• 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.

Selflessness and luck do exist, you pseuds. Stop saying that they dont...

Jonny

null
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
3,134
MBTI Type
FREE
This is a thread created to house arguments against (or for, I guess I have to be fair) all those pseudo-intellectual notions which people spout without much thought.

Luck

A pseud would say "There is no such thing as luck," or "I make my own luck."

The degree to which a person is "lucky" is dependent upon how much those things that are out of his direct control bring him beneficial results. For instance, a man born of great wealth may be considered luckier than a man born in poverty, who contracts HIV from his mother in utero. This notion does not speak about fate or divine intervention, but is a mere gauge of the facts surrounding one's existence. People cannot make their own luck, since any conscious action on their part would cause the beneficial consequences to be not luck, but a consequence of action. Luck does exist, and one can gauge how lucky someone else is (although this is dependent upon what one desires, and requires clear definitions about what is favorable and unfavorable).

Selflessness

A pseud would say "Everything everyone does is selfish," and "There is no such thing as a selfless action."

The degree to which a person is considered "selfless" or "selfish" is dependent upon his consideration of others, and his actions towards others. Yes, both the selfish and the selfless do what makes them happy, but this is immaterial. One gains happiness with less regard for the feelings of others, and one gains happiness from bringing happiness to others. This is an important distinction to make in life, as an individual who is colloquially considered to be selfish is substantively different than an individual who is considered selfless. By saying that everyone is ultimately governed by their own motivations is self evident; you needn't bastardize useful words in your pursuit to be seen as "clever."



How about y'all? Anything similar that bothers you? Questions, concerns about my statements?
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
Luck

A pseud would say "There is no such thing as luck," or "I make my own luck."

The degree to which a person is "lucky" is depended upon how much those things that are out of his direct control bring him beneficial results. For instance, a man born of great wealth may be considered luckier than a man born in poverty, who contracts HIV from his mother in utero. This notion does not speak about fate or divine intervention, but is a mere gauge of the facts surrounding one's existence. People cannot make their own luck, since any conscious action on their part would cause the beneficial consequences to be not luck, but a consequence of action. Luck does exist, and one can gauge how lucky someone else is (although this is dependent upon what one desires, and requires clear definitions about what is favorable and unfavorable).

By your definition of luck, I can agree that it exists. However, many people give luck a superstitious quality, as though it was magic or the good will of a higher power. What would you say about that?
 

Jonny

null
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
3,134
MBTI Type
FREE
I cannot really give an opinion on things I cannot prove or disprove, except to say that superstitious qualities are born through feelings. To those people, when they experience a lucky event, they have other feelings about it which give it the quality of being supernatural. Who am I to argue with their feelings?

Regardless of those feelings, if you were to find out where I live, come to my house, point a gun to my head, pull the trigger, but the gun were to jam... Well, we all might consider me lucky, regardless of whether Jesus Christ stuck an invisible finger in the gun or you were too retarded to keep it clean and functioning.
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
Regardless of those feelings, if you were to find out where I live, come to my house, point a gun to my head, pull the trigger, but the gun were to jam... Well, we all might consider me lucky, regardless of whether Jesus Christ stuck an invisible finger in the gun or you were too retarded to keep it clean and functioning.

Luckily, we won't have to try that out. :wink:
 

erm

Permabanned
Joined
Jun 19, 2007
Messages
1,652
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
5
both the selfish and the selfless do what makes them happy

everyone is ultimately governed by their own motivations

Neither of those statements are true.

Very few people do what makes them happy with any regularity. Even fewer actually attempt to maximise their own happiness. You can pre-define happiness though, so it's a universal abstract goal everyone's actions are pre-defined as aiming towards, and make happiness a useless concept as a result.

You can pre-define motivation, so that it is by definition always behind a person's actions, and by circular reasoning get a useless concept of selfishness that makes every human selfish no matter what they do (because selfishness is defined as merely having this "motivation"). Alternatively, you can use the regular definition of motivation, and realise that it is not always self-serving, not by a long shot.

Not that I'm disagreeing with your overarching point. Yes selflessness exists, and yes people who deny that are often being pseudo-intellectuals or attempting to reduce their own guilt.
 

lowtech redneck

New member
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
3,711
MBTI Type
INTP
"Everything everyone does is selfish," and "There is no such thing as a selfless action."

This is an important distinction to make in life, as an individual who is colloquially considered to be selfish is substantively different than an individual who is considered selfless.

Both of these statements are correct; unless they are attempting to deny or obscure the second statement, your complaint about people in a philosophy sub-forum who deny the existence of selfless actions is unwarranted.
 

Arclight

Permabanned
Joined
Nov 5, 2009
Messages
3,177
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
6w5
If you don't know how to manipulate luck , then that just keeps the odds more in my favor.
The rules of attraction do apply when it comes to luck.
You also have to be good to be lucky and willing to take chances.
You also have to accept that you can be unlucky and it does not mean you are defeated, just flawed.
If you are lucky you get chance fix what went wrong thus improving your luck for next time.
Luck is like faith, indescribable but undeniable.
The inexplicable happens all the time.
But you cant be lucky if you don't play the game.

Your other point? Everybody is selfish. Everybody is generous. They are the same spectrum.
They exist in complete interdependence of each other.
 

ultimawepun

New member
Joined
Feb 4, 2011
Messages
92
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
1w2
Luck is simply an advantage you didn't know you have.

Selflessness is rather subjective. But to pessimists and cynics who want to believe in altruism, give yourself a break, it's okay to feel some pleasure in giving.
 

Jonny

null
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
3,134
MBTI Type
FREE
Neither of those statements are true.

Very few people do what makes them happy with any regularity. Even fewer actually attempt to maximise their own happiness. You can pre-define happiness though, so it's a universal abstract goal everyone's actions are pre-defined as aiming towards, and make happiness a useless concept as a result.

You can pre-define motivation, so that it is by definition always behind a person's actions, and by circular reasoning get a useless concept of selfishness that makes every human selfish no matter what they do (because selfishness is defined as merely having this "motivation"). Alternatively, you can use the regular definition of motivation, and realise that it is not always self-serving, not by a long shot.

Not that I'm disagreeing with your overarching point. Yes selflessness exists, and yes people who deny that are often being pseudo-intellectuals or attempting to reduce their own guilt.

I agree with you. The problem is, how can I effectively establish that overarching point if I get lost in the minutia surrounding human motivation? Would I lose out on an audience by being too wordy, too thorough? My assessment is that the amount of time required wouldn't be worth the end result. And besides, other forum members do a pretty good job of refining those ideas as you have in your post. The main point is that there is a meaningful distinction between the two poles of the spectrum of the selfless/selfish, and to lump them all together is to miss the point of that distinction.

Thanks for your contribution.
 

Jonny

null
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
3,134
MBTI Type
FREE
unless they are attempting to deny or obscure the second statement

Yes, these are the people to whom the OP refers. The types of people who use that understanding, that we are all self motivated, to somehow draw the conclusion that a selfless action is not substantively different than a selfish one.

your complaint about people in a philosophy sub-forum who deny the existence of selfless actions is unwarranted

Shall I assume that your emphasis on the word philosophy means that you believe I misplaced this thread? Feel free to request a change of venue from one of the mods, I won't object. Alternatively, feel free to not waste your time.
 

Nicodemus

New member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
9,756
This reminds me of the short dialogue in which I said that philosophy is mostly psychology and you gave a textbook definition of both terms.
 

Jonny

null
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
3,134
MBTI Type
FREE
This reminds me of the short dialogue in which I said that philosophy is mostly psychology and you gave a textbook definition of both terms.

I'd be interested in seeing this dialogue for some context. I am very often wrong, and am also argumentative for the sake of arguing, so perhaps it was one of those times? Do you recall what thread?

Edit: I currently believe there are substantial differences between the two disciplines, and so such a statement would probably still provoke disagreement from me.
 

Nicodemus

New member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
9,756
I'd be interested in seeing this dialogue for some context. I am very often wrong, and am also argumentative for the sake of arguing, so perhaps it was one of those times? Do you recall what thread?
It was in Vent and lasted one minute.

Edit: I currently believe there are substantial differences between the two disciplines, and so such a statement would probably still provoke disagreement from me.
That much was clear even then.
 

entropie

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 24, 2008
Messages
16,767
MBTI Type
entp
Enneagram
783
I dont see the connection between selflessness and luck to understand why they need to be named in one system.

The existance of selflessness is a matter of definition. You can for example say that someone who sacrifrices himself to rescue another was following his own motive to rescue others. It's kinda stupid to discuss that in detail, yet some people like that, so I leave it open to them. I dont care.

Luck exists in form of randomnity if quantum physics are true. If not it doesnt exist, from what we know until now.

I found the creation of a new word that is "pseuds" to fuel the fire for discussion very distasteful.
 

prplchknz

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 11, 2007
Messages
34,397
MBTI Type
yupp
Luck has to exist, I wouldn't have gotten this far in life without it.
 

Aquarelle

Starcrossed Seafarer
Joined
Jun 16, 2010
Messages
3,144
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
I agree completely with your OP-- both do exist on their own. I think it's possible to "make your own luck," but as you say, since luck is by definition beyond our control, that might be a bit of a misnomer. I usually refer to it as "rowing out to meet the ship" instead of "waiting for it to come in."
 

entropie

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 24, 2008
Messages
16,767
MBTI Type
entp
Enneagram
783
It's always the best method to settle for less by giving it a nice name :)
 

Jonny

null
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
3,134
MBTI Type
FREE
I dont see the connection between selflessness and luck to understand why they need to be named in one system.

I'm not sure what you mean here. To be clear, I was not establishing a connection between them, except to say that they are commonly brought up by "pseuds" to interject into a conversation. For example, if you and I were discussing how selfish a common friend of ours is, a pseud might interject that "we are all selfish."

The existance of selflessness is a matter of definition. You can for example say that someone who sacrifrices himself to rescue another was following his own motive to rescue others. It's kinda stupid to discuss that in detail, yet some people like that, so I leave it open to them. I dont care.

You are correct, it is indeed a matter of definition. There are those who would wish to have selflessness be a term which applies to no one, by virtue of the fact that everyone falls under the definition of selfish. I say this is a foolish way to define these terms, as they use their utility.

Luck exists in form of randomnity if quantum physics are true. If not it doesnt exist, from what we know until now.

Luck exists not so much because there exists randomness, but because an individual has the perception of randomness, e.g. imperfect information.

I found the creation of a new word that is "pseuds" to fuel the fire for discussion very distasteful.

I would agree, it is not the most tasteful of terms, but I am not the most tasteful of individuals. I appreciate the use of boorish vernacular when making claims about general types of people because, well, it is my custom to refrain from such impoliteness when talking with particular individuals. Over time, holding one's tongue becomes a burden which, for us weaker individuals, demands reprieve lest we die a little on the inside. By using words such as pseud, I can unleash my frustrations at nobody in particular.

Edit: Actually, my use of the term "pseud" seems very apt in this discussion, since per its dictionary definition it refers to someone who is "intellectually or socially pretentious." Wouldn't you say that a person who interjects in a manner akin to that which I gave in my example would be considered a pseud?
 
Top