What Determines People's Worth?

[Armat]

How can a person's worth be superficial? Or are you just talking about the kind of worth measured by wealth?

I was hinting in the direction of vanity. "You" get educated,read about gods,read about Karma,"you" think you are special on and on and one day if ever you get wise you'll get rid of all that garbage and become one with your creator.

Self worth is essentially an extension of the ego, which according to all major religion traditions is a hindrance, a superficial thing. That which separates you from me is a superficial thing. There is no real “I” no real ego. Self worth therefore is superficial.

Edited August 28, 2004 by Armat

[Sasun]

Good answer Armat!

 

In my eyes, ones worth is determined by his/her degree of unselfishness.

[gevo27]

Do we as individuals have inherent self-worth or must we earn it? If we must earn it than is it through the impact we have on others or through our accomplishments for ourselves. We often hear the phrase, “they must earn my respect,” so in essence the only way we gain that worth is through impressing others? That would defy the concept that everyone is special, because unless you prove your worth you are insignificant.

style_images/master/snapback.png

Any one person who is good is worth every other person. if that doesnt make sense, read the parables of Jesus, and it will.

 

Anileve, have u ever read the Bible, i dont meant o be offensive or any such thing, just that, these questions are easily answered and (understaood or not and to waht degree) life is in some ways easier to comprehend... not easier to live.. infact quite the contrary.

Impressing others is a great ellusion as the road to self worth, it makes no sense whatsoever, why base your worth on someone elses opinion?

[THOTH]

...ones worth is determined by his/her degree of unselfishness.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Along these lines - to a great degree - IMO - is that ones "worth" is what one does/means for others...for their family, their friends, people that they encounter/come accross, their community, their nation, their world....doesn't neccesarily mean one has to be unselfish per se - but one must not be purely selfih - one must be able to do things for others and to be meaningful to others...(in particular for one's children of course - the utimate when it comes to determining one's worth [to others] - as here is certainly responsibility of others...)....

[Anileve]

Good answer Armat!

 

In my eyes, ones worth is determined by his/her degree of unselfishness.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Altruism doesn't exist, it's an illusion created by humans to fool themselves into believing in false morality to feel better about themselves. However, there is a degree of selfishness. I often tell people that if they don't recognize their own worth no one else will. One can believe in his worth even if he does nothing but lay on the couch and watch TV all day, however it is equivalent to zero if the society doesn't consider it as a "worthwhile" activity. As Armat mentioned, we are all worthless, but somehow we are lead to believe that certain things establish the "worth" over others, but who assigned them as the authority on deciding the worth?

 

We are worthless beings, the only way we gain our validity is in our mind. People only care about their own benefit, if you have become a worthy individual according to what some of you have noted, it is by sacrificing something for the other or by doing something "good" for someone else, in essence saying that only by someone else gaining a profit from you, you become worthy. So it is really up to the society to establish this worth. Very confusing shyt.

[Anileve]

Any one person who is good is worth every other person. if that doesnt make sense, read the parables of Jesus, and it will.

 

Anileve, have u ever read the Bible, i dont meant o be offensive or any such thing, just that, these questions are easily answered and (understaood or not and to waht degree) life is in some ways easier to comprehend... not easier to live.. infact quite the contrary.

Impressing others is a great ellusion as the road to self worth, it makes no sense whatsoever, why base your worth on someone elses opinion?

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

I've read the bible gevo. The only thing I've learned in terms of worth is that it's decided when you reach the pearly gates. I don't like living for the indefinite future, so the bible to me is really worthless when it comes to exposing the mystery of "worth". I have to understand the world I live in now before I fly with the angels and play elevator music on a lyre in a world which exists in some romantic notion of a religious mind.

[Sasun]

Altruism doesn't exist, it's an illusion created by humans to fool themselves into believing in false morality to feel better about themselves.

 

Did you read this thread? (the beginning part discussion between Anoushik and myself) http://hyeforum.com/index.php?showtopic=9660&st=0

However, there is a degree of selfishness.

If there is a degree of selfishness then there is a degree of unselfishness too.

 

So it is really up to the society to establish this worth.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

I believe society is divided on the question of people's worth. Part of society gives worth to unselfish people such as heros, volunteers, those who do unselfish things for others and in essence serve others (not necessarily themselves), part of society gives worth to people who make good families, are able to feed and raise them properly and educate good children and maintain the traditions of the society, part of society gives worth to selfish people who are able to quickly get rich or smartly defraud others thus serving others and example of success, part of society gives worth to its intellectuals, artists, geniuses, people of non-material accomplishments, and another part of society does not care about giving worth to anyone, they prefer to attend to their elementary needs and not to bother with questions like evaluating people.

Edited August 31, 2004 by Sasun

[gevo27]

I've read the bible gevo. The only thing I've learned in terms of worth is that it's decided when you reach the pearly gates. I don't like living for the indefinite future, so the bible to me is really worthless when it comes to exposing the mystery of "worth".  I have to understand the world I live in now before I fly with the angels and play elevator music on a lyre in a world which exists in some romantic notion of a religious mind.

style_images/master/snapback.png

HAHA.. ok, well thats is not what i meant at all. And, its not the pearly gates that determine our self worth. It is merely, and simply as i see it, how we live our lives. But, we are all also very equal, there is a balance. We cannot see the way God sees things, he is devine, but through his word we see that we are all worth the same, until or until we change that, which is where free will comes in....

[Anileve]

Did you read this thread? (the beginning part discussion between Anoushik and myself) http://hyeforum.com/index.php?showtopic=9660&st=0

 

If there is a degree of selfishness then there is a degree of unselfishness too.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

A very interesting thread. How can there be a degree of something which cannot exist? That's an impossibility. The mere fact that you are breathing oxygen is a selfish act since it speaks of a desire to survive. That on itself eliminates the possibility of altruism existing. None of our acts are selfless, throwing yourself into a fire to save your child is an act of selfishness, because at the moment you feel pain for the fellow human being there is an instant desire to alleviate that pain, for that moment to feel good about yourself that you have done something so "divine", thus it is to satisfy your own desire. Would you give up your life to save a criminal in a burning fire, who murdered a few grandmothers? No, because you wouldn't feel pity or compassion, your desires wouldn't need to be quenched. Thus it is still a selfish act.

[Sasun]

A very interesting thread. How can there be a degree of something which cannot exist? That's an impossibility. The mere fact that you are breathing oxygen is a selfish act since it speaks of a desire to survive.  That on itself eliminates the possibility of altruism existing. None of our acts are selfless, throwing yourself into a fire to save your child is an act of selfishness, because at the moment you feel pain for the fellow human being there is an instant desire to alleviate that pain, for that moment to feel good about yourself that you have done something so "divine", thus it is to satisfy your own desire. Would you give up your life to save a criminal in a burning fire, who murdered a few grandmothers? No, because you wouldn't feel pity or compassion, your desires wouldn't need to be quenched. Thus it is still a selfish act.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

I think I know what you mean. First of all, I didn't say that one can be absolutely altruistic save a few perfections like Jesus.

Second of all, you are saying that the willingness to do self-sacrifice is a selfish act to satisfy ones desire to feel good. I don't think it is right to mix up diametrically opposite things. Desire is to fulfill ones egoistic needs, this is what we all do most of the time. There is always either sense enjoyment, material benefit, or gaining name and fame as a motivation in our acts. 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. And no, feeling compassion is not desire. A true compassionate person would equally feel compassion to the burning criminal as to the burning innocent person, while an ordinary person would feel satisfied because partly his desire to see a guilty person burning would be fulfilled and partly because it would seem just thinking impartially.

 

I would not like to confuse doing good and satsifying ones desires together, they are quite the opposite. Just look around, how come 99% of people, 99% of the time is satisfying their selfish desires rather than doing good to others? If what you are saying is true and doing good is the same thing as satisfying desires then we would perhaps see 50% of people doing good 50% of the time.

[Harut]

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.

[Anileve]

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.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

What do you have to say about massochists?

 

Desires can be positive or negative, but they are all reduced to self-gratification. It's all about the value you place on your desires. The joy of helping someone can surpass the pain one may feel as a result, it's sort of deductive thinking. In other words: Which might be of greater benefit to you? Nothing has value on its own, everything is worthless unless you assign a value to it. If some trashy romance novel is of no benefit to you, you will consider it worthless. Someone else might find it worthy. The majority in the society decide the value of something which is publically considered a moral stratification. Once again everything is worthless unless something exteriorly assigns value to it. In religion it is a reliance on the Bible which dictates what is to be valued. It's easier to consider that you are doing something worthy rather than to establish your own merits, there is a fear that if such standards are not defined people will resort to a severe degree of selfishness which can be destructive to a human race as a whole. Thus an illusion of uneslfishness and worth is born to convince people to follow a certain order, although as a core to simply eliminate the fear that they are insignificant.

[Anileve]

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.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Precisely. You have been quite poetic lately Harut.

[Harut]

today i'm worthless mat on a dirty ground

style_images/master/snapback.png

Precisely.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

i didn't know you too had this kind of an impression of me.

[Anileve]

i didn't know you too had this kind of an impression of me.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

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

 

BTW: Why can't you be a worthless mat on a marble ground?

Edited August 31, 2004 by anileve

[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 August 31, 2004 by Sasun

[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.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

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.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

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? 

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

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 August 31, 2004 by Harut

[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:

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

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 August 31, 2004 by anileve

[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.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

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 August 31, 2004 by anileve

[Armen]

You see the entrapment?

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

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.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

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.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

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.