The Selfish Nature Of All Actions

[Irishcop]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

Yes, I read some of it. And Twain also seems to think he can determine what goes on in the minds of people who do good things for others, and who sacrifice themselves for others, in the absence of any evidence, but on the basis of some vague analogy between human beings and machines, which he has not bothered to substantiate either. Just what makes you think that this analogy (and that is all it is) is correct?

kennethamy,

The analogy at first seems to propose a very unaltruistic few of humanity, and I was in agreement with you. However, if you read on, the analogy suggests that all things ultimately come from The Maker of the machine.
In simplicity, all things come from God.

Selfish in this context, is not the selfish that we look upon as a negative attribute. Rather, here selfish is everything in us as an individual, as a self, that programs how we perceive, process, and feel: and compels us act.

So then, even self-less acts of kindness, and sacrifice, do not find their source in us, it is a resource in us that comes from our Maker. Thus, we are compelled, by the programing in us to throw ourselves on a grenade for our buddies, because that goodness was put into us from the beginning.

But it was the right person, at the right moment who saved those men with his own sacrifice. And, no greater love hath a man than to give his life for his friends. This Petty Officer had that love, but the source of love is his Maker, not the Petty Officer.

That takes nothing away from his heroism, it was a virtue he possessed that saved his squad. Rightfully, he should be honored, he did a very self-less act, that saved those men. You can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear, had that been somebody else they might have pushed somebody on the grenade, or ran screaming, or froze.

[boagie]

Irishcop,kennethamy

Actually the conclusions we draw it would seem depends upon what we bring to the problem,Mark Twain was an atheist,but if in your conclusion about the maker of the machine,the term god can mean simply the source, all is kosher.

Irish,I think the point is here that there is no pure ultralistic motive,and if the source of this goodness is not to be found in the individual then Christianity's concept of freewill is history.I agree the relation Twain is talking about is not looking after number one at the expense of other/s,just that there are criteria of self-interest which must be met if one is to act.


I would like to get into Schopenhaurs perspective on this and what that amounts to is still self-interest,however the self embraces other.The illusion of the separateness created by time and space is broken through and you are the other, rather, other ceases to be other.This sense of identifing with other, as one self, is also the source I believe of compassion.As Schopenhaur stated you can see it in smaller ways in your daily life,with people doing kind things for one another,indeed if there were no ability to identify with, there would be no compassion, thus no heroic actions.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by boagie

kennethamy,

You most definitely seem to have your mind made up that there is no need for further discussion.It did not sound like you even finished the piece,the material is in line with the topic as listed.If you find it to disturbing that hero worship might be more complex than surface observations then I guess there is no discussion.Do you have a statement you would like to make about the nature of self-sarifice,something more developed than you admire those who make the sarifice?

The issue is not whether my mind is made up. The issue is what the evidence is for the analogy between machines and people that Twain draws. He simply supposes it is true. And, as I have pointed out, in a number of places Twain ascribes motives to people who have sacrificed themselves about which he could have no way a knowing. It is a farrago of speculation by someone who has no evidence. Fantasy, not philosophy. There is a difference. John Searle has an essay on the implications of neurobiology for free will which draws on neurobiological evidence which Twain could not have been aware of, and examines what neurobiology implies for human freedom, and more importantly, what it does not. Twain was a witty and intelligent man, but he knew nothing about what he was talking about. He couldn't have.

Your criticisms of me are just abusive ad hominems, and are irrelevant to what I wrote.

[boagie]

sorry you feel that way.

Actually Twains work here follows a logical progression,you are the first one I know to read it not to have found it so.Perhaps you could point out when you finish the article,where Mark Twains logic fails,that might be a considerable contribution.

[Irishcop]

Originally Posted by boagie

Irishcop,kennethamy

Actually the conclusions we draw it would seem depends upon what we bring to the problem,Mark Twain was an atheist,but if in your conclusion about the maker of the machine,the term god can mean simply the source, all is kosher.

Irish,I think the point is here that there is no pure ultralistic motive,and if the source of this goodness is not to be found in the individual then Christianity's concept of freewill is history.I agree the relation Twain is talking about is not looking after number one at the expense of other/s,just that there are criteria of self-interest which must be met if one is to act.


I would like to get into Schopenhaurs perspective on this and what that amounts to is still self-interest,however the self embraces other.The illusion of the separateness created by time and space is broken through and you are the other, rather, other ceases to be other.This sense of identifing with other, as one self, is also the source I believe of compassion.As Schopenhaur stated you can see it in smaller ways in your daily life,with people doing kind things for one another,indeed if there were no ability to identify with, there would be no compassion, thus no heroic actions.

Yes, I know he was an Atheist, however that did not seem to detract him from a profound observance. It is inescapably God that he alludes to. He even mentions Adam and ascribes to the maker as God.
For whatever reason, Twain simply didn't ascribe to his own philosophy. Whether cognative of it or not, Twain paralleled the Bible, where it states all things were made by God, and nothing was made by anyone other than God.
Even Jesus said that He recieved nothing except by the Father. This a deep and still body of water, bigger than both of us, and apparently bigger than Twain. You wanted wonder, there it is.
As to the free will we've bantered about, that has been pondered by Saints and Sages too, with no clear resolution.
Is foreknowledge predestination? By Biblical canon, in some capacity free will must be totally within us, as the Bible says that the borders of Hell has had to be expanded.
Yet, the Bible says that from the beginning, God as known each individual.
Insomuch as I accept the fundamental principle, of Twain's analogy, I hold some reservation on the issue of freewill.

[boagie]

Irishcop,

Mark Twain wasn't stupid ,he knew he could not afford to speak freely in his own time.As a matter of fact there was a book released I think in the sixties,that had been withheld from the public and from publication by his family,in keeping with his wishes.He wrote it would never have been accepted in his own time.It was called,"Letters From The Earth",the devil writing letters to the angels that have not fallen,about humanity and what they believe--perphaps the devoted would have difficulty enjoying it.At the time this book came out or shortly there after, Mark Twain's works like Tom Sawyer ect.., were taken out of the public libraries,seems he had not waited long enough,in a year or so they decided to return them to the library.Google it, I am sure it is still floating around out there!!

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by boagie

sorry you feel that way.

Actually Twains work here follows a logical progression,you are the first one I know to read it not to have found it so.Perhaps you could point out when you finish the article,where Mark Twains logic fails,that might be a considerable contribution.

I am not sure what a "logical progression" is. But, in any case, Twain simply assumes an analogy between Man and machine, but giving no evidence for such an analogy. So the "logical progression", as you call it, is based on an analogy for which Twain provides no evidence. Does that bother you?

[boagie]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

I am not sure what a "logical progression" is. But, in any case, Twain simply assumes an analogy between Man and machine, but giving no evidence for such an analogy. So the "logical progression", as you call it, is based on an analogy for which Twain provides no evidence. Does that bother you?

In the dialogue between the old man and the young man there is a logical development through question and answer which is logical,that might be termed a logical progression.If you find the logic faulty then address that aspect you find faulty. If it cannot found where Twain's logic is faulty then that pretty much serves as proof to most people,does it not? Why do I supspect you have not read it in its entirety even at this point? Again if you do not wish to discuss this in relation to the said materal that is just fine with me.As I asked you earlier,make a statement about the nature of self-sacarifice and we will try to deal with it on your terms,if not, I am personally through here.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Irishcop

kennethamy,

The analogy at first seems to propose a very unaltruistic few of humanity, and I was in agreement with you. However, if you read on, the analogy suggests that all things ultimately come from The Maker of the machine.
In simplicity, all things come from God.

Selfish in this context, is not the selfish that we look upon as a negative attribute. Rather, here selfish is everything in us as an individual, as a self, that programs how we perceive, process, and feel: and compels us act.

So then, even self-less acts of kindness, and sacrifice, do not find their source in us, it is a resource in us that comes from our Maker. Thus, we are compelled, by the programing in us to throw ourselves on a grenade for our buddies, because that goodness was put into us from the beginning.

But it was the right person, at the right moment who saved those men with his own sacrifice. And, no greater love hath a man than to give his life for his friends. This Petty Officer had that love, but the source of love is his Maker, not the Petty Officer.

That takes nothing away from his heroism, it was a virtue he possessed that saved his squad. Rightfully, he should be honored, he did a very self-less act, that saved those men. You can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear, had that been somebody else they might have pushed somebody on the grenade, or ran screaming, or froze.

To be selfish is, to attempt to act as the expense of others so as to get things one is not entitled to. Wherever that motive comes from, it makes no difference. But it is false that just because I do what I desire to do, I am , therefore, acting selfishly. For I may desire to do things which are not at the expense of others, nor to get something to which I am not entitled. For instance, I may simply go to sleep because I am tired. That is not a selfish action in any sense of that term. Although it is a self-interested action. Or, if I buy a piece of cheese and eat it, that is not a selfish action. And even if I give charity to a beggar, if I do that at no one's expense, or take something to which I am not entitled, that is not a selfish action. It is not a selfish action even if it makes me feel good to give alms to a beggar. For I may not give alms to the beggar in order to feel good about it. And even if I do give alms to the beggar in order to feel good about it, why is that selfish? I have affected no one adversely, or taken anything I am not entitled to.

The view depends on the assumption that whenever a person does something because he wants to do it, such an action is selfish. But there is nothing, so far as I can tell, to be said for that assumption. And what any of this has to do with the view that man is a "machine" (whatever that means) is more than I can see either. Twain is writing literature, not philosophy, and his argument (or rather, poetic analogy) such as it is, cannot stand up to any critical scrutiny.

And calling an act of heroism "selfish" takes everything away from that act, and denigrates it. Words have meanings, and "selfish" has a negative force. It makes no sense to say that X's was acting selfishly, but that doesn't mean he was not acting properly.

[Irishcop]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

To be selfish is, to attempt to act as the expense of others so as to get things one is not entitled to. Wherever that motive comes from, it makes no difference. But it is false that just because I do what I desire to do, I am , therefore, acting selfishly. For I may desire to do things which are not at the expense of others, nor to get something to which I am not entitled. For instance, I may simply go to sleep because I am tired. That is not a selfish action in any sense of that term. Although it is a self-interested action. Or, if I buy a piece of cheese and eat it, that is not a selfish action. And even if I give charity to a beggar, if I do that at no one's expense, or take something to which I am not entitled, that is not a selfish action. It is not a selfish action even if it makes me feel good to give alms to a beggar. For I may not give alms to the beggar in order to feel good about it. And even if I do give alms to the beggar in order to feel good about it, why is that selfish? I have affected no one adversely, or taken anything I am not entitled to.

The view depends on the assumption that whenever a person does something because he wants to do it, such an action is selfish. But there is nothing, so far as I can tell, to be said for that assumption. And what any of this has to do with the view that man is a "machine" (whatever that means) is more than I can see either. Twain is writing literature, not philosophy, and his argument (or rather, poetic analogy) such as it is, cannot stand up to any critical scrutiny.

And calling an act of heroism "selfish" takes everything away from that act, and denigrates it. Words have meanings, and "selfish" has a negative force. It makes no sense to say that X's was acting selfishly, but that doesn't mean he was not acting properly.

You are disagreeing on the basis of semantics, or the analogy's ultimate conclusion?
My knee-jerk reaction was repulsion to the postulate of Boagie's (and Twain's) post. However, when I read the analogy to it's conclusion, I comprehended what the analogy taught, which I have already posted.

Believing scripture that backs the analogy I was forced to accept the postulate. By force, I don't imply that the fiber of my opinion on the subject changed, merely my opinion of the postulate. "Selfish" is a confusing term in this context, I believe "Selfness" would have been better for the palate.
That notwithstanding self-ish is applicable-ish too.