|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted March 03, 2010 08:56 PM |
|
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 03, 2010 10:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The duty to serve gives you happiness to
Not always. Only in limited cases.
Quote:
no ne said that it's being nice
That's how it's commonly understood these days, though. However, the original meaning, as coined by Auguste Comte, is that one has an obligation to help others regardless of one's own personal desires.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
VokialBG
Honorable
Legendary Hero
First in line
|
|
posted March 03, 2010 10:20 PM |
|
Edited by VokialBG at 22:24, 03 Mar 2010.
|
Quote:
Not always. Only in limited cases.
All cases. You can't proove that the sacrificed guy has no benefit, there is always. Just he isn't the only one who get it, like in love. That's why altruism exist.
And I still wait your example, where you self-sacrifice with no benefit for you. I think you'll never find one, the case just doesn't exist.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 03, 2010 10:27 PM |
|
|
I already gave one. If a guy runs into a burning house to save someone and dies.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
VokialBG
Honorable
Legendary Hero
First in line
|
|
posted March 03, 2010 10:44 PM |
|
Edited by VokialBG at 22:47, 03 Mar 2010.
|
Not the case we need. He got benefit. What if he was watching how everything was turning into ashes, how would feel he after? Ashamed maybe? However - unhappy, because he was careing for some reason about the people inside (ya, even if he don't know them). He risked his live (and lost it) to save them, doesn't this give him satisfaction at least? Happines, that he is risking for someones benefit - yes, he got that, and if he was not killed in the flames he would be a hero - benefit again. So, he die or not, there is benefit (if he survived it's altruistsh act again).
That's altruism, there is benefit, even if the price is much bigger, there is, but in love there isn't bigger benefit too for any of the partners (or it's not true love, or it's love for one and egoism for the other). You make good (benefit) to others, you get yourself some cumulative too.
-----------------
And this must end here. Love is no egoism. So let's talk about what it is.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 03, 2010 10:52 PM |
|
|
Quote:
how would feel he after?
Better than feeling dead.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 04, 2010 08:29 AM |
|
|
I can't help the feeling that this discussion is erring ever farer from what is meaningful.
See it this way: To love is one thing; being loved is another. Loving a person is fine, but without a return of that feeling it's more painful. On the other hand, being loved, but not able to return the feeling, isn't better. In both cases the emotional disparity is awkward and bears potential for a lot of unhappiness.
If you look at BOTH disparity sides, it's clear that altruism has no place here, because the emotion concerns ALWAYS at least TWO people. You may concoct "altruistic behaviour" for the loving part (even though it has nothing to do with altruism at all), but for the loved part, how is the loved part supposed to be altruistic? Not to mention that being loved by someone isn't necessarily positive, if you can't return the feeling.
Which means, that love isn't working on the ego level, since it necessarily needs more than one person to work, otherwise it's mismatched.
I repeat, if you "fall in love" with a person who doesn't return the feeling, it would be wrong to say you love the person. It begins as enthusiasm, but if the other person hasn't the same feelings, the enthusiasm cannot grow to love, only to (desperate) adoration: You would LOVE, if it could become love - but it doesn't.
So in the end it amounts to an unprecise definition of what is actually involved when starting to come up with egoism and altruism: ONE-sided love isn't love at all.
It's probably what Vokial calls "true love", but that's diluting the picture, because "false love" is - per definition - not love but something mistaken for it.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 04, 2010 03:23 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 15:27, 04 Mar 2010.
|
Quote:
Indeed, there's really no reason for him to continue going. And yet he does. This kind of thing is unfortunately more common in real life than it should be.
Here's another example, since you didn't like that one - running into a burning building to save someone, knowing that you are almost certain to die, and thinking that it is unlikely that you will succeed.
Again, pure contradiction. You do that because you think it's the right thing to do, you FEEL GOOD about it, your BRAIN makes you feel good about it.
EDIT: Actually, instead of "feeling good" you may "feel bad" or "feel guilty" if you did NOT go into the building -- that's enough to define your selfishness. Negative outcomes have to be avoided. Example: If you know that without serving your master (rationally), you're going to get punished, then you avoid it. Emotionally, if you know that something will leave a "emptiness" or "feel guilty" or whatever, then you avoid it.
In the atheist case, the BRAIN simply "got used to it". He would feel bad without going, simply because of that. Rationally, of course that's a different story, but then again, most times reason avoids what emotions tell you.
Simply put, someone can either follow reason or emotions/instincts (same category), there's no other way. (yes, insanity and everything falls into emotions/instincts).
There's no such thing as "doing something for nothing". You EITHER do it because you chose so rationally, or you do it because you FEEL like doing it, as in your example. Even if that feeling is irrational or stupid.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 04, 2010 04:45 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Negative outcomes have to be avoided.
Yes, but the negative outcome of "feeling bad" is a lot better than the negative outcome of being dead. 
Quote:
You EITHER do it because you chose so rationally, or you do it because you FEEL like doing it, as in your example. Even if that feeling is irrational or stupid.
If you do something irrationally, it's not really in your self-interest.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 04, 2010 06:27 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Negative outcomes have to be avoided.
Yes, but the negative outcome of "feeling bad" is a lot better than the negative outcome of being dead.
how do you know? have you ever been dead? 
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 04, 2010 07:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yes, but the negative outcome of "feeling bad" is a lot better than the negative outcome of being dead.
That depends on the person. This isn't even the point. The point is, are those people PURELY self-interested? Because according to you, yes they are.
Quote:
If you do something irrationally, it's not really in your self-interest.
YOU said that people, even while doing irrational "altruistic" acts, ARE self-interested in the sense that THEY FEEL GOOD.
Thus, if a drug addict FEELS BAD if he drops his addiction, even though it's best for his health, he WON'T DO IT... and according to you, it's THE SAME SELF-INTERESTED SELFISHNESS.
Because, according to you, FEELING GOOD itself, even while doing something else not related to your self-interest, IS SELF-INTEREST AND SELFISHNESS. This is YOU who said it, not me.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 04, 2010 08:04 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The point is, are those people PURELY self-interested?
No.
Quote:
YOU said that people, even while doing irrational "altruistic" acts, ARE self-interested in the sense that THEY FEEL GOOD.
Hold on, just because you're helping someone and it makes you feel good doesn't mean it's irrational. Take love, for example. Suppose you love someone who exhibits your virtues. It's quite rational to feel good about that.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 05, 2010 12:37 AM |
|
|
*facepalm*
It is irrelevant whether it's rational or not. The only relevance is: IS HE SELFISH? According to your logic, yep.
A person cannot do something with absolutely no reason: there's either the emotional part, where he would feel good if he does it (or bad if he doesn't!), and the rational part, where he knows it would be better for him if he does it (or worse if he doesn't).
Since YOU said that the former is ALSO selfishness in all cases, then I can only conclude, you are contradicting yourself with those examples.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 05, 2010 01:14 AM |
|
|
Death, I believe I said this in an earlier discussion (though it was quite a while ago), that unless I specify otherwise or it's obvious from the context, when I refer to self-interest, I'm talking about rational self-interest.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
william
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
LummoxLewis
|
|
posted March 05, 2010 01:18 AM |
|
|
Does this have anything to do about Love?
Like seriously. Take it to PM or something...lol
____________
~Ticking away the moments that
make up a dull day, Fritter and
waste the hours in an off-hand
way~
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted March 05, 2010 01:37 AM |
|
|
It has everything to do with love, can't you see it bursting between them
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 05, 2010 02:51 PM |
|
|
Mvass, you're confusing me man. You initially were talking about love, as an emotion making you feel good (not relationships which you are focusing on rationality). And you said it's self-interested, and there's nothing rational about the love FEELING (read: not relationship).
Therefore it cannot be rational self-interest, but emotional self-interest, and you STILL said it's selfish.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 05, 2010 06:38 PM |
|
|
Quote:
there's nothing rational about the love FEELING
I disagree. It can be rational as well (of course, it isn't always, but it can be).
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
phoenixreborn
Promising
Legendary Hero
Unicorn
|
|
posted March 09, 2010 04:13 PM |
|
|
Is it ok to sleep with your friends without dating them or will it mess things up?
____________
Bask in the light of my glorious shining unicorn.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 09, 2010 05:31 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
