Bits Of Wisdom Which Deserve Quotation

Thomas,

Do you believe that actions are motivated, if so, does not the action fulfil the will/intent of the individual? Is this not our common understanding? I am sure psychologists could prepare experiments that would affirm this process, so, non-falsifiable, bare with, when something can be affirmed, we are not to accept it because it cannot be falsified? I think you are doing what a lot of people have done with this problem of selflessness and selfish, while I speak of the cognitive process that delivers action, you confuse the issue with a moral judgement. All actions are FIRST selfish, in that they fulfil the will through action ------not so silly.

Yes, but there is no reason to assume that the intent is to benefit the self, the intent may very well be to benefit another.



Actually, experiments have been conducted. And apparently action is initiated prior to any conscious consideration and our only real power is the power of veto - to continue the act or not to continue the act.

But I think you are confused about the meaning of selfish. Selfish is intending to benefit one's self.



Boagie, we've had the debate before. The result has always been you demanding that I'm confused as you repeat yourself over and over.

I have no problem considering the cognitive process. What I do have a problem with is your equivocation - that intent is necessarily self-interested.

What if one is selfish to act, period. Like people are compelled to have an influence before thinking.
Also, are you saying that our prior instance of starting the action is not influenced by logic? Or does logic have any other standpoints besides right and wrong?

Then all action would be selfish. Of course, I do not buy the logic that to act is necessarily selfish.



Benjamin Libet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

His is the work I was referring to.

You would be right if you said "mostly every action is selfish"

You would be even more right if you said "mostly every person is a selfish person"


Remember your action's can only be selfish if the motivation that first start's the action come's from your self(exmple--> I see an apple on the table, I eat it, because my body need's it to live, hence that motivation came from one's self, therefore within the point of view of some:rolleyes:, that would be seen as selfish)

So the non-cognitive(or cognitive)motivation must not come from your self.

Now if it dose not come from one's self, then it's the person that had started the motivation to forfill the action that would be deemed selfish by act of non-cognitive (or cognitive) motivation to the other person.

Yet for that person to be deemed selfish, the act of and intent of the motivation must relate or completly relate to the defined term of "selfish"

Selfish
1. Concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself: seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for another.
2. Arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of another.

Selfish DNA
1. being genetic material solely concerned with it's own replication, ect.

So, boagie:), yes are bodie's in every way shape and form are selfish because there very fact of how they function for the soul purpose of self presavation of one's self.(non-cognitivly)

Yet cognitivly speaking, are mind's define's are action's by the intent of the motivation that lead's us to the action that we cognitivly commit.

So it's safe to say, In one way every action is first selfish, but might become selfless in the end.

In the end, it's the mind that say's what is what, and why it is what it is, therefore making it truly what it is...

The mind and bodie's are not completly as one, therefore the bodie's will, motivation, and intent must not be the same as the mind's will, motivation, and intent.
_____________________
Yet to portray this from another point of view..

Intent can be said to come first before movtivation, hence the intent of motivation, hence the bodie's intent is self presavation of it's self, therefore it motivate's the mind to carry out it's selfish act's, but there is also the motivation to the intent, AKA DNA is the motivation that create's the intent which in tern's motivate's are mind's to do the selfish act's of self presaverance of one's self.

(This was said to help out boagie:rolleyes:)
So that to could be said to be the reason why all action's Start(first) selishly due to the fact of the intent of are bodie's act of self presavation of it's self.

_________
But
I see an apple on the table, I eat it, because my body need's it to live

If your body has no selfish intent, and you are not motivated by that selfish intent from your body, or another body/person/thing

* Then the only motivation would be thoughtlessly created or selflessly created by your mind with total disregard for the presavation of your self, pleasure, and well-being, or sought advantage to your self.

So there are some thing's that can not be FIRST selfish(if section * applie's to the person)

So it would be safer to say that "most of all action are first selfish"

Well I displayed both side's of the major point of view's, and perception's of such point's of view's, and it seem's like they are both right, they are just right for difrent reason's.

But no matter what...I will allway's say it's all about the intent and the reason why you commited an action:rolleyes: Hence the end is more important than the start;)

(also if DNA is the true motivation, then it create's are bodie's intent to commit a selfish act of self presavation, and then create's motivation in are mind's to carry out the selfish act of self presavtion for are bodie's(since we must cognitivly pick up the apple), therefore the selfish intent and motivation first come's from the very fact of self presavation of are self's)

So..to end this post, DNA is the root motivation of all of are action's it depend's if the motivation from the DNA is concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself, seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for another.

Then cognitivly your conscienceness intent must also be selfless, to have the start and end be selfless, hence the DNA make's the first, you make the last...(the last is only what you say it is, therefore you make it selfless or selfish depending on your perception of such or another's)

("most of all action are first selfish")
(the time I spent today wasnot:rolleyes:)
Ty all for your time in reading this.

I think it is much easier to recognize that the difficulty arises due to conflicting concepts, one is moral judgement, and it is butting heads with a concept which has nothing to do with moral judgement. The moral judgement is, was the act selfless, perhaps it was as a moral judgement, as cognitive process, that other conflicting concept, it is forever and a day, FIRST selfish. There is no action without motivation, motivation proceeds all action to satisfy the will behind the act.

So we could not survive (potentially) if we are not motivated, or are selfless, because our existence parallels the fact that our body is selfish for it's own survival.
Our cognition relies on moral reasoning right, ?, for sane people.
Could we say that morality is a force for selflessness, and emotion is a force of selfishness, and that one needs a proper mix for perseverance and virtue?

Hi Holiday!

Yes, as an organism our first priority is one of self survival, but, this is not always at odds with the welfare of others. The essence of compassion is identifying with others, the essence of morality is compassion. We are moved by both concepts, survival and compassion. No our cognnitive function does not depend on moral reasoning, it may influence the ultimate decision as to how one is to act in a given situtation, but it is no sure thing the action will affirm this. No morality is not a force for selfishness, remember that the essence of morality is compassion, morality is more likely to be a force behind a morally selfless act. No emotion is not necessarily a force for selfishness nor selflessness, emotions vary widely and influence just about all of our behaviours.

An action can be affected by logic and emotion. Would morality usually rely upon the action influenced more upon logic than emotion in order to be moral, because emotion tells you nothing of an outcome on others, just yourself. If the majority influence upon actions is to be guided by logic would this be considered sane? Then if emotions hinder that majority influence the person becomes insane.
Nobody is perfectly sane or insane, they are like asymptotes. We are guided by emotion and logic, always one over the other.
Actually, becfore I get carried away, am I right in saying that our actions are guided by logic and emotion, is there any other variables?, or are they wrong?

Hi Holiday,

Actions in general fulfil the intensions of the will. I believe actions in general are ruled by an instinctive knowledge or wariness for the well being of the organism-----the instinct of self survival. Your reference to the majority influence on action I am afraid I do not understand, perhaps you could try to reword your question. I would say that emotion and logic do play a big roll in our actions, but, the actions are always to fulfil the desires of the will.

As I live in two worlds at the same time, the inner world - unseen world - real world. Where the material world is a reflection of that world and has no substance, 'Nothing Matters'.

You can know a lot about somebody by looking at their music playlist

What is a music playlist?.

Its a list of your favourite songs.

There is an underlying pattern to humanity in which we, as individuals strive at goals that will inevitably cause reprisal.

What we lose must be inflicted upon another, and as such, we focus a falsely virtuous goal, while spreading the suffering.

We fear reprisal yet our intentions are sought at coalescing our own pain, causing conflict.
It is the purpose of society for every individual to be mutual to loss but loss comes from people holding differences between others thus negating mutual advantages.

We are so similar we are really all the same. (except the odd person who is insane).

Which one sounds better, they all basically say the same thing.

The whole universe is a mirror which reflects to you, that which you reflect into it

Psychologists are a lot like software. They use if commands in their work. Ok so if they respond to this question in such and such a way then it means this.

Also, they are just as expensive.

God never speaks to the devil much like we don't negotiate with terrorists. That is why he doesn't say a word when we want him to.