C'jais Posted January 5, 2003 Share Posted January 5, 2003 Selflessness: Acting without regard to one's self, or one's desires. Selfishness: Acting in accordance to one's desires and self-interests. Selflessness does not exist. Whenever you give money to the poor, you do so because it makes you feel good inside. You do not like being confronted with pain, and wishes to make your guilt go away. Maybe you give money because people giving money to those who have none is a society in which you want to live. Love is selfishness on a grand scale. Giving love makes you feel good, you're striving hard to build up a relationship that makes you get something in return, even if it's only kids in the end. If you choose to die for your loved ones, it's again because it makes you feel good. The alternative in that situation might very well be to let them suffer, and that makes you feel very bad indeed. To make up for this, to look like a hero, to make the guilt go away - you choose death. But selflessness? No. Selfishness does not equal material goods. It can equal your need for knowledge, self-affirmation or making up for guilt. There is only "for me", and "for the greater picture which I benefit and/or support". The last is commonly mistaken for selflessness. Here's an anology: A man giving money to poor people gets something in return: The feeling of satisfaction that he has made the world a better place. An ATM machine spitting out money to people is selfless. It does not benefit in any way from doing this, since it has no values or desires. Now, which is better? And this is the root of it all: I can't see anything wrong at all with having desires and being selfish, as long as it benefits other people. I find the idea of acting without your self horrifying, but this is what most people refer to as "enlightenment". It's abhorrent in reality, but great in theory. A selfless person is pure machine. Inhuman. Disgusting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reb Starblazer Posted January 5, 2003 Share Posted January 5, 2003 I see where you're going with this Jais, in that selflessness is in fact a type of selfishness, in that you only do something for other people because it makes you feel good. But the question is, is there anything wrong with that? The satisfaction of seeing a poor child with food on his table brings a smile to your face and love to your heart? Being so in love with your spouse or children that everything they do makes you happy? I know that what you're really getting at is that there is no one who is truely selfless, and will give only of himself with no thought of anything in return(I know someone is going to come in and say Jesus, but that's not what this is about. Let's not have another debate turn religious please...). Perphaps you're right in that there is not such thing as true selflessness, and that it is only another form of selfishness in that you only do good things for other people because it also makes you feel good, but it is most certainly "a lesser form of evil" in that sense. The world would be an awfully cold and lonely place if everyone only looked out for number one... EDIT: In response to Camus below. Originally posted by Camus So your saying taking a bullet for someone you care deeply for is being selfish??? I would much rather die for my g/f and letting her have a full long life than lay before me dead... Then that is what Jais is getting at. You're being selfish in that you'd rather see her live a long happy life, because it'll make you happy right before you die. He's saying, that in the end, it all comes back to what you want, even if it's what you want for other people. However, what I'm also saying is and what I think Jais is getting at, is that this form of "selfishness" is not inheritantly bad, it's just that we shouldn't try and fool ourselves into thinking that we do things with no thought of ourselves. It ALWAYS comes back to us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camus Posted January 5, 2003 Share Posted January 5, 2003 So your saying taking a bullet for someone you care deeply for is being selfish??? I would much rather die for my g/f and letting her have a full long life than lay before me dead... If thats not selflessness... Then what about what about going to a job you hate day in day out working with people you dont like for 18 years at very low wadges just to feed your kids??? isnt that selflessness... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted January 5, 2003 Author Share Posted January 5, 2003 Originally posted by Camus So your saying taking a bullet for someone you care deeply for is being selfish??? I would much rather die for my g/f and letting her have a full long life than lay before me dead... But your own desires are still with you in that decision. The alternative (your GF dead) fills you with so much dread and guilt, that you decide to put your life on the line instead of hers. Then what about what about going to a job you hate day in day out working with people you dont like for 18 years at very low wadges just to feed your kids??? isnt that selflessness... But again, seeing your children raised on the streets with no homes because their father couldn't arse himself to work, once again is the worse alternative to you in that situation. It is your desire to assert yourself as a loving father that takes place here. But those examples are beautiful things - why is it a bad thing to have your self with you in every action you do, to act in accordance to your own values? I don't get it. Y'know, this could turn into a debate about whether we have free will if you want. EDIT: Ahh, I see Reb has got it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camus Posted January 5, 2003 Share Posted January 5, 2003 As long as those I care about are happy and live long lifes im willing to do anything... even end my life if the case may call for it... selflessness isnt an illusion if you really think about self sacrifice... willing to do something for someone else to make there life better at the disspence of your own... Its not a matter of guilt or self graditued... its a matter of there feelings afterword... There are always 2 views for the out come of self sacrifice... The out come of it for one view may to releave guilt which is what your talking about... the other is done out a special bond you show and are willing to do anything... so no matter how we look at there are two diffrent views of the outcome of selfsacrifice... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted January 5, 2003 Author Share Posted January 5, 2003 Camus, the guilt I'm talking about is that you'd experience if you didn't save their lives. The idea is that you have two choices in that situation, one of them being saving her. If you save her, it's because of your desire to see her unharmed. It might also be to look like a hero. And most certainly because you know that you'll feel bad afterwards if you didn't do anything. So bad in fact, that you place your life on the line. In short: You act in accordance to your values and desires. Your values and desires in this case being to save your friend. Doing nothing in that situation, and saving yourself is the other choice. But the desire to save your own life is overshadowed by your need to save her. If you don't save her, you know it'll make your life a living hell to live with that decision (IE not saving her). But once again, why feel bad over this? Is the idea of having desires so dirty nowadays? Can people not dare to look at the underlying motives, and instead focus on the good consequences that come of it? Sure, go right ahead and speak about selfless acts. But they're only selfless to the bystanders. No one can conciously act against their values; if it ever seems that way, either their values have changed or simply were not properly understood in the first place. At that moment, it was important to you that you saved her life. It is your value. Selflessness is a myth created by a society that scoffs at the idea of desires and acting with regard to oneself. It probably has something to do with religious beliefs, but I'll leave that out of here. EDIT: I would much rather die for my g/f and letting her have a full long life than lay before me dead... This is a good illustration. You think of selfishness as something only being viewed with regards to material, physical gains. What you said is an example of your desires coming into play when making such a decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted January 6, 2003 Author Share Posted January 6, 2003 Due to the overwhelmingly low amount of replies to this, I can conclude the following: 1) Evil, spammy creatures dragged this thread down by posting in other threads, thereby resulting in people not seeing it. 2) Everyone agrees with me on this topic. Yay. For once. 3) Nobody wants to argue with me on this 4) People don't care about this topic at all Ok, so I'm really just bumping, but I felt like giving reasons for doing it hehehehe... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leXX Posted January 6, 2003 Share Posted January 6, 2003 I think it is obvious that selflessness does not exist but there are and have been genuwine modern day saints. Princess Diana, Martin Luther King, Ghandi, Nelson Mandela etc etc etc. They might not have been totally selfless but they came bloody close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted January 6, 2003 Author Share Posted January 6, 2003 Originally posted by leXX They might not have been totally selfless but they came bloody close. Who knows what terrors lurked in the depths of Ghandi's mind? Nah, I agree completely with you Lexx Pardon my Danish ignorance, but what saintly stuff did Diana do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leXX Posted January 6, 2003 Share Posted January 6, 2003 Well she spent vitually every single day of her married life helping with and donating to charity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camus Posted January 6, 2003 Share Posted January 6, 2003 -_- Ill be honest with you... all I do is argue with you and its getting old... -_- I would much rather find a comprimise but you dont wanna... -_- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted January 6, 2003 Author Share Posted January 6, 2003 Originally posted by Camus -_- Ill be honest with you... all I do is argue with you and its getting old... -_- I would much rather find a comprimise but you dont wanna... -_- Sure, I'll compromise. Your meaning of the word extends itself to those basic acts of charity in everyday life, such as holding the door for a person, returning lost change and loving someone deeply. I don't see it that way. We cool? EDIT: Do you mean in general, in every thread I enter-sort of way? I want to know if you did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camus Posted January 6, 2003 Share Posted January 6, 2003 No just this one... :S sorry if I made it sound like more... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted January 7, 2003 Share Posted January 7, 2003 Originally posted by Cjais I find the idea of acting without your self horrifying, but this is what most people refer to as "enlightenment". Nah. "Enlightenment" is distributing knowledge, amongst other stuff, so as to further the cultural and educational level of the subject. But otherwise I agree with you... Scientific American had an article about group behavioral patterns in the human species, that stated pretty much the same things C'Jais said. It may have been uploaded as a Feature Article on http://www.sciam.com. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
griff38 Posted January 7, 2003 Share Posted January 7, 2003 Lets see if we agree or not. If you risk your life to save someone you love then it could always be said you acted in your own interest. You could have been selfless by wanting the person you care for to exist without suffering. Or you could have been selfish and wanted the object of your desire to still be available to you. But what if a stranger saves a stranger? If a bystander pulls a suicide jumper back from the edge at the risk to his own life which is he? Did he commit a totally selfless act? Or did he selfishly save the person because he could never live with himself for just standing around? Selflessness may be unavoidable, but it is not always destructive. When you finally can treat everyone the same, you will be able to avoid selfishness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted January 7, 2003 Author Share Posted January 7, 2003 Originally posted by griff38 Selflessness may be unavoidable, but it is not always destructive. Do you mean selfishness here? Show me one selfless person, and I'll show you a machine without feelings. When you finally can treat everyone the same, you will be able to avoid selfishness. We will never be able to do that. It's only human. The examples you gave can all be traced back to the dictionary definition of selfishness, as I exemplified and argued previously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.