The Selfish Nature Of All Actions

[Zetetic11235]

It isn't selfish, helping a person, even if it you do it for your partly own benefit, if you help the other person. That isn't selfish by definition. But there is no such thing as a selfless action, since all the people you know you know by what they reveal to you and you project the rest, every connection you have to them comes from you, so you are only saving the concept of them that you have and your action is self focused, unless you would help them no matter who they are, no matter what they did. Then it doesn't matter if its a projection, because you would help them no matter what there is about them you don't know.

In the end though, the only one who can know if your action was selfish or not is you, but just because your action isn't selfless, doesn't mean that is was selfish, just that is was not selfless. You could ocnsider both of your benefits.

I might also add, that being selfish can yield the best outcome if you know how to be selfish the right way. Look at game theory. You analize the probability of the different outcomes and work from there, you achieve maximum overall benefit through compromise. So if you embrace selfishness and can asses the situation properly,it isn't really so bad a quality.

[mashiaj]

and jesus said why do you invite your family to eat, not the people of the nation do this things? in that case what different are you doing from the people of the nation? and then i say you that first invite the poor and the needed people first than your family.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Zetetic11235

It isn't selfish, helping a person, even if it you do it for your partly own benefit, if you help the other person. That isn't selfish by definition. But there is no such thing as a selfless action, since all the people you know you know by what they reveal to you and you project the rest, every connection you have to them comes from you, so you are only saving the concept of them that you have and your action is self focused, unless you would help them no matter who they are, no matter what they did. Then it doesn't matter if its a projection, because you would help them no matter what there is about them you don't know.

In the end though, the only one who can know if your action was selfish or not is you, but just because your action isn't selfless, doesn't mean that is was selfish, just that is was not selfless. You could ocnsider both of your benefits.

I might also add, that being selfish can yield the best outcome if you know how to be selfish the right way. Look at game theory. You analize the probability of the different outcomes and work from there, you achieve maximum overall benefit through compromise. So if you embrace selfishness and can asses the situation properly,it isn't really so bad a quality.

Supposing you are right, and there is no such thing as a selfless action, can you offer an example of what would be a selfless action if one occurred? I would find that interesting.

[Richardgrant]

It is with interest that I read all the different versions of human nature, I would like to share a different view that I practice, I have found it is impossible to understand the material world out there (effect world) but I have found that the cause, inner thinking, is possible to understand by any normal person. What I am seeing out there in the material world, is a clear mirror image of my own consciousness, projected onto the majestic screen of life, the material world. Which is a reflection of mind (God) in motion.

[jb21]

selfish is nature truth so it cant be wrong as it is necessary positive and its acts are what allow life from matters

the problem occur in the appliances of that principle in limited conscious of matters conditionned in a creation to a selfish purpose of nature and not for those living conscious

than they must be negative to the condition to express themselves as positive to be a living for acting for themselves

as there is so many underconditionned it become impossible to cross all of them for that positive intention of being naturally, especially as they cant get to see life above that made those conditions ruling them, when selfish as absolute truth of existence nature would limit them to individual reactions means

the more one could limit himself in his condition the more he could get to be true to his selfish positive nature but the more he would be violated from upper instances that dont allow any being under their power to be positively inn, this is my issue but it is not about human selfishness

human selfishness is about another limitation of self living, when that person limit the conditions to free himself from being under and act as selfish nature without respecting any link to it in truth

noone can pretend being natural living that is why everyone is always interested in what nature do, even god especially, so anyone is looking to nature acts for creations lives to get power to his suffocated self waiting to be selfish and express himself to act for, as it is impossible everyone got to compromise himself with a force of being and its representations around from god that he would accept to say himself instead of him

but as truth of nature life is of absolute, that guy would always struggle to be selfish somewhere else where it encourages the stronger to beat the weak in what they get from life

so as you see things are not as simple as you think they are, many more realities are from those conditions effects on living conscious in life

[ratta]

well the nature of love is always to give there are 2 type of people on this earth, givers and takers. it would make me happy to see my soul mate enjoying themself because i know that i gave all my credit to him and made him most important only so i could know that he knows it. takers are ure past but exist in the present of the beginning of ure journey through the life and world which u have created for ureself. we dont exist together we exist alone and the world which surrounds us is our soulmate. the soulmates give and give and in return get a greater gift which they must grow stronger and grow more selfish. but they never take from eachother for they know without the other they would perish it is the nature of love. the takers believe that they are creating and they have the power but really it is the givers that are thinking and creating. one love one life.

[Fairbanks]

Originally Posted by boagie

. . . Frank Tipler, the famous cosmologist, regards this as the most important book of the 20th century. . . . .

Whether the question is whether a hypothesis is scientific or not is possibly important to some. Modern science is mostly running computer programs anymore. Astronomers don't peer through telescopes, physicists don't look at pictures of cloud chamber tracks. It's all data, so much data you couldn't even handle a days worth in a century and it is coming in faster every day. The thing about computer programs is that they operate as monstrous syllogisms and you can get out only what went in. It might work for engineering design, but wouldn't increase knowledge of nature. If this is science, Popper's book is relevant.

[jb21]

your logics are all based on human misery reducing reality to himself value missing in order to take from life any fake recognition of what he wants acting as being positively selfish

first, this soulmate thing your mind accept because of that, is totally not only fake but also wrong

it is a forcing condition that encourage the chaos of truth values giving life to images that would justify the chaos itself in order to keep the same order above the creations in it place and reduce the change to its best conveniences

it is very easy to understand that for any clever person, you wont tell a worker under your command about the truth of your plans in your life, but you would do all you can to put in his mind a positive image of you in your life that would allow him to feel secure in working for your office that is surely related to your life as it is benefit for yourself peace

this is your choice to get completely in the brain wash condition giving a sense of being positive to who join religions and their justifications for that evil must issues to a better world or heaven you got your chair already moving happily waiting for your moves inn or with as your soulmate, but you cant preach those choices as if you were talking from you, which make your intention obvious that you seek to glorify yourself denial and become the same sort of liar than who inspire you that from the book or whatever you listen to as god spirit

love is anyself positively alive by himself life, which means on the ground being totally for your positive happiness that of course could ask from you persistance and resistance to defend what you deserve of love truth

to proove you that truth of pur individuality for positive outcome always, i will tell you the truth of giving,

when you are yourself in your positive truth, giving is natural thing as acting for yourself happiness in being positively living, so when you deal with who is less positive in himself you would get to your less positive to interact with truely, and only the truth of those interactions would constitute a ground for you to lead the only outcome towards your acting value as a living mind, relating positively a living ground to your spirit, what you surely do obviously but completely wrong as abuses for selfishness of negative being seeking for lies and not to act on a positive ground of life

when it is about loving more than yourself which means outside your limitations that you value from you being better, you would find your happiness in the illusion of heaven when you feel desperate and miserable in your condition which would proove how there is no better than yourself to you, and how that kind of love is always for poor or slaves to entertain a positive bound that dont exist with abuses

what you give to be better or to a better place is for you and from your limitations that need a more open space, this is giving in truth and who knows it would never suffer from as he is living the limitations he is opening and doing for himself
so that soulmate stuff that you accept to justify the wrong two instead of always one, exist because abuses are making slaves that dont have any other way to justify themselves being well in seeking weaker than them to recopy the same thing they know wrong being wrong to act for their masters in copying them as justifying their masters lives by theirs would justify themselves being of them wrong

it is very simple to help what you call the past, you only need to care for from what you know being there, there is nothing as that in the plan of god, it is all about material interests in fake positiveness to hide behind, gathering all kind of people and genders and levels for that aim, slavery to misery of being true for the benefit of abuses on existing truth, and pictures god insist to accomplish for his pride taking from what life gave generously to his power above the beast power ruling before more

that is the only issue in human history for god, power increasing on all creations which surely make your happiness and lot of others but some are like me it is not our issue, when you are true enough yu wont be slave of anymore to fear being slave of inferior force

[Grimlock]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

Supposing you are right, and there is no such thing as a selfless action, can you offer an example of what would be a selfless action if one occurred? I would find that interesting.

I can: Jesus on the cross.

God suffering the torment of crucifixion and death out of love for all man would seem to amount to selfless action. But then again, insofar as men are god's children, does not god have some part of himself invested in their existence - was even Jesus truly selfless?

My potential objection aside, the idea of selflessness is attached to religion (or perhaps truth?) at the cellular level. An authority higher than the self is required for "selfless action" (that is: action initiated and carried out by the self but having ends which are entirely unrelated to the self - scientific "disinterest" fits in here, as well) to be anything other than a simple contradiction in terms.

That is not to say that "self" and "other" are entirely seperate ideas. Indeed, we invest large parts of ourselves into relations with others as a necessary part of existence. The membrane is permeable. Acts done in relation to loved ones, for example, are not reducible to purely selfish or selfless motives, as the line between self and other is inherently blurred in any intimate relationship.

The line between self and other is pretty clear in regards to strangers, however. Natural Born Altruists? I think not.

[Stormalv]

Originally Posted by boagie

Good morning Vietnam![time warp]

This is a premise a great many people have difficulty accepting.The premise is that no matter what you chose to do or chose not to do it is still selfish.You reach for a glass of water,there is a rational then for doing so,and that rational is selfish.Someone does something kind and supposedly selfless for another,the rational goes back to what this person believes they themselves are.If the idea they have of themselves is one of a kind and compassionate human being,then they must do this action to maintain the idea they have of themselves,thus it is first selfish.The religious might find this difficult to incorporated or embrace but it is necessarily universal. I don't believe you can find an acception to this premise,you are invited to do so of course.Perhaps you can expand on this theme that would be most welcome as well.Are there any particular examples you would like to explore?

It is a dreamy moving not quite thing only the illusion is the grasp of the ring!

Yes, I've heard this theory a thousand times over, notice how it's especially popular for those people who actively proclaim they're nihilists and always brief with their knowledge, as well as this theory, as if it's some revolutionary
science they've figured out on their own. Anyway, I don't think it's correct at all. If you are a really empathic person like me, your gut will say no to this, I'd rather believe that we are all one, and that's why we care and feel sorry for our fellow beings.

To disprove this theory, let's say that I was an atheist, believing that my consciousness ceases to exist the moment my brain stops functioning. My life was totally miserable and I was suicidal. I found a gun, I know that if I kill myself, people will be totally depressed and will miss me forever. But if I act solely out of selfish interests, couldn't I just shoot myself there and then? That would end it all, I both get to die, and I don't need to feel sorry for my friends anymore (that they're gonna be depressed), since I'll be dead. But something would probably stop me from doing that. And that is love and empathy.