• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Is Selflessness A Lie?

Zangetshumody

Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
458
MBTI Type
INTJ
The reason why I don't quote the rest of your words, and deal with what you've written, is because its a semantic jungle of confusion. There is no such thing as an "act of being selfish", but as I have noted before, how you define selfish is so broad, it probably includes just about every intelligent willful action performed by humans, but luckily for everyone it has no power to slander our moral agency as it has no appreciation of moral deliberation.
 

Zangetshumody

Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
458
MBTI Type
INTJ
You cannot simply subtract everything you dislike from the equation in order to get the desired outcome. This is precisely what you're doing

You do not know how to reason, saying something is so, does not make it so, state a case, do not give me some strange metaphor and then emphatically tell me that is exactly what I'm doing... What are you on? I have subtracted nothing, I have accounted for everything entirely. Do not make weak allegations, make an argument, you really make me feel like I'm wasting my time here...

Details, please. It is easy to disagree, but hard for me to reason why, without proper explanation.

Again, you don't know how to reason, I do not prove the negative, you prove the positive, I was showing you the hole in your 'argument'...

/sigh, in other words, I was pointing out to you that your text comprised of this fatal error in reasoning, I cant believe your making me spell out the consequences of your own words:
If someone will do something that will have consequences, and one of those consequences are positive, that positive consequence must be a motivation for the willed action; that was the substance of your text; now again your going to probably say something stupid like: "I never said that", but that it is exactly what your text amounts to. The point I was making is, that is a logical non sequitur, it does not follow that that is necessarily so, I cannot make this point any more clear, I cannot spell things out any more than I am currently doing.


Below is a paragraph I wrote and you agreeing with me, what you fail to realize is that this paragraph dismantles the thesis of your argument entirely, I can only conclude that you cannot read... perhaps you should attempt reading it through again, and if you still agree with your initial assessment concede your pursuit, and if you don't, actually mount a real reasoned rebuttal... But I guess that would probably be way too much to ask.

If one would restrict oneself to your own formulation of selfishness, it is so vague and all encompassing in its application, it would seem to me that the word loses so much of its meaning and force that it can no longer truly exclude actual selflessness, i.e. it would seem an act could be morally selfless (made with no consideration towards the self), and yet be selfish according to your definition (because it happened to ex post facto render some benefit to the actor).
Precisely.
 

erm

Permabanned
Joined
Jun 19, 2007
Messages
1,652
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
5
All actions are selfish because in order to act, one has to have a driving internal desire to act. e.g.: Imagine you want a cup; you have a desire for you to reach for the cup, so if you reach for it, you will be fulfilling that desire. This thought can be translated into any action.

P1: Every action has a desire behind it
P2: Selfishness is to have a desire

C1: Therefore, every action is performed from a selfish position

It's pretty simple to deny either premise. P1 is easy to deny, P2 is a different case.

P2 is either trying to prove that desire is selfish, by taking a separate definition of selfishness. This would require its own argument to do, otherwise it is an assumption. Or it is simply using a definition of selfishness that serves its own purposes, which I think is the case, so one merely needed to say "every action has a desire behind it" (P1). As aside from changing the label to selfishness, it adds nothing to P1.

Finding exceptions to P1 is extraordinary simple. Pick up a pen and drop it. Think about everything that just happened there, or rather, think about all the actions that just occurred.

People are motivated to act by stimuli from the brain. These "stimuli" manifest themselves in consciousness through perceived wants, desires, needs, etc. There can be a rationalization taking place (higher cognitive function) or simply a raw primal urge or something in-between. If the criteria for true selflessness requires that one act independently of these factors, then one would literally have to be without a self (or consciousness) in order to truly be selfless.

The error I see here, is that the sum of a human is not necessarily conscious. Essentially that the majority of those stimuli never manifest themselves in consciousness. In this sense they aren't wants, desires, or needs (as you define them).

For example, sacrificing oneself for someone they love (be it a child, a lover, or some other relationship), though they themselves are lost, they have projected their own desires onto their proxy of self (their other half or whotever they feel 'completes' them) as if it was their own self.

Your argument has an even stranger definition of the self, as shown in this quote. The biggest flaw in it all being that you make a tidal wave of assumptions about the internal motivations and actions of a person throughout your argument, in order to prove your conclusion.

For example:
Killing yeurself is generally bad, since it means one less member of yeur species running around... however, if it's considered to be valuable enough, such as saving several others, it's worth the risk.

From your perspective maybe. There are many reasons people have for not committing suicide, and many reasons people have for dying to save others. Because you see it in a morally Darwinistic sense, does not mean others do (e.g. those in the scenario). Plenty of people do not act in the interest of their species, and plenty of people only do so accidentally.
 

forzen

New member
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
547
MBTI Type
INTJ
I have thought of this topic years ago and had came to the same conclusion as the OP. However, I also do not believe there is such a thing as human selfishness, because any human action has the potential to make someone (other than the intiator of the action) happy directly or indirectly. That leaves us only with human desire which stand as the only constant when selfishness and selflessness is viewed from multiple perspective.
 

sculpting

New member
Joined
Jan 28, 2009
Messages
4,148
INTJs are very clever.

I can only judge how selfish vs nonselfish from my perspective-I can only subjectively describe why I do kind things.

When I see another person in pain, I internally mirror their pain. I have a physiological response to that pain. I cannot help but aid them. Logically, I recognize this makes my own pain go away, thus I logically recognize it is selfish. But the end result is kindness.

When I see another person happy, I internally mirror their happiness. It is not as strong as the mirrored pain response, but is still present. Thus logically I recognize that I seek to make others happy, in order to be happy myself.

The very best way for me to "feel" Fi, if to be involved in an altruistic activity. I feel euphoric. By giving, my own body rewards me with a flux of happy chemicals. But it has to be authentic giving, giving out of care, giving to help another in pain. All of those euphoric chemicals help me lay down Fi values that say "THIS is right."

The worst thing ever? Hurting someone else intentionally. If I do something that hurts another person I get trapped in a very bad place. I hurt them, I mirror the pain I perceive them to feel. I have a very hard time forgiving myself, thus I am stuck. Ne just amplifies the internal pain, likely as it misperceives the pain in the other person and amplifies that perception. This place is very horrible to be in.

Thus I really try hard not to hurt people-logically I recognize this is grounded in my own selfish desire to avoid being in pain.

selfish Fi-that results in exceptional kindness towards those most in need.
 

Tantive

New member
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
453
MBTI Type
INFP
If you're selfish, you do selfish acts....if you're selfless, you do selfless acts, simply because you're compelled to do so. If it's innate, it is no longer a question of selfishness and selflessness, but simply a reflection of who you are.
 

Jonny

null
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
3,134
MBTI Type
FREE
The stupidity that is required to continually argue over the definition of a word is a subtle one; made that much more dangerous because it is not so easily exposed and destroyed.

Let me quote myself, in the hopes of ending this foolishness:

People are motivated to act by stimuli from the brain. These "stimuli" manifest themselves in consciousness through perceived wants, desires, needs, etc. There can be a rationalization taking place (higher cognitive function) or simply a raw primal urge or something in-between. If the criteria for true selflessness requires that one act independently of these factors, then one would literally have to be without a self (or consciousness) in order to truly be selfless.

However, for the most part, selflessness (if we wish for it to mean anything at all) should apply to those individuals who gain pleasure when others gain pleasure, and who consider others when making decisions. The more consideration given to others, the more selfless.

End.
__________________

Now, if you have a problem with allowing the adjective selfless to be applied to anything or anyone who gains any type of benefit (even the benefit of acting in accordance with ones own internal motivation, i.e. freedom) from a particular action, then you are in effect choosing to have a word that's only purpose is to facilitate an argument over the definition of said word.

Furthermore, the term selfless is inextricably tied to its colloquial connotations, which are themselves garnered from the term being applied to those individuals who do good for others without any outward benefit to themselves; simply put, the term connots positivity because it is regularly applied to those individuals who's only benefit is that they enjoy seeing others benefit (Would you rather the world be filled with people who gave no such consideration to others?). So, although one might be able to define selfless in a way that makes it inapplicable to society, the question I have for you is: Why?

Edit:

Let me remind everyone that words to not originate from the dictionary, but from continued conversational use. In fact, many definitions are so far off that I cringe at the thought of them. So just because some Webster's Dictionary defines the term in a way that facilitates this foolishness, remember that it was done after the word had already been "defined" by society through continued usage, and that it is probably not the most accurate definition.
 

erm

Permabanned
Joined
Jun 19, 2007
Messages
1,652
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
5
I don't know who specifically you are responding to, but there's a lot more here than semantic argument, though that element is present.

For example, if it is true that everyone acts with only their own reward in mind, what is being claimed by some, then it would warrant the colloquial definition of selfish.

My previous disagreement with you, was that brain stimuli necessitates desire, wants and needs. I don't think it does. It is also the key point to my disagreement with the main argument in the OP. Essentially surmounting to people not always acting on their own desires, wants and needs. It being a trait of the English language to use the word "want" and similar terms, where one could instead replace it with something like "tends towards". The English language does not so easily mimic the make-up of the mind, so to speak.
 

Jonny

null
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
3,134
MBTI Type
FREE
I don't know who specifically you are responding to, but there's a lot more here than semantic argument, though that element is present.

For example, if it is true that everyone acts with only their own reward in mind, what is being claimed by some, then it would warrant the colloquial definition of selfish.

My previous disagreement with you, was that brain stimuli necessitates desire, wants and needs. I don't think it does. It is also the key point to my disagreement with the main argument in the OP. Essentially surmounting to people not always acting on their own desires, wants and needs. It being a trait of the English language to use the word "want" and similar terms, where one could instead replace it with something like "tends towards". The English language does not so easily mimic the make-up of the mind, so to speak.


I overlooked your response, and my post was not directed toward you.

Yes, but selfish is a much more agreed upon concept. Even though it is related to selfless, it is very far removed from this discussion IMO.

You are correct, the sum of a human is not conscious. Would you like subconscious actions (like breathing or a heartbeat) to be considered here? It seems like when discussion whether one is selfless or not, we would have to look at his/her conscious choices, rather than simply some automatic or subconscious action. I'm not sure of the relevance. Also, I included the term "etc," which was meant to include certain conscious "inclinations" not thought of.
 

erm

Permabanned
Joined
Jun 19, 2007
Messages
1,652
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
5
You are correct, the sum of a human is not conscious. Would you like subconscious actions (like breathing or a heartbeat) to be considered here? It seems like when discussion whether one is selfless or not, we would have to look at his/her conscious choices, rather than simply some automatic or subconscious action. I'm not sure of the relevance. Also, I included the term "etc," which was meant to include certain conscious "inclinations" not thought of.

I'm not treading with much certainty here, but I mean that a lot of conscious actions are not based on wants, desires or needs. I think I experience them all the time myself.

My more certain point is that, the mind being as complex and not understood as it is, to make the blanket statement that X type actions are all based on desire is not one made with any certainty. Whether X is conscious or not. I think there is certainty if you use the vague properties of the English language, where one can say the object wants to fall to the earth when explaining gravity, but in terms of the reward functions of the brain I'm not so sure.
 

Zangetshumody

Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
458
MBTI Type
INTJ
He is trying too hard.

concede your pursuit, and if you don't, actually mount a real reasoned rebuttal... But I guess that would probably be way too much to ask.

Well in a sense you are correct, as you are certainly wasting my time; you say you were looking for challenges, then why do you do you strangely agree with all the real ones which contradict your entire enterprise, its a pathetic tactic employed to avoid having to ever construct a viable rebuttal.

I will repeat the same thing i did before, I also spell the incongruence of your doctrines out below in the hopes that it is really just stupidity that ails you...


" Below is a paragraph I wrote and you agreeing with me, what you fail to realize is that this paragraph dismantles the thesis of your argument entirely, I can only conclude that you cannot read... perhaps you should attempt reading it through again, and if you still agree with your initial assessment concede your pursuit, and if you don't, actually mount a real reasoned rebuttal... But I guess that would probably be way too much to ask.

If one would restrict oneself to your own formulation of selfishness, it is so vague and all encompassing in its application, it would seem to me that the word loses so much of its meaning and force that it can no longer truly exclude actual selflessness, i.e. it would seem an act could be morally selfless (made with no consideration towards the self), and yet be selfish according to your definition (because it happened to ex post facto render some benefit to the actor).
Precisely. "

Therefore your definition of selfish has nothing to do with morality, it is a amoral, it has no recourse to an agent's motivations and intentions except perhaps by way of an unjustified presumption which would be impossible to uphold, but I'm sure that wouldn't stop someone like you. Please notice also that above you agree with me, and that the above paragraph dismantles your entire argument. Your a [removed] and I won't be wasting any more time on you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Liason

I'm more offensive in person!
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
185
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
The premise of my argument is; that an action cannot be selfless, as they selfishly benefit the enactor of the action in some way or form.

I believe it is more accurate to derive moral characterization by appraising principles which underly an agents' motivations or intentions.

If one would restrict oneself to your own formulation of selfishness, it is so vague and all encompassing in its application, it would seem to me that the word loses so much of its meaning and force that it can no longer truly exclude actual selflessness, i.e. it would seem an act could be morally selfless (made with no consideration towards the self), and yet be selfish according to your definition (because it happened to ex post facto render some benefit to the actor).

Do people not initially act upon their raising? People in modern society are told and taught right and wrong as they grow and develop into their adult selves. Even then, that's when they debate what they've been taught from their upbringing and experience.

Note that, what they have been taught, and what they have learned generally influences their morals/societal prejudice/conscience, thusly leading that whatever they did choose to do was initially, even if such was not a conscious decision, out of aversion to negative consequence, thusly upholding the posters argument.

Though I make the detriment it is not a very clear one and I choose no side on this argument as my personal view, simply explaining the flaw in this particular piece.
 

Arthur Schopenhauer

What is, is.
Joined
May 1, 2010
Messages
1,158
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5
Therefore your definition of selfish has nothing to do with morality, it is a amoral, it has no recourse to an agent's motivations and intentions except perhaps by way of an unjustified presumption which would be impossible to uphold, but I'm sure that wouldn't stop someone like you. Please notice also that above you agree with me, and that the above paragraph dismantles your entire argument. Your a [removed] and I won't be wasting any more time on you.

Okay, then. Thanks for destroying my argument.
 

Zangetshumody

Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
458
MBTI Type
INTJ
Do people not initially act upon their raising? People in modern society are told and taught right and wrong as they grow and develop into their adult selves. Even then, that's when they debate what they've been taught from their upbringing and experience.

Note that, what they have been taught, and what they have learned generally influences their morals/societal prejudice/conscience, thusly leading that whatever they did choose to do was initially, even if such was not a conscious decision, out of aversion to negative consequence, thusly upholding the posters argument.

Though I make the detriment it is not a very clear one and I choose no side on this argument as my personal view, simply explaining the flaw in this particular piece.

You make the same flaw as the OP in that you label someone selfish with recourse to the effects of a willed action while totally ignoring subjective intentionality (which is the basis of morality), making your "selfish" label colloquial with no moral basis.

Not that morality is something your interested in at all since your thinking seems to purposefully omit free will; if you wish to discount moral deliberation but say that most human behavior is functionally beneficial, and define beneficial actions rather than selfish-motives as selfish, then yes, you will have just defined the most selfish world imaginable, but don't for a second think you have accomplished this inflammatory feat in a way that has any moral bite, omitting the mechanism of moral deliberation means you are playing semantic games with the shell of a word that is truly meaningless in any phrase you could cling to in your defense.
 

Kasper

Diabolical
Joined
May 30, 2008
Messages
11,590
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Some crap moved to OT thread, the topic is selflessness, resume.
 
Last edited:

Lex Talionis

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2009
Messages
382
MBTI Type
INTJ
Some crap moved to OT thread, the topic is Selfishness, resume.

The topic is actually selflessness. I suppose it is assumed that a lack of selflessness equates to selfishness, which is for the most part true, but is a fruitless realization.
 

tcda

psicobolche
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
1,292
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5
Selflessness is not a "lie", though it may be the wrong way to frame the question.

What definitely is a lie is "rational self-interest". It's the self-serving ideology of the victorian British bourgeoisie which was inhereted by the capitalist classes around the world.

But history is full of examples of people going to their death for a collective cause and "rational self-interest" has no way of explaining that.

Richard Dawkins tried in a convoluted way to put this down to the "selfish gene", but that book could just as easily have been called the "altruistic gene". The attempts to explain an incredibly wide range of behaviours within "self-interest" are not very convincing, because this inevitably means stretching the definition of "selfish" so much that it makes the term meaningless.
 

Lex Talionis

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2009
Messages
382
MBTI Type
INTJ
Selflessness is not a "lie", though it may be the wrong way to frame the question.

What definitely is a lie is "rational self-interest". It's the self-serving ideology of the victorian British bourgeoisie which was inhereted by the capitalist classes around the world.

But history is full of examples of people going to their death for a collective cause and "rational self-interest" has no way of explaining that.

Richard Dawkins tried in a convoluted way to put this down to the "selfish gene", but that book could just as easily have been called the "altruistic gene". The attempts to explain an incredibly wide range of behaviours within "self-interest" are not very convincing, because this inevitably means stretching the definition of "selfish" so much that it makes the term meaningless.

Oh ho ho, I smell a Marxist. What's the matter? Richard Dawkins' humanism isn't leftist enough for you?
 
Top