The Energon Pub

I've been thinking about this a lot lately.

When you help people you help them because it makes you feel good about doing the right thing right?

So, in the end you are still doing something because it makes you feel good.

That's also known as being selfish.

I had a lot more to say but my mind is drawing a blank all of a sudden.

What do you have to say about this?

We do things because we want to, no matter how begrudgingly. Thus, we see our own interests in them. I always like to refer to the great Friedrick Nietzsche and a quote from article 57 of "Human, All too Human" in such subject:

Morality as man's dividing himself. A good author, who really cares about his subject, wishes that someone would come and destroy him by representing the same subject more clearly and by answering every last question contained in it. The girl in love wishes that she might prove the devoted faithfulness of her love through her lover's faithlessness. The soldier wishes that he might fall on the battlefield for his victorious fatherland, for in the victory of his fatherland his greatest desire is also victorious. The mother gives the child what she takes from herself: sleep, the best food, in some instances even her health, her wealth.
Are all these really selfless states, however? Are these acts of morality miracles because they are, to use Schopenhauer's phrase, "impossible and yet real"? Isn't it clear that, in all these cases, man is loving something of himself, a thought, a longing, an offspring, more than something else of himself; that he is thus dividing up his being and sacrificing one part for the other? Is it something essentially different when a pigheaded man says, "I would rather be shot at once than move an inch to get out of that man's
The inclination towards something (a wish, a drive, a longing) is present in all the above‑mentioned cases; to yield to it, with all its consequences, is in any case not "selfless." In morality, man treats himself not as an "individuum," but as a "dividuum."

Venomous Prime wrote:I've been thinking about this a lot lately.

When you help people you help them because it makes you feel good about doing the right thing right?

So, in the end you are still doing something because it makes you feel good.

That's also known as being selfish.

I had a lot more to say but my mind is drawing a blank all of a sudden.

What do you have to say about this?

This reminds me of the episode of Friends where Phoenbe is trying to prove that it's possible to do a completely selfless act. In the end, she just donated money to PBS but reasoned that it was completely selfless because she actually hated PBS.

Loki120 wrote:

Venomous Prime wrote:I've been thinking about this a lot lately.

When you help people you help them because it makes you feel good about doing the right thing right?

So, in the end you are still doing something because it makes you feel good.

That's also known as being selfish.

I had a lot more to say but my mind is drawing a blank all of a sudden.

What do you have to say about this?

This reminds me of the episode of Friends where Phoenbe is trying to prove that it's possible to do a completely selfless act. In the end, she just donated money to PBS but reasoned that it was completely selfless because she actually hated PBS.

But technically she only did that to prove her point

The very word itself poses an interesting complication to that question: "selflessness," an implication of a quality being outside of the self. Yet, unless one holds that the idea of "self" is an illusion, it seems to be an infinitely improbable condition to act without any regard to the agent: the self.

This doesn't mean altruism isn't a worthwhile goal; rather, it seems to suggest that "selflessness," in a literal interpretation, is a futile pursuit. However, adopting a collectivist view--that all beings are equal and connected, either figuratively or spiritually--brings the focus to compassion. Suddenly, each action that the self takes holds a greater importance to the whole of sentience, and so the feeling of satisfaction in expressing compassion through action is a feeling that is distributed along all of the connections that exist, perhaps in ways that cannot be seen in our limited perspectives...

Then there's the more existential approach, that doesn't fault the presence of adherence to the self in "selfless" acts; the choice is of importance, and the satisfaction received by making a beneficial choice is perhaps the only measure that we have of having acted in a justifiable way. Thus, it is not whether the act is selfless or not that is important, but rather the choice that led to such an action, trading one means of distinction (in this case, establishing "selflessness" as a false categorization) for another...

In either case, the supposition would be that "selflessness" itself is not important, but rather the ethical weight of the actions themselves, which--admittedly--opens up a whole 'nother can of worms...

Venomous Prime wrote:

Loki120 wrote:

Venomous Prime wrote:I've been thinking about this a lot lately.

When you help people you help them because it makes you feel good about doing the right thing right?

So, in the end you are still doing something because it makes you feel good.

That's also known as being selfish.

I had a lot more to say but my mind is drawing a blank all of a sudden.

What do you have to say about this?

This reminds me of the episode of Friends where Phoenbe is trying to prove that it's possible to do a completely selfless act. In the end, she just donated money to PBS but reasoned that it was completely selfless because she actually hated PBS.

But technically she only did that to prove her point

selfishness is not defined as doing something that makes you feel good. if your SOLE reason for doing something is to make yourself feel good then you are being selfish, if you help others becuase you feel it is appropriate to help others( i.e. handing a lost wallet to the police, becuase you feel it is the right thing to do) despite it being easier for you not to help, then you are not being selfish even if it makes you feel good.

it's about motive, not reward.

Tammuz wrote:

Venomous Prime wrote:

Loki120 wrote:

Venomous Prime wrote:I've been thinking about this a lot lately.

When you help people you help them because it makes you feel good about doing the right thing right?

So, in the end you are still doing something because it makes you feel good.

That's also known as being selfish.

I had a lot more to say but my mind is drawing a blank all of a sudden.

What do you have to say about this?

This reminds me of the episode of Friends where Phoenbe is trying to prove that it's possible to do a completely selfless act. In the end, she just donated money to PBS but reasoned that it was completely selfless because she actually hated PBS.

But technically she only did that to prove her point

selfishness is not defined as doing something that makes you feel good. if your SOLE reason for doing something is to make yourself feel good then you are being selfish, if you help others becuase you feel it is appropriate to help others( i.e. handing a lost wallet to the police, becuase you feel it is the right thing to do) despite it being easier for you not to help, then you are not being selfish even if it makes you feel good.

it's about motive, not reward.

Doing the 'right thing' to fufill their own sense of justice-- again, not selfless...

I find 'feeling good' and satisfaction can be two completely different things.

EDIT: By the way, what's anyone's thought on that FWN quote?

EDIT 2:

Kranix-76 wrote:The very word itself poses an interesting complication to that question: "selflessness," an implication of a quality being outside of the self. Yet, unless one holds that the idea of "self" is an illusion, it seems to be an infinitely improbable condition to act without any regard to the agent: the self.

This doesn't mean altruism isn't a worthwhile goal; rather, it seems to suggest that "selflessness," in a literal interpretation, is a futile pursuit. However, adopting a collectivist view--that all beings are equal and connected, either figuratively or spiritually--brings the focus to compassion. Suddenly, each action that the self takes holds a greater importance to the whole of sentience, and so the feeling of satisfaction in expressing compassion through action is a feeling that is distributed along all of the connections that exist, perhaps in ways that cannot be seen in our limited perspectives...

Then there's the more existential approach, that doesn't fault the presence of adherence to the self in "selfless" acts; the choice is of importance, and the satisfaction received by making a beneficial choice is perhaps the only measure that we have of having acted in a justifiable way. Thus, it is not whether the act is selfless or not that is important, but rather the choice that led to such an action, trading one means of distinction (in this case, establishing "selflessness" as a false categorization) for another...

In either case, the supposition would be that "selflessness" itself is not important, but rather the ethical weight of the actions themselves, which--admittedly--opens up a whole 'nother can of worms...

Just my thoughts. My thoughts on self are that their is no real 'self' as we define in our own language-- a single, indivisable, absolute biological being. Even 'biological' suggests that what was one being at one point will be another seconds later.

If 'self' is defined as what one looks for and performs for, than look no further than what the voices in our heads tell us to do. But that in itself leads to the expansion of self to other organisms, causes, and ideals, and thus the self expands to not just this fleshy being, but the whole flowing experience in itself, everything touched and everything touching, everything seeking and everything sought. It holds true that action defines who you are, and thus 'selfless' in the true sense is speaking of nothing. As Nietzsche says, we are all selfish, but can define many, many things as ourselves, a 'dividual.'

Is there something wrong with feeling good about helping others out? Is it really considered selfish to do such acts for personal enjoyment? I don't think it is. I thank God there is personal enjoyment as a result or nobody would help others when in need.

It depends on if you mean selfish in the sense of a negative character trait or if you mean technically selfish.

The latter doesn't really matter and if you help people out for the sole reason that you feel nice about yourself because of it, well... There are worse things to do to achieve that!

When a pregnant woman senses she is in danger she would instinctively cover her belly to protect her unborn child with little regard for herself. You may put it down to survival of the species or whatever but it's an act and certainly not selfish.

Dick wrote:When a pregnant woman senses she is in danger she would instinctively cover her belly to protect her unborn child with little regard for herself. You may put it down to survival of the species or whatever but it's an act and certainly not selfish.

Again, refer to Nietzsche-- it fulfills a self-interest (an interest of the self).

EDIT: Helping others isn't necessarily bad, but it's not 'selfless' as people like to say.

The Avatar of Man wrote:

Dick wrote:When a pregnant woman senses she is in danger she would instinctively cover her belly to protect her unborn child with little regard for herself. You may put it down to survival of the species or whatever but it's an act and certainly not selfish.

Again, refer to Nietzsche-- it fulfills a self-interest (an interest of the self).

Nietzsche has spoken, it must be so.

Dick wrote:

The Avatar of Man wrote:

Dick wrote:When a pregnant woman senses she is in danger she would instinctively cover her belly to protect her unborn child with little regard for herself. You may put it down to survival of the species or whatever but it's an act and certainly not selfish.

Again, refer to Nietzsche-- it fulfills a self-interest (an interest of the self).

Nietzsche has spoken, it must be so.

The quote by him has already addressed exactly what you stated-- so at least address it. I personally don't see why everyone is ignoring it.

The Avatar of Man wrote:

Dick wrote:

The Avatar of Man wrote:

Dick wrote:When a pregnant woman senses she is in danger she would instinctively cover her belly to protect her unborn child with little regard for herself. You may put it down to survival of the species or whatever but it's an act and certainly not selfish.

Again, refer to Nietzsche-- it fulfills a self-interest (an interest of the self).

Nietzsche has spoken, it must be so.

The quote by him has already addressed exactly what you stated-- so at least address it. I personally don't see why everyone is ignoring it.

Because [a] the quote you posted portrays a child as an extention of the parent and aiding it is in fact aiding oneself. The situation I forwarded, if this was taken in to considerartion, would mean the parent aiding the child at the cost of it's own safety to safeguard itself and doesn't make much sense. If you can find a clearer passage more valid to the statement then please do so.
[b] Nietzsche backtracked on himself throughout his writings and suffered mental illness throuh a substantial number of years. Putting forward musings of a confused madman, however revered, as a proven reference of fact and getting irked when others don't bother to include it in their response is rather silly.

Dick wrote:

The Avatar of Man wrote:

Dick wrote:

The Avatar of Man wrote:

Dick wrote:When a pregnant woman senses she is in danger she would instinctively cover her belly to protect her unborn child with little regard for herself. You may put it down to survival of the species or whatever but it's an act and certainly not selfish.

Again, refer to Nietzsche-- it fulfills a self-interest (an interest of the self).

Nietzsche has spoken, it must be so.

The quote by him has already addressed exactly what you stated-- so at least address it. I personally don't see why everyone is ignoring it.

Because [a] the quote you posted portrays a child as an extention of the parent and aiding it is in fact aiding oneself. The situation I forwarded, if this was taken in to considerartion, would mean the parent aiding the child at the cost of it's own safety to safeguard itself and doesn't make much sense. If you can find a clearer passage more valid to the statement then please do so.

Part of Nietzsche's main philosophy is of will and the pursuit of life, not to not only reproduce but interact with and efficate the surrounding world. Defining themselves by action and pursuit of our goals is identified as the ultimate, and that all action is not done unless willed (and thus wanted) by the individual.

As such in this excerpt, FWN argues the ideals and goals a person identifies with may bring great physical discomfort and even personal destruction in their pursuit, but that does not negate the fact that the being is merely making sacrifices in one area to fulfill a goal in the other-- not the total denial of self, but the fulfillment of it.

I don't really understand the confusion, though I do suppose a minor background in existentialist philosophy is required.

[b] Nietzsche backtracked on himself throughout his writings and suffered mental illness throuh a substantial number of years. Putting forward musings of a confused madman, however revered, as a proven reference of fact and getting irked when others don't bother to include it in their response is rather silly.

Ad Hominem-- Fight the argument, not the man. You are furthermore putting words in my mouth by suggesting I ever inferred it was fact.

As an aside, he only went 'mad' in the latter days of his life, due it some rare form of syphilis I do believe-- he spent years before as an accomplished professor.

I think part of the main concern here is that, rather than constructing your own argument and merely using Nietzsche as a reference to further define that argument, you seem to be relying heavily on those words without offering your own critical input. It should also be noted that, as with all philosophers, Nietzsche was not without faults or criticisms--if he weren't, then the pursuit of Truth would have ended with his contribution.

However, it seems that this thread is drifting from being a general examination into the nature of self vis-a-vis "selflessness," and rapidly turning into a symposium on Nietzsche's ideas. That being said...maybe it would be best to save the defense of Nietzsche for another thread, and try to return to the original intent of this one. Just a thought.

Kranix-76 wrote:I think part of the main concern here is that, rather than constructing your own argument and merely using Nietzsche as a reference to further define that argument, you seem to be relying heavily on those words without offering your own critical input. It should also be noted that, as with all philosophers, Nietzsche was not without faults or criticisms--if he weren't, then the pursuit of Truth would have ended with his contribution.

However, it seems that this thread is drifting from being a general examination into the nature of self vis-a-vis "selflessness," and rapidly turning into a symposium on Nietzsche's ideas. That being said...maybe it would be best to save the defense of Nietzsche for another thread, and try to return to the original intent of this one. Just a thought.

I really didn't fell like putting up a long post at the time, but thought that the quote given was applicable to the discussion and might be interesting to address. I really wasn't putting up an argument-- I just wanted to see what people thought of the article's reasoning. Of course Nietzsche isn't perfect, but his writings are very applicable to the idea of selfishness.

By the way, are you talking about the transcendental or the physical Truth?