|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted March 03, 2010 03:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
When mvass describes altruism he talks about the act of sacrificing your own happiness for others, letting your own flesh be conumed in a way.
altruism doesn't consume you. on the contrary.
Quote:
Now, fauch, I would gladly serve in heaven and I think everyone would, but I think it's better to reign in hell.
how do you see serving in heaven? being like a slave under the orders of an archangel or something? the way I see it, everyone would be there to serve everyone else. no one would be above or below someone else.
if you reign in hell, everyone will be there to try to take your place by any way.
Quote:
Love restricts you always. Whether it be in a good or bad way, I don't know, but love restricts you. I'm speaking in very general terms of course.
I think it's the contrary too. love gives you strength and will.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted March 03, 2010 03:24 PM |
|
|
Quote:
altruism doesn't consume you. on the contrary.
Serving others (to the possible detriment of and) not to the benefit of oneself tends to consume you. Of course, I would't know, I am a "live and let live" kind of guy, which may be the sort of thing mvass is always trying to advocate.
Quote:
how do you see serving in heaven? being like a slave under the orders of an archangel or something? the way I see it, everyone would be there to serve everyone else. no one would be above or below someone else.
if you reign in hell, everyone will be there to try to take your place by any way.
Ermmm...
nevermind...
Quote:
I think it's the contrary too. love gives you strength and will.
This strength and will are subjective values. What the things you like do to you is restrict you. Why? Because you like them and if you do you have a hard time letting go. In fact, I'll tell you what the altruistic and goody-goody thing would be to do of me: leave her alone and only respond to her when she calls to me and be nice all the time and deny every ounce of myself for her. That is true love, letting yourself get eaten for the benefit of others; JJ and Doom advocat the more selfish and, thus, more beneficial plan to desert everything and care for myself: to rule in hell.
I on the other hand have a problem, because I'd like to serve in heaven, so I'm trying to see if I can change my curren situation. If I can't change the way things are, I'll let go and seek creative ventures for myself, not caring about anyone else at this point obviously.
Doom: I feel weak for fretting over this and for actually having lied to her when she asked me a while ago and I can't own up to this.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 03, 2010 04:56 PM |
|
|
Quote:
This strength and will are subjective values. What the things you like do to you is restrict you. Why? Because you like them and if you do you have a hard time letting go. In fact, I'll tell you what the altruistic and goody-goody thing would be to do of me: leave her alone and only respond to her when she calls to me and be nice all the time and deny every ounce of myself for her. That is true love, letting yourself get eaten for the benefit of others; JJ and Doom advocat the more selfish and, thus, more beneficial plan to desert everything and care for myself: to rule in hell.
Ah, I think you are very wrong here. Methinks, you - and some others here - have a wrong understanding of love. Love isn't EITHER selfish OR selfless, it's always BOTH. Because love doesn't work alone. If you love a person and that love isn't returned, it's not love it's force. It's comparable to a situation where you are invited in someone's house to dinner - and THEY fill your plate FULL to the rim. Love involves that every step of the way is voluntary. If love isn't returned, it better dies because it's wasted like water in the desert. There can nothing come from it. Love that isn't returned, but still conserved, isn't love anymore but ADORATION, and from there it's only a small step to idolization. And from that nothing fruitful will come.
Now, the altruistic thing you to do you talk about, leave her be and so on, deny everything of yourself - that wouldn't be altruistic, but heteronomous. You'd stop being a human and start being an OBJECT, a living thing someone else takes out if it pleases her. It wouldn't be altruistic, it would be self-destruction - and to what end?
To live a lie, because a lie it is. Bitter-sweet illusion of selflessly serving the beloved... sheesh, that's just words.
Doom and me, we are not talking about being selfish, we are talking about livingh YOUR life, not the life you believe might be best for another one.
See it this way: things have a way to come out in the end; if you go what you call the selfless way, and she would learn about it one day, say, in 5 years time: don't you think that she wouldn't be happy with the knowledge that you "served" her so long, denying yourself and what you feel? Don't you think it might burden her? Conversely, if it would NOT burden her - maybe she might just laugh it off, calling you a stupid idiot -, would she have been worth it then?
Make no mistake here - what you talk about is anything BUT love. Love implies TOGETHERNESS. Onesided "altruism" is something else completely.
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 03, 2010 05:10 PM |
|
|
Voikal:
Quote:
Still thats not enough, but both partners know that the other one have benefits and they not only grand the opportunity to him/her they want or even feel the need to do it. We can call it sort of symbiosis, but never egoism.
It's symbiosis and egoism. Both partners make each other happy - so why isn't it?
Quote:
The last one is the love to work with someone, but not because you have good material benefits (that can exist along it as well), but because there is something in the oter person that make you like working with him.
So it's quite selfish. You work because you enjoy working with that guy, and because you want the material benefits. That's definitely selfish.
Death:
When one acts upon inertia and/or knows in advance that he/she will regret the action. For example, suppose an atheist goes to church, but not for the feeling of community or anything like that - just because he's gone to church all of his life. It's not in his interest, because it's a waste of time - he doesn't believe in God and gains no emotional benefits of any kind either.
(If you were to read anything by Ayn Rand, you'd find better examples.)
Dagoth:
Thanks. You're describing my position quite accurately. 
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted March 03, 2010 05:13 PM |
|
|
One thing MVass.
How exactly is it in your interest to infinitely discuss these issues with TheDeath? It's not like it's going to change his mind, or anyone else's gonna read it.
Ha! Exposed, you altruistic swine
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 03, 2010 05:13 PM |
|
|
Quote:
When one acts upon inertia and/or knows in advance that he/she will regret the action. For example, suppose an atheist goes to church, but not for the feeling of community or anything like that - just because he's gone to church all of his life. It's not in his interest, because it's a waste of time - he doesn't believe in God and gains no emotional benefits of any kind either.
He does so because he would feel "bad" without going, let's say, because his brain got "used" to it.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 03, 2010 05:26 PM |
|
|
Bak:
You may be surprised, but it's actually fun. 
Death:
No, he knows he wouldn't feel bad if he didn't go - after all, he understands that he gains nothing from it. He'd actually feel relieved if he didn't go.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
VokialBG
Honorable
Legendary Hero
First in line
|
|
posted March 03, 2010 05:31 PM |
|
Edited by VokialBG at 17:33, 03 Mar 2010.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Still thats not enough, but both partners know that the other one have benefits and they not only grand the opportunity to him/her they want or even feel the need to do it. We can call it sort of symbiosis, but never egoism.
It's symbiosis and egoism. Both partners make each other happy - so why isn't it?
When you feel the need to make someone happy with yourself, your words, your deeds, it's not egoism. When you are with someone just to make ONLY yourself happy - it's egoism. It's not true love. It's sad when one is in true love, while the other looks for benefits for himself only.
Imagine you like a girl, she is perfect in everything (from your point at least), but you can't tell her, because you are to shy, or because you fear rejection or because you feel like you don't deserve her (She is just so perfect! And you... you are not!). But what if this girl feel the same about you? And you don't know about it. What if she gives you sort of signals. Together you can get through the love sickness...
Quote:
Quote:
The last one is the love to work with someone, but not because you have good material benefits (that can exist along it as well), but because there is something in the oter person that make you like working with him.
So it's quite selfish. You work because you enjoy working with that guy, and because you want the material benefits. That's definitely selfish.
You don't as I said.
BTW, do you like Max Stirner?
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 03, 2010 05:38 PM |
|
|
Quote:
When you feel the need to make someone happy with yourself, your words, your deeds, it's not egoism.
No, it's still egoism. You are making them happy with the end goal that you should be happy. Thus, quite selfish.
Quote:
You don't as I said.
Even if you disregard the monetary benefits, it's still selfish because you enjoy and value working with that guy.
And no, I don't like Max Stirner.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 03, 2010 05:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
No, he knows he wouldn't feel bad if he didn't go - after all, he understands that he gains nothing from it. He'd actually feel relieved if he didn't go.
No that's a contradiction. WHY does he go?
Rationally, he shouldn't and he KNOWS that (you said it). Emotionally, he shouldn't either (you said that he doesn't 'feel bad' if he didn't go).
So then WHY would he go? It makes no sense -- it is an example not bound in reality, but in absurdity. In short, no such thing.
Take a drug addiction for instance. There's the rational element that you should stop, and the emotional element of suffering if you do. Which is more realistic than your non-existent example. 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
VokialBG
Honorable
Legendary Hero
First in line
|
|
posted March 03, 2010 06:13 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
When you feel the need to make someone happy with yourself, your words, your deeds, it's not egoism.
No, it's still egoism. You are making them happy with the end goal that you should be happy. Thus, quite selfish.
And no, I don't like Max Stirner.
Altruism = egoism? I'm just asking.
You clearly don't know what's egoism. It's when you follow your own self-interest only. Making happy someone else, and not only yourself, even when that makes you happy too, automatcly makes you not egoist. Don't understand me wrong, it's not altruism as well.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 03, 2010 06:58 PM |
|
|
Death:
Indeed, there's really no reason for him to continue going. And yet he does. This kind of thing is unfortunately more common in real life than it should be.
Here's another example, since you didn't like that one - running into a burning building to save someone, knowing that you are almost certain to die, and thinking that it is unlikely that you will succeed.
Voikal:
Quote:
Altruism = egoism?
No, altruism is self-sacrifice with no benefit in return.
Quote:
Making happy someone else, and not only yourself, even when that makes you happy too, automatcly makes you not egoist.
No, that's still egoism.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 03, 2010 07:28 PM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 19:41, 03 Mar 2010.
|
JJ : interesting.
Mvass : so everything is egoist for you? or maybe you are so in the grip of egoism that you do not know that another way is possible? after all, you study economics, I guess what they teach you has more to do with being egoist than being loving and altruist.
btw, does someone has a definition of altruism, because I don't see exactly. I suppose it's the act of giving without expecting something in return. and you should feel happy about it, not actually forced to do it?
also, about altruism, I was thinking granting other people what they want, while it may seem altruist, may cause more bad than good.
you know the saying "give a man a fish and he'll eat a day. learn him how to catch them, he'll eat his whole life"
the problem is in our society, it looks like most people would take the fish, but not so many would actually care to learn how to catch them.
so by giving them what they want (the fish) you comfort them in staying the way they are.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 03, 2010 07:37 PM |
|
|
Quote:
so everything is egoist for you?
See what I wrote in response to Death.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
VokialBG
Honorable
Legendary Hero
First in line
|
|
posted March 03, 2010 07:39 PM |
|
Edited by VokialBG at 19:42, 03 Mar 2010.
|
I'll finish this with one things:
Seems like you are from the people that argue only to win, for self happiness and not to find the truth. Quote by you, one month ago:
Quote:
Fauch:
People who think for themselves are far too dangerous.
In your opinion everything is egoism. You said you don't like Max Stirner, he kinda fits you well in parts.
Following your logic altruism is form of egoism, you just don't see it now.
Self-sacrifice? There is benefit in return. If you are happy in sacrificing yourself for the others, even if sacrifice means your death - it's egoism. If you like to help/safe someone and in order to do it you self-sacrifice its egoism again, because you are happy doing it, if you don't carre you'll never do it.
By doing self-sacrifice you do happiness to yourself (in case you are going to die, this happiness if before the act). So it's an egoism to self-sacrifice, it's same with your opinion about love - you make happiness for your self, by making happiness for someone else. Beeing altruist mean, that you self-sacrifice for something, so benefit to someone else, and this makes you happy.
But that's why I'm right. Just when you do happiness to second person, even if that gives you happiness too, it means you are not egoist. You did it for both of you, not only for yourself.
Egoism exist, if you use the other person. If you get, but never give.
And thats why altruism exist. Following your logic - it doesn't.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 03, 2010 07:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
People who think for themselves are far too dangerous.
I wasn't being 100% serious there. I assumed people understood what I was trying to say.
Quote:
There is benefit in return. If you are happy in sacrificing yourself for the others, even if sacrifice means your death - it's egoism.
Then it's not really sacrifice. Real sacrifice is when you give something up and don't get something better in return. And altruism isn't "being nice to people" (although that's the definition it seems to have these days). Altruism is "the duty to serve".
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 03, 2010 07:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Fauch:
People who think for themselves are far too dangerous.
mvass : you want an extreme example of someone thinking for himself (and not following all the misconceptions and projections created by our society)?
buddha (everyone knows buddhas are extremly dangerous )
(note, given that my knowledge of buddhism is of course far from perfect, could someone confirm it?)
|
|
VokialBG
Honorable
Legendary Hero
First in line
|
|
posted March 03, 2010 07:56 PM |
|
Edited by VokialBG at 19:57, 03 Mar 2010.
|
The duty to serve gives you happiness to, even if the act is your death - the others get benefit, you do to - it's happines or satisfaction before the act for yourself. In your logic it's egoism => altruism doesn't exist.
But, it's altruism (it's why you are wrong) because you're not the onlyone who benefit it's same with love.
And I want an example now - for altruim, if you like to give us one, till now no ne said that it's being nice, but you said we did, so you think we are in mistake, give us an example, please.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 03, 2010 08:40 PM |
|
|
UNWANTED self-sacrifice (that is, self-sacrifice that a öperson does without in any way asking the person for whom the sacrifice takes place) robs the "victim" of the sacrifice the right to decide.
In other words, a sacrifice is a sacrifice only when the beneficiary of the sacrifice knows about it and agrees with it.
Everyone has the right to decline a "gift".
|
|
VokialBG
Honorable
Legendary Hero
First in line
|
|
posted March 03, 2010 08:49 PM |
|
|
Ok, but it's not on the subject we speak of right now.
____________
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
