quote
follow
|
25-10-2012 I agree Irina. I often feel good about helping others myself and I honestly don't think I could be doing whatever it is I am doing unless I felt good about it. Its selfish indeed, but is it better to be selfish and helping rather than unhelping and selfish?I think feeling good from helping others is a bonus and why shouldn't I feel good? In a way, I am going against my nature here so nature here so I deserve applaud |
[ link ] |
25-10-2012
Right. Some people have made an objection that altruism is driven by empathy and thus, there's no selfishness in it. Well, I don't need to be told about empathy, I know only too well what it is, but what does it mean if I'm acting out of empathy? Empathy is feeling another being's pain as your own. Wanting to get rid of the pain isn't selfless, it's in my own interest to try and help somebody whose pain is disturbing me. And yet, empathy doesn't equal action. Another way to handle the pain from compassion is not to act but to distract yourself, to run away from it, or to try and justify why someone who is miserable deserves to be that (just world delusion) and there: no need to act altruistically. |
|
25-10-2012 I think this explains nicely why a lot of people reject Antinatalism - they simply don't feel the empathy towards another person to the extent that they are willing to acknowledge that life is really pretty damn bad for most people.I mean think about it: if someone is happy with a nice job, a house, kids, a loving spouse, lots of assets and money, goes on vacations a lot, etc etc its really hard to think altruistically because it seems that life is amazing and there is barely any suffering out there and no need for activism, selflessness or any of that. I definitely know that feeling well. However, when one surveys the situation from a bird's perspective (not to mention the cosmic perspective but that's for another topic..), its easy to see how bad life is for most people and how much more suffering there is in the world than there is pleasure (not to mention the fact that pleasure is the absence of suffering most of the time). How can one be altruistic when the DNA molecule that led the aforementioned person to a happy assessment of life given his circumstances killed and continues killing so many life forms other than humans consistently? And that's just one of the infinitude of tragedies that can befall sentience. I think the prevalence of pain over pleasure can be clearly observed just from witnessing the fact that its a huge struggle to improve a situation and if left untouched, it always devolves into chaos and misery. The above can pretty much be applied to any aspect of life and surely human relationships. Its hard to be an altruist when consciousness is confined to one organism. I am willing to bet that if the suffering of one person or one animal would instantly affect every human in the world, everyone would quickly turn into an altruist! |
[ link ] |
26-10-2012
holy crap... i was just doing the image search for one particular demotivator on the subject and found this. The person who came up with the comment for this picture clearly doesn't suffer from excessive empathy at all. if someone is happy with a nice job, a house, kids, a loving spouse, lots of assets and money, goes on vacations a lot, etc etc its really hard to think altruistically because it seems that life is amazing and there is barely any suffering out there Well, that's one: noticing only the good stuff. But then, they do watch news from time to time and still have to somehow process the incoming data that says there are people in real trouble. I think the prevalence of pain over pleasure can be clearly observed just from witnessing the fact that its a huge struggle to improve a situation and if left untouched, it always devolves into chaos and misery. Sure, because if you just choose to sit on the grass and watch the clouds move in the sky and the stars shine at night forever you will eventually die of hunger, if nothing else. Misery will come naturally. You will have to move to keep escaping it. Happiness and bliss though won't come naturally. You have to work to get them. |
|
26-10-2012 That's a horrible picture... one of those you would normally find on reddit... but its indicative of the type of reaction people have over seeing suffering that is far away from them. Whenever something is distant, it can always be sugarcoated and made to sound much better than it actually is in an attempt to make oneself feel better.Well, that's one: noticing only the good stuff. But then, they do watch news from time to time and still have to somehow process the incoming data that says there are people in real trouble. Somehow, none of it registers to the extent that it does for us antinatalists for instance. Case in point: my parents were watching the news when the Japanese earthquake happened and hardly had any reaction. They're very good people but are naturally selfish and only concerned with the welfare of the family. All the thousands of lives that were lost during the earthquake are hardly registering on their radar. Like video game characters... like Stalin said Irina, "One death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic". Sure, because if you just choose to sit on the grass and watch the clouds move in the sky and the stars shine at night forever you will eventually die of hunger, if nothing else. Misery will come naturally. You will have to move to keep escaping it. Happiness and bliss though won't come naturally. You have to work to get them. Its odd isn't it? That no one can just BE except when they sleep... everything requires maintenance and constant struggle... Take this meme for instance: Its all ingrained in society that everyone NEEDS to survive and that survival is GOOD and that human race NEEDS to be perpetuated that its all taken for granted and no one questions even the existence of capitalism, let alone the question of whether by its worthwhile to continue this harrowing experiment and continue casting suffering souls into this pit as cannon fodder... |
[ link ] |
26-10-2012
Case in point: my parents were watching the news when the Japanese earthquake happened and hardly had any reaction. Well, that's, so to say, 'normal'. Psychologists found out we have difficulty feeling sympathy for large groups of people who are just like numbers to us. But if we hear a story about 1 person with a name, a face, so we can easily imagine them, we'll burst into tears. Just some bug in us. Stalin apparently knew that too. Yeah, I've also been noticing the survival bias on memes. Look at this one with a poor little kitty. For me it reads: 'why life sucks'. But somebody thought it sends a message 'I will survive'. Like survival in and of itself is a great thing. And any survival is purely temporary. Nobody survives. We all die. You can just work to postpone the inevitable for as long as possible. This meme you linked to should read: 'I'll bust my ass surviuving so I can make it to old age when the saliva will be dripping from my mouth and I'll be back to wearing diapers again'. |
|
26-10-2012 Yeah Stalin was clearly aware of that psychological reality of most people. However, those people who overcome that defect can truly appreciate the horror of existence.I agree with you on the realistic interpretation of the meme I linked to.. its indeed survival for the sake of.. survival?! What's a pile of rubbish. The kitten mime is really sad.. and again, interpreted by majority as "cute" and yet when I look at it, I feel so bad for the kitten and images of the blind DNA molecule spring to mind that caused billions of creatures to suffer and die.. Its heartbreaking to think that some assholes would actually abuse this kitten because they're cruel SOB, smoked pot and have nothing to do... You mentioned heat death of the universe in previous posts.. I would like to add a great message from one of the posters on an AN blog to answer that: "According to Julius Bahnsen, upon death, though our physical embodiment ceases to exist, we become, what we were before birth, an "insatiable and lustful impulse originating from the metaphysical inconceivability" that is inexplicably, of course, driven back into existence - "an inextricable tangle of contradictions of the most tragic negativity." Bahnsen precisely considered complete annhilation (a la "red-button") - "the vain striving for the metaphysically impossible" since life, possesses a certain cockroach-like "existential stubborness", rendering it difficult to exterminate effectively. Eliminating life on Earth would be insufficient (due to the evolutionary resilience of microorganisms, safely hidden in terrestrial subsurfaces and the fact that it only took 500 million years for sentient macrorganisms to evolve). We would have to truly bring all reality to an end, which would demand that we annihilate the very root of Being, which is itself a "contradiction never to be overcome, therefore not simply ideal, but real." If you ever get the chance, read up on Julius Bahnsen, Philipp Mainlander and Ulrich Horstmann.. two of them were mentioned by Ligotti in TCATHR but their take is fairly unique |
|
29-12-2012 "So the bottom line is, while most to all altruistic behavior may in fact be selfishness in disguise, it is the best we've got, with the alternative being the undisguised selfishness, outright parasitic approach to life that is in the long run detrimental to the society. Let people do the noble things and be proud of that, rather than remain indifferent self-centered consumers who pride themselves in following their nature." I don't think we should hate our better instincts. We humans do have the capability to exhibit empathy and show love. If a mother loves her child, we don't look at her and say, "You're just selfish, loving that child! How could you!" The world needs love. It needs people who stick up for the less fortunate, the oppressed, and the down and out. And if a person feels joy in their heart when helping those people, that's wonderful. When I see that happening, I think, "Hey! That's how the world should work." When I think whether or not I'm a good person, I sometimes can be a bit brutal with myself. I ask what I've contributed to the world. What have I created? Whose lives have I made better? If other people were living like me, what would the world be like? That's very difficult. I become a lot less judgmental when I think about it in those terms and cast the critical glance back at myself. It can be really difficult to find a place where you can positively contribute to the world. |
[ link ] |
29-12-2012
I don't think we should hate our better instincts. We humans do have the capability to exhibit empathy and show love. If a mother loves her child, we don't look at her and say, "You're just selfish, loving that child! How could you!" Love is something you feel. It's not altruism or egoism. Those are actions, behavior. If love or empathy suddenly appears, it's something that arises in you, not something you make a moral choice about and decide to feel or to experience. After empathy kicks in though, you can make a choice to try and turn it off or follow it - that's where choice comes in. If a mother loves her child, we don't look at her and say, "You're just selfish, loving that child! How could you!" It's not a heroic act either. Besides, it's not like she loves somebody else's child, any child, she loves her own genetic extention of herself. Non-human animals love their offsprings too on some level, it's preprogrammed. We have a need to love and be loved, and following our needs isn't a big thing. We need friends, we love our friends, our pets... Love is what feels good to us. Hate is what eats us up inside. Empathy is what we're cursed with, because it feels terrible but that's how we survived, what made us stronger as a community. As you've cited yourself, I'm arguing pro 'altruistic' behavior, the only argument I'm dealing here with is whether pure altruism exists or not. But regardless of that, we're all better off not acting selfishly all the time because in a selfish individualistic society where everyone is left to fend for themselves, everyone loses. |
|
29-12-2012 Oh, and I almost forgot. I finished watching your video on egoism and activism and it immediately called up a memory of when I had a get-together with an old high school friend. He told me that people attend political protests, rallies, and things of that nature because they want to give off an image that they're a concerned citizen. Then he told me that a lot of them are young college students looking for a boyfriend or girlfriend. In other words, they weren't there for the cause at all. They're just all selfish and wasting time at events that never change anything. It's convenient for him though, considering the political issues being protested had no bearing on his life. |
[ link ] |
29-12-2012
They're just all selfish and wasting time at events that never change anything. What does change anything than? How did we ever trasform society? Was it the work of those who stayed home and said 'that's never gonna work' or the consequence of people fighting for justice? Would women had rights if they stayed home and kept silent? Would we get rid of slavery? Would there be laws protecting animals from abuse? Nothing would ever change is the world would only consist of people who conveniently say 'it's all pointless'. Sure, those who only sit on their asses and do nothing have to justify to themselves why they're not joining any protests or movements. Nice try. |
|
29-12-2012 Since we're discussing political activism, altruism, and all of that, I'll say that I've always found moral philosophy difficult, especially when you try to distinguish when someone's acting selfishly or altruistically, and whether or not it matters. In most serious instances which really matter to society, I often don't see any value in making the distinction. It's very easy to give your life to some cause or political purpose. It's much harder to know whether the cause you're standing for is worthwhile. When you said, "the underlying motive in this case is secondary to the value being produced by such behavior", I'd agree with that, and I'd say that depending on the gravity of the situation we're dealing with, intentions begin to matter much less than the value of your behavior. I'll give an example. There are people, all the time, standing up for causes which are against their own interest. The rich and powerful control the media outlets and then stir millions of people up to fight against important social reforms. Take healthcare. The U.S. spends twice as much money on healthcare as other industrial nations and economists like Kenneth Arrow, Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitiz, and others argue that healthcare is not a system that can be governed by the free market. We have upwards of 50 million people without health insurance and that number is growing everyday. People are bankrupted everyday just because they get sick or something unexpected happens to them or a family member. Even so, media outlets start cranking out propaganda that "government" healthcare would be the ruin of us all (even though it's proven to work better than our system in nations all over the world). We have huge demonstrations here in the U.S. against healthcare reform. "Keep the government out of healthcare!" I'm sure these people feel they're trying to protect their children and future generations from some grim future. In reality, they're being manipulated, and I think we should really care less about how well intended they are. Also, I think you pointed out in the video that a businessman may be greedy yet still be adding value to society. I could see a rich businessman lobbying Congress for healthcare reforms mainly because he's having to spend twice as much money to insure his employees. He could increase his bottom line if he could save money in this area and maybe even sell his products cheaper. In this case, I can't think of anything wrong with his greed. Maybe instead of thinking in terms of selfishness/altruism, a better way may be to think in terms of finding a mutually beneficial outcome, when possible. Not all situations are zero-sum games. |
[ link ] |
30-12-2012
There are people, all the time, standing up for causes which are against their own interest....We have huge demonstrations here in the U.S. against healthcare reform. The case when one is trying to act selfishly but is in fact making things worse for themselves is not altruistic unless we call gambling altruistic as well. "I wan't to win...ooops..I lost all my money and benefited the casino". Let's take Wiki
...i don't think so... Though it might happen why not. But I wouldn't label the case you describing altruism eather. It's just that sometimes satisfying somebody's selfish interests coincides with producing some benefits for ohers (as a side effect). If we call the accidental, circumstantial meeting of interests altruism what label should we then use for the cases when people willingly give away their posessions without gaining any returns? I know - madness
Fine by me. We don't disagree on much here, it's just the question of terminology, I guess. |
|
30-12-2012 Take the old people who are out there protesting. All of them are on Medicare, which is our government healthcare program given to older adults. They are sacrificing time and even money to be out there, not for their own benefit, but for what they feel is the future of prosperity for our country. Their heart is in the right place, but they're misinformed. I'd say it's altruism, but it's not very helpful in this case. Maybe not "pure" altruism, but they're not out there for themselves. They're likely worried about their grandchildren, etc. I suppose there could be young adults out there without insurance (most of our uninsured are in that category), without health insurance, protesting against the government giving them benefits. I could picture young, poor libertarians doing something like that. If we look at what they believe is going on, they think they'll be saving themselves money in the future by not having to pay taxes when they eventually do have a good job and source of income. They think the free market heathcare system will be better for them once they can afford it, and I guess they're betting and hoping that they won't get sick in the meantime. Those kinds of people seem to fit into your first category of acting selfishly but are actually making things worse for themselves. So as for the healthcare protesters some do seem to be acting altruistically, others not so much. And for the businessman, I wasn't saying it was altruism, I was saying he was greedy, but that there's nothing wrong with that in that particular example. It's been nice talking with you over the weekend through these comments. You have some interesting takes on things. I'll try to respond to your other comment tomorrow, but for now, I'm getting pretty tired, and it's late. |
[ link ] |
31-12-2012
Ok, I see. But I can think of an even more clear and dramatic example of an altruism(?). (I sympathize with the whole healthcare situation in US, I know quite a bit about it, but let's take another case) Like, what if I were required to get hurt in order to save a complete stranger from the demise twice as bad as mine. And nobody would ever find out about the outcome whatever I would choose it to be. Even the stranger would have never known it was me who saved them (or even that they were saved). Would I have done it? Would many people have? And if I would have done it, would it be out of a genuine concern for the stranger or because I wouldn't want to live with myself knowing I let that person suffer greatly when I could've saved them (pangs of consciousness), and if I would've done it to prevent myself from living with guilt, would such an act be altruistic or simply choosing lesser of two evils? And for the businessman, I wasn't saying it was altruism, I was saying he was greedy, but that there's nothing wrong with that in that particular example. Ok. Confusion cleared.)) Yeah, it was nice talking to you, too. You seem to actually care about what's true and give the new arguments and ideas a chance :D |
|
01-01-2013 I sense that you're very cynical about human nature. I personally have a lot of faith in people, though I'm often disappointed. When I think of why people do things like you've just described, why they perform beautiful altruistic things, and so on, I think they've found something deep within themselves. Something they believe in. Something important to them. Something they want to protect. When I was young, I had never thought about the world very deeply, and I had little perspective on what's going on around me. If a tank was driving off to kill innocent people, I would have ran away and hid in a corner. A lot has changed in me since then. The United States government is becoming a police state, and I live right in the heart of it. First under President Bush we had the Patriot Act, where "terrorists" no longer had rights and our phones and internet data could be spied on without a warrant or justification. Slowly our civil liberties have been taken away. About a year ago President Obama passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), giving the government the power to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens in prison, without trial, without charge. If they don't like you, they can lock you up and throw away the key. You can even be tortured, though I don't know of anyone other than the few in Guantanamo Bay who have actually been tortured. I met with a friend in a restaurant about six months ago and we began discussing this because it greatly concerns us both. He was scared and has been working to gain citizenship elsewhere so he can leave the country. He then couldn't believe that I was still blogging about it all, condemning the Patriot Act, NDAA, and other causes, giving people information about why it was bad and what to do. I even give links to contact your Congress leaders to protest, call, and email. He had long deleted his blog and all its contents. While it's a small thing, just having a blog on the internet, I refuse to hide with my head in the sand. If protests ever happen in my area, I'll be out there, even if they're pepper spraying me in the face, or beating me with sticks. If things get really bad here, they may one day come and lock me up and throw away my key. But I won't run like my friend is doing. Life isn't great, but I've read history and I know how much worse it can be. I believe in freedom. I believe in science. I believe in reason. If I won't stand, who will? I won't let religious nutjobs take control of the government like in the old times. I won't let the world revert to witch hunts or burning people for "heretical" beliefs. Blaming the poor for all society's woes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mQvvGJYQaM I won't passively sit by while our civil liberties are snatched up by delusional paranoid senators who are using "terrorism" as an excuse to steal our freedom. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IeuE16LLDY I won't sit silently while bankers and rich tycoons destroy our democratic process with Super PACs, allowing them to bribe our leaders with unlimited campaign contributions. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KEQxML0RgE Why do I take a stand? Is it about me? It is it about my next door neighbor? Is it about future generations? It's about all of us. It's simple really. They've crossed the line and I've had enough, just like the Occupy protesters have had enough. I will peacefully protest, stand, and inform others and push for political reforms, even if I'm at risk for doing so. After I started going to college, I've met a lot of young adults, and I see how intelligent they are. They share their dreams with me. I'm a physicist, so they tell me about their research and what they want to discover. Who they want to be. When I hear talks about cutting funding for science because our government has spent all the money bailing out bankers, I see all these scientist's dreams crushed. I see the advancement of humanity grinding to a halt. On any issue where I'd actually stand up and risk something, it can't be about me, because if it was just about me, I'd simply do what's in my own best interest. Every issue I care about is not just about me, but others as well. I have to believe in something, or be protecting something, or advancing something. It's a feeling like sticking up for your little brother or sister when they're being picked on. You jump into the fray because they're family and you love them. Extend the family metaphor to some group or cause you believe in, and I think you have the true motivation behind unselfish action. Oh, and by the way, happy new year! |
[ link ] |
02-01-2013
I sense that you're very cynical about human nature. I personally have a lot of faith in people, though I'm often disappointed. I'm just trying to base my opinions about human nature on something more solid than 'faith'. Our history isn't really a record of good nature. And if our nature is such that it can easily be turned evil than adaptiveness is our predominant nature, like in other species. Not without the sparks of empathy-driven beautiful deeds. Psychologists are much more suspicious of people's true motives, as well as their own. Our true motives are often hidden even from ourselves. It has long been spotted by great minds that we tend to always have 2 reasons for every deed: the one which sounds good and the real one. The United States government is becoming a police state, and I live right in the heart of it. First under President Bush we had the Patriot Act... I respect your causes but could you leave the details aside? This isn't a post about any particular activism and these specifics are irrelevant to the discussion of whether true altruism exists or not. On any issue where I'd actually stand up and risk something, it can't be about me, because if it was just about me, I'd simply do what's in my own best interest. Would you have to stop doing what you're doing if you found out it was also about you and your ego gratification? For me it's not the reason to abandon the causes I care about. So I don't have a dog in the fight: whether altruism can be found to exist or it can be proven that all our motives have a selfish component (which I tend to think is true) - I'm fine with either of them, it's not our fault who we are by 'nature'. You jump into the fray because they're family and you love them. Well, I'm tempted to agree with that emotionally but there's this kin selection theory. Extend the family metaphor to some group or cause you believe in, and I think you have the true motivation behind unselfish action. Except people love being heroes, being a part of something greater than themselves etc. And you know, that's fine, as long as they achieve that feeling by actually doing smth of value for the society, not waging holy wars, or 'preventive wars'. No matter what our nature is we gotta strive to improve it even from a completely selfish point of view, even animals have reciprocal altruism because it helps their survival and us humans it helps to improve the quality of our lives and the satisfactiuon from them. |
|
02-01-2013 "Psychologists are much more suspicious of people's true motives, as well as their own." That's true, but those same psychologists have also noticed that the more people believe in determinism, and believe that their actions are governed by environmental and genetic factors, the more likely they are to cheat and do bad things. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18181791 The prominent neuroscientist and psychologist Dr. Michael Gazzaniga talks about this in his Gifford lecture series, starting at time 10:48. http://youtu.be/aGtZek7RPts?t=10m48s I'm not advocating some sort of blind faith in people, but it seems, at least to a certain degree, what you believe about yourself and your motives (conscious or unconscious) influences what you end up doing in the end, as a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy. People will adapt and change, for good or bad, based on what they believe about themselves. I wonder how often people conform to the underlying motives they believe exist within themselves, giving in to inner forces they believe are beyond their control? That probably applies to everybody. So how do we get around this problem? I have a deep respect for your search for the truth. I'm learning you think very precisely about things. I'll tread more carefully when writing comments on your blog, avoiding unnecessary details, but let me give one example. Do you ever go on news sites and notice these studies showing how men are naturally polygamous, and our testosterone can't be tamed, and we just can't help but cheat on our wives or girlfriends, sticking our penises in every woman that will let us? I think that sort of belief weakens men psychologically to temptation. Psychologists try to deeply understand the mind and our motivations, but then it turns into this sort of thing. The more we search for selfishness, the more we create it. I first read about kin selection theory when I studied David Buss' textbook on evolutionary psychology. It's really good, if you've never read it already. I'm familiar with the ideas, and it's obvious that what you're saying is true, especially when you look at issues like parental investment, rates of infanticide, racism, and things like that. But I'm skeptical of theories which break all of human behavior down to something like concern for replication, sex, and finding mates. I find their explanations good in some areas, but stretched in others. What do you think of evolutionary psychology as a whole? Many years ago I read the complete works of Sigmund Freud, and back then I used to always be self-examining myself, looking for unconscious motivations, and thinking of whether I was repressing things I found uncomfortable. If you read my blog way back when, say 2006 and so, I was always writing about psychoanalysis and hidden motivations. I wore myself out. I don't think as highly of all of it as I did back then. And yes, we often do things for reasons other than we say. I suppose the quest to understand ourselves never ends, does it? I'm not trying to be a hero, but I do believe in things greater than myself, and I do enjoy being a part of that. So I guess it's selfishness all the way down, even in me. I noticed that I felt a little bad about myself when typing that. "I am selfish". Like I failed at something. I don't know what you think of Alan Watts, but I've always liked him. When I finally typed that out, I remembered this Youtube video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6BbL-vqN0c He says, "The other thing to contemplate is to follow the possibility of the idea that you are totally selfish. That you don't have a good thing to be said of you at all. You're a complete and utter rascal." I'll end with that. |
[ link ] |
02-01-2013
noticed that the more people believe in determinism...the more likely they are to cheat I almost shared a link with the same info with you yesterday Sounds believeable, because it seems determinism absolves one from any responsibility for their actions. Though the way they did the experiment is kind of strange: they have no clue who took how much money, they only know the total for the whole group. So perhaps the commenter there brings up an interesting point: "a few “super-cheaters” from the determinism groups could skew the entire test, since they might choose to take more than $15. With each division having around 24 students, if a super-cheater in a group of five took all of the remaining money (15 for himself, and around 8 for four other supposedly honest students), one person would skew the entire average by a little more than two dollars above the baseline of around seven dollars. If one individual could have that much significance, I think it’s a bit questionable." it seems, at least to a certain degree, what you believe about yourself and your motives (conscious or unconscious) influences what you end up doing in the end, as a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy. I gotta say I don't have a strong opinion on the matter at this pont Yes, I am leaning more towards determinism. But it's a relatively new topic I'm pondering so I'll give it a year or so before I come up with something more solid. I want to hear the arguments on both sides.
You just had to bring up this topic! Haha. Nope. I go where it says we all are and agree with that)) But hey, even if they one day prove with a 100% certainty only men are polygamous and women are monogamous, I'll just have to be the first polygamous woman,even if it's against my ancesters' nature, what do I care? But I'm reading Sex at Dawn these days and they argue that our nature is promiscuous pretty convincingly. Foragers lived in communes and shared everything, children were responsibility of the commune, not 1 man and 1 woman so women didn't have to choose the alpha male and males couldn't care which kids were his because he had to take care of all of them anyway. It's a great book, I'm impressed so far. ...I'm skeptical of theories which break all of human behavior down to something like concern for replication, sex, and finding mates. What do you think of evolutionary psychology as a whole? Well, that's all the vast majority of us is doing:
I don't know, I'm just glad evolutionary psychology is there. I'm not sure I'd subscribe to all it's theories but probably the vast majority is true. I think what compliments it is a terror management theory. Because unlike other animals, we have this awareness of our mortality and are constantly trying to deny/repress it or achieve fame/recognition to get what Becker called symbolic immortality. I was always writing about psychoanalysis and hidden motivations. I wore myself out. I don't think as highly of all of it as I did back then. I know what you mean. I used to over-analyze myself and others to the point when you can't make a step without thinking why you had to make it this or that way.))) But today I am sort of happy with my level of analyzing things. That's just regarding digging deep into motives in general.
People equate recognizing selfihness with almost like admitting to the crime. That's culturally shaped perception. If one recognizes one's own selfish nature and accepts it, and if that person has empathy, and some brains, they will behave in a considerate way not worse than any supposed altruist. If we both agree that we are selfish organisms interested in the same things we still have to have a pact of treating each other with courtesy and consideration, otherwise in a state of perpetual conflict none of us will find peace and comfort. I'm mot sure I can explain it very well yet but this realization and acceptance of the fact doesn't prevent me from loving myself and other people, in fact, I'm often less judgemental and if some little things others did used to offend me today they just put a smile on my face. I don't know what you think of Alan Watts, but I've always liked him. Me too, I used to listen to a lot of his lectures. Not so much any more coz it's sort of something I've moved on from but he does have many insights that I still agree with. I think in that clip he makes a similar point to what I'm trying to say: you accept of yourself the way you are, even with your selfishness, and you suddenly find yoiurself being able to love others more fully because they are essentially another version of you. Btw, here determinism certainly helps: we are who we are, the best we can possibly be, and we all want to be accepted and loved. |
|
02-01-2013 I’m grateful to you all for the interesting ideas you put forward in this forum…Personally, I’m convinced we are pretty much determined by nature, and ultimately, by the laws of this Universe (and whoever/whatever is behind it)… but, for some mysterious reason, we human animals have also been given the capacity to rebel against it all and, for instance, question and go against our genetically-determined drive for selfishly-pursued survival… (aka altruism). Personally, I’m in awe to be given the opportunity of being a rebel (even if it is determined by Someone Else)… I like that determinism better than any other… hehehe |
Comments to Altruism, egoism and activism (video)