|
Author
|
Topic: Spiritual vs. physical
|
forgiven
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Originally posted by hiddenexit77:
And furthermore, what about art in all its forms? Poetry, visual art, music, all those indescribably wonderful things? How do they fit in? Is it materialistic to be an avid music listener, for instance?
nope, not at all.. as a matter of fact, it would be spiritual  ... these are tough concepts for anyone, but it's helped me to substitute the word 'metaphysical' for 'spiritual'... i'm sure there are better substitutes that convey the same meaning, but that works for me so things like love and honor and logic would fall into that category... things that have no basis in the material, in other words... things that aren't suspended in time and space, and aren't dependent upon the material to exist... take logic (i would use love but that might lead to an argument) for example... did logic exist before man walked the earth? could a dinosaur both occupy the same space and not occupy the same space in the same way at the same time?... there's no dichotomy between the physical and the spiritual... just as there are many material entities in the universe, there are many spiritual entities... i take issue with something someone else wrote that the trouble with the 'spiritual' person is that she tends to think herself superior to the less spiritual... i'd argue that she has it wrong, if she thinks that... thoughts of superiority would actually be more physical than spiritual... the more spiritual one becomes, the *less* one thinks of oneself and the more one thinks of others
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 6 by hiddenexit77, posted 08-12-2002 9:28 PM | | hiddenexit77 has not replied |
|
forgiven
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 32 of 51 (22507)
11-13-2002 12:47 PM
|
Reply to: Message 30 by John
11-13-2002 1:45 AM
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by John:
quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
you say you don't believe "humans *ever* do things purely for the (perceived) good of others"... this implies that humans don't do anything with another's good as the motive...
quote:
No it doesn't. It implies exactly what I said, that people don't do anything purely -- keyword-- for the good of another.
to quote you from below, and you know this how?
quote:
i agree she'd be happy about that, but by equating the result of an altruistic action with the action itself, you seem to lessen the importance of the motive...
quote:
Lessen the importance of the motive? What does that mean? The motive is the spark that lights the fire. Me thinks you are spkiking the brew with some value judgements.
john you really must stop accusing others of the very things you do.. when you say your mom saved your life with her happiness as the motive, are you not spiking the brew with a value judgement?
quote:
what you wrote would make sense if you were saying that your mother saved your life in order to be happy... her own happiness would be the motive, not her love for you...
quote:
Ah, and now you've got it!!!! I am saying that this is a definite component of the hypothetical motivation to save my life.
and, again quoting you from below, you know this how?
quote:
so whether or not your mom would be happy has nothing to do with the altruistic act involved...
quote:
I see a conclusion here but no premises or argument. It just came out of nowhere.
again you attack another for doing what you yourself do time and again... where were your premises, your arguments?
quote:
if she was willing to sacrifice her own life for yours, the motive for that action would be altruistic or it wouldn't be...
quote:
Really? Is altruism an all or nothing affair? Is it impossible to do something partially for the good of another?
this seems, frankly, sophmoric... if the subject is altruism, we must keep to the definition of the word... let me rephrase the sentence so that maybe you don't misinterpret it... an act is altruistic else it isn't... that's all i said... again you are confusing the end result with the motive prompting the action... i can do something for another with no thought whatsoever for myself, or i can do something for another with some thought for myself, or i can do something for another with *only* myself in mind... but altruism means 'selflessness', it means acting with the good of another in mind (motive), and it's the belief that such action is right and proper...
quote:
she didn't save your life with any end in mind, she saved it because she loved you... your good, not hers...
quote:
And you know this how?
why the same way you know the converse, i suppose... i don't know your mom... maybe she did think "hmm do i save him or not? wouldn't it risk my own life? decisions, decisions.. oh i know!! if i save him i'll be happier than if i didn't, so i'll save him for *that* reason.. to make myself happy"... then again maybe her thoughts were only for your well-being... if you're asking how one knows the motive another has for an action, one doesn't... but if that's true for me, it's equally true for you... try not to hold others to standards you don't even approach
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 30 by John, posted 11-13-2002 1:45 AM | | John has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 33 by John, posted 11-13-2002 3:10 PM | | forgiven has replied |
|
John
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 33 of 51 (22521)
11-13-2002 3:10 PM
|
Reply to: Message 32 by forgiven
11-13-2002 12:47 PM
|
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by forgiven:
[B] quote:
Originally posted by John:
quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
you say you don't believe "humans *ever* do things purely for the (perceived) good of others"... this implies that humans don't do anything with another's good as the motive...
quote:
No it doesn't. It implies exactly what I said, that people don't do anything purely -- keyword-- for the good of another.
to quote you from below, and you know this how?
Notice how you changed the focus and thereby distorted what I said. I said 'purely' you said 'ever' See the difference? People do things for the good of others all the time, but not ever solely for that reason, as far as I can tell.
quote:
john you really must stop accusing others of the very things you do.. when you say your mom saved your life with her happiness as the motive, are you not spiking the brew with a value judgement?
Happy is a value judgement?
quote:
Ah, and now you've got it!!!! I am saying that this is a definite component of the hypothetical motivation to save my life. and, again quoting you from below, you know this how?
Describe to me a situation in which the actor gets no form of reward or in which the actor is not avoiding a negative. I cannot think of such a situation.
quote:
again you attack another for doing what you yourself do time and again... where were your premises, your arguments?
Read through the whole thread. You've jumped in at the tail end.
quote:
this seems, frankly, sophmoric... if the subject is altruism, we must keep to the definition of the word... let me rephrase the sentence so that maybe you don't misinterpret it... an act is altruistic else it isn't...
altruism: willingness to do things which benefit other people. Cambridge International Dictionary. Let me rephrase so that you don't misunderstand. Why do you insist that altruism is an all or nothing affair? Please, no more sophomoric dodges. And just for clarity, what I maintain is that no one does anythign for purely altruistic reasons. And for even more clarity, people often have multiple motives for an action. Some of those motives may well be truly altruistic. Most of that collection of motives may be altruistic, but not all of them, but cause we humans have this peculiar ability to predict the outcome of events and from that prediction expect to be happy, sad, or some mix of the two. It is called being self aware. The predictions do not have to be accurate, nor the expectations correct, but they are a factor. What you seem to be doing is choosing the altruistic reason(s) and rejecting the others.
quote:
again you are confusing the end result with the motive prompting the action...
If I said that you put the key in the ignition because you wanted the car to start, am I confusing the end result with the motive? We know with reasonable certainty how we are going to feel should certain events come to pass. How can this not be a factor?
quote:
i can do something for another with no thought whatsoever for myself
Why? Serious question. Why? What are your motivations for such action?
quote:
why the same way you know the converse, i suppose... i don't know your mom... maybe she did think "hmm do i save him or not? wouldn't it risk my own life? decisions, decisions.. oh i know!! if i save him i'll be happier than if i didn't, so i'll save him for *that* reason.. to make myself happy"... then again maybe her thoughts were only for your well-being...
Now that you have happily beat up that straw man... You know what you'd do if your wife/sister/mother/girlfriend were in danger, yes? Why? You have already thought about it. The analysis happens over weeks, years and decades, not the microseconds available in an emergency. ------------------ http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 32 by forgiven, posted 11-13-2002 12:47 PM | | forgiven has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 34 by forgiven, posted 11-13-2002 8:55 PM | | John has replied |
|
forgiven
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 34 of 51 (22583)
11-13-2002 8:55 PM
|
Reply to: Message 33 by John
11-13-2002 3:10 PM
|
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by John:
[B] quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
quote:
Originally posted by John:
quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
you say you don't believe "humans *ever* do things purely for the (perceived) good of others"... this implies that humans don't do anything with another's good as the motive...
quote:
No it doesn't. It implies exactly what I said, that people don't do anything purely -- keyword-- for the good of another.
to quote you from below, and you know this how?
Notice how you changed the focus and thereby distorted what I said. I said 'purely' you said 'ever' See the difference? People do things for the good of others all the time, but not ever solely for that reason, as far as I can tell. *** how did i change anything, i quoted you word for word... i simply asked how you knew this... i assumed it was a fair question, given the fact it was one you'd asked me
quote:
john you really must stop accusing others of the very things you do.. when you say your mom saved your life with her happiness as the motive, are you not spiking the brew with a value judgement?
Happy is a value judgement? *** now john, you didn't give the context of my statement... you accused me of making a value judgement when discussing a motive for altruistic behavior... you had previously stated as a possible motive the happiness of your mother... if my motive was a value judgement, so was yours... hence the above...
quote:
Ah, and now you've got it!!!! I am saying that this is a definite component of the hypothetical motivation to save my life. and, again quoting you from below, you know this how?
Describe to me a situation in which the actor gets no form of reward or in which the actor is not avoiding a negative. I cannot think of such a situation. *** assuming that's true, so what? the point is, did the person act in such a manner for altruistic reasons?... the possible or potential benefit has no bearing on the subject... it may be that the end result of an altruistic action is beneficial to the one acting, but it doesn't follow from that that the act itself wasn't selfless...
quote:
again you attack another for doing what you yourself do time and again... where were your premises, your arguments?
Read through the whole thread. You've jumped in at the tail end. *** i thought i had... in any case i assume you agree that it's wrong to accuse someone else of that which we ourselves are guilty...
quote:
this seems, frankly, sophmoric... if the subject is altruism, we must keep to the definition of the word... let me rephrase the sentence so that maybe you don't misinterpret it... an act is altruistic else it isn't...
altruism: willingness to do things which benefit other people. Cambridge International Dictionary. Let me rephrase so that you don't misunderstand. Why do you insist that altruism is an all or nothing affair? Please, no more sophomoric dodges. And just for clarity, what I maintain is that no one does anythign for purely altruistic reasons. And for even more clarity, people often have multiple motives for an action. Some of those motives may well be truly altruistic. Most of that collection of motives may be altruistic, but not all of them, but cause we humans have this peculiar ability to predict the outcome of events and from that prediction expect to be happy, sad, or some mix of the two. It is called being self aware. The predictions do not have to be accurate, nor the expectations correct, but they are a factor. What you seem to be doing is choosing the altruistic reason(s) and rejecting the others.
quote:
again you are confusing the end result with the motive prompting the action...
If I said that you put the key in the ignition because you wanted the car to start, am I confusing the end result with the motive? We know with reasonable certainty how we are going to feel should certain events come to pass. How can this not be a factor? *** even if it *is* a factor, it doesn't have anything to do with the discussion...
quote:
i can do something for another with no thought whatsoever for myself
Why? Serious question. Why? What are your motivations for such action? *** if i took the time to frame a motivation, i might appear to be weighing risks vs. benefits... a man walks down a street... next to him is an unknown child, about 9 years old, walking in the same direction... suddenly someone yells "look out!!!" the man glances up and sees a piano falling from a balcony... he shoves the child away from him as hard as he can, is struck by the piano and dies... this really happened in new york city back in the 80s... the child nor her family knew this man... the media labeled him a hero... he could have saved himself, but didn't... he may even have had time to save himself *and* the child, but his thoughts were evidently on the child was this an altruistic action, john? what was his motive? who knows? who *cares*?
quote:
why the same way you know the converse, i suppose... i don't know your mom... maybe she did think "hmm do i save him or not? wouldn't it risk my own life? decisions, decisions.. oh i know!! if i save him i'll be happier than if i didn't, so i'll save him for *that* reason.. to make myself happy"... then again maybe her thoughts were only for your well-being...
Now that you have happily beat up that straw man... *** straw man? i have simply quoted you and asked you for answers or clarifications... and i've yet to even *attempt* to beat anyone up... You know what you'd do if your wife/sister/mother/girlfriend were in danger, yes? Why? You have already thought about it. The analysis happens over weeks, years and decades, not the microseconds available in an emergency. *** perhaps that's true, perhaps it isn't... and perhaps the man in new york had already thought about, for weeks, years, decades, what he'd do if a piano fell from an upstairs balcony toward a street along which he and a stranger walked.. but i doubt it
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 33 by John, posted 11-13-2002 3:10 PM | | John has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 35 by John, posted 11-14-2002 1:01 AM | | forgiven has replied |
|
John
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 35 of 51 (22626)
11-14-2002 1:01 AM
|
Reply to: Message 34 by forgiven
11-13-2002 8:55 PM
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
how did i change anything, i quoted you word for word... i simply asked how you knew this...
Geez... you are dense.
quote:
this implies that humans don't do anything with another's good as the motive...
This is not what I said. This is your inference, not mine. And I have explained this several times.
[quote][b]now john, you didn't give the context of my statement... you accused me of making a value judgement when discussing a motive for altruistic behavior... you had previously stated as a possible motive the happiness of your mother... if my motive was a value judgement, so was yours... hence the above...
[quote][b] From your post #29: quote:
but by equating the result of an altruistic action with the action itself, you seem to lessen the importance of the motive...
The value judgement comment was directed at the phrase 'lessen the improtance of the motive' This is much different from saying my mom will be happy.
quote:
assuming that's true, so what? the point is, did the person act in such a manner for altruistic reasons?...
Did the person act altruistically? What reason was the actual motivation? None of them taken alone. The motive is the gestalt. The whole irritatingly complex web of reasons.
quote:
the possible or potential benefit has no bearing on the subject...
And you do not consider the consequences of your actions? These considerations do not play a role in you decision making process? You seem to be claiming that they do not.
quote:
it may be that the end result of an altruistic action is beneficial to the one acting, but it doesn't follow from that that the act itself wasn't selfless...
I did not say it followed from the effects of the action. I said that the expectations of the effects are factors in the equation.
quote:
even if it *is* a factor, it doesn't have anything to do with the discussion...
It IS THE DISCUSSION, not merely a factor.
quote:
if i took the time to frame a motivation, i might appear to be weighing risks vs. benefits...
You didn't answer the question.
quote:
was this an altruistic action, john? what was his motive? who knows? who *cares*?
Well, if you don't care please leave me to someone who DOES care.
quote:
perhaps that's true, perhaps it isn't... and perhaps the man in new york had already thought about, for weeks, years, decades, what he'd do if a piano fell from an upstairs balcony toward a street along which he and a stranger walked.. but i doubt it
There you go beating up that straw man again. The introduction of the specifics is misleading. Would you help a stranger? Yes or no? And you know this without knowing the specifics of the case don't you? ------------------ http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 34 by forgiven, posted 11-13-2002 8:55 PM | | forgiven has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 39 by forgiven, posted 11-14-2002 10:30 PM | | John has not replied |
|
RedVento
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 36 of 51 (22682)
11-14-2002 10:57 AM
|
|
|
We interrupt this debate with recap... It seems that John and Forgiven are arguing semantics.. John is saying that no act is truly altruistic because the motive is important... Why you do something helps decide if it is altruistic. Forgiven argues the opposite.. that the act in itself, regardless of motive is what determines if it is altruistic or not. I seriously doubt either will sway, but it is very entertaining to watch. Personally I have no opinion on the matter since my motto is... "Remember who I am doing it all for.... ME!" Red
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 37 by John, posted 11-14-2002 11:14 AM | | RedVento has not replied | | | Message 38 by forgiven, posted 11-14-2002 10:26 PM | | RedVento has replied |
|
John
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 37 of 51 (22688)
11-14-2002 11:14 AM
|
Reply to: Message 36 by RedVento
11-14-2002 10:57 AM
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by RedVento:
It seems that John and Forgiven are arguing semantics..
I think you are largely correct. There a big element of semantics in the debate.
quote:
John is saying that no act is truly altruistic because the motive is important... Why you do something helps decide if it is altruistic.
Is there any other way to determine altruism?
quote:
Forgiven argues the opposite.. that the act in itself, regardless of motive is what determines if it is altruistic or not.
Here is the clincher. Altruism is reflexive. It is tied to a conscious doer, otherwise any lucky break would be an altruistic act on the part of the universe. I suppose stranger things have been proposed but I don't think Forgiven is going that direction. In other words, how do you determine if it was done 'for the good of others' if you cannot consider motive? could tru to kill the pope and accidentally kill a five year old kid who would have grown up to nuke NYC. This, if motive is not considered, would be an altruistic act. ------------------ http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 36 by RedVento, posted 11-14-2002 10:57 AM | | RedVento has not replied |
|
forgiven
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 38 of 51 (22810)
11-14-2002 10:26 PM
|
Reply to: Message 36 by RedVento
11-14-2002 10:57 AM
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by RedVento:
We interrupt this debate with recap... It seems that John and Forgiven are arguing semantics.. John is saying that no act is truly altruistic because the motive is important... Why you do something helps decide if it is altruistic. Forgiven argues the opposite.. that the act in itself, regardless of motive is what determines if it is altruistic or not. I seriously doubt either will sway, but it is very entertaining to watch. Personally I have no opinion on the matter since my motto is... "Remember who I am doing it all for.... ME!" Red
altruism is a word... it means: 1. selflessness: an attitude or way of behaving marked by unselfish concern for the welfare of others 2. belief in acting for others’ good: the belief that acting for the benefit of others is right and good what this (i agree,useless) discussion is all about, when you get right down to it, is whether or not there even *is* such a thing as altruism... (i) a selfless act is altruistic (by definition) (ii) giving ones life for another is a selfless act (by definition) therefore, giving ones life for another is altruistic see? easy when you just use logic... john wants to say that the giving of ones life for another isn't altruistic because we can't know the true motive of the giver... but that doesn't matter, so long as the terms are defined... now then, if someone cares to form a valid argument taking the opposite view, do so
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 36 by RedVento, posted 11-14-2002 10:57 AM | | RedVento has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 40 by John, posted 11-15-2002 8:50 AM | | forgiven has not replied | | | Message 41 by RedVento, posted 11-15-2002 10:53 AM | | forgiven has replied |
|
forgiven
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 39 of 51 (22811)
11-14-2002 10:30 PM
|
Reply to: Message 35 by John
11-14-2002 1:01 AM
|
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by John:
[B] quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
how did i change anything, i quoted you word for word... i simply asked how you knew this...
Geez... you are dense.[/quote] ahhh not i understand why any attempt to use logic fails... the fallacies abound... ad hominums anyone?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 35 by John, posted 11-14-2002 1:01 AM | | John has not replied |
|
John
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 40 of 51 (22843)
11-15-2002 8:50 AM
|
Reply to: Message 38 by forgiven
11-14-2002 10:26 PM
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
altruism is a word... it means: 1. selflessness: an attitude or way of behaving marked by unselfish concern for the welfare of others
You consistently and stubbornly neglect the part about 'attitude'
quote:
what this (i agree,useless) discussion is all about, when you get right down to it, is whether or not there even *is* such a thing as altruism...
You are correct. The discussion is about whethe there is a such thing as altruism. If you consider the discussion to be useless, drop it.
quote:
(i) a selfless act is altruistic (by definition)
You gloss over the analysis of selfless. By DEFINITION, it concerns motivation.
quote:
see? easy when you just use logic...
See.... easy when you define all the terms to suit your ends and gloss over the messy bits.
quote:
john wants to say that the giving of ones life for another isn't altruistic because we can't know the true motive of the giver... but that doesn't matter, so long as the terms are defined...
The discussion is largely ABOUT the definition of terms, specifically the term 'altruism' It is about the definition of terms, mind you, in a deeper sense than that of colloquial English. What you've done is defined the words and claimed victory. That is ridiculous.
quote:
now then, if someone cares to form a valid argument taking the opposite view, do so
That's funny coming from someone who thinks a definition is an argument. ------------------ http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 38 by forgiven, posted 11-14-2002 10:26 PM | | forgiven has not replied |
|
RedVento
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 41 of 51 (22853)
11-15-2002 10:53 AM
|
Reply to: Message 38 by forgiven
11-14-2002 10:26 PM
|
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by forgiven: altruism is a word... it means: 1. selflessness: an attitude or way of behaving marked by unselfish concern for the welfare of others 2. belief in acting for others’ good: the belief that acting for the benefit of others is right and good what this (i agree,useless) discussion is all about, when you get right down to it, is whether or not there even *is* such a thing as altruism... (i) a selfless act is altruistic (by definition) (ii) giving ones life for another is a selfless act (by definition) therefore, giving ones life for another is altruistic see? easy when you just use logic... john wants to say that the giving of ones life for another isn't altruistic because we can't know the true motive of the giver... but that doesn't matter, so long as the terms are defined... now then, if someone cares to form a valid argument taking the opposite view, do so [/B][/QUOTE] Well it can be argued(and what I think John is saying) is that a selfless act can never truly be considered selfless since the motive is important. Even giving your life for another's does not have to be selfless, since the motive may very well be to avoid "survivor's guilt." While rare instances do occur (such as the falling piano) they do not outway the majority of supposed altruistic acts that are infact not purely selfless in nature, and therefore can be discounted against the whole. Exceptions that prove the rule you might say. By the very definition you are stating : 1. selflessness: an attitude or way of behaving marked by unselfish concern for the welfare of others you require an unselfish concern, but if that unselfish concern can not be conclusivly shown the act can be argued as not altruistic, and since we can never know the true motives for any person's actions the case can easily be made that while an act might APPEAR altruistic it can never conclusivly be shown as actually BEING altruistic. Red
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 38 by forgiven, posted 11-14-2002 10:26 PM | | forgiven has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 42 by forgiven, posted 11-16-2002 11:05 PM | | RedVento has replied |
|
forgiven
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 42 of 51 (22962)
11-16-2002 11:05 PM
|
Reply to: Message 41 by RedVento
11-15-2002 10:53 AM
|
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by RedVento:
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by forgiven: altruism is a word... it means: 1. selflessness: an attitude or way of behaving marked by unselfish concern for the welfare of others 2. belief in acting for others’ good: the belief that acting for the benefit of others is right and good what this (i agree,useless) discussion is all about, when you get right down to it, is whether or not there even *is* such a thing as altruism... (i) a selfless act is altruistic (by definition) (ii) giving ones life for another is a selfless act (by definition) therefore, giving ones life for another is altruistic see? easy when you just use logic... john wants to say that the giving of ones life for another isn't altruistic because we can't know the true motive of the giver... but that doesn't matter, so long as the terms are defined... now then, if someone cares to form a valid argument taking the opposite view, do so [/B][/QUOTE] Well it can be argued(and what I think John is saying) is that a selfless act can never truly be considered selfless since the motive is important. Even giving your life for another's does not have to be selfless, since the motive may very well be to avoid "survivor's guilt." While rare instances do occur (such as the falling piano) they do not outway the majority of supposed altruistic acts that are infact not purely selfless in nature, and therefore can be discounted against the whole. Exceptions that prove the rule you might say. By the very definition you are stating : 1. selflessness: an attitude or way of behaving marked by unselfish concern for the welfare of others you require an unselfish concern, but if that unselfish concern can not be conclusivly shown the act can be argued as not altruistic, and since we can never know the true motives for any person's actions the case can easily be made that while an act might APPEAR altruistic it can never conclusivly be shown as actually BEING altruistic. Red[/B][/QUOTE] the definition isn't mine, for the record, i didn't make it up... in any case, "selfless" means, in this context, without concern for self... i disagree that the exception proves the rule... if you grant for a moment that the man who saved the little girl performed an altruistic act, then altruism exists.. if, on the other hand, you're saying his act couldn't possibly be considered altruism because nobody knows his *real* motive, where does that leave us? it seems a sad state when acts such as kindness can be questioned because we can't read the mind nor motive of the actor.. how do we know that person was *really* performing a kind act? maybe he had as a motive putting another in debt to the kindness
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 41 by RedVento, posted 11-15-2002 10:53 AM | | RedVento has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 43 by RedVento, posted 11-17-2002 12:56 PM | | forgiven has replied |
|
RedVento
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 43 of 51 (22992)
11-17-2002 12:56 PM
|
Reply to: Message 42 by forgiven
11-16-2002 11:05 PM
|
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by forgiven: the definition isn't mine, for the record, i didn't make it up... in any case, "selfless" means, in this context, without concern for self... i disagree that the exception proves the rule... if you grant for a moment that the man who saved the little girl performed an altruistic act, then altruism exists.. if, on the other hand, you're saying his act couldn't possibly be considered altruism because nobody knows his *real* motive, where does that leave us? it seems a sad state when acts such as kindness can be questioned because we can't read the mind nor motive of the actor.. how do we know that person was *really* performing a kind act? maybe he had as a motive putting another in debt to the kindness[/B][/QUOTE] In the piano man case it can be argued that the actu wasn't altruistic for another reason. He did not act without concern for his self, or selfessly simply because the action was a reaction, no time to weigh options, no time to decide, just enough time to act. While heroic, not necessarily altruistic by your definition. Now I am not saying that kind acts have to be questioned either, just that based on the definition of altruism that you gave us it is impossible to conclusifly say one way or another. Kind acts are kind acts take them as they are, whether any acts are "purely" altrusistic is irregardless, it is our perceptions that truly matter. Cynics will say we can't tell since motive is important, some will say "who cares, good was done" and others will praise god for giving us the ability to do good in the first place. For me it doesn't make a difference, since the act outweighs the reasons, or who gets credit. Rather than be concerned with the whys of good, kind acts, just be gratefull they happen at all.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 42 by forgiven, posted 11-16-2002 11:05 PM | | forgiven has replied |
|
forgiven
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 44 of 51 (23027)
11-17-2002 7:33 PM
|
Reply to: Message 43 by RedVento
11-17-2002 12:56 PM
|
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by RedVento: In the piano man case it can be argued that the actu wasn't altruistic for another reason. He did not act without concern for his self, or selfessly simply because the action was a reaction, no time to weigh options, no time to decide, just enough time to act. While heroic, not necessarily altruistic by your definition. Now I am not saying that kind acts have to be questioned either, just that based on the definition of altruism that you gave us it is impossible to conclusifly say one way or another. Kind acts are kind acts take them as they are, whether any acts are "purely" altrusistic is irregardless, it is our perceptions that truly matter. Cynics will say we can't tell since motive is important, some will say "who cares, good was done" and others will praise god for giving us the ability to do good in the first place. For me it doesn't make a difference, since the act outweighs the reasons, or who gets credit. Rather than be concerned with the whys of good, kind acts, just be gratefull they happen at all. [/B][/QUOTE] anything can be argued, when we're talking about the unknown workings of a human's mind... all we have are our observations... and if the simplest explanation which accounts for all the facts is usually the correct explanation, the guy who saved the little girl's life at the cost of his own performed a selfless act, by definitio
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 43 by RedVento, posted 11-17-2002 12:56 PM | | RedVento has not replied |
|
hiddenexit77
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 45 of 51 (23033)
11-17-2002 9:45 PM
|
|
|
Everything depends on the physical to exist, including honor, love, logic etc. These "spiritual" things originate in a physical, bodily object: the brain. And a yogi needs a mat to prevent soreness.
Concerning selfishness, we should examine WHY selfishness is considered bad/wrong in the first place. Because, regardless of the motives that drive kindness/generosity, there will always be A SELF, some self, on the receiving end. There must be a self who is experiencing the love. It's hard for me to explain, so I will quote Ambrose Bierce: "Selfish, adj. Devoid of consideration for the selfishness of others." and "Egotist, n. A person of low taste, more interested in himself than in me."
|
™ Version 4.2