The True Root of All Evil...

[Not2BSubjugated]

So, although I'm not a Christian - specifically, in the Religious sense - I'm a rather spiritual guy and in the ideas/circles I run with Jesus is often regarded as one of the rare "highly enlightened" beings that have walked on the face of the planet.

Wrong.

What was his only commandment? It was "to love one another" (ie the "New Commandment")

Wrong.

Kinda interesting, isn't it?

No.

Good arguments. Well thought-out and eloquent. You're obviously a deep thinker.

 

[MaxGrit]

So, although I'm not a Christian - specifically, in the Religious sense - I'm a rather spiritual guy and in the ideas/circles I run with Jesus is often regarded as one of the rare "highly enlightened" beings that have walked on the face of the planet.

Wrong.

What was his only commandment? It was "to love one another" (ie the "New Commandment")

Wrong.

Kinda interesting, isn't it?

No.

Good arguments. Well thought-out and eloquent. You're obviously a deep thinker.

Thank you. KISS

 

[KevinWestern]

No, not really, and I am a little out of sorts - not feeling well. Probably should refrain from posting.

Perhaps. Personally, I think it's a nice story. What could be so bad?

It's just a demonstration of how if we work together unselfishly, we can all be abundantly fed - in many ways.

Let me know how that works out for you. Sounds like a pipe dream to me, this side of eternity.

Don't be so cynical. That can be damaging to your development.

 

[RKMBrown]

Shoving words in? Actually, what I did was explain to you the meaning of the words you had spewed out, which you seemed to be confused about. And not obscure, debatable, philosophical meaning. Simply the definitions of "and" and "only". Pretty measurable shit, really. No assumptions required.

I -did- make a couple assumptions about how you would probably respond (and when doing so, I did use the word probably ), but I didn't try to redefine your entire philosophy and then argue with that definition.

You're really bad at deciphering words, no?

You really don't know what "summary" means... or In other words (IOW)?

Did you do you push-ups yet?

Lol!

I understand what summary means, and your summary was correct.

I also understand IOW, which is what preceded the sentence where you made a -huge- leap of logic and errantly assumed you were reading the correct implications into my reasoning. You were not. I don't believe or disbelieve in a soul, and nowhere in my argument did I subscribe to any idea that requires that a soul does or does not exist, thus your assumption is incorrect, thus IOW was invalid. Get it? Though, if I did say something that negates the possibility of a soul, please point it out so I can re-examine my philosophy. Accusations without any backup aren't helpful.

I've done considerably more than 25 push ups since that exchange, thanks, but I don't have any chill pills

LOL you don't believe or disbelieve but are sure I must be wrong. ROFL you appear to have a pretty big hole in your argument. I'll let you bridge the gap between my statements and your indecision. I can lead you to water... but clearly no one's gonna make you drink.

Put another way your argument led to no soul. Your argument demanded a reactive soulless body. The concept of soul is self-determination not reactive biologic decisions. If all decisions are based on selfishness then that must be because there is no real self-determination. Self-determination would allow us to choose selfish desires over selfless desires. Pretty basic yes or no questions. Soul, yes or no? If yes then you can choose, you are not doomed to selfish desires. If no.. fine why no? because we are merely biologic entities reacting to stimulus. I'll skip the proof. Don't have the time to elucidate an entire philosophy including irrefutable evidence in a thread. If I wanted to do that I'd probably write a book on it.

 

[KevinWestern]

So, although I'm not a Christian - specifically, in the Religious sense - I'm a rather spiritual guy and in the ideas/circles I run with Jesus is often regarded as one of the rare "highly enlightened" beings that have walked on the face of the planet.

Wrong.

What was his only commandment? It was "to love one another" (ie the "New Commandment")

Wrong.

Kinda interesting, isn't it?

No.

Why don't you explain/elaborate? Simply saying "wrong" does us no good.


Take a look:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Commandment


.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

You really don't know what "summary" means... or In other words (IOW)?

Did you do you push-ups yet?

Lol!

I understand what summary means, and your summary was correct.

I also understand IOW, which is what preceded the sentence where you made a -huge- leap of logic and errantly assumed you were reading the correct implications into my reasoning. You were not. I don't believe or disbelieve in a soul, and nowhere in my argument did I subscribe to any idea that requires that a soul does or does not exist, thus your assumption is incorrect, thus IOW was invalid. Get it? Though, if I did say something that negates the possibility of a soul, please point it out so I can re-examine my philosophy. Accusations without any backup aren't helpful.

I've done considerably more than 25 push ups since that exchange, thanks, but I don't have any chill pills

LOL you don't believe or disbelieve but are sure I must be wrong. ROFL you appear to have a pretty big hole in your argument. I'll let you bridge the gap between my statements and your indecision. I can lead you to water... but clearly no one's gonna make you drink.

Put another way your argument led to no soul. Your argument demanded a reactive soulless body. The concept of soul is self-determination not reactive biologic decisions. If all decisions are based on selfishness then that must be because there is no real self-determination. Self-determination would allow us to choose selfish desires over selfless desires. Pretty basic yes or no questions. Soul, yes or no? If yes then you can choose, you are not doomed to selfish desires. If no.. fine why no? because we are merely biologic entities reacting to stimulus. I'll skip the proof. Don't have the time to elucidate an entire philosophy including irrefutable evidence in a thread. If I wanted to do that I'd probably write a book on it.

What I don't believe or disbelieve is the existence of a soul. What I'm convinced you're wrong about is the nature of selfishness. These things are not innately bound to one another, though I see in your following argument you continue to make that assumption.

What I'm saying is that ALL DECISIONS ARE SELFISH. This doesn't mean that you are bound to only make the selfish choices and not the selfless ones. This means that any choice you make is selfish because an individual consciousness isn't capable of selflessness. Period. For that you'd have to remove your values from the equation, and that is simply impossible. Even if you chose to roll a pair of dice to make every decision in your life, your decisions would still be based on your value in making decisions that are random. Anything you choose is what you wanted. This has nothing to do with predetermination or self-determination, it is just the nature of an individual conscience as opposed to a hive-minded one.

Maybe we do have souls. Maybe it is the soul that decides those values upon which we base our decisions. Maybe there's no soul and it's the psychological wiring of one's collection of experiences that decides those values. Perhaps we're even born with these ingrained biologically. That part I don't know.

What I do know is this: Everything you choose is your choice, based on your values. YOUR values. Nobody else's. YOUR standards. Nobody else's. Everything you choose, by being YOUR choice based on YOUR standards, is selfish. There is no such thing as an unselfish desire.

See if you can't extricate that concept from the concept of predetermination. It's not hard.

As a last note, I will say that the fact that you feel you've got irrefutable evidence for the existence of a soul is HOLY SHIT amazing. I'm wondering if you're capable of the logic necessary to hold a meaningful, abstract conversation.

 

[KevinWestern]

Lol!

I understand what summary means, and your summary was correct.

I also understand IOW, which is what preceded the sentence where you made a -huge- leap of logic and errantly assumed you were reading the correct implications into my reasoning. You were not. I don't believe or disbelieve in a soul, and nowhere in my argument did I subscribe to any idea that requires that a soul does or does not exist, thus your assumption is incorrect, thus IOW was invalid. Get it? Though, if I did say something that negates the possibility of a soul, please point it out so I can re-examine my philosophy. Accusations without any backup aren't helpful.

I've done considerably more than 25 push ups since that exchange, thanks, but I don't have any chill pills

LOL you don't believe or disbelieve but are sure I must be wrong. ROFL you appear to have a pretty big hole in your argument. I'll let you bridge the gap between my statements and your indecision. I can lead you to water... but clearly no one's gonna make you drink.

Put another way your argument led to no soul. Your argument demanded a reactive soulless body. The concept of soul is self-determination not reactive biologic decisions. If all decisions are based on selfishness then that must be because there is no real self-determination. Self-determination would allow us to choose selfish desires over selfless desires. Pretty basic yes or no questions. Soul, yes or no? If yes then you can choose, you are not doomed to selfish desires. If no.. fine why no? because we are merely biologic entities reacting to stimulus. I'll skip the proof. Don't have the time to elucidate an entire philosophy including irrefutable evidence in a thread. If I wanted to do that I'd probably write a book on it.

What I don't believe or disbelieve is the existence of a soul. What I'm convinced you're wrong about is the nature of selfishness. These things are not innately bound to one another, though I see in your following argument you continue to make that assumption.

What I'm saying is that ALL DECISIONS ARE SELFISH. This doesn't mean that you are bound to only make the selfish choices. This means that any choice you make is selfish. Period. Anything you choose is what you wanted. This has nothing to do with predetermination or self-determination, it is just the nature of an individual conscience as opposed to a hive-minded one.

Maybe we do have souls. Maybe it is the soul that decides those values upon which we base our decisions. Maybe there's no soul and it's the psychological wiring of one's collection of experiences that decides those values. Perhaps we're even born with these ingrained biologically. That part I don't know.

What I do know is this: Everything you choose is your choice, based on your values. YOUR values. Nobody else's. YOUR standards. Nobody else's. Everything you choose, by being YOUR choice based on YOUR standards, is selfish.

See if you can't extricate that concept from the concept of predetermination. It's not hard.

I don't think "all decisions are selfish".

If you spend every waking opportunity to better the condition of those around you, and do it not because it makes you - the individual - feel good but do it rather because you legitimately love everyone, how is that being selfish?

That's the opposite of selfish.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

LOL you don't believe or disbelieve but are sure I must be wrong. ROFL you appear to have a pretty big hole in your argument. I'll let you bridge the gap between my statements and your indecision. I can lead you to water... but clearly no one's gonna make you drink.

Put another way your argument led to no soul. Your argument demanded a reactive soulless body. The concept of soul is self-determination not reactive biologic decisions. If all decisions are based on selfishness then that must be because there is no real self-determination. Self-determination would allow us to choose selfish desires over selfless desires. Pretty basic yes or no questions. Soul, yes or no? If yes then you can choose, you are not doomed to selfish desires. If no.. fine why no? because we are merely biologic entities reacting to stimulus. I'll skip the proof. Don't have the time to elucidate an entire philosophy including irrefutable evidence in a thread. If I wanted to do that I'd probably write a book on it.

What I don't believe or disbelieve is the existence of a soul. What I'm convinced you're wrong about is the nature of selfishness. These things are not innately bound to one another, though I see in your following argument you continue to make that assumption.

What I'm saying is that ALL DECISIONS ARE SELFISH. This doesn't mean that you are bound to only make the selfish choices. This means that any choice you make is selfish. Period. Anything you choose is what you wanted. This has nothing to do with predetermination or self-determination, it is just the nature of an individual conscience as opposed to a hive-minded one.

Maybe we do have souls. Maybe it is the soul that decides those values upon which we base our decisions. Maybe there's no soul and it's the psychological wiring of one's collection of experiences that decides those values. Perhaps we're even born with these ingrained biologically. That part I don't know.

What I do know is this: Everything you choose is your choice, based on your values. YOUR values. Nobody else's. YOUR standards. Nobody else's. Everything you choose, by being YOUR choice based on YOUR standards, is selfish.

See if you can't extricate that concept from the concept of predetermination. It's not hard.

I don't think "all decisions are selfish".

If you spend every waking opportunity to better the condition of those around you, and do it not because it makes you - the individual - feel good but do it rather because you legitimately love everyone, how is that being selfish?

That's the opposite of selfish.

It's still selfish. No matter how it makes you feel, or how much you value the emotion that results. The reason that you did it is because YOU value the improved conditions more than you value what it cost you to improve them.

It is the fact that it is YOUR decision, based on the values of YOUR individual conscience, that makes it selfish.

The only way it isn't selfish is if someone else worked you like a puppet and completely removed you from the decision making process. "Making" you do something, in the basic sense, wouldn't even qualify to make your action unselfish. Only the complete absence of your individuality could do that. If someone put a gun to your head and told you to feed the poor, your decision to feed the poor would still be a selfish one, as you value feeding the poor more than you value being shot in the head.

Any time you made a choice, you were selfish. PEriod.

 

[Clement]

What I'm saying is that ALL DECISIONS ARE SELFISH. This doesn't mean that you are bound to only make the selfish choices and not the selfless ones. This means that any choice you make is selfish because an individual consciousness isn't capable of selflessness.

Ayn Rand, anyone?

While I agree that given the choice, many people will choose the path of selfishness over selflessness, I don't believe it's impossible to be selfless. But it does take practice. To put it another way, it is possible to make a decision that does not benefit you but benefits another. That doesn't mean spiritual exhibitionism - putting on a show. To be selfless there must be nothing in it for you at a time when no one is watching.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

What I'm saying is that ALL DECISIONS ARE SELFISH. This doesn't mean that you are bound to only make the selfish choices and not the selfless ones. This means that any choice you make is selfish because an individual consciousness isn't capable of selflessness.

Ayn Rand, anyone?

While I agree that given the choice, many people will choose the path of selfishness over selflessness, I don't believe it's impossible to be selfless. But it does take practice.

Yeah. On that, Rand and I see pretty much eye-to-eye.

So does Robert Heinlein and several other authors of no small renown.

 

[Clement]

Yeah. On that, Rand and I see pretty much eye-to-eye.

So does Robert Heinlein and several other authors of no small renown.

Kevin makes it sound like a bad thing. Rand makes it sound like a logical thing. If she were here, she would probably say that if we were all selfish in a practical way, there would be no need for anybody to have to depend on anyone else, because we would all be looking out for ourselves instead of having to depend on someone else.

I once impressed my boss by saying that my motivation for doing a good job was to make money for the company, reasoning that if the company made money, I would make money (or at the very least be able to keep my job, which is also worth something).

He called it "enlightened self interest".

So I get where you are coming from.

 

[KevinWestern]

What I don't believe or disbelieve is the existence of a soul. What I'm convinced you're wrong about is the nature of selfishness. These things are not innately bound to one another, though I see in your following argument you continue to make that assumption.

What I'm saying is that ALL DECISIONS ARE SELFISH. This doesn't mean that you are bound to only make the selfish choices. This means that any choice you make is selfish. Period. Anything you choose is what you wanted. This has nothing to do with predetermination or self-determination, it is just the nature of an individual conscience as opposed to a hive-minded one.

Maybe we do have souls. Maybe it is the soul that decides those values upon which we base our decisions. Maybe there's no soul and it's the psychological wiring of one's collection of experiences that decides those values. Perhaps we're even born with these ingrained biologically. That part I don't know.

What I do know is this: Everything you choose is your choice, based on your values. YOUR values. Nobody else's. YOUR standards. Nobody else's. Everything you choose, by being YOUR choice based on YOUR standards, is selfish.

See if you can't extricate that concept from the concept of predetermination. It's not hard.

I don't think "all decisions are selfish".

If you spend every waking opportunity to better the condition of those around you, and do it not because it makes you - the individual - feel good but do it rather because you legitimately love everyone, how is that being selfish?

That's the opposite of selfish.

It's still selfish. No matter how it makes you feel, or how much you value the emotion that results. The reason that you did it is because YOU value the improved conditions more than you value what it cost you to improve them.

It is the fact that it is YOUR decision, based on the values of YOUR individual conscience, that makes it selfish.

The only way it isn't selfish is if someone else worked you like a puppet and completely removed you from the decision making process. "Making" you do something, in the basic sense, wouldn't even qualify to make your action unselfish. Only the complete absence of your individuality could do that. If someone put a gun to your head and told you to feed the poor, your decision to feed the poor would still be a selfish one, as you value feeding the poor more than you value being shot in the head.

Any time you made a choice, you were selfish. PEriod.

Completely disagree. While MANY examples of "selflessness" are selfish actions in disguise (much as you describe above), it's not impossible for someone to practice complete selflessness. Is it rare? Of course. But it occurs.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

I don't think "all decisions are selfish".

If you spend every waking opportunity to better the condition of those around you, and do it not because it makes you - the individual - feel good but do it rather because you legitimately love everyone, how is that being selfish?

That's the opposite of selfish.

It's still selfish. No matter how it makes you feel, or how much you value the emotion that results. The reason that you did it is because YOU value the improved conditions more than you value what it cost you to improve them.

It is the fact that it is YOUR decision, based on the values of YOUR individual conscience, that makes it selfish.

The only way it isn't selfish is if someone else worked you like a puppet and completely removed you from the decision making process. "Making" you do something, in the basic sense, wouldn't even qualify to make your action unselfish. Only the complete absence of your individuality could do that. If someone put a gun to your head and told you to feed the poor, your decision to feed the poor would still be a selfish one, as you value feeding the poor more than you value being shot in the head.

Any time you made a choice, you were selfish. PEriod.

Completely disagree. While MANY examples of "selflessness" are selfish actions in disguise (much as you describe above), it's not impossible for someone to practice complete selflessness. Is it rare? Of course. But it occurs.

You're still missing my point. I'm not saying they're selfish actions -in disguise-, hiding their selfish nature. I'm saying the selfish nature is impossible to detach from any decision made by an individual consciousness.

I think the reason you're missing what I'm saying is because you're assuming selfish to be negative. If you accept that every decision of an individual consciousness is based on that consciousness's values and no other's (which it is), then selfish is neither positive nor negative. It is all-encompassing.

The positive or negative, then, is based on the result of one's actions, not the motives. If some scientist develops a cure for cancer because they love the world and want cancer eradicated, HOLY SHIT A CURE FOR CANCER!

If some scientist develops a cure for cancer because they seek the admiration of their peers, HOLY SHIT A CURE FOR CANCER!

If some scientist develops a cure for cancer because they want to get paid, HOLY SHIT A CURE FOR CANCER!

If Hitler murdered 6 million Jews because he didn't like the shape of their noses, 6 million Jews died.

If Hitler murdered 6 million Jews because he wanted to eliminate what he felt were the portions of the human race that were inferior and holding the rest of the species back, 6 million Jews died.

**** selfish, everybody's selfish. The problem is people whose values and standards don't negate ******* over other people. That's why it's important to raise children properly, because ultimately they're going to act to fulfill their values. Gotta make sure they've got values conducive to coexistence and constructive achievement.

 

[KevinWestern]

It's still selfish. No matter how it makes you feel, or how much you value the emotion that results. The reason that you did it is because YOU value the improved conditions more than you value what it cost you to improve them.

It is the fact that it is YOUR decision, based on the values of YOUR individual conscience, that makes it selfish.

The only way it isn't selfish is if someone else worked you like a puppet and completely removed you from the decision making process. "Making" you do something, in the basic sense, wouldn't even qualify to make your action unselfish. Only the complete absence of your individuality could do that. If someone put a gun to your head and told you to feed the poor, your decision to feed the poor would still be a selfish one, as you value feeding the poor more than you value being shot in the head.

Any time you made a choice, you were selfish. PEriod.

Completely disagree. While MANY examples of "selflessness" are selfish actions in disguise (much as you describe above), it's not impossible for someone to practice complete selflessness. Is it rare? Of course. But it occurs.

You're still missing my point. I'm not saying they're selfish actions -in disguise-, hiding their selfish nature. I'm saying the selfish nature is impossible to detach from any decision made by an individual consciousness.

I think the reason you're missing what I'm saying is because you're assuming selfish to be negative. If you accept that every decision of an individual consciousness is based on that consciousness's values and no other's (which it is), then selfish is neither positive nor negative. It is all-encompassing.

The positive or negative, then, is based on the result of one's actions, not the motives. If some scientist develops a cure for cancer because they love the world and want cancer eradicated, HOLY SHIT A CURE FOR CANCER!

If some scientist develops a cure for cancer because they seek the admiration of their peers, HOLY SHIT A CURE FOR CANCER!

If some scientist develops a cure for cancer because they want to get paid, HOLY SHIT A CURE FOR CANCER!

If Hitler murdered 6 million Jews because he didn't like the shape of their noses, 6 million Jews died.

If Hitler murdered 6 million Jews because he wanted to eliminate what he felt were the portions of the human race that were inferior and holding the rest of the species back, 6 million Jews died.

**** selfish, everybody's selfish. The problem is people whose values and standards don't negate ******* over other people. That's why it's important to raise children properly, because ultimately they're going to act to fulfill their values. Gotta make sure they've got values conducive to coexistence and constructive achievement.

I think I partially get what you're saying, but remember my angle is somewhat spiritual here. We think, we act as "separate from the whole" but if we were to flip that around and act ONLY as one with the whole what happens then?

I think if you act selfishly, it might turn out as "good" sometimes, but if you act truly and absolutely as part of the whole it's going to turn out "good" most all of the time if not all of the time. I believe there are people who have transcended the "self" - spiritually - and have elevated their thinking to a higher plane that allows a person to be guided to move more in synch with the whole. I absolutely realize you may not believe this, but just sharing to show you where I'm coming from.

A person who has reached this height of thinking has absolutely no reason to focus on oneself, and will only spend time collecting money, or sharpening a skill if it were to mean that the money or skill would be used to later better the whole in some shape or form. He/she would be entirely unselfish.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Completely disagree. While MANY examples of "selflessness" are selfish actions in disguise (much as you describe above), it's not impossible for someone to practice complete selflessness. Is it rare? Of course. But it occurs.

You're still missing my point. I'm not saying they're selfish actions -in disguise-, hiding their selfish nature. I'm saying the selfish nature is impossible to detach from any decision made by an individual consciousness.

I think the reason you're missing what I'm saying is because you're assuming selfish to be negative. If you accept that every decision of an individual consciousness is based on that consciousness's values and no other's (which it is), then selfish is neither positive nor negative. It is all-encompassing.

The positive or negative, then, is based on the result of one's actions, not the motives. If some scientist develops a cure for cancer because they love the world and want cancer eradicated, HOLY SHIT A CURE FOR CANCER!

If some scientist develops a cure for cancer because they seek the admiration of their peers, HOLY SHIT A CURE FOR CANCER!

If some scientist develops a cure for cancer because they want to get paid, HOLY SHIT A CURE FOR CANCER!

If Hitler murdered 6 million Jews because he didn't like the shape of their noses, 6 million Jews died.

If Hitler murdered 6 million Jews because he wanted to eliminate what he felt were the portions of the human race that were inferior and holding the rest of the species back, 6 million Jews died.

**** selfish, everybody's selfish. The problem is people whose values and standards don't negate ******* over other people. That's why it's important to raise children properly, because ultimately they're going to act to fulfill their values. Gotta make sure they've got values conducive to coexistence and constructive achievement.

I think I partially get what you're saying, but remember my angle is somewhat spiritual here. We think, we act as "separate from the whole" but if we were to flip that around and act ONLY as one with the whole what happens then?

I think if you act selfishly, it might turn out as "good" sometimes, but if you act truly and absolutely as part of the whole it's going to turn out "good" most all of the time if not all of the time. I believe there are people who have transcended the "self" - spiritually - and have elevated their thinking to a higher plane that allows a person to be guided to move more in synch with the whole. I absolutely realize you may not believe this, but just sharing to show you where I'm coming from.

A person who has reached this height of thinking has absolutely no reason to focus on oneself, and will only spend time collecting money, or sharpening a skill if it were to mean that the money or skill would be used to later better the whole in some shape or form. He/she would be entirely unselfish.

I can accept the possibility that there is a spiritual consciousness that one might reach wherein his motives are the motives of some singular, universal conscience. That would negate that individual's selfishness, even by my understanding of it.

 

[RKMBrown]

You're still missing my point. I'm not saying they're selfish actions -in disguise-, hiding their selfish nature. I'm saying the selfish nature is impossible to detach from any decision made by an individual consciousness.

I think the reason you're missing what I'm saying is because you're assuming selfish to be negative. If you accept that every decision of an individual consciousness is based on that consciousness's values and no other's (which it is), then selfish is neither positive nor negative. It is all-encompassing.

The positive or negative, then, is based on the result of one's actions, not the motives. If some scientist develops a cure for cancer because they love the world and want cancer eradicated, HOLY SHIT A CURE FOR CANCER!

If some scientist develops a cure for cancer because they seek the admiration of their peers, HOLY SHIT A CURE FOR CANCER!

If some scientist develops a cure for cancer because they want to get paid, HOLY SHIT A CURE FOR CANCER!

If Hitler murdered 6 million Jews because he didn't like the shape of their noses, 6 million Jews died.

If Hitler murdered 6 million Jews because he wanted to eliminate what he felt were the portions of the human race that were inferior and holding the rest of the species back, 6 million Jews died.

**** selfish, everybody's selfish. The problem is people whose values and standards don't negate ******* over other people. That's why it's important to raise children properly, because ultimately they're going to act to fulfill their values. Gotta make sure they've got values conducive to coexistence and constructive achievement.

I think I partially get what you're saying, but remember my angle is somewhat spiritual here. We think, we act as "separate from the whole" but if we were to flip that around and act ONLY as one with the whole what happens then?

I think if you act selfishly, it might turn out as "good" sometimes, but if you act truly and absolutely as part of the whole it's going to turn out "good" most all of the time if not all of the time. I believe there are people who have transcended the "self" - spiritually - and have elevated their thinking to a higher plane that allows a person to be guided to move more in synch with the whole. I absolutely realize you may not believe this, but just sharing to show you where I'm coming from.

A person who has reached this height of thinking has absolutely no reason to focus on oneself, and will only spend time collecting money, or sharpening a skill if it were to mean that the money or skill would be used to later better the whole in some shape or form. He/she would be entirely unselfish.

I can accept the possibility that there is a spiritual consciousness that one might reach wherein his motives are the motives of some singular, universal conscience. That would negate that individual's selfishness, even by my understanding of it.

IOW your definition of selfishness makes the word meaningless. Your disregard for the soul makes your opinion that of a worthless biologic lump of mass. But, at least that explains your disregard and acrimony for selfless acts.

 

[KevinWestern]

I can accept the possibility that there is a spiritual consciousness that one might reach wherein his motives are the motives of some singular, universal conscience. That would negate that individual's selfishness, even by my understanding of it.

Yea, that's where I'm coming from, but totally respect that you may think this is not possible, etc.

Think of a human body where all of the appendages are unaware of each other and have no "joint" connection to a central brain. Imagine what a disaster it would be to even attempt the simplest of tasks. The two arms trying to pick up the same cup might not have "evil" intentions, but the fact that they think they are separate from one whole body (ie selfishness) might result in the glass getting fought over, knocked over, broken, etc. The person wouldn't be able to walk straight (if at all), because there'd be little to no coordination between the two legs. This is kind of how I feel like the world is operating right now.

We live in interesting times, however. I think globalization and things like the internet are bringing us together in ways never thought imaginable before. In 1930 a US person might believe themselves to be wholly separate/different from someone in China. However, because we now have a "heightened awareness" (via the internet, for example) and can easily watch a youtube video of a Chinese person doing many of the same things that we do here in the USA (chatting, playing games, having fun, etc), we no longer think of ourselves as so different. And since we now relate better to that person in China, we’d be less likely to do something awful to that country (like start a war, enslave economically, etc) because we see ourselves in those people; in other words, we feel less separate.

But with any great technology that has the potential to bring us to harmony, it also has an equal potential to destroy. In the past rulers had (relatively) limited means to destroy/control, yet they still managed to do a great job massacring and torturing people on a huge scale. Just imagine what the wrong hands can do with a nuclear bomb, or worse?

But again, if everyone on the planet did their best to view everyone and everything as "we", we'd be much less likelier to destroy one another. What would be the point of hurting yourself? What would be the point of enslaving yourself?

 

[hangover]

Selfishness is the root of all evil, despair, hate, pain, suffering, etc in this world. The only way we are going to experience peace here on earth is if we learn (as a whole) to unselfishly love everyone and everything.

I'm a believer in the idea that everything in the Universe is ultimately One thing, and that duality (ie the illusion of separateness that we experience as physical beings here on earth) is the cause of all problems here on earth.

Separateness leads to selfishness.
Wholeness leads to unselfish love.

Anyone have similar views? Thoughts?

Why is selfishness "evil"?

Is there anyone who is not selfish?

Yeah, they're called liberals. But then, that's why cons hate them.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

I think I partially get what you're saying, but remember my angle is somewhat spiritual here. We think, we act as "separate from the whole" but if we were to flip that around and act ONLY as one with the whole what happens then?

I think if you act selfishly, it might turn out as "good" sometimes, but if you act truly and absolutely as part of the whole it's going to turn out "good" most all of the time if not all of the time. I believe there are people who have transcended the "self" - spiritually - and have elevated their thinking to a higher plane that allows a person to be guided to move more in synch with the whole. I absolutely realize you may not believe this, but just sharing to show you where I'm coming from.

A person who has reached this height of thinking has absolutely no reason to focus on oneself, and will only spend time collecting money, or sharpening a skill if it were to mean that the money or skill would be used to later better the whole in some shape or form. He/she would be entirely unselfish.

I can accept the possibility that there is a spiritual consciousness that one might reach wherein his motives are the motives of some singular, universal conscience. That would negate that individual's selfishness, even by my understanding of it.

IOW your definition of selfishness makes the word meaningless. Your disregard for the soul makes your opinion that of a worthless biologic lump of mass. But, at least that explains your disregard and acrimony for selfless acts.

Wow, even after I distinguish my views from a concept of soullessness several times, you continue to assume that my philosophy negates a soul's existence. IT's like you're just firing off responses you had chambered before you even read what I posted.

I also don't have acrimony for selfless acts, I simply don't believe that there is such a thing for a creature possessed of its own individual consciousness. Honestly, I'm of the mind that anyone who's standards and values demand that they act generously toward others, or even demand that they do right by those they care about, is a pretty amazing person. I'm guess that it's your dogmatic, negative view of selfishness that's giving you the impression that, by accepting selfishness as inevitable, I must have similar negativity toward the opposing concept. I do not.

Where I agree with you is that my definition -does- make the word meaningless. It is simply an inevitability. That's my whole point: selfishness is a meaningless and thus errant place to draw the dividing line between good and evil. I'm glad you finally caught that.

I'm also a little sorry for you. "Your disregard for the soul makes your opinion that of a worthless biologic lump of mass." Do you even understand what this statement implies?

You've essentially said here that the two possibilities are that humans have souls or that they are worthless. Without a supernatural essence disconnected from observable physical reality, humans are pointless biological lumps.

Personally, I can look at the world, look at humanity, and look at the things we've achieved as a species, and find it all pretty fuckin impressive. I am quite awestruck by the existence that I can readily observe, even if there's nothing more to it than what I experience with my available senses.

The fact that you require a magical essence to validate humanity speaks of a very bleak outlook on life and sentience. I'm sorry that you don't find what you see special enough to impress you.

 

[KevinWestern]

That's my whole point: selfishness is a meaningless and thus errant place to draw the dividing line between good and evil. I'm glad you finally caught that.

One more quick point I’d like to make. Yes, selfishness can lead to a good “outcome” (ie you seek admiration from your peers so you develop a new wonder drug), but can’t you always achieve that same outcome by being completely selfless? If you were completely and utterly selfless, and admiration/money was not what you were after but rather the betterment of all mankind, wouldn't you still use all the same skills and resources at your disposal, the same amount of waking hours, sacrificing all other personal pleasures to achieve your goal of wonder drug?

Also think of this too. If money was your primary motivating factor to make a wonder drug, there’s a potential that you might get too much of it and thus have no more reason to create additional “good” in the world. Say you're already admired by your peers, and already a multi-millionaire and now have no more “reason” to try as hard. What about then?

If selflessness - instead - was the true root of your motivation, there’d be no reason to EVER stop until the world is 100% better in every way you could possibly contribute. That's an infinitely better outcome. That is the "maximizing good" outcome.

Selflessness is "good" when maximized to the best of one's ability and ALWAYS only "bad" by accident. Selfishness is "bad" when maximized to the best of one's ability and ALWAYS only "good" by accident.

Right?