Happiness is found in selfishness :

I quite agree.

I should explain where I came from. I was brought up a 'nice guy', to put others needs first, to treat women like gold, and that it was bad to be selfish. I was at the other end of the pendulum from 'selfish'...Funnily enough that didn't work (facetiousness there), and became very withdrawn, closed, unhappy, and couldn't work out why...I would do things and not be able to explain why I did them. I had many, many barriers up. I was happier in my own world. Yet my mother at least, was very loving, and did so much for us growing up (my father was a little distant, but not bad in any way).

It took the better part of a decade to sort out what was going on in my head, and the last 7 or 8 years growing to come to where I am now. The difference is, for me, remarkable.

It wasn't until I started being true to myself that I found I could do things without wanting anything in return, I could love for the simple sake of loving (instead of needing love in return), that I could give 'who I am' to a situation, that I could go after what I want (without feeling that I was treading on people), that I could navigate my way with more clarity and empathy through disagreements and disputes, and a host of other positive run on effects in my life...these days, working in a job where people can often get upset with me...I rarely get upset in return, and rarely feel anger...it's more that I know who I am, and I understand that their feeling of aggrievedness isn't truly to do with me. I treat them with more respect than I would previously have given them. It's one of many aspects of life going like this. Of course, I'm not perfect at this, but the more I learn, the more it becomes so

In these forums, especially in the relationships forum, I see so many people who...don't quite grasp the implications of knowing 'who they are' and being true to themselves. The bad wrap that Selfishness has, has a part to play in this problem. Hence the post - to start a discussion on what I think is a much misunderstood 'word'.

It's not that I think we should be purely selfish, but that we should understand the vital part that selfishness has to play in our lives...to create who we are as independant beings, capable of giving care and love without attached strings.

I think you're stating the obvious and I don't quite know why.

Once you understand it, it becomes obvious / common sense. Before that, a lot of people have a lot of preconceived idea's that prevents full understanding of the concept. I found I was repeating some aspect of this over and over in the forums (mainly relationship and philosophy ones), and have been meaning to post something like this for quite a while now.



...Were literally the first responses I recieved.

I didn't think it was obvious. I'm guilty of thinking of 'selfishness' in the usual sense.
I thought this was an interesting reassessment of the word - and in terms of the principles- easier said than done-but worthwhile if one can achieve that mindset.

Did you look up "selfish" in a dictionary and find that you didn't like the
definition? And did you decide to redefine it to fit your needs? It ceratinly
seems so. So in your world, using your definition, selfish is good.

Good for you!

If I had to bet, my bet would be that Vikorr is writing under the influence of Ayn Rand. He read her definition of selfishness, liked it, and now he's out evangelizing.

Vikorr wrote


J. Krishnamurti wrote

Adam Smoth, the father of modern economics, believed whole heartedly in the principle of selfishness. He taught that the greater good is generally accomplished by those looking to their own self interests. The baker doesn't bake bread because you need it, but bakes and sells it because it benefits him to do so. The butcher is not concerned that you need a pork roast for dinner, but is more than happy to provide you one because of the profit that it makes for him. But in the process of benefitting ourselves and making profit, others enjoy goods and services that might not otherwise be so easily available.

Looking at it in the same way, we are loving and generous and caring toward others far more because that is necessary and satisfying for our own sense of well being rather than for the reason that others need our love, generosity, or concern.

But the net result of all this selfishness sets into motion a giant, mostly invisible hand that benefits us all with beneficial products and services and perhaps also makes us beneficiary of some satisfying love, benevolence, and concern.

Knowing this, I think I agree that a measure of our happiness is found within natural selfishness that allows us all to survive and prosper and benefit one another.

Ahhh. I see.

Of course, I have lost bets before.

We've been through this before with Ayn Rand advocates. I opined that she was a fool. Finally, one of Rand's most devoted advocates, Alan Greenspan, has finally proved my point that Ann Rand was a selfish fool. The selfish have been in charge of our government since Ronald Reagan was president and look at what they've done to our country.

Spare me from the selfishness BS.

BBB

Instead of selfish, I probably would have referred to what vikkor is saying as being self-aware. If I am self-aware that I am doing X in order to gain approval or any other benefits from others, then I can make better decisions regarding whether or not I want to continue on that path and if so, why.

It may still be self-ish for me to do X in order to gain whatever benefit I personally receive from that act, but the awareness of the purpose has now put the responsibility of the decision to continue on me, rather than putting the expectation of the return benefit on the other.

The next step in that process then (Happiness is found in selfishness) is that in continuing to do X, fully aware of my purpose / expectation in doing so, I cannot then be disappointed (unhappy) when the benefit does not arrive. The happiness is in not in the receipt of the benefit, it is in the letting go of the expectation that it will arrive through knowing your purpose before you act.

I don't find that self-ish. It is actually quite loving and freeing to ones self AND to others.

Before you expand further, on Ayn Rand, I need to emphasize that her involvement is pure speculation on my part. I haven't seen Vikorr reference her explicitly.

Thomas, there have always been cult leaders who persuaded their devotees to adore them to indulge the leader's selfishness. The cult leader is always about her/himself while claiming it is about the devotees.

Most people have only read Rand's novels. I studied Rand thoroughly in my younger days, reading her seminar tracts, her published papers, publications and books by her devotees, etc. Why? I've always been interested in the cult attraction. Amazing that she could manipulate so many peoples' thinking as a cult leader. She wan't totally deranged because she never claimed to be God but she invented herself as a philosopher because she needed to be adored.

BBB

Hi George, you obviously didn’t bother to read the very first part of my original post. Why comment on things you can’t be bothered to read properly?


Hi Thomas, no idea who she is. Have you actually read what I posted, and is there something specific you actually disagree with?

Hi Fresco, I’m aware of the Krishnamurti quote, you’ve posted it a number of times in response to things I’ve said. I'm sure you're aware of the disagreement we have
(though btw, don't know if I've ever mentioned it, but I read a book called 'awareness' by Anthony De Mello, which says a very similar thing, so I understand where the quote is coming from, and in many ways agree with it...but I can't agree with the practicality of it...that's probably not a very good explaination but it will have to do for now)

Hi Foxfyre, while I understand where you are coming from (and I’ve heard that theory before), that isn’t the gist of what I was getting at. I'm talking about the building, and maintainence of self esteem.


Hi Bumblebee, is there something specific you disagree with?


Hi Squinney, this is part of what I am talking about, but not the whole. Self-aware is one way to describe part of it. As I said, the English language is poorly equipped to discuss this, and the closest word to the 'end result' of the actions necessary to becoming self aware, and being true yourself (selfish) also has heavy negative connotations.

In total, I would say : Self-awareness, the avoidance of self-deception, the growth of your sense of self, and being true your self (all of which lead to self-esteem)...all these things are "of the self"...To attain them, all these things require you focus on yourself, that you put yourself first - which is why I use the word 'selfish'. The actions necessary for maintainence of them varies a bit from the actions necessary to attain them.

For me in terms of possible happiness and self-ishness, it revolves around the simple idea, as it was described to me, that YOU are the final arbiter, YOU are the centre of the mandala. This is radically different than a me, me, me culture (IMO) in so far as that is not about the individual alone, but about the individual being on top of the pile. That's funny to me because such cultures suppose to venerate the individual but I think they do the opposite.

Ayn Rand used to speak of "rational self interest". The problem with the word, "selfish" is that it has gotten a bad rap. Many people think that in order to look out for yourself, it follows that you are screwing other people.

Rand did not agree with that concept. She spoke of people interacting with one another as "traders", each giving value to to other in a mutual exchange.

Here is an good explanation of the concept:

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--406-FAQ_Virtue_Selfishness.aspx

I have to say that I'm dissapointed with the people who are against the concept - for all that have posted - because not a single person has actually provided (been able to provide?) an specific part of the concept that they disagree with.

...And the generic objections (like BBB's below), sometimes agree with something I've said in my OP....leading me to think they haven't bothered to read.

BBB, if you'll fully read my OP, you'll see that in my view, one of the benefits of selfishness (in the way that I am talking about) is that you are able to give without strings attached / without bitterness / from the heart / with genuine care (and many other ways of describing it)...ie there is no little voice in the back of your head saying 'what about me', because you know you care for, and respect your own needs.

Btw, even in the traditional view of selfishness - you can be selfish without being Greedy (Greenspan according to BBB - I don't know your system), but not Greedy without being selfish.


Hi Ashers, in my view, that would be wrong. You are the most important person in the world AND no more important than anyone else.


Hi Phoenix, this is a major point I'm talking about. We can look after ourselves without screwing other people - we can be respectful of both ourselves and others...each and every time.

Where people get confused, is when the needs of another person conflict with with ones own personal needs. We are taught that it's wrong to put our needs first.

Where needs don't conflict (the vast majority of the time), there is no problem with 'putting the other person first' (so to speak), as this doesn't affect your sense of self / self esteem etc (arguably unless one person keeps taking without any giving in return - which is more a relationship issue than a self esteem issue).

I would say that putting the other persons needs first (in an instance where needs conflict, which btw, is relatively rare) creates a whole litanny of issues because :

- You give rise to the little voice that screams 'what about me/my needs'
- you inevitably then want your needs met in exchange
- you feel bitter if the meeting of your needs aren't reciprocated

...Your actions tell your mind that your needs are less important than the other persons needs (a belief you shouldn't hold)...your mind, which seeks congruency, must then come to the conclusion that that either you actually are less than the other person, or that the other person is 'selfish, bad for not meeting your needs, thoughtless' etc (ie. having expected/hoped that your needs would be met in in return, you start blaming the other person. If you had not expected anything in return, this would not occur).

(there is btw, a flip side to this human attribute - if we have a little voice telling us to do something...say, help someone, and we don't do it...that is not being true to yourself, and can result in similar blaming of other people)

This (not being true to yourself) has the ulitmate misfortune of screwing with your emotions, your self image, your self-esteem etc...making you a less balanced individual

Ironically, having your emotions topsy turvy, you then react to many situations with more selfishness (of the bad type) / less tact /more anger / less empathy / etc than you would, had you paid respect your own needs (ie the ultimate meaning of this, is your negatively judgemental reactions are unecessary).

Basically, we are talking about respecting yourself enough to be true to yourself when needs conflict (remember, this is a relatively small percentage of your day to day time). You respect the other persons needs, and respect your own, knowing you are ultimately responsible for your own needs and happiness (because no one else is)...and knowing that by meeting your own needs, you can respect others needs with greater genuineness and giving (the much greater percentage of the time)...with a greater sense of who you are, and a clearer view of your place in the world (because your view isn't clouded by tangled emotions / unmet needs / little voices in your head shouting to be heard / etc)

...it's about respect - for both yourself and others.

If happiness is found in selfishness, then everyone would masturbate.

And from yet another perspective.

I'm of the opinion that principles should be consistent accross all circumstances (the action/reaction to each individual circumstance may change while the principle behind it remains the same). A principle that cannot be applied accross all circumstance, is by definition, not a principle.

I believe in the principle of self responsibility. I believe that the environment and others contribute to us, but that we are fully self responsible for 'who we are, what we feel, and what we do'.

I believe in the principle of balance. A pure 'put others first' view of life is not balanced...just as a pure 'put myself first' view of life is not balanced.

That view lead to 'how do you show the greatest love for others' without 'showing the greatest love for yourself'? Leading to the concept of building that greatest self-esteem & love you can for yourself, which allows you to genuinely show the greatest compassion and love for others

The survival instincts of people do not support the 'put others first' world view. Police are trained that the order of importance of safety/life is 'Yourself first, your partner second, civilians third, offenders last'. Soldiers follow a similar pattern - their survival before that of the enemy. Killing someone has a defense in law that 'he was trying to kill me'. It's commonly acknowledged that everyone has the right to defend their life against someone trying to take it. If you believe in this last concept - that concept is not supported by the 'principle' of 'put others first'...but it is consistent with the views I hold....of balance (if you havent' figured out what I meant by 'selfishness' yet - it's the maintainence of balance.)

It's hard to argue balance when you put someone elses needs over your own, for you are acknowledging that 'their need is more important than my own' with no guarantee that they will meet your needs in return. The mere fact that they want you to put their needs before your needs suggests that they think their needs are more important than yours.

Now one could say 'but the reverse is also true', 'putting your needs before others means you believe you are more important than they are'. I would say a few things to this :

- the principle of balance acknowledges that there are other individuals out there, and that society and relationships function through a balanced give & take

- the principle of balance applies not just to society, but to our 'inner realm' (our mind/body/spirit). The principle of balance states that if you 'put the other first', ahead of your own needs, your mind will scream 'what about me/my needs'

- the principle of self-responsiblity means we are entirely responsible for our own sense of self / our own wellbeing / the meeting of our needs / our own decisions. Therefore we have to take into account the principle of balance in relation to our 'inner realm'.

- the principle of balance, in relation to the view that (when needs conflict) you put your own need first, is balanced by the view that doing so is the only way that allows you to then cater in a genuine and unconditional manner to other peoples needs (ie without that little voice screaming 'what about me'). It is balanced in that 'if you don't survive, you can't help others survive' (the human survival instinct)

-the principle of balance basically allows that : Having shown yourself love and respect, you are able to contribute to others a similar & genuine love and respect.