• Animals are not selfish, because they are not aware of themselves. They are, in fact, selfless, for they are only conscious of outward sensation, and whether it is rewarding or punishing them by pleasure or pain, which then seems selfish, but they’re only aware of the external effects and their reactions to them. They have no deep inner feeling, because that would require a deep inner movement to which they have never practiced – they cannot think. They make no decisions, because they are beings of pure reaction (instinct and fear) and adaption (memory and experience); they act depending on how the world acts on them, as nature. If they were to recognize themselves, they would be able to reflect on their experiences and put aside their instincts and fears. They would, for the first time, be able to think, to decide, to prepare an action, rather than to act simply out of fearful reaction. They would eventually, through this presumption, be more than independent, which is simply a negation of ‘dependent’, but would make nature dependent upon them, only if they kept preparing and progressing though. Cause and effect, which used to coincide with nature and adaption, is now reflected into reason and action, mind and nature. It was reflection that made Man who he is, or, rather, who he is supposed to be: master of the entire universe.
Interesting read. “Can you see now that it’s not selflessness that makes genuine harmony, but universal selfishness?” I’ll have to chew on it.
@sapienite, I agree with a lot of what you say but this is a very confusing thought process to have on your mind, good to get it out.
This is a great post.
It’s about damn time someone posted a thread like this.
The crazy “selfless” ideal people talk about has nothing to do with love, only fear. And the only place it leads is to a society that’s like an ant hill.
Humans are not ants, we are individuals.
Remember that humans created the system, to act as a tool for the humans, the individuals. Not the other way around.
The only truly selfless people are the slaves and the lobotomised.
We’re humans, not robots, not bees. We are individuals, that’s what separates us from the animals.
True individualism is the only way forward.
The moment you sacrifice your individuality is the moment you sell your soul and become unworthy of the human experience.
1) What I mean by saying animals are not selfish is that them, not being self-conscious, are not aware of themselves, and are therefore also incapable of proactivity; they are REactive beings, so they act to preserve themselves by perceptive pain, which has them fly away in fear, and by perceptive pleasure, which rewards them for a job well done. To FIGHT, however, requires much more activity: to run away is a clear reaction, but predators are cunning, they must CHOOSE to act. That is why predators are much more intelligent, and we ourselves were descended from them. Animals are everyday becoming more intelligent; they’re evolving from sentience into Sapience – but because we have already attained it, many animals are domesticated or made aware of us, thus remaining as adaptive and not GOVERNING beings.
@sapienite, Good points, but as you must have missed, connotations of good and bad are conceptual. I never said destruction was bad before we defined it as such. Destruction is nessecary because nothing would exist without it, you need destruction to stop destruction. Consider cancer, it is actually a growth, so a constructive relationship, but it results in the death of the host. Destroying this constructive relationship results in life of the host, destruction permits preservation.
@sapienite, Some examples of “Fate” era destruction that had benefit.
If the dinosaurs did not die out, humans would never have had the opportunity to become the dominant species. Concept itself owes its existence to destruction, at least human concept.
Another thing is all the destructive forces that shaped the planet to be habitable in the first place, techtonics etc.
I do agree that before anything could be destroyed something had to exist to be destroyed in the first place.
Yes in some, no in some. There is no grey without black and white; in fact, grey is just on its way to black.
Just because untouched nature does benefit to men at times doesn’t mean that we should forever worship it’s Shiva and Vishnu fight over benefiting or destroying us… Sure some good things happened to happen, but that’s FATE. So long as we leave it alone, we will have no determinate power to make it benefit us. It will do with us as it wills; but in fact, we are defying it by building houses and using medicine (“how dare we” would you say?). The power i’m speaking of that Man has is his power to turn all those dangers away, using nature only for his benefit (with no more destruction outside of his control).
@sapienite, Totally agreed, no way I would ever recommend man stepping back from nature and saying “This is not my department, I leave that to the gods, or God” that is completely irresponsible. We have a duty to master the universe, all the cause and effect “Fate” stuff and turn it to our will.
@sapienite, I really admire your power of philosophical thinking. I also agree with a few of your points. Although I would “humbly” recommend that next time you follow the structure of a dissertation, because your text is a bit confusing.
Points I have to disagree:
- Animals are not selfish;
I think animals are even more selfish than humans, because their incapacity of rational thinking drive them mostly through the selfish feelings of hunger, self protection and fear. Notice that humans also feel those instinctive emotions and it’s not because those are felt by an irrational creature, they would not then be selfish feelings.
Animals also benefit the species that benefit their specie, such as domestic animals towards humans… Dogs protect us and give us company, because we feed them and give them shelter.
Tigers and bears would kill a human just for the sake of killing. They are aware that other species could compromise the growth of their own, disputing space and food, so they kill what comes on the way.
Humans are aware that the power of rational thinking give us advantage upon other species, which make us invulnerable to their threat to our specie. So we learned to admire our irrational co-inhabitants and even work for their surviving in our planet. This can be a total selfless matter: ask a donation to the case “save the tigers”, and even knowing these are human assassin creatures, many people will donate this money because they want those creatures to survive… no self benefit on it.
- “Calculating” selfish and selfless;
What kind of rational idea brings you to selfish is 1 and selfless is 0? Then judge those as creating positive and negatives: what creates positives and negatives are actions, so I can make a total different equation, for example:
“Selfless person creates 1 point towards the society, because this person doesn’t consume it’s own action, it ends positive. Selfish person creates 1 towards the society and consumes itself, ending in 0.”
So how subjective adjective calculations can be?
- Christianity keeps people feeling important;
Well, the strongest base of Christianity is humbleness and humility.
“Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also”.
“Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you.”
“Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love.”
“We who are many are one body because we all share one bread, one cup.”
So I definitely don’t see the selfish in Christianity. I think while Buddhism and Taoism teaches people to detachment of material and concentration on your own soul, Christianity teaches you to love and respect one another, to earn your material with honesty, stay humble, and focus on the outside and helping people in need… much more humane and selfless than other religions.
So in conclusion, I definitely do not agree that selfish is the way to go. Selfish is easy… [b]Selfless takes much more from being a human, a rational thinker, a superior soul, a bright person. [/b]
How can I make the text bold, by the way? lol
1. You are giving too much personal meaning to words and expecting people to just understand them as you do.
If you are publishing a book, I’d recommend you to explain in the beginning your personal meaning for the words “Love”, “Selfish” and “Selfless”.
Dictionary meaning of each word by google:
Love – Noun: An intense feeling of deep affection: “their love for their country”.
Selfish – Adjective (of a person, action, or motive): Lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one’s own personal profit or pleasure. Synonyms: egoistic – self-seeking – self-centered – self-centred
Selfless – Adjective: Concerned more with the needs and wishes of others than with one’s own; unselfish. Synonyms: unselfish – disinterested – altruistic
Now I kindly ask you, for the sake of the conversation, for you to explain those three words in your personal context, otherwise I just cannot understand your thought or discuss with you about it.
2. Saying that there is a self-benefit in saving other species, is the same as saying there is self-benefit in donating your money to the poor. So in this case there is self-benefit in every action… so there is no action of selflessness.
3. Nihilism is the most useless part of philosophy. (Personally, I despise grumpy misogynist Nietzsche) There is no personal growth in a theory that says killing another person is not actually wrong, because there is no wrong.
It just takes humanity to notice what is right and wrong. Once you kill someone, you are causing an urgent damage in the society and that’s a very strong proof that it’s wrong.
If the love shared by the Christians is fake or not, a Christian honest and kind citizen is much more useful for a society, than a hedonist and selfish nihilist.
1) My intent on posting here was not to explain my Philosophy as much as to test its parts separately. You could not intently understand it all without going through the book. I could not introduce my terms in the beginning because, at the beginning, i had no terms of my own. It is through Philosophizing and discovering that those terms found Truer meaning. I posted here on this informal site to see how people would react to whatever theme they could get out of it. Plenty have gotten some good themes, so i say my purpose has been met.
@sapienite, Yes, I admit I have a background in Nihilism but I always appliy Nihilism only to concept not to the natural purpose and qualities that the universe always displays. Humans in my opinion have this natural purpose and qualities but the addition of concept, which is for enhancing those purposes and qualities, often confuses or over-rides those natural inclination.
Cause, Reason, Purpose; all are under the same totality. The Truth is found in everything AS everything: existence is everything. I can’t follow your logic, probably because it’s already established and you believe in it. It is to peculiar and particular; it has within itself a thousand antitheses unresolved. Resolve those by synthesis and you will eventually have a Universal Knowledge, one that is only opposed to the very particularity and singularity started with the thesis, or against the very opposite of Existence itself, which is nothingness (nihilism). You’re not wrong, you’re just not done synthesizing yet; but if you have no intent of synthesizing your beliefs with mine, then it is just a pointless confrontation of two immovable theses – argumentation without resolve. I have added your considerations to my Understanding best as i can, but i’m just not understanding some of it.
@sapienite, Cause aligned with the original purpose, but there is plenty of cause not aligned with it, and that is all due to human misappropriation of concept. Objective reason is aligned but there is plenty of reasoning that is not objective. In your definitions you have only the pure objective meanings, I am just saying a lot of the words you use have more to them than just their objective meaning. Love itself is probably one of the broadest possible words in language, next to “Fuck” and “God” and I have seen obsessive incarnations of love that are destructive but remain in the spirit of the broad definition. Euros is another word that is strictly sexual but it is defined as love.
As established, there are two worlds of cause and effect. There is the “Fate” world of nature, everything that exists despite man. Then there is human cause and effect, concepts are created by us and the conclusions motivate actions in the spirit of those conclusions, with the intention of the action fulfilling a purpose in line with those conclusions.
The first cause was not a purpose, it is the last cause that is purpose, that purpose which we hold within ourselves to fulfill the Potential of the first.
@sapienite, I can tell you that your view is too complex, if I don’t get it few will, and if few get it what is the point? To tickle your ego and look down on all us dumbasses? You want to help people, simplify and communicate in how they can understand but still ultimately you are going to have to accept at some point that few people are actually going to be interested, no matter how logical or obvious your points are.
I must realize that the ultimate reality is not concept? Have you been reading what I wrote? That is the primary point of my philosophy; people assume a “conceptual identity” that their concept of themselves and the world is all they are, but I am saying the universe existed before concept ever existed. I say that concept is a tool for improving things but it is misused, mainly by seeing it as more than a tool.
Honestly dude, you accuse me of being rigid and set in my beliefs, that I am uncompromising and my methods of interpretation of knowledge are off, if you have all the answers then why are you frustrated and every post you make you throw in a suggestion of superiority. I have started to discuss these issues for two reasons: 1) To show you some of my ideas and 2) To better understand yours. I will agree with what you say on a number of issue then show you alternate ways that I see things on ohter issues, you will criticize and belittle any objection to your gospil.
But a few things I have realized from this discussion: The purpose of the universe is irrelevant, the purpose of humanity is. The purpose of humanity is to improve life for all, and while doing this we have to find that balance with the planet and nature. Improving life includes overcoming dynamic natural factors that threaten a better situation for humans.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.