COMMISSIONS AND OMISSIONS
Rufio asked
K Vee, what do you mean by commissions and omissions?[/quote]
I mean all our so called decisions and action based on that
truth
Rufio, your philosophical perspective is diametrically opposed to that of Twyvel and mine. I think that the greatest mischief for western culture was the result of Plato's idealism--that ideas have some static objective reality apart from the process of human thinking, that all chairs, for example, are crude reflections of an ideal chair floating somewhere in a transcendatal sphere--and Descartes' "conclusion" (actually, originating with Parmenides, 25 centuries earlier) that the mind (as an "I") exists apart from "everything else." The opposing perspective is that the category, "chair" is an on-going human construction, a "set" into which we place things ("elements"?) that have "enough" of the properties that define that category. We forget that the category has only a mental/cultural reality whereas every actual "chair" has no chair-ness as an objective property. PLato's ideals and Descartes' bifurcation have been repudiated by philosophical history. Nevertheless, they remain as fundamental and tacit assumptions of our culture, or our everyday thought, our "naive realism"--therein lies their mischief.
I would say that cultural definitions of things like chairs have reality too, in our minds. We looking at a chair, we don't have to construct another definition of what a chair is before interpreting it - it's there already. But you're right, without minds there would be no ideal chair - that's why I said that the ideal apple wouldn't exist without an outside sentient being. But the nature of something sentient is not a mere cultural construction, I hope you'll agree.
truth
Yes, Rufio, I agree with the qualification that the sentence I'm agreeing with is itself a cultural/linguistic construction.
BYW, my earlier comments are not intended to deny the intelligence of your posts. That they are.
my argument was over the definition of genuine alruism. If you believe altruism is doing a good deed and getting nothing in return, that it imposible, one will always get something in return, be it as small as a good feeling. but if your definition is expecting to get nothing in return, however rare, genuine alruism is possible
truth
I am essentially in agreement with Locke's conclusion. A purely altrusitic act would be one in which the actor is not aware of himself as performing a beneficent act. He's simply doing what must be done. That is rare, however, because it entails the absence of self-consciousness. This is what I read Locke (and Twyvel) to see as a pure altruism. But most acts of altruistic intention are not pure; they are best described in terms of degrees of "other-serving" and "self-serving."
rufio wrote:Genuine selflessness? Yes. Commit suicide. That is the most (and probably only) literally "selfless" thing you can do.
Suicide considered selfless? In most cases, suicide has nothing to do with anything BUT selfishness. Unless someone is actually killing themselves for the betterment of another person, it has nothing to do with selflessness. And even then, if the person killing themselves is actually depressed, most likely they aren't viewing the situation in the light of reality, but rather in the dark fog of depression where nothing is clear. The act of suicide is usually completed when someone decides they don't want to live anymore because they are suffering over one issue or another. To more closely examine, a person is wallowing in THEIR misery...seeing only THEIR misery...and thinking only about how THEY no longer what to suffer. Unfortunately, they don't understand how to be truly selfless and happy because they are too wrapped up in themselves. I was raised in that dark fog and came out on the other side...this was the case in my misery, anyway...and I have found that it is in any other depressed individual that I know, unfortunately. a selfless act, rather...would be to enlighten those depressed friends on how to be truly happy.
I meant that it depends on your definition of altruism. if you define alruism as expecting to get nothing in return, then it is possible. but i you define it as actually getting nothing in return, itis impossible, you always get something in return whether you want to or not
oops sorry i didnt realize i had already replied! revert to upper post!
Everyone feels good about doing something to help someone out. is a good feeling not somethin in return? therefore if you define altruism as getting nothing is return, then feeling good would not be true altruism
That could be, twyvel. But why do you want to "know knowing"? Just having it is enough.
Let's not delve deeper into semantics than we have to.
JL - on doing "that which must be done". This implies that there is a reason that it "must be done," and unless we are all instilled with some kind of divine coersion that we don't understand the reason for, the reason that something "must be done" would have to be moral, and would give some kind of moral gratification in return for doing it. IMHO, the only truly selfless act would be the act done for no reason at all. Suicide fits this category quite nicely. Even if there is a reason, the actor will certainly not be able to derive benefit from that reason.
Also, I wasn't talking about the culturally generated aspect of language - just of the apple.
Katuu - as I said earlier in the thread, selflessness does not necessarily benefit anyone - in fact, it rarely does. Suicide certainly does not benefit the actor.
heres a scenario
Man1 knowns Criminal is going to set off a biological bomb in a nearby town. No one else knows Criminal plans to do this, and there is no proof whatsoever. if Criminal's plan succeeds, thousands will die, but Man1 wont. Man1 knwos it would be illegal to do something to try to stop Criminal, because n one else knows about his plan, and it is completely perfect so no one will ever find out. Man1 confronts Criminal, kills him, and dies in the struggle. Police records show Man1 attacked Criminal with no reason and goes down in the books as a psycopathic killer.
Man1 saved thousands, and got negative credit for it, Perfectly Altruistic?
truth
Rufio, you say that you were not "talking about the culturally generated aspect of language - just of the apple." You don't see that "of the apple" is a cultural construction?
Folks, I guess we are unnecessarily hung up on the notion of "pure" altruism. Is it not possible for a person to make some kind of sacrifice in order to benefit others even when he knows he will gain SOMETHING from his act?
rufio,
It's not semantics. You said,
I think that the self is the ONLY thing that you CAN know without observing it.
quote
Is it not possible for a person to make some kind of sacrifice in order to benefit others even when he knows he will gain SOMETHING from his act?
Locke
Is it altruism if no one knows about it?
thats the whole point, its ONLY altruism if nobody knows about it
