55 replies to this topic

[Sasun]

Evelina, it doesn't seem right to say that when a hero gives up his life for the good of others he is satisfying his desires the same way like someone is satisfying his desires by indulging in sex pleasures. The first case is self-less and the second case is selfish, those 2 things can't be confused, they are like north pole and south pole. Bible or any other books are not necessary to see the difference, this is a manifestation of universal truth independent of ethical norms of societies, religion, ethnicity. The Soviet Union, an atheistic society, valued their heros very much just like any other country in any other time. Its not like morality is based on religion but morality is part of religion, and religion is supposed to emobody moral codes by its own nature.
So we think that Bible has the right moral code (if we do) not because it is a book called "bible" but because it is a book that has certain moral codes that universally appeal to us, we feel that the codes written are right. When Moses came down with commandments, had the people not believed that those commandments were right we would not even know about them, let alone adopt. It's not like Moses created an illusion and forced some codes on people with a hidden agenda. The same with Jesus' teachings, he didn't force his teachings, but they simply were truthful and so they became part of the believing societies' ethics and morality.

There are many books with certaint codes that are not universally appealing, therefore their code is not considered a moral code. For example, the "bolshevik code" coming from Lenin's and others' books, if we may call it so. It lived its false life and died, that's it. It is not universally appealing or lasting, it was held by force and not by conviction. As to the Bible, while many people will reject it and the Christian religion they will at the same time admit that at least part of the codes given by Jesus are "right" and appealing. There is no illusion about morality, and certainly there is no survival purpose in morality as acting morally actually decreases ones chances of survival. All moral codes are unselfish.

I hope I was clear enough.

Edited by Sasun, 30 August 2004 - 11:15 PM.

[Azat]

self worth eh... a funny thing...

today i'm worthless mat on a dirty ground when i look right and a hero with great confidence when i look left.

Congradulations Harut jan. You made the right decision. No need to look back. you have a bright future ahead...

Dont listen to Eve. She is drunk.

[Harut]

Congradulations Harut jan.  You made the right decision.  No need to look back.  you have a bright future ahead...

Dont listen to Eve.  She is drunk.

thanks Azat.
but it went agaist all my personal principals.
i guess there is a selfish jerk somewhere inside me afterall. (or is it everywhere, but i refuse to see it?)

[Harut]

If you have assigned yourself such value who am I to argue with it? 

agreed... because at the end of the day, on the personal level, it comes down to թե կարող ե՞ս արդյոք պարզ երեսով կանգնել անձնական խղճի արաջ և պատասխան տալ անձնական էության և գործնեության համար:

Edited by Harut, 31 August 2004 - 01:17 AM.

[Anileve]

agreed... because at the end of the day, on the personal level, it comes down to թե կարող ե՞ս արդյոք պարզ երեսով կանգնել անձնական խղճի արաջ և պատասխան տալ անձնական էության և գործնեության համար:

Iharke du petke patasxanes, el ov qez azniv batsatrutyun kta te inche ko arjeqa? You are responsible for defining your worth, no one else gives a crap unless they can benefit from you somehow.

Edited by anileve, 31 August 2004 - 12:56 PM.

[Anileve]

Evelina, it doesn't seem right to say that when a hero gives up his life for the good of others he is satisfying his desires the same way like someone is satisfying his desires by indulging in sex pleasures.

There is so much to write, but not enough time to concentrate. I'll point out one thing though, masochism has several meanings. I meant these two.

1. The deriving of pleasure, or the tendency to derive pleasure, from being humiliated or mistreated, either by another or by oneself.
2. A willingness or tendency to subject oneself to unpleasant or trying experiences.

And I was referring to this quote of yours:

But doing good to others may often cause pains and go against ones ego and not bring any sort of benefits, at the same time the person may feel spiritually good because he/she is doing the right thing, the moral thing, his/her duty.

In the case of masochists, they retrieve joy out of subjecting themselves to pain or going through very challenging experiences which may leave them drained as a result. It's sort of a high I guess. And they don't have to be fundamentalists or fanatics, just a simple act of leaving everything to the last minute and then work like a mule to crash at the end, displays a perfect act of masochism.

Now answer this... If there were two kids in danger of getting hit by a car and you can only save one, being that one of them is your son and the other is some other kid you've never seen. Which one of them would you save? You see the entrapment? If you say you would save your son then it is out of your love for the person you will select one over the other, in other words your desire to save one is greater than for the other. If you say that you would save another child you would be considered an crappy father. There is no such thing as altruism. Is it crude, dry, inhumane and unromantic to consider such possibility? YES. Is it realistic considering that the mere idea "I think therefore I am" is an indication that "I" comes before anything? Yes.

People hate how unromantic and inept the concept of selfishness sounds, so they prefer to live in a self-deceit.

Edited by anileve, 31 August 2004 - 01:15 PM.

[Armen]

You see the entrapment?

Evelina, the real entrapment is that you think that there are only two natures of a human being: phisical and emotional. This makes human being like a fish in a pond that thinks the world is limited to that pond and there is nothing beyond it.

Human emotions are low and unromantic if you reveal their cause-effect relationship. But they are a fixed set of brain signals, aren't they? So they are not low or unromantic. They are given. They may be tuned differently from person to person but they are essentially a package of organic signals that come with the territory. You can dig deeper and deeper into the corners and crossroads (like heroism and masochizm) of human astral world and you will hit the same wall of emptiness. Astral world is like a town of ghosts.

The driving power of those singnals comes from spiritual world, if this power is there those ghosts in that town become alive.

[Sasun]

I think I addressed some of your qustions in my prior posts.

In the case of masochists, they retrieve joy out of subjecting themselves to pain or going through very challenging experiences which may leave them drained as a result. It's sort of a high I guess. And they don't have to be fundamentalists or fanatics, just a simple act of leaving everything to the last minute and then work like a mule to crash at the end, displays a perfect act of masochism.

Evelina, I can bring countless examples of altruism from real life. Why do you say there is no altruism? Masochism is about pleasures, altruism is not - those are completely different. An altruist acts only when it is necessary, while masochist acts to satisfy his/her needs for pleasure. If there was no war, there would be no war heros and no opportunity for heroism. The heros would lead ordinary lives, they are not after masochistic pleasures. But a masochist is just a masochist interested in pointless self-humiliation which helps nobody except he/she derives a sick form of pleasure.

Now answer this... If there were two kids in danger of getting hit by a car and you can only save one, being that one of them is your son and the other is some other kid you've never seen. Which one of them would you save? You see the entrapment? If you say you would save your son then it is out of your love for the person you will select one over the other, in other words your desire to save one is greater than for the other. If you say that you would save another child you would be considered an crappy father. There is no such thing as altruism.

I fail to see how this example proves that there is no such thing as altruism. It only shows that in such an example it is very hard or impossible to be an altruist, nothing more than that. But many people would argue that saving your own child is also a form of altruism as you are saving someone else, not yourself.

People hate how unromantic and inept the concept of selfishness sounds, so they prefer to live in a self-deceit.

I don't think this is true.

[Anileve]

I think I addressed some of your qustions in my prior posts.
Evelina, I can bring countless examples of altruism from real life. Why do you say there is no altruism? Masochism is about pleasures, altruism is not - those are completely different. An altruist acts only when it is necessary, while masochist acts to satisfy his/her needs for pleasure. If there was no war, there would be no war heros and no opportunity for heroism. The heros would lead ordinary lives, they are not after masochistic pleasures. But a masochist is just a masochist interested in pointless self-humiliation which helps nobody except he/she derives a sick form of pleasure.
I fail to see how this example proves that there is no such thing as altruism. It only shows that in such an example it is very hard or impossible to be an altruist, nothing more than that. But many people would argue that saving your own child is also a form of altruism as you are saving someone else, not yourself.
I don't think this is true.

Sasun you claim that you can bring countless examples of altruism yet you haven't provided even one. There is no such thing as altruism, simply because human nature always seeks some sort of gratification, some reassurance that their existence is important. A fireman gets into his line of work because he likes to save lives, he also likes the pat on the back for work well done, he also likes the smile on the face of the person he saved, he also likes "Thank you" with a medal of honor and a bonus. He also likes his paycheck, each of these are instances of gratification without which he would not continue his line of work. We love stories of heroism, we see it in the movies, women are told about their stupid prince which will rescue them, and each boy dreams of fights in those distant lands of Vikings or some other military conquests. We love the idea that we have made a difference that we are acknowledged; in the words of Emily Dickinson:

If I can stop one Heart from breaking
I shall not live in vain
If I can ease one Life the Aching
Or cool one Pain

Or help one fainting Robin
Unto his Nest again
I shall not live in Vain

Why do religious people do anything? They believe that each one of their actions is a direct result of altruism, because it is done out of love for God who instills virtue of a greater good for someone else. Yet all of them are told that they shall find their reward in God's Kingdom. Gratification is necessary for the existence, it is necessary for the desire to live and to progress. You may not look for it directly, but subconsciously it is embodies you. As long as that is true, altruism cannot exist.

You seek your worth through gratification, but you don't obtain it until someone else benefits from you. Thus we are worthless human beings, until we are assigned a certain value from some John Doe.

[Anileve]

Evelina, the real entrapment is that you think that there are only two natures of a human being: phisical and emotional. This makes human being like a fish in a pond that thinks the world is limited to that pond and there is nothing beyond it.

Human emotions are low and unromantic if you reveal their cause-effect relationship. But they are a fixed set of brain signals, aren't they? So they are not low or unromantic. They are given. They may be tuned differently from person to person but they are essentially a package of organic signals that come with the territory. You can dig deeper and deeper into the corners and crossroads (like heroism and masochizm) of human astral world and you will hit the same wall of emptiness. Astral world is like a town of ghosts.

The driving power of those singnals comes from spiritual world, if this power is there those ghosts in that town become alive.

Actually I have no problem recognising that human emotions are really a set of unromantic concepts which overtime have been accessoriesed with frills and thrills. Sure why not, if I eat my steak I enjoy the variety of flavors and seasonings, but in reality the main dish is a slab of meat which has been carved out of a body of some poor cow, which was probably squeeling from pain as she was slaughtered. But do I like to think of it when I eat my luscious steak? Hell no! I would like to believe that I am treating my stomach with some divine textures of grilled meat marinated in the juices of some port wine. It makes it a lot more exciting doesn't it? The thing is... I never forget where my steak came from; I realise the reality and I don't deny it.

The human bein is comprised of only two worlds: physical and emotional, everything else is an embelishment of a steak loving romantic.

[Sasun]

Evelina, it seems like you have a different understanding of altruism. Can you define altruism the way you understand? What is altruism?

In the other thread I brought the most vivid example of war heros, these are people who gave up their lives for others. Are you saying that they had some kind of a masochistic pleasure in dying?
I can bring many real examples of heros, they may or may not be religious. At least in the case of those who were not religious your explanation of heavenly reward doesn't work. Attainting pleasure from dying doesn't work either as these people didn't show any suicidal inclanations before going to war. So they cared about their country so much that they were ready to give up their lives. To me this is altruism, and the root cause of atruism is love where love has no root cause, it is the basic element. To claim that there is no altruism is to claim that there is no love. So are you saying that there is no love?

P.S. Just to make sure, here are many real life heros http://janfedayi.com . But I do realize that at this point your disagreement is not whether these facts exist or not, but the nature of them. You don't see anything altruistic when someone volunteers to go to war and die because, in your opinion, they have some kind of a not apparent non-altruistic motivation. I ask you to clearly and logically prove that your conviction is true.
I hope you realize that I can bring many more examples but that's not the point.

Edited by Sasun, 03 September 2004 - 10:08 PM.

[Sasun]

Actually I have no problem recognising that human emotions are really a set of unromantic concepts which overtime have been accessoriesed with frills and thrills. Sure why not, if I eat my steak I enjoy the variety of flavors and seasonings, but in reality the main dish is a slab of meat which has been carved out of a body of some poor cow, which was probably squeeling from pain as she was slaughtered. But do I like to think of it when I eat my luscious steak? Hell no! I would like to believe that I am treating my stomach with some divine textures of grilled meat marinated in the juices of some port wine. It makes it a lot more exciting doesn't it? The thing is... I never forget where my steak came from; I realise the reality and I don't deny it.

Don't forget that some people don't eat meat. They realize it is bad and they don't do it. You see, people are different, your experience is different from others' experiences, hence your understanding is also different from others' understanding. You cannot measure everyone with your own personal, narrow standards. (All our personal experiences are but narrow.)

The human bein is comprised of only two worlds: physical and emotional, everything else is an embelishment of a steak loving romantic.

How do you know? Maybe you personally don't know any other worlds but they exist. Have you thougth about this possibility? What makes you so sure that your own experiences and understanding are all inclusive and there cannot be anything else that you don't know?

Edited by Sasun, 03 September 2004 - 10:09 PM.

[Nané]

I believe in karma and thus I think there is an initial amount endowment you have to begin your life if you did something worth in the previous one. However, you can't stay on the same level because you're spoiling your karma that way. So, you need an effort to move to the next level.

Aha ! So you do believe in reincarnation ...

[Anonymouse]

I respect no one, and the only way I will is if someone earns my respect.

Hint to earn my respect: When someone learns to properly use nuclear weapons, which then can destroy life on earth.

[Azat]

you turkey, and I you respected me...

[Anonymouse]

Apologies my good man. I'm a very disrespectful kinda guy.