiple needs with varying degrees of importance from person to person, and I guess thats what makes it hard to see this.
I actually am against this idea, but I am still yet to find a way of proving it wrong and so I ask
0
ashcrimson wrote...
"Everything we do, consciously or not, is always for our own benefit or to preserve a condition that is favorable to us"I don't think I will ever be able to give an absolute answer to whether that's actually true or not, but I'm leaning more toward that view being bullshit.
I'd be surprised if whoever made that quote could actually back that up (the unconscious part, specifically).
0
Ive heard different versions of the idea from different people, its actually taught in school even.
I guess an action that absolutely has no possible benefit to the person but only to the receiver could work too...
I guess an action that absolutely has no possible benefit to the person but only to the receiver could work too...
0
I absolutely believe this to be 100% true.
Altruism only exists due to the short-lived kick of a warm, fuzzy feeling, and social pressure.
Substance abuse is a no-brainer. Instant gratification.
This is all basic textbook shit.
Altruism only exists due to the short-lived kick of a warm, fuzzy feeling, and social pressure.
Substance abuse is a no-brainer. Instant gratification.
This is all basic textbook shit.
0
psychological egoism
So, how to argue against this? There are a few from the wiki (the easiest to see is the circular logic involved), but I like this one, quoted from another forum:
Once upon a time, young ones, a great wizard trod the earth of England, and his name was Hobbes. Hobbes was cunning and wise, a man of prodigious talents, who saw deeper into the affairs of man the social creature than any who had come before. But though Hobbes' gaze penetrated the human state as sunlight in darkness, he was blind to the affairs of the human heart. In his blindness and ignorance did he conjure a monster, Psychological Egoism, and for over a hundred years the Kingdom of England was haunted by this beast.
'Twas a good and hearty man of God, Joseph Butler, who took up Logic, the immortal weapon of true heroes, which once had been wielded by Hobbes himself, and turned it against the foul dragon. "Begone, creature of Hobbes!" he cried. "I declare you impossible! If the only desire be that for pleasure, it can never be fulfilled! For pleasure is not a thing to be acquired from the world, but the product of mind, and the mind to experience pleasure must have some predisposition to produce it! These dispositions are none other than the desires, appetites, and interests which we call motives! A man feels no pleasure in benevolence unless he is benevolent!"
When the hero Butler finished his fifteen sermons, the dragon of Psychological Egoism lay dead at his feet. And across the land of Europe there was rejoicing in his deed. But in time, the deed of Butler were fell into obscurity, and the shadow of the beast once again darkened the hearts of men. Philosophers, with their knowledge of the words that once banished the beast, have retreated to their towers of ivory; they live in safety of the dragon, but forget those who live below.
So I come to you now, young ones, to tell you of those words, to teach you that the beast you fear is but a phantom, clawless, toothless, without form or fire. And so it ever was.
Relevant part bolded and italicized.
Basically, if a person feels pleasure from altruism, its because he's altruistic, not because of some weird logic saying that he's actually just trying to pleasure himself.
Psychological egoism is the view that humans are always motivated by self-interest, even in what seem to be acts of altruism.
So, how to argue against this? There are a few from the wiki (the easiest to see is the circular logic involved), but I like this one, quoted from another forum:
Once upon a time, young ones, a great wizard trod the earth of England, and his name was Hobbes. Hobbes was cunning and wise, a man of prodigious talents, who saw deeper into the affairs of man the social creature than any who had come before. But though Hobbes' gaze penetrated the human state as sunlight in darkness, he was blind to the affairs of the human heart. In his blindness and ignorance did he conjure a monster, Psychological Egoism, and for over a hundred years the Kingdom of England was haunted by this beast.
'Twas a good and hearty man of God, Joseph Butler, who took up Logic, the immortal weapon of true heroes, which once had been wielded by Hobbes himself, and turned it against the foul dragon. "Begone, creature of Hobbes!" he cried. "I declare you impossible! If the only desire be that for pleasure, it can never be fulfilled! For pleasure is not a thing to be acquired from the world, but the product of mind, and the mind to experience pleasure must have some predisposition to produce it! These dispositions are none other than the desires, appetites, and interests which we call motives! A man feels no pleasure in benevolence unless he is benevolent!"
When the hero Butler finished his fifteen sermons, the dragon of Psychological Egoism lay dead at his feet. And across the land of Europe there was rejoicing in his deed. But in time, the deed of Butler were fell into obscurity, and the shadow of the beast once again darkened the hearts of men. Philosophers, with their knowledge of the words that once banished the beast, have retreated to their towers of ivory; they live in safety of the dragon, but forget those who live below.
So I come to you now, young ones, to tell you of those words, to teach you that the beast you fear is but a phantom, clawless, toothless, without form or fire. And so it ever was.
Relevant part bolded and italicized.
Basically, if a person feels pleasure from altruism, its because he's altruistic, not because of some weird logic saying that he's actually just trying to pleasure himself.
0
No they could. Scientifically shown to occur. In animals this comes in true altruism, where one member of a species with no genetic relationship to another will sacrifice themselves to allow them to live (usually done for youngs).
In humans, we're by nature social animals, so we work together for the greater whole. Since working together results in a power greater than its sum, it is advantagous to preserve this. So the humans that are altruistic and socialible survived by banding together, whereas the lone wolves died.
In humans, we're by nature social animals, so we work together for the greater whole. Since working together results in a power greater than its sum, it is advantagous to preserve this. So the humans that are altruistic and socialible survived by banding together, whereas the lone wolves died.
0
x-gen wrote...
No they could. Scientifically shown to occur. In animals this comes in true altruism, where one member of a species with no genetic relationship to another will sacrifice themselves to allow them to live (usually done for youngs).In humans, we're by nature social animals, so we work together for the greater whole. Since working together results in a power greater than its sum, it is advantagous to preserve this. So the humans that are altruistic and socialible survived by banding together, whereas the lone wolves died.
Could it be reciprocal altruism? I doubt so many people were just plain altruists.
0
What the idea I guess is really the motive behind the actions where it really originates from and what its to accomplish as well
Just something to consider, pushing this to martyrdom and self sacrifice. Having a sense of self-value, purpose, self-realization is a need that we all at some point need to satisfy. To have some purpose for being alive - I think is one of the greatest if not the top.
Just as the need to have a legacy, for our will to move on beyond our death if possible.
If these can be satisfied by an act that leads to death, isnt it worth taking then, ending your life (which will end anyway), but your act/will moving on way beyond your lifespan and your value, purpose for existing established.
To be immortalized, can be more important than staying alive.
Its not always to merely feel good as well, it can go beyond mere sensations.
Just something to consider, pushing this to martyrdom and self sacrifice. Having a sense of self-value, purpose, self-realization is a need that we all at some point need to satisfy. To have some purpose for being alive - I think is one of the greatest if not the top.
Just as the need to have a legacy, for our will to move on beyond our death if possible.
If these can be satisfied by an act that leads to death, isnt it worth taking then, ending your life (which will end anyway), but your act/will moving on way beyond your lifespan and your value, purpose for existing established.
To be immortalized, can be more important than staying alive.
Its not always to merely feel good as well, it can go beyond mere sensations.
0
ashcrimson wrote...
Its not always to merely feel good as well, it can go beyond mere sensations.Not really. The motive there was to not feel bad about not leaving something behind.
0
"Everything we do, consciously or not, is always for our own benefit or to preserve a condition that is favorable to us"
I can say that deep down inside, every single action I do probably goes in accordance to that quote. Kinda sad when I realized how that quote seems to apply so well.....
Now I feel miserable, I wonder if that's just self defense mechanism humans have that they act upon consciously or unconsciously.
0
*Previous statement changed, due to change of reference
ADD, In response to RBZ:
Not really. The motive there was to not feel bad about not leaving something behind.
Well, there you go too, prevention of guilt. It can ruin peoples lives in a big way, and can even defeat/ruin our desired image/value. Just as the lines given by some, "Id rather die than to live in guilt and shame"
The point remains, even through our destruction - its the things 'we' want to happen/accomplish that matters, or at times to protect the things where our value stems from as well. Again just as how some take it as, "Without X I am nothing"
well, have to go for now.
ADD, In response to RBZ:
Not really. The motive there was to not feel bad about not leaving something behind.
Well, there you go too, prevention of guilt. It can ruin peoples lives in a big way, and can even defeat/ruin our desired image/value. Just as the lines given by some, "Id rather die than to live in guilt and shame"
The point remains, even through our destruction - its the things 'we' want to happen/accomplish that matters, or at times to protect the things where our value stems from as well. Again just as how some take it as, "Without X I am nothing"
well, have to go for now.
0
"Everything we do, consciously or not, is always for our own benefit comes from our own impetus and preserves a condition that is favorable to us is aimed for satisfaction"
Benefit is an economy effect. Deprivation/loss is not considered benefit. Non the less people limit their desires and abandon comfort for enlightenment or other noble cause. Feelings are not purposed for advantage.
Favorable is a universal notion. Your whim may be to pleasure your loved one which consequently plesures yourself but you did not bear in mind that result. Be it consciously or not, Sincerity is what kills "-ism" in our ego.
Jesus and Buddha did not save people for benefit. They were realizing their impetus which brought them through many hardships to what they are now worshiped for.
so
It is but a surface of a much more deeper relation.
Benefit is an economy effect. Deprivation/loss is not considered benefit. Non the less people limit their desires and abandon comfort for enlightenment or other noble cause. Feelings are not purposed for advantage.
Favorable is a universal notion. Your whim may be to pleasure your loved one which consequently plesures yourself but you did not bear in mind that result. Be it consciously or not, Sincerity is what kills "-ism" in our ego.
Jesus and Buddha did not save people for benefit. They were realizing their impetus which brought them through many hardships to what they are now worshiped for.
so
ashcrimson wrote...
Everything we do, consciously or not, is always for our own benefit or to preserve a condition that is favorable to usIt is but a surface of a much more deeper relation.
0
Havent seen you for a while now Old Man, still gentle I hope.
Your version does work too. And satisfaction can be quite complicated as well. Its true, this is more complicated than what it seems.
Just thinking, a husband sincerely wanting to make the wife happy. What is fueling this sincerity and where is the satisfaction coming from? Good possibilities can be security and value. Like if your wife is happy doesnt that hint to the possibility of you keeping her a bit longer? Why do you have a wife in the first place... what needs does having her satisfy. Do we say, "I just want a wife... no reason at all"?
Jesus, if he was real, by my understanding wasnt it his fathers order? But of course that is under debate still I believe. But regardless, it makes me think of a captain who sinks with his ship. Isnt it about pride and sense of duty, how one will be remembered. But sticking to him, wasnt it so his death will make people do what he wants them to in the future? His will be done.
Something else, I guess the way I see how we think is: Its like why do we eat. We dont go through our heads thinking, when I eat this apple, my stomach will dissolve it with its acid and then it will be absorbed by my... we dont always go through all that - the head most of the time just does it and gives you the ending result, otherwise we'd be stuck for ages while we process the most mundane of things. Arent our heads designed to be like that deliberately? Which is why, we often miss things until we really reflect seriously and carefully and without prejudice
Your version does work too. And satisfaction can be quite complicated as well. Its true, this is more complicated than what it seems.
Just thinking, a husband sincerely wanting to make the wife happy. What is fueling this sincerity and where is the satisfaction coming from? Good possibilities can be security and value. Like if your wife is happy doesnt that hint to the possibility of you keeping her a bit longer? Why do you have a wife in the first place... what needs does having her satisfy. Do we say, "I just want a wife... no reason at all"?
Jesus, if he was real, by my understanding wasnt it his fathers order? But of course that is under debate still I believe. But regardless, it makes me think of a captain who sinks with his ship. Isnt it about pride and sense of duty, how one will be remembered. But sticking to him, wasnt it so his death will make people do what he wants them to in the future? His will be done.
Something else, I guess the way I see how we think is: Its like why do we eat. We dont go through our heads thinking, when I eat this apple, my stomach will dissolve it with its acid and then it will be absorbed by my... we dont always go through all that - the head most of the time just does it and gives you the ending result, otherwise we'd be stuck for ages while we process the most mundane of things. Arent our heads designed to be like that deliberately? Which is why, we often miss things until we really reflect seriously and carefully and without prejudice
0
I find this debate often misses the part where you typically feel good when you do good things, and feel bad when you do bad things. Maybe you did something nice to feel good, but the fact is, doing good things causes most people to feel good. Granted, good and bad are defined by the society of the time, and in today's society witch hunting is frowned upon.
Actually this whole thing seems really pigeon hole-y. I'm thinking social interactions are more complicated then this.
Actually this whole thing seems really pigeon hole-y. I'm thinking social interactions are more complicated then this.
0
The problem of "disproving" this idea is the result of the wording of the question. You could easily reword the title of this topic to "Human Survival" and it completely changes the meaning.
What is self-centered, and a real thorn in my side, is that people keep forgetting that we are animals, and some instincts will never be completely suppressed by our being capable of Reason.
Selfishness can be beneficial for society, and as much as most other commies (i am one, to be clear)hate to admit, greed and competition have benefited society. Even Socrates alluded to this in his defense: he was accused of corrupting the youth. He quickly rebutted with, in so many words, why the hell would I do that when these are my neighbors. Why would I want to turn the people I live with into criminals, delinquents, etc.
Ooh, ooh, more reference:
What is self-centered, and a real thorn in my side, is that people keep forgetting that we are animals, and some instincts will never be completely suppressed by our being capable of Reason.
Selfishness can be beneficial for society, and as much as most other commies (i am one, to be clear)hate to admit, greed and competition have benefited society. Even Socrates alluded to this in his defense: he was accused of corrupting the youth. He quickly rebutted with, in so many words, why the hell would I do that when these are my neighbors. Why would I want to turn the people I live with into criminals, delinquents, etc.
Ooh, ooh, more reference:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
0
hai Ash, i try... sometimes :)
simply put, All the longings and strivings, no matter what, are summed in impetus. Why do they occur? from lack of satisfaction. Most people can't learn to satisfy and are always doing doing doing. Satisfied people don't do anything.
"What is fueling this sincerity?" Modesty & simplicity does.
"Where is the satisfaction coming from?" It comes from understanding.
and Jesus of history? Doesn't matter if he believed or was clear eyed, he lived according to his impetus. He may spoke anything but his action was the real deal. Pride and sense of duty are all upbringing things (cuz you did not have any when your mother gave you life).
Hardly Christ wanted to die. Any living thing does not want to die. If he had the chance to stay alive (without refusing his belief) he would've continued pacifying people, hence further realizing his impetus.
As for food i see you've mistaken Ash. You don't have to be thinking about food or what it tastes like or anything else when your eating - attention is not about thinking. It's about sensing/conscious in present second/action, without having a thought about itself. When you think - you somehow take a step from reality. That's why you hardly ever notice little things. When i said TASTE i meant it's real taste and not your thoughts about it.
Thoughts are words that articulate our impetus, but even without them we can manifest it.
simply put, All the longings and strivings, no matter what, are summed in impetus. Why do they occur? from lack of satisfaction. Most people can't learn to satisfy and are always doing doing doing. Satisfied people don't do anything.
"What is fueling this sincerity?" Modesty & simplicity does.
"Where is the satisfaction coming from?" It comes from understanding.
and Jesus of history? Doesn't matter if he believed or was clear eyed, he lived according to his impetus. He may spoke anything but his action was the real deal. Pride and sense of duty are all upbringing things (cuz you did not have any when your mother gave you life).
Hardly Christ wanted to die. Any living thing does not want to die. If he had the chance to stay alive (without refusing his belief) he would've continued pacifying people, hence further realizing his impetus.
As for food i see you've mistaken Ash. You don't have to be thinking about food or what it tastes like or anything else when your eating - attention is not about thinking. It's about sensing/conscious in present second/action, without having a thought about itself. When you think - you somehow take a step from reality. That's why you hardly ever notice little things. When i said TASTE i meant it's real taste and not your thoughts about it.
Thoughts are words that articulate our impetus, but even without them we can manifest it.
0
First off to all, its not my intention to offend anyone but to simply understand what this matter really is all about. It is relatively an offensive topic but still I hope we can talk about it without getting emotional or taking it personally ne.
-----
Old Man, what you said about satisfaction and the impetus, though our words and specifics are not the same, still I think we have the same base in the sense that its still just about the person doing the action
Modesty, I think that is very much self satisfying.
Understanding, yes theres pleasure there, after you realize that youre in a better off position, I mean sticking to the example here.
Well, so youre saying Jesus did it to satisfy himself? I mean going by my understanding of what youre saying. By the time the act of dying was up, his sense of duty and pride has already been developed right; But yes too, these things depend on your upbringing etc.
That is the thing, the same action can mean differently to different people at different times. Maybe to him at that exact moment, this was the greatest satisfaction he can ever achieve in his lifetime. If he didnt die, he couldve done more things or had other kinds of satisfaction through different means but if all of these combined cannot beat or atleast equate to this single act... then I think its still logical to take, quality over quantity. And by his actions, he did take it.
As for thinking in general, once you pay attention to something, arent you already processing what you are dealing with in your head? But I guess true, thinking is a conscious act what im saying is something else it, just cant find the word for it.
I guess where im getting at is that most of the time you just receive the impetus/urge, from your brain, and not necessarily the complete equation on how your arrived at that conclusion. But if youd trace that backwards, it still remains to be what we are talking about, you - its the origin just as Slayer was saying with that clifford thing
-----
RBZ, Okkkkkkk
-----
Slayer, yeah that thing by Clifford was really interesting. Its the origin that counts.
Well, I dont intend to change the original post or title.
I guess part of what this topic is leading to is that we all are selfish anyway by nature, every act that we do is made out of selfishness or something like that. Its funny thinking about it coz its like we use our reason to serve this selfishness
-----
Florn, doesnt that sound like you agree...
-----
Old Man, what you said about satisfaction and the impetus, though our words and specifics are not the same, still I think we have the same base in the sense that its still just about the person doing the action
Modesty, I think that is very much self satisfying.
Understanding, yes theres pleasure there, after you realize that youre in a better off position, I mean sticking to the example here.
Well, so youre saying Jesus did it to satisfy himself? I mean going by my understanding of what youre saying. By the time the act of dying was up, his sense of duty and pride has already been developed right; But yes too, these things depend on your upbringing etc.
That is the thing, the same action can mean differently to different people at different times. Maybe to him at that exact moment, this was the greatest satisfaction he can ever achieve in his lifetime. If he didnt die, he couldve done more things or had other kinds of satisfaction through different means but if all of these combined cannot beat or atleast equate to this single act... then I think its still logical to take, quality over quantity. And by his actions, he did take it.
As for thinking in general, once you pay attention to something, arent you already processing what you are dealing with in your head? But I guess true, thinking is a conscious act what im saying is something else it, just cant find the word for it.
I guess where im getting at is that most of the time you just receive the impetus/urge, from your brain, and not necessarily the complete equation on how your arrived at that conclusion. But if youd trace that backwards, it still remains to be what we are talking about, you - its the origin just as Slayer was saying with that clifford thing
-----
RBZ, Okkkkkkk
-----
Slayer, yeah that thing by Clifford was really interesting. Its the origin that counts.
Well, I dont intend to change the original post or title.
I guess part of what this topic is leading to is that we all are selfish anyway by nature, every act that we do is made out of selfishness or something like that. Its funny thinking about it coz its like we use our reason to serve this selfishness
-----
Florn, doesnt that sound like you agree...
0
fatman wrote...
Basically, if a person feels pleasure from altruism, its because he's altruistic, not because of some weird logic saying that he's actually just trying to pleasure himself.Except that's assuming the pleasure is derived directly by the act of altruism. And not say, the appearance of being altruistic, or expecting something in return, or being praised for being altruistic.
0
ai, you understood well but not all:
Eventually yes, but it was not his goal. These matters go unconscious. You know already that helping brings joy not only to the the person in trouble. Modesty develops when you stop thinking about the reward. Jesus did not think these kind of thoughts. He willingly forbid himself from thinking and that is why his action became sincere. The more he restrained himself from thinking benefit, the more his cause enlightened people. Why did he start it all? He was not satisfied with people's mentality in the first place. So his impetus lead him. In realizing it he achieved pacification, otherwise he would not yearn to do so. Jesus and Buddha are alike. No matter how people grasp understanding and in what words or names they wrap it - the truth reveals on practice.
He simply understood all interactions in life and did what he could best.
too much talking. Shut up. Slap your face. Hard. you feel pain. pure, without thoughts. Pain returnes you to reality and brings real attention.
"ashcrimson wrote...
Well, so youre saying Jesus did it to satisfy himself?Eventually yes, but it was not his goal. These matters go unconscious. You know already that helping brings joy not only to the the person in trouble. Modesty develops when you stop thinking about the reward. Jesus did not think these kind of thoughts. He willingly forbid himself from thinking and that is why his action became sincere. The more he restrained himself from thinking benefit, the more his cause enlightened people. Why did he start it all? He was not satisfied with people's mentality in the first place. So his impetus lead him. In realizing it he achieved pacification, otherwise he would not yearn to do so. Jesus and Buddha are alike. No matter how people grasp understanding and in what words or names they wrap it - the truth reveals on practice.
ashcrimson wrote...
Maybe to him at that exact moment, this was the greatest satisfaction he can ever achieve in his lifetime.He simply understood all interactions in life and did what he could best.
ashcrismon wrote...
As for thinking in general, once you pay attention to something, arent you already processing what you are dealing with in your head?too much talking. Shut up. Slap your face. Hard. you feel pain. pure, without thoughts. Pain returnes you to reality and brings real attention.