You don't have to do anything

[medusa]

Call me cynical, but I believe that is the true nature of humanity. Everything we do, even the seemingly altruistic, leads right back to our own self gratification.

 

That's not cynical, it's a deeper understanding of what motivates people. Every action we take, or deliberately don't take is a choice in our lives and far too few people take responsibility for their lives and their impact on others.

 

When we do something nice for someone else we are not just doing it to be nice to the other person, we are also meeting a need within ourselves to do this to reward or appease an element of our own psyche.

 

If you study NLP then one of the first things that most people study/question/debate is the opinion that Mother Teresa was as selfish as Hitler. Looking behind the actual things that they did in their lives, both of them were meeting their own needs in exactly the same way (by being dedicated to getting one outcome, through their whole lives). Granted, they were completely opposite outcomes, but the things that they were doing were both obviously also meeting a need within themselves to perform that task.

 

Nobody dedicates themselves to a life's work without that also meeting some need, whether that's to salve their conscience, gain accolades or be popular or powerful. Every action we take has a payoff for ourselves (positive or negative) and so every action we take is ultimately selfish.

 

Lots of things get a lot more complicated when you hand everybody the ultimate power though. Very few people would pay tax given half the chance (even if they want the good things that come from earning money) and there are a fair few people who believe that they should be able to take things no matter who they belong to, should they want them. In order to have a state that functions and provides basic services like health care and having our bins empties, our streets maintained etc. we do have to impose things alongside and above personal choices.

 

When push comes to shove, you are at liberty to still refuse to join in with that sort of thing, but how many people are prepared to accept that if they truly understand what that means?

 

How about never being able to consult a doctor? Or to have any education for your children, any support in the event that you can't find work or no maintenance to any roads? If you really choose not to take part in any of societal norms then that means that you don't get any of it, not just opting out when it suits you.

[flamingjimmy]

But why is hedonism 'positive' - if nothing is of any importance, then it does not matter whether you are happy or not - 'pleasure' is just the chemistry of your body acting in a slightly different manner with no consequence.

Just because nothing we do is important on a universal scale doesn't mean you can't personally (or as a group) assign importance to whatever you want. The feeling of happiness is just a result of stuff happening inside your body but so what? The feeling is real and is its own reward.

 

If you are not around after death, then it doesn't matter if you had a 'fun' life or not. If you go for a night out and get so drunk that you can't remember it the next day, then it doesn't matter whether you had a great night or a lousy one.

Again, so what if it doesn't matter after you die, it matters now while you're alive. Similarly, in the long term, it doesn't matter whether you had a good time last night, but it mattered last night.

[nickycheese]

Nihilism can (perhaps oxymoronically) give birth to the most enlightened of meaning, since the nihilist truly understands the big picture - that everything is relative and equally (in)significant. A great weight is lifted because the nihilist sees everything at peace with itself, including his own awareness of joy and suffering and the fact he is biologically programmed to avoid such suffering.

 

I agree, that's why I find it reassuring.

 

However, I find other logical consequences disturbing - e.g. the lack of any morality or purpose. The logic conflicts with how I 'feel'.

[nickycheese]

Just because nothing we do is important on a universal scale doesn't mean you can't personally (or as a group) assign importance to whatever you want. The feeling of happiness is just a result of stuff happening inside your body but so what? The feeling is real and is its own reward.

 

Again, so what if it doesn't matter after you die, it matters now while you're alive. Similarly, in the long term, it doesn't matter whether you had a good time last night, but it mattered last night.

 

You can assign importance to something, but it doesn't mean it actually is of any consequence. Someone might decide it's important to wear black socks rather than grey socks - it doesn't mean it is. It's just matter moving around in their world...

 

Got to go and get on with my happy, non-philosphical life now

[flamingjimmy]

However, I find other logical consequences disturbing - e.g. the lack of any morality or purpose. The logic conflicts with how I 'feel'.

 

I find it liberating rather than disturbing. We are free to choose our own morals and our own purpose, which makes it all the more special when we choose good ones, because it came from us and not from some external controlling force.

[flamingjimmy]

You can assign importance to something, but it doesn't mean it actually is of any consequence.

I disagree, it totally does mean that. If you think it is important then it is of consequence to you (whether as an individual, or a group). The fact that the universe doesn't care is irrelevant.

[Mikes10]

quote: eventually turn into the same space dust

 

 

Only the physical part of you will become 'space dust' as you all it

 

your consciousness will return to the quantum universe where space-time

has no meaning and you will exist in everywhere simultaneously, much

like the space-craft 'Heart of Gold' when it engages its

Infinite Improbability Drive

 

Heart of Gold featured in:

Hitch-hikers Guide to the Galaxy: Douglas Adams

[salsafan]

That's not cynical, it's a deeper understanding of what motivates people. Every action we take, or deliberately don't take is a choice in our lives and far too few people take responsibility for their lives and their impact on others.

 

When we do something nice for someone else we are not just doing it to be nice to the other person, we are also meeting a need within ourselves to do this to reward or appease an element of our own psyche.

 

If you study NLP then one of the first things that most people study/question/debate is the opinion that Mother Teresa was as selfish as Hitler. Looking behind the actual things that they did in their lives, both of them were meeting their own needs in exactly the same way (by being dedicated to getting one outcome, through their whole lives). Granted, they were completely opposite outcomes, but the things that they were doing were both obviously also meeting a need within themselves to perform that task.

If you study Freud, he thinks that everyone has to go through the individuation process. Which at the end of the search is being your true Self. Some may argue that, this true Self, is also one's destiny in life. Finding and achieving that peaceful fulfillment within ourselves.

 

There are many great people in this life time that really excel at themselves and using the best of what they were born with to really make a mark. That is, if One believes that they were born with skills and such that, it is their own destiny to find a way to utilise the best of that skill.

 

To me, the true altruism depends on how much good or bad you have done in the world. One has to decide against ethical and moral values whether their action adds value to society, or devalues in society. Hitler used others for his own gain. Mother Teresa gave her own self for others. The difference is that, one has to think in the bigger picture sense how their own actions impact others. How many, and in what way will things happen.

 

Nobody dedicates themselves to a life's work without that also meeting some need, whether that's to salve their conscience, gain accolades or be popular or powerful. Every action we take has a payoff for ourselves (positive or negative) and so every action we take is ultimately selfish.

 

Lots of things get a lot more complicated when you hand everybody the ultimate power though. Very few people would pay tax given half the chance (even if they want the good things that come from earning money) and there are a fair few people who believe that they should be able to take things no matter who they belong to, should they want them. In order to have a state that functions and provides basic services like health care and having our bins empties, our streets maintained etc. we do have to impose things alongside and above personal choices.

 

When push comes to shove, you are at liberty to still refuse to join in with that sort of thing, but how many people are prepared to accept that if they truly understand what that means?

 

How about never being able to consult a doctor? Or to have any education for your children, any support in the event that you can't find work or no maintenance to any roads? If you really choose not to take part in any of societal norms then that means that you don't get any of it, not just opting out when it suits you.

I agree to a point that each of us, is doing something for our own self. However, that is not the sole purpose though. Each of us can be in a win-win, co-dependent situation. I thought that is what being in a harmonic society is all about. Each person gets a little of of their share, and put forth a little bit of their desire too.

 

People change over time. Just because I do not want to pay tax in my 20s, does not mean that I do not want to pay my tax in my 50s. When I can afford to do so. Society should cater for all, within reason.

[flamingjimmy]

To me, the true altruism depends on how much good or bad you have done in the world. One has to decide against ethical and moral values whether their action adds value to society, or devalues in society. Hitler used others for his own gain. Mother Teresa gave her own self for others. The difference is that, one has to think in the bigger picture sense how their own actions impact others. How many, and in what way will things happen.

 

Mother Teresa did not give herself for others, she did nothing to alleviate poverty and actually thought that having lots of poor people suffering was a good thing. People who worked with her and have studied her accuse her of being obsessed with suffering, and not of trying to stop it.

 

"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people"

 

She used the millions that she generated to build convents instead of hospitals, she was dedicated to her religion, not to the poor.

[salsafan]

Mother Teresa did not give herself for others, she did nothing to alleviate poverty and actually thought that having lots of poor people suffering was a good thing. People who worked with her and have studied her accuse her of being obsessed with suffering, and not of trying to stop it.

 

"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people"

 

She used the millions that she generated to build convents instead of hospitals, she was dedicated to her religion, not to the poor.

She was doing Godly work... It was her destiny to do what she did. Because if you think about it in a karmic way, why are we talking about her? Why are you even using her as an example to consider what you think is right or wrong? What did she do to make herself so famous that still cause so many to remember her even now? Actions and Reactions in lifecycles ?

 

You may discredit her now, but in those days, having more convents are not a bad thing, since nobody knows how the business world will go, or how the world will go either. People like yourself and myself can judge her, but then again, I like to judge her in those environment and circumstances that she was in at the time. Yeh, there was even a piece in the News a while back about her disillusionment too, but she fought through that as an individual and ploughed on. I still think that as a person, she has my respect for her for utilising the best of herself to help others. Cos frankly, will you give up your life now for others and do the same thing that she did ? I know I cannot.

 

Maybe we can just sit and discredit. Which is better.