12
   

Selfless Acts! Name One?

 
 
tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Aug, 2010 05:13 pm
@Intrepid,
Quote:
Unless, of course, there is nobody around in harms way.
\
Then that the guy's a buffoon who deserves to win a Darwin Award.
http://themoderatevoice.com/wordpress-engine/files/2007-october/darwin1_full.jpg
0 Replies
 
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Aug, 2010 06:37 pm
@Izzie,
Hi Izzie!

I see these things as genuine acts of kindness and compassion to fellow human beings.

BUT, the donator does so with the knowledge that their actions are beneficial to others, and is warmed to this - Ergo SATISFIED to have been able to help.

Satisfaction is the reward.

I believe that some of you here are of the opinion that, an act that is deemed as not being selfless is automatically classified as being selfish. IT IS NOT.

This is an analysis of the subliminal nature of mind, below the level of conscious awareness.

Somebody who helps another, may consciously benefit from the experience or not - But subliminally they always reap satisfaction to some degree.

Anyway, Have a great day!
Mark...
Shapeless
 
  3  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2010 06:51 am
@mark noble,
Quote:
BUT, the donator does so with the knowledge that their actions are beneficial to others, and is warmed to this - Ergo SATISFIED to have been able to help.

Satisfaction is the reward.


Again, this doesn't follow. For one thing, satisfaction is a reward but not always the reward. It may be philosophically convenient to declare that satisfaction trumps all other rewards, but it doesn't always work that way in practice. Human behavior is a little more varied and messy than philosophical thought experiments make them out to be.

For another thing, you're still conflating the awareness of consequences with the motivation(s). The equation works on paper but not in practice. That's why the selfishness argument has to keep the discussion on paper, for example by recourse to things like this...

Quote:
This is an analysis of the subliminal nature of mind, below the level of conscious awareness.


...which makes the theory irrefutable. The subliminal card, which essentially allows you to speak on behalf of the people whose behavior you're purporting to explain, can be played in any possible scenario, which is to say regardless of the scenario, which is to say without regard for the scenario. So we're not really accounting for any observed or observable human behavior, we're just playing with words.
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2010 03:39 pm
@Shapeless,
Shapeless wrote:

Quote:
That's why the selfishness argument has to keep the discussion on paper, for example by recourse to things like this...


Hi Shapeless!

Why are you using the word 'selfish' here?
I am discussing 'selfless' actions, and I am applying this thread to every single living thing known to humankind, not just to humans.

A child is drowning in an icy river - A man, with no thought for his own safety, dives in, saves the child, is dragged away by the strong current and dies.

He acted out of his sense of compassion and morality, traits he had developed prior to his kind act. Those traits are developed in order to satisfy his nature (in the event of?). Ergo, by acting upon the very nature of his own self-righteousness, he is satisfying the complex nature of what it means to be him.

I am not saying that he is selfish, I am saying that he is not selfless.
NO living thing can act unsubjectively.

"What am I going to do?" is likely his last thought here. Notice the "I" in this question - Really note the "I" in this question! What he does, he does for himself.

Kind regards Shapeless! Just thought' Nothing is without shape - That proves it cannot exist (nothing).

Mark...
Shapeless
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2010 04:40 pm
@mark noble,
Quote:
Why are you using the word 'selfish' here?


I'm using it as shorthand for "in self-interest." I'm not using it in the normal pejorative sense, and I know you're not either.

Quote:
He acted out of his sense of compassion and morality, traits he had developed prior to his kind act. Those traits are developed in order to satisfy his nature (in the event of?).


I'm not even sure what it means to say that compassion and morality develop "in order to" develop one's nature. That makes it sound as if character traits develop in a consistent, goal-directed process, and I don't believe human nature is as neat and tidy as all that.

Quote:
Ergo, by acting upon the very nature of his own self-righteousness, he is satisfying the complex nature of what it means to be him.


If we assume human behavior works in the uniform manner you describe, then yes, your conclusion follows. I just don't see any reason to assume this (except for the purpose of making the theory work). Your impulse to generalize human behavior depends on a degree of perfection in the model (since that is what a theory is--imagined perfection) that I don't think exists in the real world.
0 Replies
 
HexHammer
 
  3  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2010 04:48 pm
@mark noble,
mark noble wrote:
And don't throw the 'brave soldier tossing himself on the grenade' rubbish at me. It is not selfless - He dies a hero (whatever that is?)
Excelent evidence of your lack of rationallity.

It IS a selfless act, and when you can't understand that, it only means you are looking for attention along with all your other selfexplanatory questions you ask in your attention seeking threads.

m-n why do you ask all these selfexplanatory questions?
ossobuco
 
  2  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2010 05:26 pm
@HexHammer,
And, as Tsarstepan noted earlier, the act may happen sans thought.
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2010 05:37 pm
@ossobuco,
ossobuco wrote:

And, as Tsarstepan noted earlier, the act may happen sans thought.


Similar to the generation of this thread.
0 Replies
 
Homomorph
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2010 05:54 pm
@mark noble,
Hi Mark!

I've never really went that much into this question because of fearing the wrong answer. If there were no such thing as either one(self-less-ishness), we would still have to choose which one we would use to make us feel based on what we know and how everyone else feels.

Hope you're well.
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2010 06:28 pm
@HexHammer,
Hi Hex (for the umpteenth time)!

Causal inversion prevents you and I from ever coming to a compromise on any issue. You think I am a nutcase because you can't think beneath the boundaries that your intellectual parameters are governed by.

I think you are a nutcase because you ARE a nutcase - You attack people in the pm's and throw allsorts of abuse at them.

Seeking attention? Everytime a person posts a thread or voices an opinion they are seeking attention to some degree. That is the purpose of chat forums.

Rationality? What exactly is that, and who measures it?

Don't you think it would be easier if you avoided my threads and posts?
Or are you just seeking attention?

I enjoy responding to you and hope that your medication kicks in soon.

Have an abstract everything Hex!
mark...
Rockhead
 
  4  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2010 06:30 pm
@mark noble,
for the record, mark, I'm leaning towards you as a nutcase as well.

a shallow and childlike nutcase, but a nutcase nonetheless...

mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2010 06:30 pm
@HexHammer,
HexHammer wrote:


m-n why do you ask all these selfexplanatory questions?


H-H Why do you always respond to them?
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2010 06:32 pm
@Homomorph,
Homomorph! Hi.

I am, thank you!

So are you!

Have a great day, my friend!
Mark...
0 Replies
 
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2010 06:33 pm
@Rockhead,
Causal inversion, Maybe?
0 Replies
 
HexHammer
 
  2  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2010 07:05 pm
@mark noble,
mark noble wrote:
H-H Why do you always respond to them?
In the utterly naive hope to enlighten.
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2010 07:32 pm
@HexHammer,
Hi Hex!

Why? I am not your pupil, child or admirer.

Do you truly trust that your own logical beliefs derived from your knowledge, wisdom and understanding are infallible? Or do you believe that the universe and all within is subject to your perspective and yours alone?

Are you the only human that sees things exactly the way they are?

Is everyone that disagrees with you or posts something you don't approve of 'mad'?

Do you want me to ignore you Hex?
I don't want to! But these accusational posts of yours are just silly.

You think that everyone that believes in God is mad.
You think that everyone that writes a long searching post is mad.
You think that everyone that writes anything emotional is mad.
Etc, etc, etc.

I think everyone is mad, myself included.

I'm going now. Read you tomorrow, no doubt.

Kind regards!
mark...
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2010 09:03 pm
@mark noble,
Your post is nothing but weird assumptions.

You ask what I have never stated, nor assumed.

You wants to ignore good advice, and sees it as an intrusion. (which you in this case may righfully say ..I can be a bit intrusive)
However you contradicts youself, when you make all these threads asking questions.

...end your madness and blossom.


0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Aug, 2010 04:17 am
@Rockhead,
Rockhead wrote:

for the record, mark, I'm leaning towards you as a nutcase as well.

a shallow and childlike nutcase, but a nutcase nonetheless...




You are a very perceptive man, Rockhead
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Whadya say we all put coldjoint on ignore? - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
One Thing I've Noticed - Discussion by djjd62
An apology - Discussion by Smileyrius
The Thumbs Up Club - Discussion by edgarblythe
How Many Members Would Prefer Homogeneity? - Question by Finn dAbuzz
An Open Letter to A2K Members - Discussion by edgarblythe
SHOULD I UNBLOCK SETANTA? - Question by mark noble
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/27/2021 at 12:40:51