Generosity is bullshit

[3Bey]

Just try, for a moment, to analyse the true purpose of your entire acts. What you really seek when you help the others, when you do charity. Ask yourself the question: Did the goal was really to help that guy, or was it to improve my self-esteem, to avoid myself from feeling ashamed, or just to have another friend.

I my first class of philosophy, my teacher said that if you analysed each action, the only one that isn’t egoist, is the relation that a parent have toward his child. But for me, even in this situation, we are still egoist.

This is my arguments:

First, let say that: every conscious action has to have a purpose. Every action that is done, in total consciousness, have to be guide by a purpose. If you do it in total consciousness, you make a choice. To make a choice, you have to have a purpose. That’s pure logic. And, we can’t stop to have a purpose, because it will stop ourselves to make consciousness action. It’s just when people stop to be conscious, become as good as some vegetable, that they stop to have purposes. Not the opposite. So as long as we are conscious, we have a purpose.

Second, if every action has a purpose, we have to have just one single fundamental purpose for one reason. If we have two, what can we do in a situation when two purposes are in conflict (and that could happen really often)? There are multiple scenarios:

1. The two fundamental purposes are equal, and so we can’t chose, which is totally illogic. It would be like having no purpose.

2. One purpose is stronger then the other. So this purpose would always win against the other… and in the end we would end up with just one fundamental purpose.

3. The purpose change depending on days or time. Which is, again, illogic, because it would be impossible for human to understand the other if they don’t have the same purpose in the same time, and so it would be practically impossible to talk or to interact (remember, purpose guide action, so if you don’t understand the fundamental purpose of the others, you just can’t understand their actions). We can’t understand ourselves either, because our purpose will always be different.

Just one possible scenario end up: we have only one FUNDAMENTAL purpose.
So now, the main point: if we have one purpose, this purpose can explain all the action. So, for the people that think that some actions are fundamentally to help the others, well that can’t be apply when someone steal someone else or do simple things like buying a Popsicle. But, you can analyse all the action if you say that the fundamental purpose is to be happier, to approach complete happiness.

If the fundamental purpose, the purpose of all the action, is approaching happiness, well all our actions are selfish.

This thesis is kind of the base of my complete theory of life, so I want to test it.

Do you have an opinion about it?

[Again, sorry if you didn’t understand. This argument is difficult to explain in my own language, so in English…]

[ffraxis]

Re: Generosity is bullshit

Even if people are not conscious about the choices they make, they still have a purpose to one degree or another. Really no matter what you always will have an ego, each action is selfish to some degree, but the difference between something that is selfish and something that is generous is that the personal ego (I) appears to be giving more, and taking some back. Fundamental law of the universe is giving and taking, but if you give more, that defeats the selfish purpose. Sure you may feel good after doing something generous, but that good feeling stems from several things, the most obvious is that if you see someone else who is very happy, you tend to also get happy for whatever reason. It helps knowing that you made this person happy, but sometimes its the illusion of happiness, but you do not know this. This is not limited to just happiness, other emotions are desired for whatever reasons, but again its self indulgence. However this self indulgence also affects other people, whether you know it or not, since other people perceive and try and take and understand, and they may respond in a similar fashion.

Really generosity is not bullshit, but the concept of charity is. Giving more than receiving is considered to be virtuous and all that jazz, but it gets more complex; if you give more than you receive, you are considered not very selfish since you only seek desired emotions by giving others what they want, therefore providing them with some form of happiness, while on the other spectrum you could prefer taking and not receiving as much, therefore considered selfish. Again these are ruled by the fundamental purposes, but there is always more than one purpose. Just because one purpose is stronger than the other does not necessarily mean you will abandon the second purpose, because although purpose one is stronger than purpose two for whatever factors/reasons, purpose two will still remain within the subconscious thought until you are reminded if this purpose. All these purposes are still selfish since the ego has to benefit in some way, at the price of whatever (Again one law of the universe is giving and taking; exchange of time for knowledge, exchange of knowledge for pleasure, etc. etc..) I recommend that you look into the texts of Buddha, as well as the hidden or the secret scriptures of the Bible which are considered heretical for this pursuit of happiness, it provides a nice perspective on humanity.

(this may not make sense, sorry if it did not)

[3Bey]

Re: Generosity is bullshit

Oh! You edit it!

So what you are saying is that... we are fundamentally selfish, but still generosity is not bullshit? (Maybe I'm wrong.. no, I'm practically sure I am XD)

But, if it's what you mean, I agree. To say the truth... the title was more about attracting people...

My vision of our actions is still positive. Being selfish doesn’t means’ being evil, and generosity still has good effects even if it's fundamentally selfish.

For your concept of giving and receiving, well, even if you give, for me, you only see what you gain. And it's the only thing that made you do your decision.

Again these are ruled by the fundamental purposes, but there is always more than one purpose.

Well, not from my point of view. Yes, by giving money to a poor, you have the pupose of being proud, evading regrets, and also the purpose of not giving too much money because you want to buy some other things. But, you can't have two fundamentals purpose, because, if the second really stick in your subconscious, well, it change nothing, because this purpose will never interfere in your action, because the first will always be more powerful.

But, you make me think of this: if the purpose was to maximize the pursuit of happiness and the pursuit of the happiness of the other in the same time? Well... the problem is: were would be the line, what would be the ratio?

Because, if you analyse actions like that, the "line" always changes of place. Like when someone steals. Yes, it may make you happier which would makes you being nicer with the others but, the ratio is way different of giving his life to help some poor. And some people that stole in there life can change and give their life to help some poor. So the ratio depends of the time? Again, it will be like the point 3.

(this may not make sense either. I don't know, I have some difficulty today...)

[ffraxis]

Re: Generosity is bullshit

Oh! You edit it!

So what you are saying is that... we are fundamentally selfish, but still generosity is not bullshit? (Maybe I'm wrong.. no, I'm practically sure I am XD)

But, if it's what you mean, I agree. To say the truth... the title was more about attracting people...

My vision of our actions is still positive. Being selfish doesn’t means’ being evil, and generosity still has good effects even if it's fundamentally selfish.

For your concept of giving and receiving, well, even if you give, for me, you only see what you gain. And it's the only thing that made you do your decision.




Well, not from my point of view. Yes, by giving money to a poor, you have the pupose of being proud, evading regrets, and also the purpose of not giving too much money because you want to buy some other things. But, you can't have two fundamentals purpose, because, if the second really stick in your subconscious, well, it change nothing, because this purpose will never interfere in your action, because the first will always be more powerful.

But, you make me think of this: if the purpose was to maximize the pursuit of happiness and the pursuit of the happiness of the other in the same time? Well... the problem is: were would be the line, what would be the ratio?

Because, if you analyse actions like that, the "line" always changes of place. Like when someone steals. Yes, it may make you happier which would makes you being nicer with the others but, the ratio is way different of giving his life to help some poor. And some people that stole in there life can change and give their life to help some poor. So the ratio depends of the time? Again, it will be like the point 3.

(this may not make sense either. I don't know, I have some difficulty today...)

The ratio would end up being 2:1, but it can differ because not everyone gets happy by giving; some people are more happy to receive than to give. Regarding the fundamental purpose, it can change accordingly to match the situation or not at all; therefore if there is a second purpose which is subconscious, if given certain circumstances as well, then it would become stronger and more rational to apply the second purpose, which has now become the fundamental purpose. In the sense you are right regarding that people have one fundamental purpose (you can argue that the primary or primitive purpose is survival and reproduction) but this purpose has as much "power" or value as the next purpose given different situations. You react accordingly to the surrounding environments, therefore the purpose cannot remain the same, and it must change as well. You can tie this with the concept of duality, and say that for every fundamental purpose there is and always will be a counteracting purpose (just like physics), or at least not a counteracting purpose, but a catalyst that acts to change the fundamental purpose (in this case, the catalyst that acts for internal change in personality and the personal fundamental purpose would be the surrounding environment, in essence the entire universe).


Also regarding your example, this is a common situation, but it does not apply to everyone. Someone may get caught up in their own pride after performing a good deed, but some people do things that are considered "good" or "unselfish" as part of their daily routine without really much second thoughts.

[Patashu]

Re: Generosity is bullshit

Just because an action is performed for egotistical purposes doesn't mean the action's total consequences are selfish (i.e. better for you at the expense of others)

First, a quick definition of 'good': An act is good if it ultimately benefits humanity to perform it. Benefits as in humanity lasts longer, technologically advances faster, reduces unhappiness faster, etc.

Because the marginal benefit of things like money diminishes with how much you have it (If I can afford my apartment rent I'm not living on the streets, if I have ten times that it's not ten times as good as being homeless - similar for good, water, entertainment and so on) there is an overall benefit if I give things I don't need to other people. This will increase my popularity with the person I give stuff to as well as the surrounding group if they hear of it, which is a selfish result but leads to non-selfish results as it may inspire others to act like I did. Giving up possessions one doesn't need is a 'superrational act' as if everyone was willing to do it, everyone would gain (think of staying silent in the prisoner's dilemma).

[Cavernio]

Re: Generosity is bullshit

. So as long as we are conscious, we have a purpose.

Makes sense so far.

Second, if every action has a purpose, we have to have just one single fundamental purpose for one reason. If we have two, what can we do in a situation when two purposes are in conflict (and that could happen really often)? There are multiple scenarios:

1. The two fundamental purposes are equal, and so we can’t chose, which is totally illogic. It would be like having no purpose.

And that is why some people have indecision. Furthermore, have you ever met a depressed person who feels as if they have no purpose? You have assumed that we are always conscious beings, which we are not. However, I agree that this is unlikely anways, simply because there are so many factors involved in something, to be equal is like having one random infinite number be exactly equal to another randon infinite number.

2. One purpose is stronger then the other. So this purpose would always win against the other… and in the end we would end up with just one fundamental purpose.

My response to 3 makes 2 moot.

3. The purpose change depending on days or time. Which is, again, illogic, because it would be impossible for human to understand the other if they don’t have the same purpose in the same time, and so it would be practically impossible to talk or to interact (remember, purpose guide action, so if you don’t understand the fundamental purpose of the others, you just can’t understand their actions). We can’t understand ourselves either, because our purpose will always be different.

But yet this is like the reality we live with every day. If you've ever changed your mind, you reach point 3, which makes point 2, well, irrelevant. The thing is, people do understand each other even if the person's point of view changes. That's like, well, how we can discuss something and have your mind changed. People aren't statisticians, we value what has happened most recently more than things that have happened in the past. We never do fully understand ourselves or others most of the time, hence why you're trying to figure out altruism with this post of yours. Besides which, if we never changed, we'd all be like adult babies, (mentally speaking here.)

And lastly, your premise only follows true if we are always making conscious decisions, which is just not the case. We are not beings of pure logic and thought who always strive for the best. We're animals that are limited/made through our physical bodies.

So, in conclusion, to only have 1 fundamental purpose is flawed from the get-go, regardless of whether personal happiness would end up being that ultimate purpose or not.

[ffraxis]

Re: Generosity is bullshit

Just because an action is performed for egotistical purposes doesn't mean the action's total consequences are selfish (i.e. better for you at the expense of others)

First, a quick definition of 'good': An act is good if it ultimately benefits humanity to perform it. Benefits as in humanity lasts longer, technologically advances faster, reduces unhappiness faster, etc.

Because the marginal benefit of things like money diminishes with how much you have it (If I can afford my apartment rent I'm not living on the streets, if I have ten times that it's not ten times as good as being homeless - similar for good, water, entertainment and so on) there is an overall benefit if I give things I don't need to other people. This will increase my popularity with the person I give stuff to as well as the surrounding group if they hear of it, which is a selfish result but leads to non-selfish results as it may inspire others to act like I did. Giving up possessions one doesn't need is a 'superrational act' as if everyone was willing to do it, everyone would gain (think of staying silent in the prisoner's dilemma).

This supports the original post; self-ism prevails even when you consider others. The act of charity and giving up personal items is also questionable. (do not consider this statement to be applied to just yourself).

Makes sense so far.



And that is why some people have indecision. Furthermore, have you ever met a depressed person who feels as if they have no purpose? You have assumed that we are always conscious beings, which we are not. However, I agree that this is unlikely anyways, simply because there are so many factors involved in something, to be equal is like having one random infinite number be exactly equal to another random infinite number.



My response to 3 makes 2 moot.



But yet this is like the reality we live with every day. If you've ever changed your mind, you reach point 3, which makes point 2, well, irrelevant. The thing is, people do understand each other even if the person's point of view changes. That's like, well, how we can discuss something and have your mind changed. People aren't statisticians, we value what has happened most recently more than things that have happened in the past. We never do fully understand ourselves or others most of the time, hence why you're trying to figure out altruism with this post of yours. Besides which, if we never changed, we'd all be like adult babies, (mentally speaking here.)

And lastly, your premise only follows true if we are always making conscious decisions, which is just not the case. We are not beings of pure logic and thought who always strive for the best. We're animals that are limited/made through our physical bodies.

So, in conclusion, to only have 1 fundamental purpose is flawed from the get-go, regardless of whether personal happiness would end up being that ultimate purpose or not.

Read the other posts in the thread.

[3Bey]

Re: Generosity is bullshit

To answer to Cavernio, all you wrote can be apply on purpose, but not fundamental purpose.

Yes, we have indecision, but, the way I see it, it's because we don't know which choice would benefit us more depending of our fundamental purpose. Like, I can be in an indecision between going to a party or do my homework that have to be done for tomorrow. But, still, the two choices go in the same direction: pursuit of happiness.

But, you can't have two purpose (and now I'm answering ffraxis and cavernio) because you can't chose between them. You have nothing deeper that can help you finally make a decision. It's at the end of the chain, because it's fundamental. So it will not just be an indecision, it would conduct us to some nihilism. A complete absence of choice. We would not be capable of continuing our life.

And, if we really don't have the same fundamental purpose everyday, well, our essence, what definite us, would always change. That’s so strong so, again, fundamental, that we wouldn't be able to understand each other.

It's not just a point of view. What I'm talking is way deeper than a point of view.

We change in our way to pursuit the happiness. But, our essence, our fundamental purpose, stays the same.

You have assumed that we are always conscious beings, which we are not.

Here, what I'm saying, is that, when we're not physically manipulated, our psychosocially (with hypnotism, for example), we do always pursuit = a purpose. Even depressed people. They don't know how they can achieve their purpose, but one thing for sure, it's that they want their situation to change. Why? Because it make then unhappy.

In the sense you are right regarding that people have one fundamental purpose (you can argue that the primary or primitive purpose is survival and reproduction) but this purpose has as much "power" or value as the next purpose given different situations. You react accordingly to the surrounding environments, therefore the purpose cannot remain the same, and it must change as well. You can tie this with the concept of duality, and say that for every fundamental purpose there is and always will be a counteracting purpose (just like physics), or at least not a counteracting purpose, but a catalyst that acts to change the fundamental purpose

But we can’t have “next purpose” if we have one fundamental purpose, because the other purposes are here to achieve the one that is fundamental. And we react differently depending of our environment because we adapt ourselves in a way to achieve the fundamental purpose in each of the situation. The purpose change, but not the fundamental one. You can have a concept of duality, like when Freud said that we have an impulse that make us want to destroy ourselves and another that make us want to continue to live (libido). But when we satisfied these impulses, it’s to be happier, to try to reduce the “tension we have in our system” (but here it’s just an example with a theories I know, I’m not saying that this theory is real). Here, we are talking about the reason why we act like that… we can’t have two counteracting reason…

[stargroup100]

Re: Generosity is bullshit

Before we continue discussing, we need to define some key terms here. The key terms we need to understand before debating are:
- Purpose
- Selfishness
- Fundamental

The reason why these terms need to be defined is because different ways of approaching these terms/concepts result in totally different conclusions.

If purpose refers to the direct cause of a choice, then "cause" would be more appropriate, as it is specific to the particular choice. Purpose should be more general. A cause that leads to a choice may not necessarily match the general purpose of the individual.

Selfishness is also a factor in this. If selfishness refers strictly to any choice that leads to personal gain, then that would be a completely different scenario than the idea that selfishness is personal gain at the expense of others, which should be the proper definition of selfishness. If an act benefits not only yourself but others as well, then there should be absolutely no reason to not do that act.

Fundamental is also not too good of a word here. We are under the assumption that everyone understands each other and themselves, which leads (under your logic) to the conclusion that everyone acts under one fundamental purpose. A better concept would be the idea that everyone acts under several irreducible "purposes." They don't necessarily have to conflict with each other at all times, and when they do, one case outweighing the other doesn't necessarily mean it will always outweigh. This is like the case with pushing a man into a train track to save a lot of lives.

However, there is a critical problem with your view of the world that is detrimental, or at least there is a better point of view. With your approach, the idea that everyone acts under selfish fundamental purposes, you develop a cynical attitude that falls in line with the deconstructionist and existentialist ideals. However, you can't reduce behavior into such simple forms, because it is the combination of these behaviors and how they interact with each other that not only defines the behaviors themselves, but the consequences. Logic is a great way to analyze ideas and consider arguments, but you also need to learn to apply humanity to your arguments as well. Logic alone will drive you insane and make you miserable, and you won't get anywhere. The human condition is what drives everyone, not logic. No matter how much you try, you won't be able to understand people until you understand the human condition.

There is a rule that I'm sure you've heard before. "Don't help others before you can help yourself." This should be common sense, and it is definitely logical. If you don't know how to swim, jumping into the ocean to help someone else will only make things worse. Sometimes selfishness is good in this way. You need to be prepared yourself in order to be able to give back to others. Evolutionism falls in the same lines. If there was no competition and this selfishness, evolution would be a dead concept.

This brings me to my final point. Of course many people would disagree with me, but you need people to disagree with me or my own argument wouldn't make sense. Basically, everything in the world, in the universe, requires balance. Just as you need selflessness, you need selfishness. The key is finding the balance between the two. Just as you need logic, you also need humanity. If you don't have either humanity or logic, you'll never be able to successfully interact with other people, but the same can also be said for seemingly logical fields, such as philosophy. Instead of looking at the entire world as an absolute with irreducible components, think of it as a mix of everything. Just as there does exist absolutes, there also exist ideas that are subjective. Just as some concepts are irreducible, others depend (and sometimes fundamentally exist) on the very principles of complexity. In order to truly understand the world and understand happiness, you need to find the sweet spot of balance in the middle of absolutely goddamn everything.

[3Bey]

Re: Generosity is bullshit

Just as you need logic, you also need humanity. If you don't have either humanity or logic, you'll never be able to successfully interact with other people, but the same can also be said for seemingly logical fields, such as philosophy.

Why? I mean... you can't just use plain coherence to define something? You need humanity? How do you understand the human condition without logic? With experience?

You're not the first one that is saying this, and I still don't understand, because, you see, what I am talking about now is quite of important, because this subject of selfishness brings us to the pursuit of hapiness.

Because, if I can't know what is my "fundamental purpose» (or the conscious cause of our decisions) how can I choose what I want to be in life or what I want now? How can I choose my goal? I have to just continue to live without improving the way I'm living? Because now, most of the people in the world are assuming that it's happiness, but still don't do coherent act according to it.

What you are saying is quite often heard through some thinker. Still, isn't it a "solution of facility" argument? Like, math and science aren't afraid of complexity. They are getting in very complex zone. But still, some people say that philosophy can't just define everything, because it's too complex.

I'm ok with the fact that, in life, you shouldn't just act according to logic, that you should as well consider your emotion but, when you do philosophy, emotion just have nothing to do here. As well as humanity (and there I still don't understand what you precisely mean by humanity)

This is like the case with pushing a man into a train track to save a lot of lives.

And we react differently depending of our environment because we adapt ourselves in a way to achieve the fundamental purpose in each of the situation. The purpose change, but not the fundamental one.

But, still, the two choices go in the same direction: pursuit of happiness.

[Reach]

Re: Generosity is bullshit

Good insights.

This has actually been studied empirically in social psychology. A number of experiments provide significant evidence for a lack of selflessness in human beings.

As it turns out, in the vast majority of situations, we only help if it will make us feel better.


In one clever experiment, experimenters manipulated the subjects into believing they were taking a drug to freeze their mood, preventing them being happier or sadder for the duration of the drugs effect. As it turns out, even through such a simple manipulation, these people didn't help out when compared to a control group that took a caffeine pill.


You can also do something simple and take identical situations where helping in situation 1 becomes known to others and will likely lead to social recognition or reward, and situation 2 where helping will never be recognized by anyone other than yourself. In situation 2, almost nobody helps, even if the tasks are identical...


So, next time you save a kitty from a tree or something and feel good about yourself for being a good person, analyze you true motivations. You'll find you probably only helped because you would feel bad if you left it there.


Honestly, I can't imagine a selfless world. Human beings have to try very hard to be selfless, and this makes sense because the reason we're here in the first place is because we were selfish in the past. Selflessness isn't a trait that could ever evolve individually, because it isn't self serving. Rather, the only situations where the illusion of selflessness exists is in groups where helping others at the expensive of ones self is better for and recognized by the group overall.

[stargroup100]

Re: Generosity is bullshit

Why? I mean... you can't just use plain coherence to define something? You need humanity? How do you understand the human condition without logic? With experience?

Here's an application of an idea that will lead to an example.

Let's play a game. In a group of people, each person picks a number from 1 to 100. The person that guesses the number closest to 2/3 the average of all of these guesses, wins. What number would you guess? Obviously you wouldn't guess anything higher than 66, because you can never win. But if all guesses are below 66, then it wouldn't make sense to guess higher than 2/3 of 66 either. If you iteratively delete these strategies, you find that the logically perfect number to choose in order to maximize your chances of winning is 1. However, does that always win? No, because it assumes that other people are rational and perfect as well, and will also play 1. If a lot of people end up picking, say, in the 20-30 range, you still lose, even though you were logically perfect.

This is an application of game theory, and it brings forth a lot of interesting concepts in philosophy. Firstly, the "perfect" choice might not be the best choice. Just because you found the meaning of life and the perfect way to live life, doesn't mean that every single human being on the planet will live that way, or choose to live that way. The reason you need humanity as well as logic is because you can only use logic to analyze the game at hand. To actually play the game and determine the best choices that each person should take, you need to understand people. If you don't understand the motives of people, then it doesn't matter how good your logic is.

You're not the first one that is saying this, and I still don't understand, because, you see, what I am talking about now is quite of important, because this subject of selfishness brings us to the pursuit of hapiness.

This topic is definitely important, there's no doubt about that. However, I will be totally honest when I say that this is one of those concepts you really just have to trust people with, because it's so absolutely difficult to understand no matter how beautifully it's explained if you don't have the experience. It's simply the nature of how the concept works. Some people will eventually get it, and some won't, but that's the beauty of it.

Because, if I can't know what is my "fundamental purpose» (or the conscious cause of our decisions) how can I choose what I want to be in life or what I want now? How can I choose my goal? I have to just continue to live without improving the way I'm living? Because now, most of the people in the world are assuming that it's happiness, but still don't do coherent act according to it.

You don't need to have a single conscious fundamental purpose. Plenty of people are supremely happy just living each day as it is. There's one pig farmer in Las Vegas who picks scraps off the floor and feeds them to his pigs, allowing them to grow twice the size of normal pigs. He was offered $60 million for his farm and turned it down, and he couldn't be happier living the life he's living right now. He didn't follow his dreams, he didn't analyze his fundamental purpose, he simply lived each day. Of course, that's not to say you can't or shouldn't use philosophy and logic, because they do improve your life and level of happiness. It's simply that you have to be careful not to overdo it. I know that with your logic it seems like there can only be one fundamental purpose, but look through your logic again and see if there are any holes. You're assuming a lot of things that are not necessarily true.

What you are saying is quite often heard through some thinker. Still, isn't it a "solution of facility" argument? Like, math and science aren't afraid of complexity. They are getting in very complex zone. But still, some people say that philosophy can't just define everything, because it's too complex.

I'm ok with the fact that, in life, you shouldn't just act according to logic, that you should as well consider your emotion but, when you do philosophy, emotion just have nothing to do here. As well as humanity (and there I still don't understand what you precisely mean by humanity)

Of course they can get very complex. But in this specific case, you might be headed a little bit too far in the wrong direction. For example, using the axioms of mathematics you can rigorously prove that 1+1=2. But let's say you made a mistake and proved that 1+1=1 somehow. Instead of backtracking and saying, "Oh dear, that can't be right, 1+1=2 is obvious." you said, "Oh my, that changes all of the rules of math!" Breaking down into the fundamental purpose is almost like the rigorous way of trying to figure the motives of people's actions. You can get some insight through this approach, but there are plenty others that probably are more applicable to real life, realistic, fulfilling, and more relevant to the goals you are trying to achieve through this thought process.

Also, emotion is indeed part of philosophy. You can't use emotion as a method of argument, but it is definitely a very important concept that must be considered in specific circumstances. There's a difference.

[Cavernio]

Re: Generosity is bullshit

"Fundamental is also not too good of a word here. We are under the assumption that everyone understands each other and themselves, which leads (under your logic) to the conclusion that everyone acts under one fundamental purpose. A better concept would be the idea that everyone acts under several irreducible "purposes." They don't necessarily have to conflict with each other at all times, and when they do, one case outweighing the other doesn't necessarily mean it will always outweigh. This is like the case with pushing a man into a train track to save a lot of lives."

No 3bey, what I said earlier in my post is more pertaining to the quote above than me just talking about purposes in general. The OP specifically said:

"Second, if every action has a purpose, we have to have just one single fundamental purpose for one reason"

This is the premise I don't agree with, so clearly if I think a premise is flawed, all other discussion around it is moot.

I did read the other threads before I posted. Stargroup is the only other person who seems to be on the same track as me. If you want to pick apart your post though ffraxis:

"Fundamental law of the universe is giving and taking" No. Perhaps in your head.

"but sometimes its the illusion of happiness, but you do not know this" Emotions can't be illusional, unless you perhaps define them all a illusional; in either case, your sentence doesn't make sense.

I am allowed to focus on one aspect of the discussion, don't give me shit for not adressing stuff that is irrelevant to the point I was making.

[ffraxis]

Re: Generosity is bullshit

"Fundamental is also not too good of a word here. We are under the assumption that everyone understands each other and themselves, which leads (under your logic) to the conclusion that everyone acts under one fundamental purpose. A better concept would be the idea that everyone acts under several irreducible "purposes." They don't necessarily have to conflict with each other at all times, and when they do, one case outweighing the other doesn't necessarily mean it will always outweigh. This is like the case with pushing a man into a train track to save a lot of lives."

No 3bey, what I said earlier in my post is more pertaining to the quote above than me just talking about purposes in general. The OP specifically said:

"Second, if every action has a purpose, we have to have just one single fundamental purpose for one reason"

This is the premise I don't agree with, so clearly if I think a premise is flawed, all other discussion around it is moot.

I did read the other threads before I posted. Stargroup is the only other person who seems to be on the same track as me. If you want to pick apart your post though ffraxis:

"Fundamental law of the universe is giving and taking" No. Perhaps in your head.

"but sometimes its the illusion of happiness, but you do not know this" Emotions can't be illusional, unless you perhaps define them all a illusional; in either case, your sentence doesn't make sense.

I am allowed to focus on one aspect of the discussion, don't give me shit for not adressing stuff that is irrelevant to the point I was making.

There is a fundamental law of the universe which requires giving something and taking something, that's the basic jest of it --> more detailed would be fundamental law of change and exchange.

You can also fake emotions in order to instill another persons emotional state of being. (Illusion of happiness = faking happiness).

Here's an application of an idea that will lead to an example.

Let's play a game. In a group of people, each person picks a number from 1 to 100. The person that guesses the number closest to 2/3 the average of all of these guesses, wins. What number would you guess? Obviously you wouldn't guess anything higher than 66, because you can never win. But if all guesses are below 66, then it wouldn't make sense to guess higher than 2/3 of 66 either. If you iteratively delete these strategies, you find that the logically perfect number to choose in order to maximize your chances of winning is 1. However, does that always win? No, because it assumes that other people are rational and perfect as well, and will also play 1. If a lot of people end up picking, say, in the 20-30 range, you still lose, even though you were logically perfect.

This is an application of game theory, and it brings forth a lot of interesting concepts in philosophy. Firstly, the "perfect" choice might not be the best choice. Just because you found the meaning of life and the perfect way to live life, doesn't mean that every single human being on the planet will live that way, or choose to live that way. The reason you need humanity as well as logic is because you can only use logic to analyze the game at hand. To actually play the game and determine the best choices that each person should take, you need to understand people. If you don't understand the motives of people, then it doesn't matter how good your logic is.


This topic is definitely important, there's no doubt about that. However, I will be totally honest when I say that this is one of those concepts you really just have to trust people with, because it's so absolutely difficult to understand no matter how beautifully it's explained if you don't have the experience. It's simply the nature of how the concept works. Some people will eventually get it, and some won't, but that's the beauty of it.


You don't need to have a single conscious fundamental purpose. Plenty of people are supremely happy just living each day as it is. There's one pig farmer in Las Vegas who picks scraps off the floor and feeds them to his pigs, allowing them to grow twice the size of normal pigs. He was offered $60 million for his farm and turned it down, and he couldn't be happier living the life he's living right now. He didn't follow his dreams, he didn't analyze his fundamental purpose, he simply lived each day. Of course, that's not to say you can't or shouldn't use philosophy and logic, because they do improve your life and level of happiness. It's simply that you have to be careful not to overdo it. I know that with your logic it seems like there can only be one fundamental purpose, but look through your logic again and see if there are any holes. You're assuming a lot of things that are not necessarily true.


Of course they can get very complex. But in this specific case, you might be headed a little bit too far in the wrong direction. For example, using the axioms of mathematics you can rigorously prove that 1+1=2. But let's say you made a mistake and proved that 1+1=1 somehow. Instead of backtracking and saying, "Oh dear, that can't be right, 1+1=2 is obvious." you said, "Oh my, that changes all of the rules of math!" Breaking down into the fundamental purpose is almost like the rigorous way of trying to figure the motives of people's actions. You can get some insight through this approach, but there are plenty others that probably are more applicable to real life, realistic, fulfilling, and more relevant to the goals you are trying to achieve through this thought process.

Also, emotion is indeed part of philosophy. You can't use emotion as a method of argument, but it is definitely a very important concept that must be considered in specific circumstances. There's a difference.

If possible, please explain the game theory regarding choosing between 1-100 because it does not make sense that you know that i will not choose something above 66, because i may not follow the same logic you do, then again i was never good at math. (Thanks ahead of time!)

Necessarily the pig farmer who turned down the 60 million may not have it in his own interests to give up his current lifestyle for multiple reasons; it may have been his dream at one point to be a millionaire, or it may have never occurred to the farmer, those situations are really subjective. Also if you ask yourself what the purpose of your own existence and being is all about, then shouldn't other people do the same, even at least once in their life? Of course this changes completely if say the person cannot think clearly which is very common considering the plethora of toxins that people ingest and breathe in daily, as well as the sedation and distractions that are occurring in their daily lives (distractions for this situation means that it really just adds as an extra obstacle that does not allow people to get their intended/fundamental purpose/job/work done properly or that prevents them for achieving said purpose,or it may even change the purpose.

Really one of the problems with this topic is that philosophy and social sciences generally tend to become multi-sided (you incorporate personal beliefs and so-forth, and people may not agree). It's too subjective, so if someone else does not get it, they may or may not already know it and got it, and from their own perspective you don't get it. (Get it? nobody gets it, not even me, its a trick question). If someone gets it, they don't get it.

Good insights.

This has actually been studied empirically in social psychology. A number of experiments provide significant evidence for a lack of selflessness in human beings.

As it turns out, in the vast majority of situations, we only help if it will make us feel better.


In one clever experiment, experimenters manipulated the subjects into believing they were taking a drug to freeze their mood, preventing them being happier or sadder for the duration of the drugs effect. As it turns out, even through such a simple manipulation, these people didn't help out when compared to a control group that took a caffeine pill.


You can also do something simple and take identical situations where helping in situation 1 becomes known to others and will likely lead to social recognition or reward, and situation 2 where helping will never be recognized by anyone other than yourself. In situation 2, almost nobody helps, even if the tasks are identical...


So, next time you save a kitty from a tree or something and feel good about yourself for being a good person, analyze you true motivations. You'll find you probably only helped because you would feel bad if you left it there.


Honestly, I can't imagine a selfless world. Human beings have to try very hard to be selfless, and this makes sense because the reason we're here in the first place is because we were selfish in the past. Selflessness isn't a trait that could ever evolve individually, because it isn't self serving. Rather, the only situations where the illusion of selflessness exists is in groups where helping others at the expensive of ones self is better for and recognized by the group overall.

Agreed, the same reasoning can be applied to a different situation where it may be a matter of survival or a matter of obtaining something with an attached value that is seemingly high (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma)

[stargroup100]

Re: Generosity is bullshit

If possible, please explain the game theory regarding choosing between 1-100 because it does not make sense that you know that i will not choose something above 66, because i may not follow the same logic you do, then again i was never good at math. (Thanks ahead of time!)

That's exactly the thing. In most cases you DON'T know what other people are going to pick, so you have to make an educated guess. GENERALLY, the smarter, more logical people will pick a number closer to 1, while the less intelligent pick higher numbers. As a result, it is extremely unlikely that you will pick a winning number just by logic alone.

Just because you found the perfect, most logical choice for picking a number doesn't mean it is the best choice.

If you still don't get the game, I'll leave the actual strategy for you to think about for yourself, because I explained it as clearly as possible and it's not a difficult game to understand.

Really one of the problems with this topic is that philosophy and social sciences generally tend to become multi-sided (you incorporate personal beliefs and so-forth, and people may not agree). It's too subjective, so if someone else does not get it, they may or may not already know it and got it, and from their own perspective you don't get it. (Get it? nobody gets it, not even me, its a trick question). If someone gets it, they don't get it.

Beauty of the world and universe.