Selfishness - an undeserved bad reputation

Forums: Relationships
Email this Topic • Print this Page

This could have been posted in either the philosophy or relationships forum. I chose to post it in the Relationships forum because it seems to find more use here.

.

I think the word ?'Selfishness'has an undeserved bad reputation here in the west. It is seen as a ?'bad' trait, and used as an insult eg "how selfish", ?'He's so selfish", or "stop being selfish" etc

Yet the extreme opposite - giving everything of yourself - is pointedly ridiculous, as it leaves no room for taking care of yourself/your needs/your future etc. At it's worst form you own nothing (because you gave it all away looking after others needs), all your times belongs to others (same reason as before), all your thoughts are on how to solve others problems, etc etc.

There's a saying here in the west that is in direct conflict to our general perception of ?'selfishness', and that is ?'you must learn to love yourself before you can love others' (well, it might have come from the east, don't really know). You can't love yourself if :
- you never give thought to yourself,
- you don't take time to discover yourself
- you don't learn what your values, beliefs etc are,
- you don't learn how to be true to yourself, your values, beliefs etc,
- you don't take care of your own needs
Loving yourself intrinsically means you value and respect yourselfand can I ask you - is it possible to value and respect someone more than yourself, and still be able to say that you ?'love' yourself in the most complete way possible? To my way of thinking, if you value someone more than yourself, you think they are more important and valuable than yourselfand that to me doesn't sound like you've come to love and accept yourself fully.

My view on selfishness is that is a good and necessary thing for our happiness. That we must first look after ourselves (and love) ourselves, before we can look after (and love) others.

From what I've seen, when our needs are not met, and we do not set out to meet them (because we feel that others needs are more important), then, whether we try to ignore them or otherwisethose unmet needs of ours influence everything we do (usually unconsciously), and usually in a way that is detrimental to us.

It is only when we are true to ourselves, who we are, our needs (which are part of who we are), that (after we look after ourselves) we can act with true focus/integrity/caring/empathy(etc) towards others.

In terms of true love between two lovers, I think when one accepts themselves completely, is true to themselves, and makes sure their own needs are fully met...then they can extend a complete attention / care / empathy/etc towards their lover (because there is no longer any little voices in the back of their minds trying to get their own needs met)...because, having been true to themselves, they can be true to their lover.

My personal opinion is that selfishness is a thing of necessity and beauty, from which true and genuine love for another can then be fully expressed and explored (without that little voice in the back of the head screaming 'what about me')...it's a beautiful thing.

Of course complete selfishness is a different matter (just as is complete giving of yourself)

......................

Admittedly this concept isn't fully workable regarding all situations in the relationship between parent and child, but I think we still need to recognise human needs in such a relationship.

.......................

Feel free to add to, or contradict me Very Happy

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,084 • Replies: 15

No top replies

vikorr wrote

Quote:

we must first look after ourselves (and love) ourselves, before we can look after (and love) others.

Krishnamurti wrote

Quote:

Where the self is, love is not

Meditational observation of "self" leads to its dissipation.

0 Replies

And when you stop and think about it
You won't believe it's true
That all the love you've been giving
Has all been meant for you

Question
Justin Hayward
The Moody Blues

0 Replies

Hi Fresco,

Glad to see you around this forum.

I know you don't believe in the concept of self. We have somewhat a disagreement on that. I don't believe that what I believe has any relevance to anyone else but myself, and that what I believe may or may not be wrong, and may or may not change as I grow. What exists is what I define as self.

While the dissipation of self may be of benefit to some (though they would argue it is of benefit to all), and while I agree that letting go of ones attachments (to a degree) is beneficial, I prefer dealing with things as most people understand and see them...otherwise we start talking a foreign language.

Letting go, and looking after self is not contradictory, but is the balance of the whole being...though I seem to be one of the few that thinks this (if any others do at all).

Hence why I think selfishness is necessary :wink:

0 Replies

vikorr,

The use of that word "benefit" indicates you are in another ball game compared with writers like Krishnamurti. The key point is that all "existence" is relationship. Concepts of "selves" and "others" are reflections of such relationship. So called "selfishness" involves current "self 2" in relationship to recent "self 1". Its a game we play with internal dialogue....and the seminal question to ask is "between whom ?".

0 Replies

Quote:

The use of that word "benefit" indicates you are in another ball game compared with writers like Krishnamurti.

Hi Fresco, I know of Krishnamurti (having seen his name on a book I considered buying) but have not read him. As for the use of the word benefit, there are many other ways that I could have phrased that, which would also fit my beliefs. I don't know if they match his ideas or not.

Quote:

The key point is that all "existence" is relationship.

Sounds fair enough

Quote:

Concepts of "selves" and "others" are reflections of such relationship.

Also sounds fair enough

Quote:

So called "selfishness" involves current "self 2" in relationship to recent "self 1".

Self 1 & 2 weren't defined, so this isn't posisble to follow.

Quote:

Its a game we play with internal dialogue....and the seminal question to ask is "between whom ?".

Our sense of self does come down almost entirely to internal dialogue. How much genetics plays in it I'm not entirely sure. How much our bodies chemicals/hormones play I don't really know.

0 Replies

Well, it's all about you, isn't it?

Actually, I think it's wise to be "healthily selfish," but that's a balancing act.

0 Replies

Re: Selfishness - an undeserved bad reputation

vikorr wrote:

Yet the extreme opposite - giving everything of yourself - is pointedly ridiculous

vikorr wrote:

Of course complete selfishness is a different matter (just as is complete giving of yourself)

True enough, which is perhaps an indication that there's little utility in approaching the problem of selfishness and selflessness from the perspective of extreme opposites. Most beliefs and doctrines are going to look foolish when they are shown in their most extreme forms. As you suggest, there are some occasions where a little selfishness is warranted, and other occasions where a little selflessness is warranted. I'm happy to leave it at that, and let ideologues and philosophers fight over the extremes.

0 Replies

So called "selfishness" involves current "self 2" in relationship to recent "self 1".

Quote:

Self 1 & 2 weren't defined, so this isn't posisble to follow.

Self 1 was a mental state which was a function the relationship between an individual and its then social environment. Over time (by assimilation and accommodation) self 1 undergoes transition to self 2 which actively "perceives" a different social environment containing self 1 as a " social other"...etc. Active perception usually involves value judgements which can include "selfishness", "guilt" and "self esteem". The "trick" is to see beyond those value judgements which then become transitory and insignificant in the general dynamics of "being".

0 Replies

I basically follow what you are saying about self 1 & 2, yet it reminds me of a friend of mine who at the start of having an affair, had the fellow who was seeing her say to her "That (your marriage) is your normal life, and this (the affair) is your other life". And yet she only has the one single life, the one life.

Quote:

Active perception usually involves value judgements which can include "selfishness", "guilt" and "self esteem". The "trick" is to see beyond those value judgements which then become transitory and insignificant in the general dynamics of "being".

We 'can' include a value judgement when using the word selfishness, but the word itself isn't necessarily a product of a value judgement.

I know you have an issue with the word self, so for the sake of this exercise, lets define self as the entity that contains a persons body/mind/spirit. Anything done for that entity is done for the self, and is by definition, selfish. Anything done for others is done for reason of the interconnection that we all take part in / are part of.

Being sexual beings, our bodies have sexual needs, and this affects our minds. Being social beings, our spirit has needs, and this affects our minds. Being beings who strive for survival and reproduction, genetics affects our minds. They affect our mind in a way that is easiest termed a 'need'. Meeting our needs is both an exercise in selfishness and in interrelatedness.

Granted our sense of 'identity' often creates unnecessary 'needs'.

0 Replies

Vikorr,

Quote:

I basically follow what you are saying about self 1 & 2, yet it reminds me of a friend of mine who at the start of having an affair, had the fellow who was seeing her say to her "That (your marriage) is your normal life, and this (the affair) is your other life". And yet she only has the one single life, the one life.

The error for me is that word "she" which has no more continuity or unity than "I". Both are functional labels implying permanence within the flux, but such permanence can only be (partially) ascribed to physical entities not social entities.

I feel I am making philosophical points, whereas you are making psychological points. You position starts with assumptions about "free will" etc which my position need not assume. Indeed for me ( Smile

) ontological issues of "the general nature of reality" supercede sub-issues like "the existence of self". That is why I find difficulty communing with your definition of "self" you have proposed. At the pychological level, such definitions might work for limited therapeutic purposes (as did complex Freudian definitions etc) but they would lack appeal for followers of writers like Krishnamurti who rejected all "systems" and "therapy".

0 Replies

I think you've touched upon our Puritan heritage with the word selfish. In Eastern cultures they more readily use the word selfless, which is inherently woven into their lives in the form of prayer, meditation and a healthy respect for life.

Part of the conflict comes, I beleive, in how materialistic our culture is. Add to this, the self-help industry which is making those desperate for improvement little puppets of the publishing industry.

Most people I know, and like, are selfish. They know how to get what they need for themselves and live accordingly.

But my favorite people are the ones who have taken care of themselves and Give of themselves. They are a harder breed to find.

0 Replies

vikorr wrote:

Letting go, and looking after self is not contradictory, but is the balance of the whole being...though I seem to be one of the few that thinks this (if any others do at all).

I agree with you on this.

0 Replies

Thanks Gala

Quote:

But my favorite people are the ones who have taken care of themselves and Give of themselves. They are a harder breed to find.

Same

0 Replies

Quote:

The error for me is that word "she" which has no more continuity or unity than "I". Both are functional labels implying permanence within the flux, but such permanence can only be (partially) ascribed to physical entities not social entities.

How about 'it'(?), although 'she' does describe the female sex in any species. I think we sometimes use the same words, but with different definitions Smile

Btw, I didn't see any psychological definition in defining 'self' as ones body, mind and spirit....all 3 exist (though some may debate the existance of spirit).

0 Replies

Vikorr,

"It" is good ! Try using it when observing yourself....It is angry...It is walking down the road...etc. If you've never tried this you are in for some surprises one of which might be that that previous word "benefit" becomes deconstructed. Such practices as this, which might loosely be called "meditational" are essential for an appreciation of the metalogic of "nonself". You cannot learn to swim from the poolside.

I ascribe all definitions involving "mind" as "psychological" (or psychoanalytic at least) I'm discounting the word "spirit" on an individual basis, as nebulous, although I might claim that "spirituality" is meaningful as a state of selflessness.

0 Replies

Selfishness - an undeserved bad reputation

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know