Generosity is bullshit

[Reincarnate]

Re: Generosity is bullshit

Far too lazy to read what's been said but the thread title is more or less correct (although perhaps slightly reworded) -- selflessness is actually just an intricate form of utility interpretation.

We evolved to "do unto others" and to be altruistic because it was advantageous. In smaller, tribal communities, you were likely to meet the same people again and again, and so it was a good idea to generate synergy by being nice, establishing trust, not killing/stealing, etc. It's also why we evolved spoken language (the mere fact that we have it to begin with tells you a lot about the necessary condition of telling the truth and being altruistic on the whole).

Even doing a nice act anonymously still gives you utility, and anything that gives you utility (or avoids DISutility) is not selfless.

I still think it's inaccurate to say generosity doesn't exist, as it certainly does. We just can't call it fully selfless.

[3Bey]

Re: Generosity is bullshit

To stargroup100:
Let me use your example of game to show what I'm thinking:

In your game, what make you realize that you still have a chance to fail? Rationality.

Rationality can make you realize that you used her in a wrong way.

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.

Yes, I know. I never said that everybody act like we should act. I'm not saying "we should act in a selfish way". I'm saying “everybody act in a selfish way”. It's not because it's what we should do; it's because that’s what we do! I’m analyzing the action that we are making now. I’m not analysing the action that we should do.

If you don't understand the motives of people, then it doesn't matter how good your logic is.

So…it doesn’t matter how good my logic is to find the fundamental purpose, which is the fundamental motive of everyone, if I don’t understand the motive? It’s doesn’t make sense.

because it's so absolutely difficult to understand no matter how beautifully it's explained if you don't have the experience.

What experience brings us is just some element that comes from empiricism or other rational development that other thought of. Nothing can't prevent me to reach the same reasult that the other rationaly came to. And for empiricism, are you really saying that you recommend empiricism instead of rationality?

You don't need to have a single conscious fundamental purpose. Plenty of people are supremely happy just living each day as it is.

Hu yeah... but, how the fact that plenty of people living in happiness can contradict that what we want is happiness? You're too far; we're still arguing on the happiness’ fact. Never did I say something against the farmer choice... his action can still be rational even if it's not what everybody will do...

Just by how the farmer reacts, he is thinking that what he wants is happiness. He already have is answer to it. What I'm trying to do, is to be sure about it. With this, I can after make the "selfishness conclusion".

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.

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.

Yes! Exactly! That's why I'm doing this thread. Can you see the holes I did? Can you give another logic approach to it? I'm not saying I just found the truth. I'm arguing to find it.

Just like I said:

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?

To Cavernio:
But I still answered you…

And that is why some people have indecision.

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.

. Furthermore, have you ever met a depressed person who feels as if they have no purpose?

. 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.

. 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.

.

And… I never said we are always conscious beings…

. 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.

.

Yes, we change our mind. But not our fundamental purpose. With think that this other things should be better. According to what? We must use something to judge that the situation is better then what we though. We must use something to judge and say: I must do that, it’s better for me, for my life, for what I want. It’s according to the fundamental purpose. So yes, people change their mind, but still do it “for something”, “according to something”.

. The thing is, people do understand each other even if the person's point of view changes.

.

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

.
We understand that someone change is mind, his point of view, because he considers other things, but still, his goal is the same. But if his fundamental goal changes, we wouldn’t be able to. Because, it would be pretty difficult to understand someone with a fundamental purpose like: destroying the world. We would still ask him “why are you doing this”? According to us, his act would be illogic. But he just has another fundamental purpose. That’s why I’m saying that, if it always changes, we wouldn’t be capable to understand each others.

. 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

.

Yes, but you have a difference between what you are talking here and a complete incomprehension. (like in my “destroying the world” example)

. Besides which, if we never changed, we'd all be like adult babies, (mentally speaking here.)

.


I’m not saying we can’t change. We still can change. But always according to the fundamental purpose. That’s not making us adult babies.

. 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.

.

I’m not saying that we always take the best solution according to the fundamental purpose; I’m saying that we take the best solution, according to what we are thinking in the moment, to our fundamental purpose. “Conscious” doesn’t means “pure logic”, by the way…

. 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.

.

By this quote, you’re assuming yourself that what we are seeking is happiness…

I think you’re a little confused…

So, what I say is that your argument doesn’t apply to the fundamental purpose, so it can’t discredit it.

For Reach

That,s what I'm thinking... even if I accord more importance to logic compare to "
Psychology" experience.

Finally, for Reincarnate

I still think it's inaccurate to say generosity doesn't exist, as it certainly does. We just can't call it fully selfless.

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.

Definitively, “generosity is bullshit” was a bad title, even if I got some respond… I'm sorry!

[Sweet_Feet]

Re: Generosity is bullshit

[3Bey]

Re: Generosity is bullshit

Sweet Feet is right! If Marx said it, it's because it's true!

(to say the truth I'm not really a marxist, it's just that I like the beard... oh and what this moron is doing in the CT!?!?)

[Cavernio]

Re: Generosity is bullshit

Whoa ebey!

Firstly, no you did not say we are always conscious beings. However, everything you said in your first post was in regards to that, and then you made your point that "your fundamental purpose can explain all your actions", which was made under the full pretense that we ARE conscious beings. You said nothing to include what happens when we're unconsciously doing things, and as such, we are free to think of things like changing our fundamental purpose when we're not conscious, which then completely invalidates the any certainty of the rest of your argument.

I 100% disagree that the only way we're not conscious of what we do is when we're being manipulated or something. I think that the vast majority of the time we're not thinking whatsoever about any sort of purpose, ergo, we are not conscious in the sense that we are working towards a fundamental purpose.

I love the way that you've figured out all depressed people, that the way you addressed the contradiction is to basically say that it is not true, it doesn't exist. That doesn't exactly fly. The situation which I am talking about is for soemone to specifically becomes depressed because there is no meaning for life, no purpose of life, and THAT is the root of their depression. You can't just conveniently say that something doesn't exist because it doesn't fit with your idea.

"But if his fundamental goal changes, we wouldn’t be able to. Because, it would be pretty difficult to understand someone with a fundamental purpose like: destroying the world. We would still ask him “why are you doing this”? According to us, his act would be illogic. But he just has another fundamental purpose. That’s why I’m saying that, if it always changes, we wouldn’t be capable to understand each others"

Okay there...this paragraph is unclear with what you are trying to say. You start it off, and it looks like you're going to give an example of why, if our fundamental purpose ever changes, it would be impossible to understand. But then, instead of doing that, you just give an example of a retarded fundamental purpose. We don't understand total destruction not because it is a shift from looking for happiness.

Right now, I usually would say something to show how a change in fundamental purpose would make sense, however, you're simply going to counteract whatever I say with 'But those are just examples of regular purpose, not fundamental purpose.' To which I cannot argue anything, because not only does a fundamental purpose have to exist in your mind, you're defining it such that it must be the pursuit of happiness.

Do you see the logical error you're making here? I don't think we have a fundamental purpose at all, but there is no way I can argue that because you're just going to say that anything I say 1) doesn't exist (depressed person example), or 2) would not be based on fundamental purpose.

Christ, talking to you is starting to feel like I'm talking to mhss. Except you're worse because you claim to love philosophy, yet don't see the very logical flaws in your arguments.

[Reincarnate]

Re: Generosity is bullshit

The problem is that things become confusing when you start talking about problems like these in terms of vague constructs like "purpose." It's much easier to tackle these problems through a materialist/evolutionary standpoint. "Purpose" is just "an inherent inclination to seek utility and avoid disutility" at the most basic level, and you can trace that concept back clear to the ideas of abiogenesis if you like. The same concept will always apply at every step of the evolutionary pathway. I use "utility" here loosely, as it can either mean "happiness" if you're a sentient being, or "useful things for survival" if you're not -- with those concepts gradually melting into each other (and yet remaining virtually identical) at all steps in between.

[3Bey]

Re: Generosity is bullshit

Ok, I thought of it the last two days and I'm finally convinced that my "proof" made too fast conclusions. I imagined some possible situations in which we have multiple goals without a fundamental one (like the goal of evading pain that grows higher then the goal of staying alive through torture) and I finally have to concede that what I wrote what... bullshit.

But, if I agree with you on that point, Cavernio, I don't agree on your last words. I see now, I made a "mistake in my reflections, but I really tried to do my best. It wasn't a competition for me. I really was seeking the truth. I like philosophy, but I still can do mistake. Also, it's f**ing difficult for me to read and respond in my second language, in a domain that gives so many importances to real word's signification.

Again, I'm sorry, but no need here to be aggressive. I understand how frustrating my answer could have been to someone else’s point of view, but never did I was offensive intentionally. Never do you have to be either.