The Myth of the Selfless Act

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by Satyr, Aug 27, 2006.

  1. TimeTraveler Immortalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,023
    Satyr I can't understand a word of what you are writing. Can you please make a concise comment.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    I agree, but without the mysticism. You fight, and possibly die, to protect your family because you could not live with yourself having done otherwise. It's not any mysterious "higher conciousness", it's just that you would rather die fighting for those you love, than live knowing you did nothing.
    So humans should aspire to the level of conciousness of ants? Give me a break. Ants don't see themselves as anything, let alone a gestalt super-being.
    And that's why Africa is the Utopia it is today! You're arguing for mankind to become a bunch of mindless drones on par with insects. Better watch out, here comes a kid with a magnifying glass!
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. TimeTraveler Immortalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,023
    Since you don't understand, you call it mysticism. Once again, sacrifice is not a rational act. It's simply, some people value the community over themselves because their sense of self is different. That is the most simple way to put it, mysticism or not, we don't all have the same sense of self. Some people are their community, literally.

    Africa was a Utopia, along with America, before Europeans came. To say it was not a utopia would be a bit stupid since there were no wars, and no poverty, the food was free, everyone was healthy, and no one had to go to school or work for 8 hours a day. Most people would consider that utopia.

    Ant's do see themselves as one orgasm, as do bees, roaches and other insects. You kill one, they don't do anything, but if you attack the hive or the nest, they suddenly fight to the death to protect it. If you've watched a bee hive and saw how they act, they act as one being, I've studied these insects, why don't you try and see?

    They do have consciousness, and it's simply higher than ours. Your cells are alive too, they make up your body, each individual roach or bee in the hive makes up the bees body, as the bee sees itself as a part of something else. Many humans are collectivsts, and even if your mind is not capable of understanding what it means, it should explain why we have kings and queens, and why we organize like we do.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,162
    This is a matter of attitude and perspective. If you do something without expecting any form of reward, you are doing something selfless regardless of whether you are getting some form of reward or not. It's all about the intention of the individual.
     
  8. TimeTraveler Immortalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,023
    I don't understand what is so difficult to understand. This world is built up, this civilization which all of us benefit from, was built up from selfless acts. When you have a slave, or thousands, or millions build this country, then make the claim that they did it for themselves? No, they built it for you. If you make the claim that people defend the country for themselves, so you can benefit from it, no, they are protecting YOU. When someone rescues you from a fire, or saves your life, they do it for YOU. If we discount their acts as anything other than a selfless act, we reduce morale and steal the spirit of fallen soldiers, slaves, and many who died during 911. People who do this have a collective sense of self, they do what is best for the country, for the planet, for the future and often they know they'll never live to know or feel the results of their actions.

    To them, their act was completely selfless because they don't live to experience any pleasure from the act. But the act is not really selfless because they are helping their future self (YOU, ME, US). If you cannot understand helping protect your species, and the earth, well then you don' t know or understand why people work, because a lot of people do a lot of jobs no one wants to do. Some people care enough to protect a future they know they won't live to be in. Why? Because they see themselves in others, in children, in animals etc.
     
  9. q0101 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    388
    I agree with most of things that Satyr wrote in this thread. I believe that most of the altruistic things that people do are selfish. It all depends on the person’s state of mind. I can give you an example.

    I found a person’s wallet on the street on two separate occasions in my life. The first wallet that I found contained approximately $30.00. I was in a bad financial situation at the time, but I chose to return the wallet with the money. I was angry with myself for a week after I returned the wallet.

    The second wallet that I found contained approximately $400.00. I was in a good financial situation at this time, and once again I chose to return the wallet with the money. I got a small financial reward for returning the wallet, but I still would have felt good about my decision even if I didn’t receive anything.
     
  10. makeshift Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    197
    So you so you would have felt good whether or not you received remunerations from the person whose wallet you found.

    Would you have felt as good if you had taken the money? If so, then in a sense it was a selfish act.

    As for the first time you found a dude's wallet. You wrote that you sent it back to the owner with the money in it and that you were pissed at yourself for a week after. Were you pissed because you didn't take the money?
     
  11. Theoryofrelativity Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,595
    I loaned some leather jeans to a pal once, I totally begrudged doing so and gained nothing from the loan especially when she was complimented in them. It was pure selflessness, I hated every second. I later told her when she enquired 'does my bum look big in these'?'..'yes it does' and so the story goesssssssssssssss

    the act of selflessness stemmed from 'conditioning' with a reluctance, ney inability to say no to such a request. Nowt to do with perceived reward, subconscious or otherwise.

    See 'conditioning thread'

    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=56881
     
  12. makeshift Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    197
    Pure selflessness... yeah.
     
  13. Theoryofrelativity Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,595
    you've never owned leather jeans I take it
     
  14. makeshift Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    197
    Well, I'm not a homosexual, so no.

    My point is that if you look with scrutiny you'll see it was not so purely unselfish as you are inclined to think. From the sound of it, she was really persistent and you finally caved. If there were no conflict of interest you would have given them to her with no resistance whatsoever. Perhaps if you didn't give them to your friend maybe she would have begrudged you for it. Or maybe when you need something from her later on, you now have the advantage of being able to say, "Yeah! What about those leather jeans I so graciously let you borrow, bitch!" Like I said, if it weren't for a conflict of interest, you would have given them to her immediately without struggle. But in the end you gave them to her anyway. You did so out of self-interest.

    Maybe that wasn't your thought processes per se. But I'm sure that something along those lines were being worked out in the subconscious. It's been programmed in our genes to make it easier for us to share resources because sharing is a generally a very good thing for everyone involved. Perhaps you were obeying your genes and natural inclination to share.

    I just have a real hard time believing it was pure selflessness.
     
  15. q0101 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    388
    Yes, because I was happy at the time. I still would have received a chemical reward for helping someone. (Oxytocin and serotonin)

    I would have felt good if I kept the money on both occasions, but I chose to do the altruistic thing both times. My state of mind was the only difference between the two occasions. My subjective experience of the first situation was unselfish because I did not receive a chemical reward for my good deed. My second act was selfish because I knew that I would experience some kind of pleasure after returning the wallet.

    Yes, I was pissed at myself for not keeping the money because I was in a bad financial situation.
     

Share This Page