Page 2 of 3 <123>
Topic Options
#53733 - 04/30/11 03:00 PM Re: Selfless acts [Re: Ghostly1]
Thule Offline
temp banned
pledge


Registered: 04/30/11
Posts: 68
The above article touches on some of the racial theories of hraftzer Asatru (kin selection).

In essence the mistake made here is to think that there is no difference between us and them. We all live in society. When our family, society, group etc. is made stronger it makes us stronger. Therefore to do "selfless" acts for the group actually benefits the self.

I believe most low class people are inferior precisely because they are selfish. They don't understand the value of teamwork or altruism. As individuals they are weak.

Imagine a football game, or any team sport really. One team uses team work. They are very "selfless" subordinating their individual desires for the group effort. For example instead of being a hero, the man passes the ball to someone who is in a better position to score the point (seemingly selfless act). In the end he wins the game as the result of that "selfless" behavior.

By contrast the other team are a bunch of individuals selfishly pushing each other down in the name of personal glory. Even if they are individually stronger and smarter they will be crushed by the more well organized team.

This is the underlying conclusion I've reached in life. The primary factor in success (money, power etc.) is team work rather than intelligence, hard work etc.

I do think some people are brainwashed to harm themselves. Thy let others feed off of them. This never benefits them. This mainly comes from Christian and Marxist type of social theories. So they are "altruistic" and "selfless" in a totally non beneficial (non selfish way). Even these people do it because it makes them feel good or they think they are going to heaven.

There is a differance between what I call "hraftzer" charity and the type of charity we are taught in mainstream society. For example I would not help someone who is a burden or a thorn in my side. I don't feel obligated to help anyone. But if I want to help someone because I like them or it feels good to do for the moment I will do it. So even though I place altruism as being extremely important it is a totally different kind of altruism than what society teaches us.

For example I believe in being altruistic but if someone is not altruistic back and a total parasite then I believe in letting them die by their own actions. Meanwhile Christianity, Marxism etc. teaches us that we have an obligation to turn the other cheek and to help those that would harm us. That is a stupid kind of altruism that runs counter to nature. I simply believe that people who work together and mutually care about each other are in a better position to survive in this world. It is completely selfish therefore to be "selfless" and think about others and always do things for others.

Society teaches us to poke a hole in our veins and let others feed off of us. They consider it noble to drain our own wealth to help those "less fortunate" (not really less fortunate usually just make inferior choices to us and won't take responsibility for it).

One should feel good about being selfish in this respect. For when we live as self serving beings we actually serve the whole in a way as well. It is when we behave irrationally that things become imbalanced and slip into chaos (which I think is part of the reason our world is in such a kali yuga/age of chaos now).



Edited by Thule (04/30/11 03:04 PM)
_________________________
http://www.hraftzer.weebly.com

Top
#54250 - 05/10/11 10:13 AM Re: Selfless acts [Re: sibly]
Invidious Offline
stranger


Registered: 05/09/11
Posts: 11
Greetings.

This is a debate that has ranged in the halls of philosophy departments for centuries and there are as many arguments on either side as there are people who breathe air. What follows is my own belief on the issue.

If we define a selfless act according to the language we are using, i.e. "selfless act" being an act devoid of self, then there can be no selfless act. This is because it causes some response in the person performing the action and it is therefore not selfless.

Even in the case of a person giving their life for another, there will be talk of that action after the death. The act is not devoid of self.

Rather than fight that prideful feeling we get from doing something nice, we should take it for what it is and allow ourselves to feel good for being nice. There is nothing wrong with an act being selfish (Ayn Rand wrote a book on this, which by the way is on the list on the homepage I believe). As with so many things, the scale of measurement has degrees beyond "selfish" and "selfless" and other than as labels of the extreme ends of the scale these terms become largely meaningless.

Identify the situation, act according to your will, accept whatever comes and make a note to refine future action to be more in accordance with your will.

333.
Invidious.

Top
#55209 - 05/30/11 11:04 AM Re: Selfless acts [Re: Invidious]
Pizgatti Offline
stranger


Registered: 05/27/11
Posts: 33
This does not deserve a long discussion IMO. Altruism is the leaving of the self, it is the opposite of selfishness. There is never any form of true Altruism, it won't happen and can't happen.

No living creature does anything that does not benefit itself, or those around it in the community (thus helping itself). As a human, you always receive something in return. Whether it be mentally, or physically. You are always receiving something, even if it is the feeling of doing good. You would have to be in a zombie like state, and helping others from a brainwashed state to approach altruism, with nothing on your mind at all. Even then, your still doing something for yourself because it satisfies the brainwashing and conditioning in your mind to do so.

Done.

Top
#55217 - 05/30/11 03:09 PM Re: Selfless acts [Re: Pizgatti]
Hegesias Offline
active member


Registered: 02/16/11
Posts: 725
"No person does anything that does not benefit themselves". It is the casual way people often say this that has always tapped into my sorrow.

I can face the fact that people are often selfish and sometimes even ignorant of one another's feelings, but when I face a reality where people are shallow... I cannot identify different emotions inside me, it is only different levels of dark pain, gutting nausea, pain, if a women is in distress. Even though all emotion is the same illness feeling inside, it is unpleasant but I am living proof that a clearing happens, only twice in my life, momentarily, the blurred and muffled pain inside was washed away and I felt nothing but protection toward them. I will not write exactly what because such is private to me.

Of my deep seated rage, I feel may be wrought from the ignorance of humankind. My own past included. "You love me in your own way, you were never there with us" and the tears streamed down her face, the mother of my child 11 years ago because I was, still am, struggling with malignant narcissism. My Jungian shadow is a nasty one, ugly and selfish, weak.


Think of,

Women give birth every day. And people adopt children every day. If you think these acts are based on ego, gratification, comfort to self, you simply have immature emotional intelligence.

A lady that was haemorrhaging whilst giving birth to her baby, a baby that was not coming out, was screaming for the doctors to kill her to save her baby. My mother.

A lady that gives up her newborn to another lady who cannot have children. Do you really think it is money that is the prime mover?

Fireman face fear of mortal danger to save somebody else, little children. Do you really think this stems from a greedy desire for money and self satiation.

All humans are not words like selfish and selfless, morality has no place in Nature, all things are based on relationships and nothing is separate. Defining with fixations is not really something one cares to do when it comes to be inexplicably clear that you care more for another person more than yourself. This is when all fear dissolves. There is no need to formalise things.


Edited by Hegesias (05/30/11 04:00 PM)
Edit Reason: Temporary normality
_________________________


Top
#55218 - 05/30/11 04:22 PM Re: Selfless acts [Re: Hegesias]
Lucifer Rising Offline
member


Registered: 04/10/10
Posts: 147
Loc: Indianapolis, IN
I think that it really depends on how you look at it. Many people will perform an act that appears selfless for selfish reasons, such as karma, appeasement of deity, social recognition, ego, etc. Often, as viewed from the psychology of the agent, a selfless act can be a true selfless act. It may benefit the agent in some way, but the agent does not recognize it. It can be said that the woman that wishes to die in place of her child is trying to continue her genetic legacy from an objective, evolutionary, third person perspective. The mother does not view it this way, however, and the act is perceived as a purely selfless act.

It seems that a selfless act must be an unexamined act. If a person thinks of the reasons behind the act, and can recognize the selfish aspects of it, it is no longer a psychologically selfless act.
_________________________
Even if you're the ultimate evil lord of the underworld, you should always be yourself. Mickey Mouse

Top
#55219 - 05/30/11 04:48 PM Re: Selfless acts [Re: Hegesias]
Pizgatti Offline
stranger


Registered: 05/27/11
Posts: 33
"Women give birth every day. And people adopt children every day. If you think these acts are based on ego, gratification, comfort to self, you simply have immature emotional intelligence."

Immature? Or just not blinded by the social order? We all want to believe theses things, and it's easy to lose hope in mankind when we realize certain things but that doesn't change the truth. You adopt a child because you want a child, children bring joy. Children bring emotional satisfaction and an ego massage when you see them grown up to be how to want them to be. When you see your full grown daughter become a woman, and inspire others it moves you. It gives you a boost like you helped the world.
People want to feel like they did something, children leave your mark behind. It's a person that will remember you until you die and pass on your memory perhaps for another generation. Women give birth because they are already pregnant. You don't stop that, most people will not get an abortion because of their own moral dilemma within their mind. Not everyone who gives birth wants to by the way, and those who do fall into the first part of my paragraph above.


"A lady that was haemorrhaging whilst giving birth to her baby, a baby that was not coming out, was screaming for the doctors to kill her to save her baby. My mother."

You don't move me with personal stories, I see the facts. I have no doubt that this happens. I understand that it's personal to you. But like has been said, an organism WILL sacrifice it's own life so that it's lineage may live on. My condolences for your early loss if your mother is not here this day, I mean no disrespect her way. However, wanting your lineage and genes to carry on is not so strange. That, coupled with either pain medication or the pressures of society about "the right thing to do", or maybe even both would also cause this reaction. Still an inspiring act and interesting indeed.

"A lady that gives up her newborn to another lady who cannot have children. Do you really think it is money that is the prime mover?"

Yes. Yes I do. I also think they believe once again that they are doing something for another person so they feel good about themselves. They probably also don't really want the baby, or know they can't feed and afford one. In that case they are making the right decision, and also again...letting their lineage live on.


"Fireman face fear of mortal danger to save somebody else, little children. Do you really think this stems from a greedy desire for money and self satiation."

I don't know about you, but I'd feel like a damn badass diving out of an exploding burning building with a child in my arms. EGO MASSAGES FOR EVERYONE! PASS THEM AROUND! We all want to help...ourselves. By helping the community we further our own goals and shape it into the kind of world we want to live in. Helping? Yes. Altruism? No.

"All humans are not words like selfish and selfless, morality has no place in Nature, all things are based on relationships and nothing is separate. Defining with fixations is not really something one cares to do when it comes to be inexplicably clear that you care more for another person more than yourself. This is when all fear dissolves. There is no need to formalise things."

This is the Satanism section. As a satanist self preservation is important. It is possible to care enough about someone close that you would risk your life for them, but caring for someone more than yourself is almost unhealthy.

Top
#55224 - 05/30/11 06:21 PM Re: Selfless acts [Re: Pizgatti]
Hegesias Offline
active member


Registered: 02/16/11
Posts: 725
Knowledge comes from living, and as you gradually discover wisdom, the examined life begins to lose value, and with a fully examined life, there is nothing more of any value in continuing to live. Wisdom makes life less valuable for life is worth living only if you are not yet wise. To the wise life is indifferent.
_________________________


Top
#55227 - 05/30/11 06:52 PM Re: Selfless acts [Re: Hegesias]
Pizgatti Offline
stranger


Registered: 05/27/11
Posts: 33
If life is indifferent then you don't deserve to live, nor have the strength of will to do so. I don't quite care if it turns out that I die at any moment, but to let it happen is akin to suicide and is nowhere near wise.
Top
#55231 - 05/30/11 07:18 PM Re: Selfless acts [Re: Pizgatti]
Lucifer Rising Offline
member


Registered: 04/10/10
Posts: 147
Loc: Indianapolis, IN
While I'm not sure what it has to do with the topic, I must say I have never seen wisdom result in indifference toward life. I have seen knowledge contribute to this, but most people learn to live with any such knowledge and get past that. Those that don't, as Pizgatti said, do not posses the strength nor will to live. Wisdom does not come from knowledge, but from what you do with it.
_________________________
Even if you're the ultimate evil lord of the underworld, you should always be yourself. Mickey Mouse

Top
#55296 - 05/31/11 07:56 PM Re: Selfless acts [Re: Pizgatti]
Hegesias Offline
active member


Registered: 02/16/11
Posts: 725
"If life is indifferent then you don't deserve to live, nor have the strength of will to do so. I don't quite care if it turns out that I die at any moment, but to let it happen is akin to suicide and is nowhere near wise."— Pizgatti

Interesting conclusion. I would add that Nature would be the drive in all of life, synonymous with the will to power. The controlled indifference encountered when one would assume a life fully examined does not have to equate to one being committed to suicide, but could surmount to one becoming a joyous embracer of fatalism.

As the accumulation of wisdom is revealed to be perpetual, eternal recurrence or not, this can be seen as either hopelessly futile or a challenging and stimulating journey. Surely irony shared at ones own expense is in part a selfless act.

The sage assumes he has a fully examined life from an assumed fully attained wisdom, whether consciously aware of this narrow mindedness or not, this assumption of a fully examined life will manifest as loss of interest. To be aware that life is never something that can be fully examined is to affirm a life worth living (as a less of a fool than he who assumes he is not).

Previously I was presenting a view, such view does not represent my worldview but was presented to draw conclusions from the premise— what is selfless acts. And to what degree we ought to look at what is selfless or selfish. As to the contextual ambiguity surrounding such— To first identify what is a "selfless act" we must first establish what we are looking for, whether Nature or morality is the prime mover or if both are relevant, and to what degree, instead of a black and white absolute fixation as to one or the other.

Like in previous posts let us look at what is "self" and self "ish" and self "less". Even the word self implies a negative connotation as self(ish) is bad and self(less) is good, so dislike the self and gain negativistic passive aggressive ego gratification by forcing needless generosity unto others to be regarded by yourself and others, a good person, in Christianised society.

I would be eager to dismiss moral implications and see moral implications as abstract effects of a Natural cause, when it comes to "altruism".

Without derailing the thread into quantum physics and the illusion of solidarity. What is individuality if it is not illusion of the ego and separatism. The ego being distinct from what is the "self". Many Satanist assign the Ego as the Self.

Whether the relationship of living beings is within an impersonal observable universe or even a solipsist demiurge illusion is not important. What is important is that the observable universe is based on relationships, causality.

I'd like others to debunk this rather sickening idea of global consciousness and especially the sickly hippy context that is spreading over the information network like memetic faeces. Considering this rather insane view, I will say that perceptual preferences as to what is selfish or selfless is irrelevant to global consciousness. So then if like the hippies say about global consciousness is true, is a totally selfish act possible?

In this view, if I chop off your head am I just hurting myself, and considering that I'd have to be a Sadist to do such a thing, would this be empathic masochism drawing pleasure from your pain because I am you? No I don't think so either.

Insofar as selfishness being synonymous with what is individual. Is it only the idea of "self" that differentiates whether we are connected or disconnected from one another? Compartmentalising Nature, the observable universe, according to preference. How selfish. But maybe selfishness is what makes us all alike and therefore inexplicably connected beyond what the ego can allocate to neatly packaged fixations.
_________________________


Top
#55336 - 06/01/11 12:58 PM Re: Selfless acts [Re: Hegesias]
Pizgatti Offline
stranger


Registered: 05/27/11
Posts: 33
I feel that all of that complicates the matter much greater than what the topic needs as is usually the case with us that think too much. We analyze every facet, every piece of a situation (as should be the case). However, in this I believe we sometimes over complicated, when perhaps the best presentation of an argument is to over simplify.

I submit, that it's quite simple. Regardless of whether we are separated from our egos within our self's seems not to matter in my mind. The though is this: "Is there such a thing possible as true altruistic behavior?"

I have to say that as with most things, of course there is the possibility of this happening. It may have even happened with a certain organism at a certain time. However, I can't recall a time when it has happened to myself or others around me...but this is only "my" world. In your world it may happen, I wouldn't know from experience there. The thought I am putting out there, if you would like to analyze so deeply into the situation is to go ahead and keep doing that. Keep analyzing, think back to EVERY moment of kindness you can, every moment of pure generosity. If you drop all of your emotional baggage, your relations to each situation, and forget how you felt at the time you might come to the same conclusions as myself.

 Quote:
"Altruism, in practice, is the performance of duties to others with no view to any sort of personal gain for one's efforts. If one performs an act beneficial to others with a view to gaining affection, respect, reputation, or any form of gratitude or remuneration then it is not an altruistic act. It is in fact a selfish act because the principal motivation was to reap some benefit for oneself. The desire of this benefit exists equally whether it is psychological, emotional, intellectual, or material - each form of desirable benefit is philosophically identical as a motivation."


The problem I see whenever someone tries to answer this on other websites is this: They only are concerned with how they justify it to themselves. You can't do that, you can't think back and say: "Well, the reason I did it was to alleviate suffering, thus it is truly altruistic." No.

It's not up to you, you don't even get to judge your own acts and almost shouldn't be able to. I can say all I want that I give change to the man standing on the street when he asks, because I want to help and I'm a good person. I'd be lying, I can admit that to myself. I give him change because I don't need it for anything right then, and it's worth it to me so I don't have to have an awkward moment with a man I don't know. He knows I have change, I just came out of a store and my pockets jingle and I would really just like him to leave me alone and not touch me. Personally. I can admit that and know it's not a truly altruistic act.

In closing, you would literally have to be brain-dead, with most of your brain not functioning except for motor skills and literal thinking skills to commit an altruistic act. You would have to completely and consciously only focus on giving someone something just to give. Only I would say your probably still doing it in this situation for yourself, even if you don't know it...your dying and just want someone you know to have your stuff or to feel good before you die. Even here I don't see it being possible. I don't know why, it just doesn't compute. Just like Charlie Sheen's brain...

Top
#55337 - 06/01/11 01:00 PM Re: Selfless acts [Re: Hegesias]
Ringmaster Offline
member


Registered: 04/07/08
Posts: 205
Loc: Salem Oregon
“Surely irony shared at one’s own expense is in part a selfless act.” Surely you find this erroneous. I say this because it isn’t ever really selfless.

It was stated earlier that it could be an act of morality; a motivation was just identified. Even if it is the feeling of satisfaction of committing an act based off good morality it is still done to attain that satisfaction no matter how miniscule.

Also irony being shared at one’s own expense is nothing more than making a compromise in order to achieve whatever satisfaction would be gained. So yes the act would be committed for a selfish reason.

“To first identify what is a "selfless act" we must first establish what we are looking for, whether Nature or morality is the prime mover or if both are relevant, and to what degree, instead of a black and white absolute fixation as to one or the other.” Well unfortunately most things in life are in black and white, because when you get down to the most basic of perspectives it comes down to what is true and what is not. You can’t say in court that it wasn’t a crime because the government is looking at things in only black and white. (I use this analogy loosely) Furthermore, nature or morality being the prime mover is always relevant because an action is committed for a reason regardless if the reason is subconscious or a conscious one; the motivation is still always there.

This also brings me to mention that while a person THINKS the act may be selfless it really isn’t because subconsciously they are gaining satisfaction in some way shape or form weather they realize it or not.
_________________________
Get off the cross and save yourself, I feel no pity for the cries of a weak man.

Top
#55340 - 06/01/11 01:30 PM Re: Selfless acts [Re: Ringmaster]
Pizgatti Offline
stranger


Registered: 05/27/11
Posts: 33
 Originally Posted By: Ringmaster


This also brings me to mention that while a person THINKS the act may be selfless it really isn’t because subconsciously they are gaining satisfaction in some way shape or form weather they realize it or not.




So is perhaps what we really need to define and determine is the nature of Altruism. Are we saying that subconscious thought and action interfere with true Altruism? I say that it does. I agree with you. I believe some are trying to say that if you don't realize its selfish, it's not. Which doesn't make sense to me.

Top
#55350 - 06/01/11 05:35 PM Re: Selfless acts [Re: Pizgatti]
Hegesias Offline
active member


Registered: 02/16/11
Posts: 725
@Ringmaster and Pizgatti.

Is satisfaction even relevant as to one man's satisfaction will be something that vexes another, and to what degree is a selfish or selfless act personal or impersonal, they are both the same thing outside of morality, if one tries to formalise the universe by his apparatus — the human condition — he will only see what is within the limits of what the apparatus is designed to see.

A selfless act would be inadvertently killing somebody without even noticing. Or likewise bestowing fortune upon another person totally by accident and never knowing who they are such as losing your wallet in a rough part of town. Causality and the relationships between humans seems to have been assumed to be more important if the ego is appeased by it's limit of perception, when all around the intricate causal chain of events initiated by the individual may be responsible for innumerable positive events for others and likewise very bad events for others.

So, selfless acts outweigh what is perceivable selfish acts.
_________________________


Top
#55352 - 06/01/11 05:48 PM Re: Selfless acts [Re: Pizgatti]
Hegesias Offline
active member


Registered: 02/16/11
Posts: 725
Conjecture.


I'd say Altruism is a mixture of adrenaline — fight or flight — in a situation of unexpected empathy where the living beings are inexplicably connected outside of any conscious formalising when instinct kicks in. What say you Pizgatti?


Like the guy who jumps in front of a bullet or pushes an oblivious victim away from a car collision, possibly getting slammed himself, he's not trying to save anyone consciously (unless he's suicidal), he doesn't know what to do, he just reacts from somewhere in the unconscious programming. Part of the collective unconsciousness, our Nature, which is not limited to the self but is mundane to all.

Therefore it is impossible to be selfish as there is no differentiating one person from another apart from the illusion of ego. We are simply sentient flesh and bone constantly rotting and being reborn, a womb of sick hanging in an unfeeling dark universe.

I don't know though as certain egocentric people may freeze in dangerous situations because they are so fixated on preserving their preciously formalised universe, so much so that they are divorced from Nature.
_________________________


Top
Page 2 of 3 <123>


Moderator:  SkaffenAmtiskaw, fakepropht, TV is God, Woland, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.026 seconds of which 0.005 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.