• 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.
• When two selfless souls unite, as is considered non-individual or pro-communal, the conclusive equation equals out to nothing between them both and thus onto the answer. One selfless soul negates itself (negating its soul) and gives itself the value of zero, for all values are granted by our selves. Two souls with this value of zero in union amount to… zero! In becoming selfless and spreading such a morality, you are spreading the cancer of emptiness within all that has the potential to live at its fullest; you are negating Existence as a whole for the whole. Sure you really exist, but you do not value yourself, and therefore you do not value Existence; it ceases to be to you, as you are also capable of devaluing and denying, so you have incapacitated your ability to truly live. By considering it selfless to also take the souls of others like yourself (through your morality’s crave for dominance – the laying down of your own), you spread your cancer and help fashion a world of negation, of denying Existence, the Truth, and reality altogether.
• One is always seen as either selfish or selfless: if one is non-individual, he is pro-communal; if other is non-communal, he is pro-individual: it always seems to be one or the other. But what is the use of negation? What is the use of lessening something? What is the use of obliteration? Why can’t someone be both: pro-communal and pro-individual. At first there is a contradiction, not between community and the individual (for, i.e. an individual is part of the community), but between the associated terms ‘selfish’ and ‘selfless’. You cannot be without yourself and with yourself at the same time, it is impossible. Let’s look at the big picture: which one is exclusive? The one that adds or the one that subtracts? The positive or the negative? The position or the negation? It is not exclusive to include something – that thing being the position of the self; but the denial of something is always exclusive, because it expels, leaving nothing left – it only destroys, and does not even reposition itself. To be selfless is to deny the self, the individual, the soul. Selflessness is the antithesis of selfishness and nothing more; its fault is in the fact that it only speaks of wrongs and not of right. In the end, all selfless moralities only deny and destroy, scolding rights the whole way to their belov’ed nonentity. It should be clear now that a reanalysis of the self is required to understand the True worth and reason for community and the individual (does Socrates’ oracle ring a bell?).
• What then is found within as a feeling and passion that drive us to be “selfless”, or, rather, noble and unified?? Love! Love is that which comes from within the self and manifests in the genuine union of selves: it is when two selfish souls unite that the True community is founded. When carried on to and through universality, an ideal community of ideal individuals will evolve out of every soul to actual reality, becoming one soul, one self. Can you see now that it’s not selflessness that makes genuine harmony, but universal selfishness?
• True love is not a willingness to sacrifice yourself for another, but to be not merely for yourself. Notice it is not to end you, replacing the emptiness with others, but to add them to you. Love is an additive effect, not a negative struggle: you value yourself and others. How can you truly love a self when you can’t even truly love your own self? A sacrifice in that case would be to save them from lowering their standards to you – a sacrifice you’re damned by your morality to make. In the end, you will be unlovable and unloving. Feelings and passions are based in your soul, but in divorcing yourself from it, you will lose all feeling and passion; you are then in the perfect place to become a Buddhist or Taoist, emptily and pointlessly toiling away at simple life – good as nothing, good for nothing, awaiting the peace of death. If you kept to feeling as important like a Christian, then you are lying to yourself about love: you “love” everything and everyone on impulse, but never really stop doubting it all, for your feelings want to manifest themselves for real, instead of just in theory; your blind love, ushered in like blind faith, to which you also pledge allegiance, is never True enough to satisfy, so you sin without end, anger and resentment building up inside to all those people you “love” who don’t act like it (quite frankly, because they don’t love you; but it’s important to the completion of True Love that it’s reflected into both). They love without reason, and like anything without reason, it doesn’t end well. Love is the Ultimate Reason, but they don’t treat it as such, so it’s thrown about without appropriate use like a phone to cavemen or newspaper to a hobo, attaining new meanings and definitions along the way by arbitrary circumstances – all falsifying the purposed Reason. As for its ultimatum, the consequence for the wrongful use of love will mirror the oppositely positive accomplishment of using it correctly – leading it to Perfect Good: it will, on the contrary, lead to the perfect evil.
For the record, being the only one that Knows in a world of fallacies is not fun; i’d think your interest proves you understand. I spoke right out of my Philosophy as it was in more completed form, I didn’t expect people to immediately understand. This being a website of thinkers (for the most part), I like to see how anyone may react to where I am. I’m sure plenty of people, including you, have gotten some themes from my jargon, but i never expected people to just get it: plenty of the words I use are redefined and moved to explain more essentially. Clearly, then, you cannot understand me fully; hell, I wouldn’t be able to a year or two ago when i started. I had, at that time, chosen to start over, disregarding everything i was “certain of” and having only the hope of finding Truth through dialectic. The jargon i now use is a product of two years in critiquing more than just philosophies, but religions, countries, histories, etc. Consequently, I have taken everything altogether and now have Synthesis. Although i started over, my hope of finding Truth was synonymous with a hope for understanding Perfection, and therefore HOW to Perfect the Universe: so the “end” of the Universe is very much a concern for me; it is the Perfect Ideal.
If i really wanted to philosophize with you, i would not make a post on how something is, i would ask questions and work with you in the same process to find the answers: that is philosophizing – thinking together. This is not, as it is, thinking together; it is opinionated argumentation, where one side says what they’ve discovered and the other says theirs, but we cannot just start such a communication without first discussing terms and reverting to the simplest cases, building up from there (unless we were to ACTUALLY Philosophize); but as this is just a post about “Selfish Love”, negative argument is inevitable. I am not saying that people can’t agree, nor am i saying that we can’t, i’m just saying that this is not the right way of doing it.
I apologize for my malice, but i really only posted this for anyone to notice some themes that i know but some may be intuitive enough to decode. “Spirit” for instance, means many things to many people, but to me it means one essential thing: a’midst the rest of my dialogue, if you are able to decode the essential meaning of “spirit”, you will learn something of the whole thing. It’s a good practice, and i call it Thematic Knowledge.
To me, it is the FIRST cause that is more irrelevant. The essence of nature is Potential, as I’ve said, so the USE of that Potential is purposes and goals, ushered in by Ideals. It can so it should: Potential implies Perfection.
People are wrong because they hold PARTICULAR views and perspectives, opinions, that have no intent of becoming Universal, or Synthesizing with all the other opinions and perspectives in the world. Synthesis, therefore, is the gateway to Absolute Truth: The Truth is not A truth but All truths in One. If we are to synthesize without contradiction, though, we all must be in the same thinking process, starting at the base and working our way up to more agreements. If you disagree, it’s just a sign that you’re not done synthesizing yet. I seem so elitist because I’ve already synthesized plenty of world views through my years of study, but I encourage others to do the same; i’m sure that if you try to find Absolute Truth and Perfection, you will find the same patterns and themes that i have. But i always negate the views that are themselves already negative: like nihilism, apathy, ignorance, faith, otherness, etc – all these things negate the genuine things that ought to be ideally natural, like Reason (we act for reasons, so when “duty” and “faith” are introduced, demanding that someone act for the sake of “duty”, for the sake of “society”, or to skip reasons and assume “faithfully”, there is no more room to synthesize: you cannot, for instance, synthesize Existence with nothingness, Good with evil, or Perfect with imperfect; they are purely Positive notions. I find myself in constant service of refuting a refutation.
@sapienite, That is all someone needs to synthesise, they do not need to fully understand they just have to”feel” the “spirit” of the sentiment or idea.
I only have two problems with your ideas 1) You seem to be trying to explain something that each of us can only realize, never be taught. 2) It seems so complex, I like to think that anything worth knowing is knowable by everyone, this kinda deters people away from exploring further if they do not get it, because they figure if it is that complex then they will never understand, may as well quit philosophy all together.
I really like your work and I think there is a market for it so keep it up, it is clearly your passion so you can just do the best you can at what you are good at. I personally am constantly altering my understanding to adapt to new understanding, this tells me I am not finished yet, but one of my passions is in this growth, I don’t like the idea of wanting to explore a new land only to find out that a detailed map already exists. That is my ego at work, so don’t take it personally.
Synthesis is dialectical, not aesthetic; it does not require feeling in Spirit to find Truth, in fact, that often distracts us from it. The dialectic concerns thinking, not feeling, so synthesis is a matter of positing the positives and negating the negatives in every thesis.
If people doubt themselves and give up Philosophy, they deserve it.
The Truth may have been found by someone, but if that discouraged anyone from then finding it as well, then Truth has no benefit. I not only believe in Truth, but i Know that it’s attainable by every Rational and Creative Soul (self-consciousness). For this, my book starts at ignorance and works its way up; readers, thus, become one with the thought process and develop Understanding as one. Reason Unifies our Understanding, and for that, Knowledge is Universal, or Truth is attainable.
@sapienite, Is your book published? I may be interested. If it is so comprehensive then really all we can do here is discuss until you have re-written it. Maybe I should look at your book before I can really be constructive in this discussion.
My book is not published yet. As i’ve said, I wanted to see how people may react to one particular piece of it, so i put in a small excerpt. My responses simply come out of defense and interest: i like a good argument. I respect your motives and philosophy: at least you have one, unlike the vast majority. I learned or re-freshed a few views about things by this conversation alone, so thank you.