Spiritual vs. physical

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
I suppose it is a matter of materialism/hedonism vs love/friendship. You would agree that love/friendship is more important than money or pleasure wouldn't you?

---

Love and friendship are spiritual? This is assumption and I disagree. Besides which, in my experience the more spiritual a person believes themself to be the less loving and friendly they become. I much prefer material and hedonistic-- less pretension.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
So you are saying that the pleasure is more important than the relationship--however, you can buy pleasure but not love/friendship.

---

I said nothing about buying anything. Nor did I say anyything about pleasure being more important than love/friendship/relationships. I do believe that there is nothing abstract about love or relationships. Such things are also not driven purely by pleasure--- o' that they were!

quote:

---

A spiritual person would be one who helps others. A hedonist / materialist does things just for themselves.

---

I do not believe that true idealized altruism exists at all within humanity. So this distinction just tells me that the 'spiritual' are decieving themselves. Why help others? God's good graces? Karma? Escaping the cycle of rebirth? Avoiding Hell? Hopin' to visit some houri in the afterlife? Doesn't really sound all that selfless to me.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:
I'm not entirely sure I agree with this statement (hey, there's always a first time for everything...)

---

No way man!!!!!

quote:

---

Would you define your terms ("true idealized altruism") a bit more?

---

I have no quarrel with partially altruistic behavior, or even behavior strongly weighted towards altruism; what I don't believe is that humans ever do things purely for the (perceived) good of others. An example, my mom would do anything in her power to save my life if I were in danger; and be happy about it. The emotion of happiness is an end in itself, even if only partial motivation for her actions.

quote:

---

There's pretty strong inference for the adaptive value of altruism for gregarious species - especially humans with their complex cultural as well as biological structures. The more complex the social behaviors/interractions, the more likely altruism is to be manifested.

---

I know what you mean, but these things just don't strike me as being altruistic ultimately, but merely superficially. Basically, it boils down to survival of progeny. We call self-sacrifice 'altruism' in the 'higher' animals but what about ants? Is the fearless defense of the mound altruistic too, or just hardwired behavior? The survival of the queen is the survival of the worker's DNA, even if ten-thousand die to save her life.In primates the behavior is more complicated, but it still revolves around survival of progeny and hence, of your own DNA-- colloquially called "one's blood" or "family line" or "freakin' leeches" Humans mix in 'love' and 'compassion' but basically, it is the same old thing. With complex social interactions you may get several layers removed from direct defense of one's offspring. In some primates (most even), for example, paternity is often questionable, hence defending the whole group is defending one's offspring.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:
You won't get much argument from me, except on the highlighted bit. And that's just a quibble - you're completely correct in the case of bonobos, for example. However, several chimp societies and babboons (IIRC) practice infanticide when a change in leadership takes place. The new dominant male wants to insure that the group is protecting HIS infants. It depends a lot on how strongly hierarchical the society is. As far as group protection, I think that may relate more to territoriality than protecting the infants. I could be wrong, of course.

​

---

Ah yes, our furry cousins are great fun.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chara:
I would surmise that you really cannot have one without the other ... that they coexist together. The spiritual affects the physical and vice versa. Can we really separate them?

---

Seperate? We cannot even find the one of them.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chara:
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by John:Seperate? We cannot even find the one of them.
[/B][/QUOTE]What? John, you're still looking for your physical body?

---

[/B][/QUOTE]This is a substanceless reply. Surely you can do better?------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chara:
You're absolutely right ... it was a small joke, but it made me smile. As far as doing better, probably not. All of you are too smart for me.

---

Well, don't go away, just be sure to periodically post 'all of you are sooooo smart....!'------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

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...

---

No it doesn't. It implies exactly what I said, that people don't do anything purely -- keyword-- for the good of another.

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...

---

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.

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...

---

Ah, and now you've got it!!!! I am saying that this is a definite component of the hypothetical motivation to save my life.

quote:

---

so whether or not your mom would be happy has nothing to do with the altruistic act involved...

---

I see a conclusion here but no premises or argument. It just came out of nowhere.

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...

---

Really? Is altruism an all or nothing affair? Is it impossible to do something partially for the good of another?

quote:

---

she didn't save your life with any end in mind, she saved it because she loved you... your good, not hers...

---

And you know this how?------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

[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

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

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

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
This use of the part of the definition you recognize (suits a specific end)and glossing over the messy bits is a huge practice.

---

Yes, and a huge source of confusion as well. That is why I can be so irritatingly picky.

quote:

---

Language isn't perfect, it has flaws every language has vaugue words and times when the same word can be used to mean two drastically different things. Therefore our method of communication still leaves some guesswork!

---

Agreed. Again, this is precisely why I am so picky about it.

quote:

---

Most of those definitions to meet our own ends with a whole lot of gloss on the messy parts.

---

These words you speak are true, but does that justify the slop? I don't think so. Communication is more like poetry than anything else. Language isn't precise. There is a lot of metaphor, innuendo, analogy, whatever. I don't know of any way around this. Even mathematical logic, which eliminates the problem in the abstract, does not eliminate the problem-- need to define terms-- when making a practical argument. The trick is to not think in terms of the method of communication. In other words, the trick is to not confuse yourself with language. If you think about it, much of the field of informal logic is devoted to identifing when this is happening. Take the falacy of equivocation as an example. This, I think, is precisely what forgiven has been doing.

quote:

---

So is it fair to single out one person for this?

---

I don't. So watch it buck-o!------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com