Author Topic: Can one be totally unselfish?  (Read 235 times)

7even

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11289
  • Karma: -679
Re: Can one be totally unselfish?
« Reply #25 on: January 26, 2008, 06:08:28 PM »
I've heard of Eudaimonism and of some shit Plato and Freud had to say concerning this. What are you trying to get at, with this? You have to be pretty idealistic to count on people to dismiss decadent fun when they fallow a principle like this.

What you preach is kinda like anarchy. Let me tell you a little true story that involves me and the principle of anarchy:

I was like 15, maybe 16, I'm not sure. It was the time when a lot of people my age had those annoying anarchy A-symbols tagged on their backpacks and stuff, you know. I was hanging out at the local lake, summer night, getting drunk and walking from bonfire to bonfire with some friends. Some groups you knew, some faces were new. Anyways there was this random group with this random dude who had a huge flag with that A-symbol tagged on it. I was pretty drunk, and I was like "yo, that's some dope flag you got there homie. can I play with it?" He gave it to me, and after a couple secondes of thinking I threw it into their bonfire, basically. People were pretty shook. I was like "yo, being an anarchist and everything, wouldn't it be ironic to get at me for throwing your stuff into the fire?" Put on a smirk and went away. Needless to say that they didn't do shit.
Cause I don't care where I belong no more
What we share or not I will ignore
And I won't waste my time fitting in
Cause I don't think contrast is a sin
No, it's not a sin
 

Elevz

  • Guest
Re: Can one be totally unselfish?
« Reply #26 on: January 26, 2008, 06:36:35 PM »
I've heard of Eudaimonism and of some shit Plato and Freud had to say concerning this. What are you trying to get at, with this? You have to be pretty idealistic to count on people to dismiss decadent fun when they fallow a principle like this.

What you preach is kinda like anarchy. Let me tell you a little true story that involves me and the principle of anarchy:

I was like 15, maybe 16, I'm not sure. It was the time when a lot of people my age had those annoying anarchy A-symbols tagged on their backpacks and stuff, you know. I was hanging out at the local lake, summer night, getting drunk and walking from bonfire to bonfire with some friends. Some groups you knew, some faces were new. Anyways there was this random group with this random dude who had a huge flag with that A-symbol tagged on it. I was pretty drunk, and I was like "yo, that's some dope flag you got there homie. can I play with it?" He gave it to me, and after a couple secondes of thinking I threw it into their bonfire, basically. People were pretty shook. I was like "yo, being an anarchist and everything, wouldn't it be ironic to get at me for throwing your stuff into the fire?" Put on a smirk and went away. Needless to say that they didn't do shit.

Those people will allow you to beat them to death, and they'll say "oh, that's not the right thing to do!" That's a hippie attitude, a pacifist dream. You're a sitting duck if you believe that's the way to live.

Conflict is actually a natural part of life. When you're in a learning process, you'll have to discover what's right and what's not. You'll try some ideas and if a conflict comes across, that means your ideas need refining. That's how people learn. The hippies in your teens were simply too brainwashed to even notice the conflict. They negated reality; reality beat them in their faces. They should've been glad a flag isn't vital for survival. I wonder what would've happened had a blood thirsty psychopathic serial killer appeared from somewhere.

You can't naturally assume people act right. That's the most ignorant thing about the anarchists' attitudes; they acted as if man is born a fully rational and peaceful being. They forgot it's a process called maturing and education it takes for a man to come at peace with himself. They forgot a man's rational faculty is his most vital function. They seem to think man can just 'be' and he'll be perfectly alright. But food doesn't grow in our stomachs, and a baby isn't born a mathematical genius.

The pleasure principle... Naturally, man always strives for direct satisfaction of his desires. It requires a process of growth before he realizes that often it is desirable to delay the satisfaction of his desires, in order for a more desirable outcome. If you eat that corn now, it'll still some of your hunger. If you decide to plant its kernels, you'll have plenty more corn the next year. The search for immediate satisfaction of your desires, might prohibit yourself from enjoying much greater satisfaction (or cause dissatisfaction) later.

People need clear rules, simply because we're talking about a process of growth here. People need to learn the difference between mein and dein, and about the consequences of rule breaking. People need protection from rule breakers, and crimes must not be profitable. That's why you need a court of law to protect man's rights. That's all, just man's rights.

Think of that when you're talking about a welfare state. They make demands, but at the cost of who? Who are these people, to be granted the right to a claim they never achieved? How is unemployment or laziness an achievement? Why should the rights of others be sub par to the unearned 'rights' of the non productive?
 

Sikotic™

  • Moderator
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 28702
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • Karma: 3137
  • PussyCunt
Re: Can one be totally unselfish?
« Reply #27 on: January 26, 2008, 06:41:38 PM »
No such thing. Being selfish is part of being human.

Isn't it weird how unselfishness is seen as a virtue?
Not really. We all wish to be something we ultimately can't be. That's why Christians wanna be like Jesus. Why some music fans want to imitate their favorite musicians lifestyle. Same goes with sports fans and their favorite athlete.

We wish for things we cannot attain.
 

Elevz

  • Guest
Re: Can one be totally unselfish?
« Reply #28 on: January 26, 2008, 07:00:56 PM »
No such thing. Being selfish is part of being human.

Isn't it weird how unselfishness is seen as a virtue?
Not really. We all wish to be something we ultimately can't be. That's why Christians wanna be like Jesus. Why some music fans want to imitate their favorite musicians lifestyle. Same goes with sports fans and their favorite athlete.

We wish for things we cannot attain.

I don't hold being the winner of a grand slam tennis tournament as a virtue. I couldn't have achieved that myself, but I do see it as a terrible waste of one's time to be focused solely on playing one game of sports and be as good as possible at it. I do however hold it as a virtue if you do what makes you happy, as long as it doesn't conflict with other people's freedom. A great tennis player probably does get a kick out of being the best player, but what kind of achievement is that? You exhaust your body, making it as strong as possible yet you play so dangerously it might threaten its future functioning. You get kicks out of the relativity of your strength. If martians came on earth and they happened to play better than the best of the earthly tennis players, all of a sudden the earthly players wouldn't feel so satisfied anymore. The nature of their game is wicked, I tell you. The will to win for the sake of relative superiority is wicked.

I think a Christian wanting to copy Jesus Christ as good as possible is a whole different story though. He is their vision of perfection; of course that is worth striving for. But do all tennis fans wish they were like Raphael Nadal, sacrifising every hour of their lives to beat that other player? I guess you can say the same for music fans copying their idols: they set a cultural example, they are admired role models. That doesn't mean everyone would want to make the sacrifises it requires to become an idol. They sure would love parts of them: their style, their social position, the fun they supposedly have, perhaps their eruditeness. But would they want to sacrifise their very privacy and their soul to become like that?

People simply strive for that which they value. People don't strive to live like fishes. The nature of unselfishness is perhaps different: people like to receive without having to pay for the effort. They enjoy seeing others being unselfish concerning them, but would they want to sacrifise themselves for the sake of others as well? Of course not. Not as long as there's no surplus value in it.
 

7even

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11289
  • Karma: -679
Re: Can one be totally unselfish?
« Reply #29 on: January 26, 2008, 07:46:17 PM »
The pleasure principle... Naturally, man always strives for direct satisfaction of his desires. It requires a process of growth before he realizes that often it is desirable to delay the satisfaction of his desires, in order for a more desirable outcome. If you eat that corn now, it'll still some of your hunger. If you decide to plant its kernels, you'll have plenty more corn the next year. The search for immediate satisfaction of your desires, might prohibit yourself from enjoying much greater satisfaction (or cause dissatisfaction) later.

Think of that when you're talking about a welfare state. They make demands, but at the cost of who? Who are these people, to be granted the right to a claim they never achieved? How is unemployment or laziness an achievement? Why should the rights of others be sub par to the unearned 'rights' of the non productive?

Let me start with saying that I agree with the things that I don't quote now.

Now let's go over to the interesting part, concerning the stuff that I don't entirely agree with.

a) I agree with Freud when he says that in society, the effort/pain/lack of pleasure/etc (whatever is most suitable in a particular situation) is most of the time greater than the "delayed pleasure" you get later. I don't think that thought is pessimistic at all.
Trivial example: You say to yourself that despite your functional relationship and your strong sexual drive, you are going to have no sex with your girl for, let's say 3 months. Just to have the greater pleasure in 1. great pleasure while having sex cause you anticipated it for so long and shit and 2. having a new experience and shit. Well, if you're honest this is gonna be inefficient, pleasure-wise.

Another example would be studying something difficult you hate for a long time because it will give you the right to do a profitable job afterwards. It rarely adds up, yet people happen to do those type of things all the time.

But how is that even the point? Wasn't the issue at hand that some people will enjoy being assholes as long as it benefits them and how this would be ruining society? What if being kind is not planting any darn kernel for them?


b) It's called caring for the deprived. A social system that produces unemployment and laziness is a flawed system. A social system that takes care of the deprived is not.
Cause I don't care where I belong no more
What we share or not I will ignore
And I won't waste my time fitting in
Cause I don't think contrast is a sin
No, it's not a sin