People are selfish

[mu4]

Selfish/Selfless/Altruism are just descriptions for different characteristics that we are perceiving. These are evaluations of some underlying cause.

"We are selfish biologically..."
"He is selfless in his devotion to..."
"This is altruistic behavior..."

But these terms are only somewhat true when evaluating different aspects of our existence.

So it's not that we are selfish, selfless or altruistic but that we display "selfless" sentiment, "altruistic" behavior but the underlying causes of these expressions is our "selfish" gene.

As a group, these are all ethical evaluations, reality is neither selfish or unselfish, but necessity.

[Gilly]

Well put.

[Tom]

Biological impulse is rational; "the first nature of the thing is to preserve the thing" (can't remember where that's from). Whatever people do is what they want to do.

But I think I realize where the discrepancy comes from here. The word "selfish" tends to have the connotation "only to benefit the self", and what it really means is "aiming only to benefit the self". So you are correct that some people are "selfish", however, my point is simply that no matter what it is, the "self" does what it wants solely for the "self" in all cases. How is this, when there are martyrs which we all know of? Well the answer to this question dictates that one must know what benefit actually is. Benefit is profit. How does one profit or benefit? Because value is subjective, we must say that one only profits when he or she believes that value is increasing in their favor. But what does in their favor mean? Why, whatever they desire.

So if their desire is to have another benefit in place of themselves, they've really stumbled onto a situation where the profit of the other IS their profit, even if they, themselves don't have material gain. In some people, this becomes of the highest priority and they'll do things like jump in front of a bullet for someone else (and I'm sure all of you can think of certain cases where this would happen for you). But we know that if we get what we value, we benefit. If what we value is the life of another, and save them by dying in their place (obviously this is the extreme case), then we have benefited greatly. Because our selfish whim moves to the value of another life.

So what it really comes down to is semantics. Everything we aim to do is for our own benefit. But, when our own benefit coincides with the benefit of another, or that other is the object of our benefit, does our aim change to being not our benefit? No. But do we call these specific situations unselfish, because someone aside from ourselves benefits? Yes.

But this does raise an interesting problem. Often (and almost all of the time), someone else benefits by our selfish action. The greedy businessman next door lowers his prices so that he may get more business and make more money. In doing so, however, the consumer benefits. Were his actions also unselfish? By this definition, yes.

So we must make a definition for "selfishness" which appeases our own feelings and connotations. In general, I think the connotation which is added is that the self is, in aim, the sole benefactor. If this is applied to the definition (which it is, usually), then people can be unselfish, and are on a regular basis, as are they selfish.

What I tried to get across in my earlier post, however, is that no matter what someone does, it is entirely for their own gain. But if we apply the particular connotation of "sole benefactor in aim" to the definition, then this still does not change, but the word "selfish" does.

[Gilly]

Agreed.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

What I tried to get across in my earlier post, however, is that no matter what someone does, it is entirely for their own gain.

No. This just isn't true. I've done stuff for other people before where I got NOTHING at all from it, just to help them-, cause I actually have the ability to be altruistic and selfless; just like you do. I don't do this often. I am a mixture of selfless and selfish traits, just like everybody else.

I got nothing out of it. I mean nothing. I didn't even feel good 'helping them' I did it to be selfless. It just sort of happened without any thought process of my own. *shrug* It wasn't painful or hard, but it didn't give me satisfaction either. I didn't do it for some moral code or anything like that, it just kind of happened.

How about this: 'Generally speaking, people are selfish. And that's okay. But when they aren't, it isn't a big deal either.'

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

"I should have sex;" we feel better if we have sex than if we don't, so in an instinctual sense, sex is selfish, whether it's for procreation or not.

True and even masturbation is sex. It's a form of sexual release that can be quite powerful depending on how aroused you are and how much sexual tension is built up, of course. Another person is therotically the best, but they also have to know what they're doing. In modern society that can be hard to find. Entertainment and ease have spoiled us. Sometimes even if you're attracted to another, the technique is off. The libido and energy seems to be more potent, and its like nobody really ever has sex with the other. It's just technically an erotic release, from the pressure built up in my day.

So it's not really narcissistic or selfish I guess it's just 'is what it is.' God I hate that phrase. But I don't know where else to put it. You work hard, you let the natural eroticism and sexuality flow through you in the day. You then suddenly get horny. You want to fuck. You could get another person yeah. Or you could do it yourself. Either way, sex is nothing more than a sweet release. It's a letting go, and that's what it feels good. But if you haven't lived enough to let go of much, it's not going to really feel as good. Sex is also tied into pain. Life is pain. But that's what makes you know it's real. Anti-depressants take away the pain. But they also tend to have sexual side-effects, taking away the sex. Risk the pain. And enjoy the sex. You can't have it any other way. We can't live in a safe bubble and enjoy really good sex too.

[Gilly]

Your reasoning is exquisite

[Tom]

No. This just isn't true. I've done stuff for other people before where I got NOTHING at all from it, just to help them-, cause I actually have the ability to be altruistic and selfless; just like you do. I don't do this often. I am a mixture of selfless and selfish traits, just like everybody else.

I got nothing out of it. I mean nothing. I didn't even feel good 'helping them' I did it to be selfless. It just sort of happened without any thought process of my own. *shrug* It wasn't painful or hard, but it didn't give me satisfaction either. I didn't do it for some moral code or anything like that, it just kind of happened.

How about this: 'Generally speaking, people are selfish. And that's okay. But when they aren't, it isn't a big deal either.'

You've done something. You wanted to do it. No matter the reasoning, if it gets done, you have gained. Benefit isn't only things, etc., though in this case it actually is. You see a thing (someone else). You want that thing to be augmented/changed in some way. Augmentation/change happens. You have just gained. So what I'm getting here (and I'm trying to reason, not sound like a dick, so sorry in advance) is: "I don't understand that someone else's benefit is my benefit, if that's what I value". Sure, you can have motives entirely not physically beneficial to your person, but if what you value is another person's happiness, and make that person happy, you've just gotten what you value. You gain.

[strrrng]

Right. Well, I think it's clear to anyone who isn't brain-dead that all actions inevitably tie back to the self, due to... the nature of space, and objects and subjectivity. Now, if one can move past this baffling ontological conundrum, they can begin to gain a more subtle glimpse into what constitutes selfishness/altruism on a psychological level -- as it is, motivations and meaning are what constitute these things, and not the [relative] position in space they may come from, or whereupon they stem back to, given their subjective ties.

[Tom]

So we must make a definition for "selfishness" which appeases our own feelings and connotations. In general, I think the connotation which is added is that the self is, in aim, the sole benefactor. If this is applied to the definition (which it is, usually), then people can be unselfish, and are on a regular basis, as are they selfish.

What I tried to get across in my earlier post, however, is that no matter what someone does, it is entirely for their own gain. But if we apply the particular connotation of "sole benefactor in aim" to the definition, then this still does not change, but the word "selfish" does.

Exactly lulz

[crazedrat]

mutual parasites on a psychological level. That's basically duality for you. There is no reason you should be separating altruism and selfishness into different categories.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

You've done something. You wanted to do it. No matter the reasoning, if it gets done, you have gained.

No, Tom. Are you even listening? Slow down, listen. I didn't want to do it. I didn't not want to do it either, but I didn't WANT to do it. Not everything we do is because we want to. Sometimes people are just that selfless. Are you telling me that everything you did is because you wanted to? Whatever, although we wish we were that free- in society with all these rules and regulations that is not possible.

Either way, nothing as big as 'selfishness' and 'alturism' can exist in a vacuum, and if you try- you'd only create a neurosis in yourself and ultimately go nowhere. Your lack of Ti-valuing is showing, even if I do realize you're not trying to be an ass.

Of course I got something. I get something every day. You get something no matter what you do, even if you try to do nothing and just exist. Dirt still grows under your fingernails.

[Tom]

Perhaps I misunderstand you; what precisely do you mean by "selfless"?