Sittin' On a Bar Stool...

Desideria (Moderator) says on Feb 15, 2008, 06:50:

a little bump to get to the "active" page...

"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."-President George W. Bush

kalder says on Feb 15, 2008, 07:39:

Finland was only imperfectly Christianised. This yearning for the elemental; stones, storm and virgin pine forests, may be a pagan race memory coming to the fore.

"kalder- have you ever had a woman?"--Sam Salmon

slguy says on Feb 15, 2008, 09:19:

if the yearning for forests, storms and stones is pagan, I shudder to think what my desire for warm breezes, swaying palm tress, and swaying latina hips denotes. is there a description that's a notch or two below pagan in the scheme of things?

I spent the afternoon of my boat sale on a bar stool, holding forth on the swayings being denied me, as my vessel faded in the distance....

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

msaucey says on Feb 15, 2008, 09:33:

Sorry Desi, I'm quite POSITIVE any conversation I've had at a Barstool had nothing philosophical about it, more anamotical...... hee-hee-hee....

The trouble about trying to make yourself stupider than you really are is that you very often succeed. - CS Lewis

rocinante says on Feb 15, 2008, 10:06:

"anybody else with an interesting philosophical exchange from a barstool?"

Philosophical exchange from a barstool? Maybe when they replace Washington and Lincoln with Kierkegaard and Schopenhauer on money.

"World economic indicators point to a democrat winning 2008. It will surely be Obama. Peso 1400 by November" Feb 5, 2008

msaucey says on Feb 15, 2008, 11:38:

I have had quite a few people tell me there life story at a barstool, but they tended to be a bit on the drunk side.... but, somehow or other this happens quite frequently to me... Heck, even the nurse was telling me her life story and I was just there for a TB shot!....

The trouble about trying to make yourself stupider than you really are is that you very often succeed. - CS Lewis

CatGirl says on Feb 15, 2008, 12:21:

Desi - I dont have an enlightening barstool experience, but I have something similar. Back in my younger and more aggressive days, my ex bf and I got a "wild hair" and as we traveled on airplanes - he would randomly start up conversations with people. After a short introduction and it seemed the person was somewhat comfortable with him he would ask " So, can I ask you an important question that both my girlfriend and I are curious about and have been asking as many people as possible". As always the person would say "sure". Then we would ask
"What is the meaning of life?" jajajajja
The response was amazing! everytime, the person would become very flustered and nervous and would not have any answer. I recall one woman saying " Why would you ask that? People just don't talk about those kinds of things" and of course my ex bf would say "why not, why would you live your life trying to figure out what it is all about and why we are all here and not have a discussion with other people about it?" jajaja

We never attempted this social experiment at a bar (I think we were underage anyways) - but I wonder if we might have had better answers to our question if the person had a little "spirit" in them. jajaja

ooops! ....Did I say that?

msaucey says on Feb 15, 2008, 12:31:

that's a great story CG....

The trouble about trying to make yourself stupider than you really are is that you very often succeed. - CS Lewis

rocinante says on Feb 15, 2008, 13:07:

CG the drinking age was 18 back in the day. You were travelling in planes with your boyfriend when you were 17 and younger? That in iteslf is worth a barstool conversation.

I used to go around in bars asking people how they got the holes in swiss cheese. The drunk responses i got from the guessers were priceless - one guy said "It was those damn mice". Someone else said "they mix in air before it dries and gets hard. It's part of the recipe, 2 cups of air".

"World economic indicators point to a democrat winning 2008. It will surely be Obama. Peso 1400 by November" Feb 5, 2008

houstongal says on Feb 15, 2008, 13:10:

lol Roci....2 cups of air

CatGirl says on Feb 15, 2008, 13:22:

Jajaja, yes Roc - I was travelling overseas at age 17 and up ;)...Guess a person can get a bit bored, in addition to learning NOT to take your shoes off or you will exit barefoot or in slippers jajaja
I like the swiss cheese explanations jajaja

ooops! ....Did I say that?

podborski says on Feb 15, 2008, 14:09:

I'm not sure I have an answer to the meaning of life question, but I do think I know what the purpose of life should be, and I really believe it. Personal happiness.

Very simple, nothing that would impress the intellectuals. But it works for me.

CatGirl says on Feb 15, 2008, 14:21:

Pod: jaja- I am quite sure that the answer is in every instance subjective and different for everyone. Amazing no one could ever answer. At age 17 - my answer was "To be the best you can be and do the best that you can do!"....I swear I did not steal that from the Armed Forces slogan either (hey! maybe they overheard me jajaja).

ooops! ....Did I say that?

CatGirl says on Feb 15, 2008, 14:32:

Pod: "Personal happiness"
Could not resist (sorry) - so with that being said, can we conclude that people who are pleasantly miserable should just be "happy" with misery ;)
jajaja

ooops! ....Did I say that?

slguy says on Feb 15, 2008, 14:41:

I'm fascinated at how similar pod's philosophy is, to my own. when forced into barroom discussions, I explain my own philosophy/religious belief in this way. 3 simple rules.
1. be happy every chance you get.
2. never intentionally harm another person.
3. help others, every chance you get.

any religion and/or philosophy that has more than these three rules, I want no part of. why complicate something that should be VERY simple?

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

Desideria (Moderator) says on Feb 15, 2008, 15:13:

Kalder....we never really welcomed Christianity in Finland. As a token of it, the English Bishop Henry got his head chopped off on the ice of the lake Köyliö after a short verbal exchange with a local peasant, Lalli, when he first arrived to Finland on a mission to christianize the pagan tribes of Finland,. They've raised a staue to his memory in Köyliö...no, not Henry's, but Lalli's :)

Yes, I thought about this thing with the four elements; as something stable and unchangeable in our lives, not as a pagan symbol but just as something to hold on.

Roci, "philosophical" as in tongue-in-cheek. I'm sure most people have had "philosophical exchanges" in a barroom situation. First comes philosophy, after a few more drinks it's anatomy.

"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."-President George W. Bush

houstongal says on Feb 15, 2008, 15:18:

"First comes philosophy, after a few more drinks it's anatomy." Good one Desi!

podborski says on Feb 15, 2008, 17:22:

I pretty much agree slguy, obviously, but a bit of further explanation, as we might vary on #3.

I do help others sometimes, I suppose because it gives me personal satisfaction. Not at all altruistic. I think it should be very clear that helping others is a voluntary thing, not a duty. As soon as someone suggests I 'owe' them something, I'm outta there.

The concept of altruism (not just helping others but sacrificing something you value for others) is pure evil IMHO. I think it's pretty ironic that it's a central concept of most religions and also of communism/socialism.

(I would have thought the similarities between the religion and communism would be more widely recognized by now, but I guess most people can't get past the simplistic 'communists are atheists' idea.)

slguy says on Feb 15, 2008, 17:33:

I agree completely, pod. the quickest way to see me hit the door is to suggest that I "owe" anyone. I'm not certain that there isn't some reason beyond simple self-gratification for helping out....but if there is, I'm not capable of the argument for justification...

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

CatGirl says on Feb 15, 2008, 19:17:

Kalder: The elements
To know
To do
To dare
To be silent....

ooops! ....Did I say that?

Desideria (Moderator) says on Feb 16, 2008, 14:24:

You guys are weird.
Altruism is one of the superior virtues that make people truly great, removed from the ordinary, run-of-the mill egotists.

"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."-President George W. Bush

CatGirl says on Feb 16, 2008, 15:24:

Desi: jajaja...not sure what or who you are talking about. jajaja

ooops! ....Did I say that?

Desideria (Moderator) says on Feb 16, 2008, 15:28:

Pod and Sail, who believe the personal happiness is the meaning of life.

"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."-President George W. Bush

CatGirl says on Feb 16, 2008, 15:47:

Desi: Got ya jajaja

ooops! ....Did I say that?

slguy says on Feb 16, 2008, 15:48:

somebody's gotta believe in it- why not us? ;)

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

Colombiche says on Feb 16, 2008, 15:49:

Today I was having a conversation with a close friend.

I was saying how happiness is about finding your true essence and exercicing control over our inner universe (the outer is a reflection of the inner) but also becoming aware of the intangible threads that connect us with other human beings (and other beings in general). I feel that it is my duty to help other human beings and if I am not fulfilling that duty my life loses meaning. I feel that giving=hapiness.

My friend then told me there is nothing special about helping people, if an old lady fell down in front of him he would pick her up. I said yes, but you wait until she falls, why don't you go seek out those who are in need of help now instead of waiting for them to fall down in front of you?

He told me I'm a wide eyed idealist.

No me den trago extranjero, que es caro y no sabe a bueno.... (Rafael Godoy)

slguy says on Feb 16, 2008, 15:57:

I guess I just prefer to think that I help because I choose to, NOT because i have a duty to. does that make a difference?

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

Colombiche says on Feb 16, 2008, 16:00:

Well it is obviously a choice and you could choose to live without helping others... but that wouldn't be much of my life IMHO. I misused the word duty.

No me den trago extranjero, que es caro y no sabe a bueno.... (Rafael Godoy)

Desideria (Moderator) says on Feb 16, 2008, 16:03:

See, there's a significant difference between "the true meaning of life" and "personal happiness". (This is classical barroom stuff....)
I believe the Gringos have been duped by the wording in the Declaration of Independence. We hold these truths to be self-evident........life, liberty and pursue of happiness. Life, liberty fine, pursue of happiness no. Yes, we pursue personal happiness every day of our lives, but it should not be the GOAL, not the meaning of life, beccause by this we bring down everything on a personal, individualistic level, and societies en large do NOT profit from this kind of thinking. It rips apart the fabric of society bringing more unhappiness than any other singular thing that I know that is deemed having a high and lasting moral value.

"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."-President George W. Bush

slguy says on Feb 16, 2008, 16:09:

I remember distinctly, the first paper i wrote in college that I got an A for. In philosophy 101. "Who's really a "good man" and how's he defined?"

1. Good ole Joe next door. Works at the Ford plant. Always there to lend a hand or a tool. Family man par excellence.

2. Cranky ole Abe. Never has a nice word to say to anyone. but- he owns a business that he created himself, and has 70 employees- all of them supporting their families from their earnings.

Who's the "good man"? My argument was, and is- both of them. equally.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

Colombiche says on Feb 16, 2008, 16:13:

I beg to differ Desi.

For me "happiness" is ephimeral... like sparks that come and go. We can't always be happy because we are going to encounter pain, disease and aging in our path. Contentment, on the other hand, comes from true detachment and acceptance of the transient nature of life. I had a friend who was dying of cancer and right until the last minute, she was a peaceful content soul inhabiting a disease ravaged body.

I don't know if life has a meaning. Life is a constant evolution. What had meaning yesterday might have no meaning today.

No me den trago extranjero, que es caro y no sabe a bueno.... (Rafael Godoy)

Desideria (Moderator) says on Feb 16, 2008, 16:18:

Which part of my comment did you not agree with, *biche? Of course, I was talking about "happiness" as something non tangible. However, most people set a price tag on theirs. Therefore, the discrepancy.

SL, define "good". Do you mean like "good" as an individual or useful for the community? They are not the same thing, not for me.

"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."-President George W. Bush

slguy says on Feb 16, 2008, 16:19:

ya see, Des, we differ fundamentally on the role of government in the lives of it's constituents. You see government as, I dunno, a force unto itself, a tool of good.

I want government to provide for national defense, keep the roads in good repair, and sometimes redistribute wealth to the degree that public schools fulfill a basic role in society without imposing pilosophical leanings on the students. Only these things.

I assume Hegel appeals.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

slguy says on Feb 16, 2008, 16:21:

"SL, define "good". Do you mean like "good" as an individual or useful for the community? They are not the same thing, not for me."

My point exactly. I'm not sure intent plays any meaningful role in goodness. Or in evil, for that matter.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

Desideria (Moderator) says on Feb 16, 2008, 16:36:

As I have stated before, I'm politically uneducated. I don't see the government as something removed from my sphere of influence, but as something as a conglomerate of individuals who reprent the interest of the majority of people in this country. They don't impose philosophical leanings on us, but decide over how our economy is going to look like in the next year or so....I have never, ever been persuaded by anybody in a position of authority to think this way or that. I've never even heard anybody been persuaded into any specific line of thinking in Sweden. Perhaps in Soviet Russia, but it's so totally far removed from our way of thinking as it could possibly be.

"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."-President George W. Bush

slguy says on Feb 16, 2008, 16:38:

When I mentioned leanings in public schools, des, I was thinking more about El Payaso's latest proclamations that socialism will henceforth be taught in all schools....etc.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

Desideria (Moderator) says on Feb 16, 2008, 16:55:

I think it's a GREAT idea to teach socialism in schools. Most Latinamericans or gringos don't have THE SLIGHTEST idea what socialism is all about. They start blabbering about communism and Castro and Lenin and get all in a knot when you ask them what are the basic differences between commmunism and social democracy etc....should be REQUIRED READING in every school in the continent of the Americas so that we could have a meaningful dialogue with people who actually studied socialism in school (like you did, slguy)

"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."-President George W. Bush

slguy says on Feb 16, 2008, 17:01:

I agree that all students should have exposure to all kinds of government/political systems. I was objecting to teaching that ANY of them are the ONLY one.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

Desideria (Moderator) says on Feb 16, 2008, 17:04:

Okidoki, we agree there. But that was not the issue, right?

"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."-President George W. Bush

slguy says on Feb 16, 2008, 17:10:

we started off with an issue? ;)

I think maybe I got sidetracked from inherent "good/evil", no?

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

Desideria (Moderator) says on Feb 16, 2008, 17:16:

Nah, no issue.
Just ramblings....good/evil is fine as an issue. Some people keep on debating the whole night on something much, much less...

"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."-President George W. Bush

slguy says on Feb 16, 2008, 17:18:

I'll need a drink/barstool for THAT lengthy a debate, I'm afraid! jajajajajjaa

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

billyb says on Feb 16, 2008, 17:32:

I guess i'm just shallow, but all my barstool coversations are either about sports or snafutty. If i ever had an existencial one, it sure didn't linger ;)

Desideria (Moderator) says on Feb 16, 2008, 17:42:

Ohh... I just supposed this is what everybody else did too...
I have been sittin' up many a luminous summer night until the sun is up discussing existencial issues...
Sports? Can be discussed in two short sentences. Sports? What sports? Nah, I don't think so.
What was the other one?

"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."-President George W. Bush

billyb says on Feb 16, 2008, 17:46:

Desi, sports coversations may be short, but there are soooo many of them and you can bet on them. The other one is.....

Desideria (Moderator) says on Feb 16, 2008, 17:53:

yes?

"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."-President George W. Bush

billyb says on Feb 16, 2008, 17:55:

Let's just say it is the reason most gringos go to colombia. Or most men do anything for that matter ;)

slguy says on Feb 16, 2008, 17:57:

ok, ok. I'll give her the opening for her possum foto. the other dearly beloved subject for male barstool philosophy is guess what? C H U C H A, des! jajajajajjajajaja

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

Desideria (Moderator) says on Feb 16, 2008, 17:57:

???? This?

"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."-President George W. Bush

slguy says on Feb 16, 2008, 17:58:

But I do have to agree with des. sports bullshit bores me silly.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

Desideria (Moderator) says on Feb 16, 2008, 18:03:

Sheeeet...
I'm getting to be too predictable...

"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."-President George W. Bush

slguy says on Feb 16, 2008, 18:04:

jajajajajajajajjajajajajjajajajjajajajajjajajajaja

God I love lobbing those meatballs.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

billyb says on Feb 16, 2008, 18:10:

Is that chucha sporting a mohawk?

slguy says on Feb 16, 2008, 18:11:

"Is that chucha sporting a mohawk?"

jajajajajjajajajajjaa

semi.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

Desideria (Moderator) says on Feb 16, 2008, 18:13:

I'm off..g'night guys

"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."-President George W. Bush

slguy says on Feb 16, 2008, 18:13:

nite des!

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

podborski says on Feb 16, 2008, 19:07:

desi you start off with the assumption that altruism is good and that no one could possibly dispute it, but I sure as hell do.

I am an individualist as well, I don't think the individual should be subordinate to some nebulous concept like 'society', 'the state', 'the fatherland', 'god' or anything else.

When you put altruism and collectivism (opposite of individualism) together, you get people believing that there's nothing wrong with sacrificing the rights of indiviuals for the good of 'society'. or 'the fatherland'.

And before you know it, you have Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.

An example (not real but just to make the point):

Suppose to save the lives of 10 (or 100, 100 ,1,000,000) people ONE innocent person had to be killed.

I say it's absolutely immoral to kill one person to save ANY number of others.

A collectivist would say, 'well, if we measure the value of the lives saved, add them up and subtract the value of the life lost, society is better off killing the one person, so it's moral'.

That's the very briefest coles notes version, and it's a hypothetical example, but it is exactly what happens in real life in collectivist political systems (communism, socialism, fascism, any totalitarian politcal system).

The difference between the various collectivist systems is only a matter of degree.

So, no, social democracies like sweden aren't exactly annilhilating people for 'the common good', but they have established the moral principle for doing so, and it only takes one nutcase leader to take the concept to the extreme (Castro, Chavez) and it can happen, as history has shown.

slguy says on Feb 16, 2008, 20:08:

does altruism necessarily infer a societal obligation, pod? I'd have to ponder that a bit. Can't it be a freestanding concept?

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

Desideria (Moderator) says on Feb 17, 2008, 04:10:

"Altruism is selfless concern for the welfare of others. It is a traditional virtue in many cultures, and central to many religious traditions. In English, this idea was often described as the Golden rule of ethics. Some newer philosophies such as egoism have criticized the concept, with philosophers arguing that there is no moral obligation to help others.

Altruism can be distinguished from a feeling of loyalty and duty. Altruism focuses on a motivation to help others or a want to do good without reward, while duty focuses on a moral obligation towards a specific individual (for example, God, a king), a specific organization (for example, a government), or an abstract concept (for example, patriotism etc). Some individuals may feel both altruism and duty, while others may not. Pure altruism is giving without regard to reward or the benefits of recognition"( Wiki)

I think your answer is right there, slguy. "Altruism can be distinguished from a feeling of loyalty or duty".

Altruism is NOT the same thing as moral obligation. They may be closely related, but not necessarily the same. Altruism is a central value in almost all religions, including buddhism, but it's not compatible with the examples cited by podborski (totalitarian terror governments of Pol Pot etc. that's just a propagandist tool to demerit collectivism as a human virtue).

No, countries like Sweden with strong social democratic traditions (if not always leading the country) there is no established moral principle of colectivism. Social democracy is NOT totalitarian; it allows you all the liberty of conscience you could wish for. Many people of these northern countries have along history of social coperation even before the word "socialism" was invented; it was needed for the survival of the community and individual. We could not afford to have too many lone rangers, but needed the manpower to harness the plow, the hunt the bear, the protect our women and children from wild animals.

Social co-operation is a trait that has been inbred in our genes from the first dawn of humankind. Without a great muscular power, size, body armour, claws, fangs etc. the human species would have perished if they had not learned how to live in groups and co-operate for protection. The larger brain gave us the language and also enough sense to help each other.

There's room for both individualists and team players in our modern societies. Sometimes it's good to be both, given the right circumstances.

Altruism as an ethical stance can only produce good, it cannot be harnessed to produce evil. Why? Because the whole essence of altruism (to think about others before yourself) is individual and personal. It has NEVER been taking away other people's individual liberties for the benefit of the majority. That's political propaganda and manipulation.

"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."-President George W. Bush

Desideria (Moderator) says on Feb 17, 2008, 04:34:

http://www.queendom.com/tests/access_page/index.htm?idRegTest=692

If you want to know which way you lean as an individual egotist or altruist, take the test

"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."-President George W. Bush

podborski says on Feb 17, 2008, 04:45:

that's an excellent definition of altruism desi, I don't dispute it at all, but it's missing the crucial concept of sacrifice. And it is certainly true that about 99% of the world's population believes altruism is a virtue. I'm one of the 1% who do not. (and I would call myself an 'egoist', but not an 'egotist', there's a difference).

Why is sacrifice crucial? Well, for example, if I have more food than I can possibly eat, then of course it is no problem for me to give the excess away. Is that some great moral virtue? I don't think so. I gave up nothing.

But if I had only enough food for myself, and I decided to give some of it away to a starving child, and maybe I suffer, become ill or die myself, THAT is what most people call a virtuous act, something to be praised.

People who risk/sacrifice their lives to rescue others are always regarded as heroes.

Now, while I might (who knows until it happens) risk/sacrifice my life for close friends or family, I sure wouldn't do it for a total stranger.

And by that I don't mean I would ignore a person I saw in trouble. Sure I'd do what I could, call police, intervene IF I believed I wouldn't lose my life or be seriously injured.

What I would not do, is take a serious risk to my life to save a total stranger. I think that's an irrational and even immoral act, because I would be sacrificing something I value highly (my own life) for something that I value less (the life of someone I don't even know).

Once the concept of sacrifice (which means giving up a higher value for a lower one) is accepted as moral, it is used by dictators to justify their atrocities.

You say: "(altruism) has NEVER been taking away other people's individual liberties for the benefit of the majority. That's political propaganda and manipulation."

Sorry, but that's just not true. Why were Nazi's willing to go to war? To sacrifice themselves for 'the fatherland'. For Russians it was 'the motherland'. For many religious people it is 'god' or 'allah' or whatever.

I'm not saying that every altruist is evil, or has plans to commit genocide. I am saying that the concept of altruism, that sacrificing your rights/life for some supposedly higher value like 'society' or the 'common good' is an evil concept that can be and has been used to justify most of the worst atrocities in history.

(and yes, I am fully aware that 99% of the world thinks I am nuts)

Desideria (Moderator) says on Feb 17, 2008, 04:57:

No, perhaps not nuts, or perhaps yes, but not alone, I think you and Rubito studied in the same school.

Where I categorically disagree with you is the motivation of the individual soldiers supporting Hitler or any charismatic but evil leader. That is not altruism; it's mass hysteria, duty, obligation, nationalistic and patriotic frenzy. The soldier went to war for Deutschland Deutschland Uber Alles not for a personal sacrifice. The altruist is the solder, seeing a wounded comrade risks his own life to rescue him.

"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."-President George W. Bush

podborski says on Feb 17, 2008, 05:18:

the soldiers were willing to sacrifice their lives for Deutschland Deutschland Uber Alles, because everyone, schoolteachers, parents, priests, told them it was a noble and honourable thing to die for their country.

One of the most evil and dangerous ideas ever.

Yes, the soldiers think they are doing the right thing. Their leaders know the real truth (although some may be truly insane).

The point is, the idea that sacrificing yourself for something/somebody else is moral provides the intellectual justification for war mongers.

podborski says on Feb 17, 2008, 05:20:

yup Rubito and I agree on many major points, but not on everything : )

Desideria (Moderator) says on Feb 17, 2008, 06:39:

At that time of history everybody was taught that, it was the legacy of romantic nationalism in Europe. God, Family and Fatherland.....but it was not fuelled by any altruistic motivations. Honor and duty, yes, to help or even sacrifice something valuable for somebody else have always been individual actions. I don't see the direct connection there. Patriotism, politics, philosophical tendencies of the time period explain the apparent altruistic sacrifice of the soldier, but I don't see it as beeing altruistic in the core.

"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."-President George W. Bush

Portena says on Feb 17, 2008, 16:37:

"I believe the Gringos have been duped by the wording in the Declaration of Independence. We hold these truths to be self-evident........life, liberty and pursue of happiness."

Desi,

I've always thought of "the pursuit of happiness" as the founding father's term for self-actualization (along the lines of Maslow's theory of self-actualization (see Wikipedia)).
Of course, the more anti-social types can twist that to mean their right to pursue whatever they want despite the negative, perhaps even tragic consequences for others (as in ENRON).

Self-actualization and Maslow's Hierarchy (Wikipedia)
The term was later used by Abraham Maslow in his article, A Theory of Human Motivation. Maslow explicitly defines self-actualization to be “the desire for self-fulfillment, namely the tendency for him [the individual] to become actualized in what he is potentially. This tendency might be phrased as the desire to become more and more what one is, to become everything that one is capable of becoming.��? [2] Maslow used the term self actualization to describe a desire, not a driving force, that could lead to realizing one’s capabilities. Maslow did not feel that self actualization determined one’s life; rather, he felt that it gave the individual a desire, or motivation to achieve budding ambitions. [3] Maslow’s usage of the term is now popular in modern psychology when discussing personality from the humanistic approach.

A basic definition from a typical college text book defines self actualization according to Maslow simply as “the full realization of one’s potential��? without any mention of antiquated Goldstein. [4]

A more explicit definition of self actualization according to Maslow is “intrinsic growth of what is already in the organism, or more accurately of what is the organism itself…self actualization is growth-motivated rather than deficiency-motivated.��? [5] This explanation emphasizes the fact that self actualization can not normally be reached until other lower order necessities of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs are satisfied. While Goldstein defined self actualization as a driving force, Maslow uses the term to describe personal growth that takes place once lower order needs have been met.

People that have reached self actualization are characterized by certain behaviors. Common traits amongst people that have reached self actualization are as follows: [6]

They embrace reality and facts rather than denying truth.
They are spontaneous.
They are interested in solving problems which may include personal problems or the emotional conflicts of others.
They are accepting of themselves and others and lack prejudice.
For Goldstein it was a motive and for Maslow it was a level of development; for both, however, roughly the same kinds of qualities were expressed: independence, autonomy, a tendency to form few but deep friendships, a ‘philosophical’ sense of humor, a tendency to resist outside pressures and a general transcendence of the environment rather than a simple ‘coping’ with it. [7]


This would be in sync with Catgirl's comment:

At age 17 - my answer was "To be the best you can be and do the best that you can do!"....I swear it did not steal that from the Armed Forces slogan either (hey! maybe they overheard me jajaja).

Whereas the selfish and blind pursuit of happiness might not benefit others, it seems to me that self-actualization would in the sense that self-actualized types would be more invested or interested in facilitating the personal growth and welfare of others.

I feel better! I can smile at it now, I feel better. Ohhhh, better! Gnarls Barkley

Desideria (Moderator) says on Feb 17, 2008, 21:29:

Yes, portena, it would make sense to think that perhaps the wording would be different if it had been written more recently. I never actually thought that "pursuit of happiness" would mean "self-actualization" but rather some nebulous term for economic progress.

There's an element of contemporaneous thinking in the prevalent society that is more accentuated in USA than anywhere else that I've been; I detect it in the talk and behaviour patterns of my USA-raised relatives (nieces, nephews etc.) of instant gratification, it's me and me wants it now and no excuses. (I had a visit recently...became bored of having to drive around all the time because she needed a cola light, he needed something else...while a local girls would've just said what the heck, I'll drink water or orange juice instead....), So, it's these little things, the unwillingness to wait, to time it, to adapt to circumstances....plan things ahead. No matter, however, it was just a bit of cultural contrasts.

There's an element of eagle-eyed individualism in the North American society that I find borderline obnoxious; when you focus so totally in satisfying your own needs that you become blind and deaf to everything else around you. Would that find a place in Maslow's pyramid as well? Perhaps not at the top?

"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."-President George W. Bush

podborski says on Feb 18, 2008, 07:39:

but desi, as a good altruist you should have taken great joy in sacrificing your time and energy to fulfill the wishes of others! : )

A true individualist would not ask nor expect someone else to cater to their needs, that's pretty much the opposite of what indivisualism stands for wouldn't you say?

The idea of individualisn is that each person looks after themselves (and their dependants of course), period.

As opposed to hedonism or egotism where one believes oneself to be the center of the universe, and that everything should be handed to you on a platter.

I agree though, there are lots of those people around. More in the USA? Maybe, probably, but I think the rest of the world won't be far behind, unfortunately.

slguy says on Feb 18, 2008, 08:05:

ok, ok.

I think that individually, most of us have a moral obligation to be of help, if/when the opportunity presents itself. NOT a societal obligation, mind you. Only a moral obligation, led by an internal moral compass.

pod, say what you will, but I have my doubts that you never feel compelled to help if/when that choice is presented you by your own compass, NOT by outside influences. I've seen too much heart in your posts to believe that you are capable of disregarding the chance to be of help- as long as no one gets a chance to light you up about it, later ;) or ever expects it of you in the future, based on one moment of weakness. jajajajajajaja

I want NO part of ANY society that demands any form of societal altruism of it's citizens. DO NOT tell me that I am obligated by anything except my own internal compass to do anything about the ills of society, nor to try and alter what is, and always will be, the simple fact that people have different lots in life, economically, educationally, and in almost every other manner conceivable. To try to level the playing field for everyone is exactly equal to eliminating incentives to persons of merit to achieve their respective potentials - and we all have seen the net effect of eliminating incentives to achievement.

I feel no compulsion to waste my energy trying to talk a drunk into rehab, or a hungry guy who is unemployed into getting a job, unless that drunk/hungry guy is my "family". BUT- there are children in west africa and brasil that have meals every day now, because my credit card gets charged monthly for providing them basic foodstuffs, when their parent(s) seem incapable of doing so. The kids are my Achilles heels, when it comes to altruism, I guess. ;)

So- does this make me a cold bastard who has a soft spot for kids? Or a softy who's got a cold spot for laziness, and doesn't see 'society" as the cure for anything?

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

Desideria (Moderator) says on Feb 18, 2008, 10:13:

Poddie, I never said I was an altruist. I just ADMIRE that quality in OTHER people.:))) I 'm too egoistic, too stingy, too busy, too poor and too distracted to be an altruist. I took the test, however, and my score wasn't as bad as I thought.

I've had a feeling during all this excahange that we all talk about different things. Talking to a druggie trying to direct him/her towards a better and more rewarding lifestyle is not altruism, it's a waste of time ... (Unless the druggie is somebody close to you, in which case it becomes a moral obligation and a labour of love).

Driving too spoiled, higly individualistic ("I only smoke this brand and you can only buy it there.....I want to have some snacks, but I don't want those from that store, I want the other brand that is sold in another store 15 km. from here..." you guys gas is a almost two bucks a LITRE, tell you what you guys tank the car, I'll lend you the car and buy you guys a map....oh, I can't read all these weird Swedish names...ok, plan number two, we go to this mall that is nearby and we buy all the stuff you need, but we are not going to drive to the other end of town for every little thing..." I could only come to a conclusion that these young people were extremely occupied in pursuing their own personal happiness.

Altruism? It's something bigger than that. It's lending a hand in a moment of crisis, listening to a friend crying at your shoulder when something has shattered his/her world, even if we were planning to have a nice quiet evening in front of a tv and watch...what is that you gringos can't miss? Superbowl? Without expecting any reward for it.

It's diving into a river into a crashed car, pulling a child out, endangering your own life trying to save somebody else's. It's sharing your meal with a beggar, taking care of a sick friend (even when you don't really have the time for that) things like that. Some people find that altruistic side in themselves only at the moment of danger and crisis. But it's ALWAYS an individual act of reaching out with no thought for your own comfort.

I find it admirable. Perhaps it's just stupid.

"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."-President George W. Bush

Plato says on Feb 18, 2008, 10:43:

Ahh Desi, my kind of post. Thanks. I've had plenty of philosophical/religious conversations at the bar sitting on a bar stools or in booths. In fact, I wrote many of my theology and philosophy papers drunk off my ass in pubs while on the road for work. Some how, in my drunken stupor, I was able to gain some clarity on ultimate issues. Yes, indeed, in the spirit of drunken medieval monks, I did the same.

Now, I've met women who after talking to me either thought I was boring - because they couldn't understand a word I was saying - or extremely interesting, and they wanted to jump my bones, even company executives I worked with during the day at happy hour. Didn't know what that was all about. Perhaps as the night went on, they wanted me to shut up and move on to the next level of the enounter. I didn't. Maybe that was the problem.

What people think is taboo to talk about, such a religion and philosophy, usually makes for great conversations at the bar. And yes, I feel that "connections" are made between strangers during these conversations. It's almost as if you've known them from some other place in time. Then you part ways. C'est la vie.

Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

Plato says on Feb 18, 2008, 10:57:

On the definition of happiness:

I don't think happiness is as ephemeral as suggested. In fact, it's quite simple and tangible. On this I invoke Voltaire's Candide. In the end, after traveling all around the world searching for the greatest possible thing, happiness, it amounts to just enjoying and living a simple life.

Our struggle as people is basically a struggle to keeps things simple. But we're complicated beings and thus complicate our lives with a ton of crap. We make far too much drama for ourselves and therapists make a ton of money telling people to keep things simple.


Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

Desideria (Moderator) says on Feb 18, 2008, 11:17:

Plato, as the choice of my avatar indicates, I just love a good tale. I like to hear it, I like to tell it.

I believe happiness is a mirage. We only find it when it's not there any longer. In the end we settle for the lesser bliss: the contentment of a simple life.
Cheers,
Desi (wearing the face of Sheherezade, the storyteller)

"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."-President George W. Bush

rocinante says on Feb 18, 2008, 11:27:

Objectivism - Ayn Rand

from Published essay's, and from "For the New
Intellectual" and "Atlas Shrugged"

1.) Reality exists as an objective absolute—
facts are facts, independent of man's
feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.

2.) Reason (the faculty which identifies and
integrates the material provided by man's
senses) is man's only means of perceiving
reality, his only source of knowledge, his
only guide to action, and his basic means of
survival.

3.) Man—every man—is an end in himself, not
the means to the ends of others. He must
exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing
himself to others nor sacrificing others to
himself. The pursuit of his own rational
self-interest and of his own happiness is the
highest moral purpose of his life.

4.) The ideal political-economic system is
laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system
where men deal with one another, not as
victims and executioners, nor as masters and
slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary
exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system
where no man may obtain any values from
others by resorting to physical force, and no
man may initiate the use of physical force
against others. The government acts only as a
policeman that protects man's rights; it uses
physical force only in retaliation and only
against those who initiate its use, such as
criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of
full capitalism, there should be (but,
historically, has not yet been) a complete
separation of state and economics, in the
same way and for the same reasons as the
separation of state and church.

If you held these concepts with total
consistency, as the base of your convictions,
you would have a full philosophical system to
guide the course of your life. But to hold
them with total consistency — to understand, to
define, to prove and to apply them—requires
volumes of thought. Which is why philosophy
cannot be discussed while standing on one
foot—nor while standing on two feet on both
sides of every fence. This last is the
predominant philosophical position today,
particularly in the field of politics.

Capitalism was the system originate in the
US. Its success, its progress, its
achievements are unprecedented in human
history. America's political philosophy was
based on man's own right to his own life, to
his own liberty, to the pursuit of his own
happiness, which means man's right to exist
for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself
to others nor sacrificing others to himself;
and that the political implementation of this
right is a society where men deal with one
another as traders, by voluntary exchange to
mutual benefit.

This was America's implicit code moral code,
but it had not been formulated explicitly.
This was a flaw in her intellectual armor,
which is now destroying her. America and
capitalism are perishing for lack of a moral
base.

The destroyer is the morality is altruism.

Altruism holds that man has no right to exist
for his own sake, that service to others is
the only moral justification of his
existence, and that self-sacrifice is his
highest moral duty. The political expression
of altruism is collectivism or statism, which
holds that man's life and work belong to the
state - to society, to the group, the gang,
the race, the nation - and that state may
dispose of him in any way it pleases for the
sake of whatever it deems to be its own
tribal, collective good.

From her start, America was torn by the clash
of her political system with the altruist
morality. Capitalism and altruism are
incompatible; they cannot coexist in the same
man or in the same society. Today the
conflict has reached its ultimate climax; the
choice is clear-cut: either a new morality of
rational self-interest, with its consequences
of freedom, justice, progress and man's
happiness on earth - or the primordial
morality of altruism, with its consequences
of slavery, brute force, stagnant terror, and
sacrificial furnaces.

You may observe the practical results of
altruism and statism all around us in today's
world - such as the slave labor camps of
Soviet Russia, where twenty one million
political prisoners work on the construction
of government projects and die of PLANNED
malnutrition, human life being cheaper than
food - or the gas chambers and mass slaughter
of Nazi Germany - or the terror and
starvation of Red China - or the hysteria of
Cuba where the government offers men for sale
- or the wall of East Berlin, where human
beings leap from roofs or crawl through
sewers in order to escape, while guards shoot
at fleeing CHILDREN.

Observe these atrocities, then ask yourself
whether any of it would be possible if men had
not accepted the idea that man is a
sacrificial animal to be immolated for the
sake of the "public good". Read the speeches
of those countries' political leaders and ask
yourself what arguments would be left to them
if the word "sacrifice" were regarded not as
a moral ideal, but as the anti-human evil it
is.

And then, listen to the speeches of our
present Administration [At that time Kennedy] and ask
yourself the same question.

"World economic indicators point to a democrat winning 2008. It will surely be Obama. Peso 1400 by November" Feb 5, 2008

Desideria (Moderator) says on Feb 18, 2008, 11:47:

I've never found Ayn Rand worth my time. She has totally misfigured the concept of altruism in her works and her pathos leaves an unpleasant taste in your mouth....just like you just tasted some kind of poisonous fruit....

"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."-President George W. Bush

rocinante says on Feb 18, 2008, 12:02:

Altruism is very objective Desi and what Pod, myself and Ayn Rand are speaking of seems to differ from what the norm would call altruism... We are taling about hardcore altruism as opposed to helping an old lady cross the street or giving to charity.

Basic human compasion to help others less fortunate as humans or in a less fortunate situation is not what Ayn Rand is talking about nor Pod or myselfI. I scored an 82 out of 100 on the Altruist quiz site and completely agree with Objectivism. What a dichotomy. Or not?

Example:


Q You are in jam-packed traffic. The cars are lined up bumper to bumper. One unfortunate individual is trying to merge with this stream of traffic from a side road but no one will let him/her in. You would:


a.) Stop and wave him/her in
b.) Momentarily leave him/her some space ahead of you – it’s up to him/her to take the opportunity to pass ahead.
c.) Inch forward so she/he has no chance of butting in.
d.) Ignore him/her – someone else will let him/her in.

Q You are walking down the street one evening. There are lots of cars zooming by, but almost no pedestrians. You glance across the street and see a very old woman at a crosswalk waiting to cross. She is leaning on a cane and doesn't have the speed to get across the road. She keeps stepping off the curb to make her move, but fast approaching cars keep intimidating her. None of the drivers seem to see her, and nobody is stopping. What do you do?


A. Cross the road and ask her if she would like some help.
B. Hold up traffic long enough for her to cross.
C. Keep walking – someone will let her through eventually.
D. Keep walking, but feel somewhat guilty.
E. From across the road, yell out to her and ask if she needs help.


I let the car get out and hold up traffic for the old lady. Does this make me a true altruist? Would I sacrifice my life or a substantial chunk of my happiness for these strangers? Two different levels and I'm afraid therein lies the debate because I agree whole hearted with Colombiche - except for her taste in buble gum music.

"World economic indicators point to a democrat winning 2008. It will surely be Obama. Peso 1400 by November" Feb 5, 2008

Desideria (Moderator) says on Feb 18, 2008, 12:11:

Ok, in that case I don't have a slightest idea what altruism is all about. I thought I did, but obviously I don't. Because we are NOT talking about the same thing at all here.

"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."-President George W. Bush

CatGirl says on Feb 18, 2008, 12:33:

Roc: Very well put ...I especially liked these statements

"1.) Reality exists as an objective absolute—
facts are facts, independent of man's
feelings, wishes, hopes or fears."

and

"This was America's implicit code moral code,
but it had not been formulated explicitly.
This was a flaw in her intellectual armor,
which is now destroying her. America and
capitalism are perishing for lack of a moral
base."

Nice to know there are still people out there that would help a little old lady across the street ;)

ooops! ....Did I say that?

CatGirl says on Feb 18, 2008, 12:36:

BTW: Roc: Have you ever read Thomas Paine "The Age of Reason" ?
OR..."Making Sense of it all..Pascal and the Meaning of Life" Thomas V. Morris?

ooops! ....Did I say that?

rocinante says on Feb 18, 2008, 13:03:

Desi, no we are NOT talking about the same thing here. Yes we need to differentiate between the degree of altruism. Namely:

Sacrifice (risk or loss of life and happines for someone else)

and

The helping of others resulting from true human compassion.

I believe one can help those less fortunate (from feelings of compassion) without risking life and happiness. I believe both are being spoken here and the distinction needs to be made.

"World economic indicators point to a democrat winning 2008. It will surely be Obama. Peso 1400 by November" Feb 5, 2008

rocinante says on Feb 18, 2008, 13:18:

Cat Girl I have not.

I see SL guy is/was already there - did not got to this post before my rantings:

"I want NO part of ANY society that demands any form of societal altruism of it's citizens. DO NOT tell me that I am obligated by anything except my own internal compass to do anything about the ills of society, nor to try and alter what is, and always will be, the simple fact that people have different lots in life, economically, educationally, and in almost every other manner conceivable. To try to level the playing field for everyone is exactly equal to eliminating incentives to persons of merit to achieve their respective potentials - and we all have seen the net effect of eliminating incentives to achievement." -SLGUY

Very well put. I bet he still hepls the old lady and donates to charity.

"World economic indicators point to a democrat winning 2008. It will surely be Obama. Peso 1400 by November" Feb 5, 2008

CatGirl says on Feb 18, 2008, 13:18:

Desi: It's been a while since I have visited this thread. I took the test and at the end the author is definitely attempting to collect data (possibly for research/paper). Some of the questions appear life experienced based, depending on how much poverty you have been exposed to and experienced in your lifetime. I think I'd like to see the parameters used to define the test as "scientific" (unless I read incorrectly) Was much shorter than I expected too.
Either way, interesting exercise Desi ;) thanks

ooops! ....Did I say that?

CatGirl says on Feb 18, 2008, 13:23:

Roc: About slygy, I am quite sure of it, jajaja. ...Actually I am sure he'd go against the grain just to show you he can jajaja

What's even worse is when your own immediate bretheren attempt to alter your actions for self serving manipualtive reasons. You have to nip that in the bud too. I guess it starts with yourself.

ooops! ....Did I say that?

houstongal says on Feb 18, 2008, 13:37:

I'm going to add fuel to the fire with this:

Altruism: an accident of nature?

Bees, bats, ravens and humans often help one another. But usually there’s a hidden agenda.

Bernd Heinrich, PhD, was hiking through the woods in Maine when he happened upon a group of ravens feasting on a dead moose. They were making quite a ruckus, recalls Heinrich, a biology professor at the University of Vermont. In fact, the birds used a loud call that Heinrich had never heard before, a call that seemed to attract even more ravens to the area. Their behavior puzzled the researcher.

“Ecological theory would tell you that a food bonanza would be defended and not shared,� he says.

But the birds were sharing. Some of the ravens even returned to their roost to recruit more animals, Heinrich observed. The strange behavior inspired the biologist to conduct a series of field studies, which he eventually published in the book “Ravens in Winter� (Simon and Schuster, 1989).

Heinrich’s helpful ravens are now a classic example of animal altruism, says Jeff Stevens, PhD, a psychology professor at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development in Germany. But like most examples of animal altruism, the apparently selfless act had selfish benefits.

The sharing ravens, it turned out, were juveniles who had found the moose carcass in a mature raven’s territory. By bringing other young ravens to the feast, they avoided being chased off by the territory-holding bird. For any behavior to survive natural selection, it needs to help an animal or its genetic material, he notes.

“True altruism...paying a cost to help another individual and never ever receiving any kind of benefit, is not very common,� Stevens says. “It wouldn’t make much sense biologically for that to happen.�

Help a brother out

More commonly, when an animal assists another, there is a hidden reward for the helper, says Nigel Barber, PhD, a Maine-based psychologist and author of “Kindness in a Cruel World� (Prometheus Books, 2004). Perhaps the most widespread form of altruism, he notes, is the case of a parent protecting and feeding its young. Birds will rob themselves of nutrition to regurgitate food into the gaping maws in their nest. But even if an altruistic act endangers a parent’s own life, it makes evolutionary sense to increase the likelihood one’s young will survive, Barber notes.

“They are acting in the interest of their genes, if not their own lives,� he says.

A similar principle is at play when an animal assists its siblings or cousins, says Stevens. This is the case when worker bees devote themselves to feeding the offspring of the hive’s queen, instead of trying to reproduce themselves. The bee phenomenon puzzled Charles Darwin, and may be why he sat on his theory of natural selection for more than 20 years. The answer, proposed by biologist William Hamilton in the 1960s, is that sterile worker bees are helping to further their genes because they are so closely related to the young they are helping to raise.

“Most examples of altruism do involve kin,� Stevens says.

That’s true of humans too, notes Barber. Many studies have shown that while people do help strangers, they are more likely to give money to relatives. Additionally, adopted children, on average, get a smaller share of inheritances than biological children, according to an analysis of 1,538 California estates, published in a 1992 issue of Ethology and Sociobiology (Vol. 13, No. 5, pages 495–522).

“This may support kin selection, but I think that is probably not doing justice to the complexity of the situation,� says Barber, noting that some adopted children may enter into a family as toddlers or even teens, and subsequently may not develop as close as a relationship with their parents.

Even for bats, familiarity—as well as their genetic relatedness—seems to increase the likelihood of altruistic behavior.

Primitive insurance policies

Vampire bats have a fast metabolism and a food supply that is high in protein but low in fat. That means that they must feed on the blood of cattle or other animals every 36 hours, or they die.

So it surprised biologist Gerald Wilkinson, PhD, when he discovered, in the 1980s, that female bats would share their blood with unlucky hunters, regurgitating blood into the mouths of female roost mates.

“I had observed a lot of cases of them feeding their own young, which is how they wean their young from milk to blood, but this was the first time I had seen adults feeding other adults,� notes Wilkinson, now a program director at the National Science Foundation.

In a 1984 study, published in Nature (Vol. 308, No. 1, pages 181–184), Wilkinson reported that the animals did tend to feed closely related kin. But they also would feed “friends�—unrelated bats they roosted with. The friend would return the favor later, Wilkinson reports.

As a result of the animals’ inborn tendency to share, female bats manage to live upwards of 15 years, says Wilkinson. Stingy male bats survive about half that long.

“The adaptive rationale behind all of this is sort of an insurance policy,� says Barber. “You pay in a small amount and benefit when you need it later.�

Whether the bats are aware of their sharing policy is a matter of contention. It’s possible that they are born with a useful rule: help out familiar animals. Most of the time, that rule helps propagate their genes, as most roost mates are related, says Stevens.

In fact, pure altruism may be an accident of evolution, researchers suggest. A vampire bat that feeds an unrelated roost mate is, in effect, mistaking it for a sister. A bird that adopts another animal’s chick does so because it’s compelled to feed every hungry mouth in its nest. And raven researcher Bernd Heinrich treats his dog as part of the family because the human tendency for empathy has run amok, he says.

“It’s part of our social nature to help those that we are associated with,� says Heinrich “It’s not that we evolved to love dogs, and as a side product we love our babies. It is just the opposite.�

http://www.apa.org/monitor/dec06/altruism.html

Desideria (Moderator) says on Feb 18, 2008, 13:38:

BTW, CatGirl, Ayn Rand would NOT help the old lady cross the street. She would help the old lady half way and then let the traffic kill her off, because the old lady has outlived her usefullness and has turned into a hindrance. Make no mistake about her compromise with the humanity.

"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."-President George W. Bush

slguy says on Feb 18, 2008, 13:57:

a little harsh in our perspective of the eminent Ms. Rand, aren't we, des? ;)

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

Plato says on Feb 18, 2008, 14:21:

I agree with Desi on Ayn Rand. Wish I had time to elaborate.


Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

slguy says on Feb 18, 2008, 14:25:

"Life, liberty fine, pursue of happiness no. Yes, we pursue personal happiness every day of our lives, but it should not be the GOAL, not the meaning of life, beccause by this we bring down everything on a personal, individualistic level, and societies en large do NOT profit from this kind of thinking. It rips apart the fabric of society bringing more unhappiness than any other singular thing that I know that is deemed having a high and lasting moral value."

I just reread this thread, and i'm gonna have to call BS on this, Des.

I can think of numerous examples of devotion to "society" causing untold harm. Nazi Germany, for one. If more Germans had been concerned with personal happiness by NOT being party to persecution of the jews (yea, I know, this assumes that the vast majority of Germans were at least uncomfortable with the plight of European jewry, but I believe it to be true) and had followed their own internal compasses, it's possible the Holocaust would have been at least minimalized, if not averted entirely. By your logic, the German people rightfully ignored their personal happiness for the betterment of society- and look where THAT got us.

In our own US society, I would argue VEHEMENTLY that most of the technological advances bestowed upon the world by the US in the 20th century were gifts originating in the pursuit of persoanl happiness. Think Bill Gates accomplished what he did because of altruism? Henry Ford? Thomas Edison? Ted Turner? All men of great accomplishment in their respective fields, who contributed mightily to society's betterment - but to a man, began their endeavors driven not by altruism, but by the need to accomplish and feed their own huge egos. From my perspective, none of them tore apart the fabric of society in their pursuits...on the contrary, they all made lasting, positive contributions to not only the US, but to the world. And BTW- all of them, later in life, used their vast personal wealth for what you would, I hope, deem altruistic endeavors.

I just don't buy that pursuing personal happiness is a pox on society as a whole. Sorry.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

Plato says on Feb 18, 2008, 14:27:

Ayn Rand - atheist. Period. Will not deal with it.

Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

Plato says on Feb 18, 2008, 14:44:

All right. TIME out! Any discussion about the Germans in WWII must include Immanuel Kant and his ethical system, namely the categorical imperative, not Ayn Rand's.

If acted upon correctly, one is altruistic if you perform your duty for the good without ulterior motives. The Nazis thought they were doing exactly that and they were wrong. Case in point: Adolf Eichmann. Hannah Arendt observed and wrote about his trial during the Nuremburg Trials. In her book she quoted Eichmann having said that he was doing his "duty" according to the Kantian philosophy.

For example, do you feel good when you help and old lady cross the street? I do. According to Kant, you shouldn't. It was your duty to help the lady and the act has moral worth without you having ulterior motives .

The problem? We're human and can't help but have some kind of motive, even for the best intentions. So, altruism in the pure sense, depending how you define it, and if divorces from human motive, does not exist.

Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

slguy says on Feb 18, 2008, 14:45:

Benedict - anti-condom activist. Won't consider it.

;)

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

MaFe says on Feb 18, 2008, 14:45:

SL, while living in Germany, I came across many (I went to to school there) and many felt that the Germans HAD to go along with Nazi Germany,
With everything else you wrote; I agree.

"No comment" is a splendid expression. I am using it again and again." -Winston Churchill

slguy says on Feb 18, 2008, 14:50:

I wasn't going on about Rand, nor Kant, my friend, as much as i was about Desi's position that subjugating oneself to society's goals is worthwhile. While my example of Nazi Germany is extreme, maybe, I stand by my point. ANYTHING that seeks to replace individual morality for the sake of the good of "society" reeks, to my way of thinking- and is VERY dangerous to that society it purports to help.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

Plato says on Feb 18, 2008, 14:56:

"Subjugating oneself to society's goals is worthwhile." That' a Kantian position. You disagree with it. I do too.

However, you come into the problem of man being a social animal ( Aristotle). How do you account for that?

Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

slguy says on Feb 18, 2008, 14:56:

MaFe- I don't doubt you for a moment. I think I mentioned that I believe that most germans were at least in disagreement with the Nazi's treatment of the jews. But my point still stands. If more of the German people who were disgusted by the mistreatment of the jews had stepped forward, had followed their moral compasses, maybe much suffering could have been averted.

There is something in the german psyche that draws those folks to sheeplike actions, at various periods of history. They are but one case of my DEEP disagreement with Desi's thesis that society is more important than the pursuit of personal happiness.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

Plato says on Feb 18, 2008, 14:57:

Man is social animal . . . . .Slguy . . .please account for that.


Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

Plato says on Feb 18, 2008, 14:59:

Or can man live on a island alone? Can't disregard Desi's position all together. Society is important. Come on now. Let's have it.


Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

slguy says on Feb 18, 2008, 14:59:

Is it not possible to be a social being, without falling prey to Kantian subjugation?

BTW, Plato- i was yanking your chain about Benedict. Been too long without your contributions around here, to let the opportunity slide by. ;)

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

Plato says on Feb 18, 2008, 15:01:

Benedict - I know. Jajajajaja! I go ala natural my friend. When was the last time you did the same? (Jajaja.)

Forget Kant. You can't dismiss Desi's claim on society being important for the inidividual.

Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

slguy says on Feb 18, 2008, 15:04:

I would never discount the value of society, in general. But when I start being told that society's general well-being is more important than an individual's, much less that the pursuit of personal happiness is antithetical to the good of society- I gotta object.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

Plato says on Feb 18, 2008, 15:12:

O.k. - First off: I don't invest in the rubber industry like many of the dudes here.

Second, you wrote:

"general well-being is more important than an individual's, much less that the pursuit of personal happiness is antithetical to the good of society- I gotta object."

The pursuit of one's well being, if if doesn't undermine other people, is good. If, for example Desi meant the pursuit of one's well-being undermines the well-being of others, then how could one say that society is good? That's a socialist argument and a good one too.

To my first proposition, "the pursuit of one's well being, if if doesn't undermine other people, is good", well , we strive for that. That's the ideal in fact. In economics, we call this pareto efficiency where one person can get ahead without screwing the rest. Is that the case in America? Yes. For some, and maybe Desi, then people tend to look at what's best for society in general. In America, we call this welfare economics ( welfare meaning well- being of all people). Now we get into good ole' subject of politics on the liberal and conservative view of economics!

Slguy, tell me, should there be equal distribution of resources in the society? Come on now - we're talking about well-being and altruism.



Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

Plato says on Feb 18, 2008, 15:19:

If you go by Adam Smith, then let the invisible hand (market forces of supply and demand) decide. Greed is good in fact. He was the first one to say that, not Gecko from the movie “WALL STREET." Michael Douglas quoted Adam Smith (Jajajaja)!

If you go by Vilfredo Pareto, then you cannot screw people if you want to be better off by undermining their interests.

Slguy, you’re a businessman. Is it any wonder why you disagree with Desi so much on this point?

Let me ask you another question? Do you like paying taxes for the good of society? If you do, then you're altruistic - but to what extent? Rich folks hate paying taxes. They find all kinds of loopholes. They call the lower classes lazy and what not. "Why don't they get job and pay for the own health insurance!" they say.

We live in a great country and yet we have people who are uninsured? Canada has a national healthcare, so do some countries in Europe. This is government's way of thinking that the good of society comes before the individual.


Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

slguy says on Feb 18, 2008, 15:26:

an equal distribution of resources? you know better, Plato. no such animal exists, for any period of time. It's not in the nature of human beings, nor in societies, for that matter, for there to be a equal disposition of wealth or resources. Not in a place I'd want to live, anyway.

Do I think that our healthcare system, and it's uneven distribution of care, to be a source of deep shame in this country? Without question.

Do I believe that this country has an obligation to enforce it's laws without regard to race, creed, etc? absolutely.

But do I think that the mere ability to breathe entitles one to anything more than minimal subsistence absent ambition and energy? nope

Opportunities abound in this country. It's a tribute to our way of life than with sufficient ambition and diligence, almost anyone can succeed materially. I see no reason to reward lack of ambition, much less laziness, with material redistribution.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

Plato says on Feb 18, 2008, 15:27:

Slguy, just edited my prior post. Please re-read.

Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

podborski says on Feb 18, 2008, 15:36:

over the years I have heard many people dismiss Ayn Rand in exactly the same way desi did, misrepresenting what she says, thinks or would have done.

Just makes me more sure she is right when no one ever wants to debate what she actually said/believed in.

podborski says on Feb 18, 2008, 15:48:

most debates never come to any conclusion, as this one won't (but that's ok, it's still enjoyable to exercise the old brain once in a while), mainly because people refuse to define their terms, or they mash so many examples of fuzzy logic in one paragraph it's impossible to even know which faulty logical error to start with.

And then there are those who don't even believe in logic, or reason, and think emotions are more trustworthy.

So, for example, Ayn Rand believed in reason, as opposed to faith or emotion. Now what she meant was that in making arguments, decisions, learning new things, one should use reason.

In other words, trust science over tarot card readers or 'gut' feelings. Pretty horrendous idea huh?!

What her detractors say is that she was a cold heartless bitch, who didn't believe one should have or express emotion.

It's such an obvious misrepresentation of her views, one has to really wonder about the intellectual honesty of her detractors.

slguy says on Feb 18, 2008, 15:54:

Plato, maybe I'm full of mierda, but I like to think I'd disagree with desi on this point if I dug ditches for a living. My profession - or some would say lack thereof ;) - has little to do with my philosophy in these matters.

Yea- I'm not a huge fan of paying taxes. I frankly don't know anyone who is. But- I have no problem with the goverment providing for the national defense, or keeping the roadways functional, or even providing an umbrella of healthcare for all citizens (please note CITIZENS, emphasis on legal, tax-paying citizens) and some other stuff that despite it's inefficiencies, only the government can really do.

But- I also think this country, in many ways, is a testament to private roles in public life. This country is FULL of stuff that wouldn't exist in other places, absent government in those other places- because those other countries tend to believe that it is government's role to provide. say - all museums (we have a shitpot full of EXCELLENT private museums), public parks (ditto), symphonies, etc. Public life, much like nature, hates a vacuum. Tons of things happen here that would NEVER happen in other countries absent government paying the tab- precisely because our form of government encourages (yea, yea, thru tax breaks, so maybe they ARE subsidized, in an indirect manner, sometimes) private involvement in acts of public good. In this way the vacuum gets filled, without this OBLIGATORY altruism we've been yappin' about.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

podborski says on Feb 18, 2008, 15:55:

going back to your comment slguy, absolutely I will help old ladies cross the road. But if one walks out in front of a bus I am not going to give my life up to save hers.

The difference between the two examples is enormous.

To help someone in need requires no sacrifice, to give up your life is the biggest sacrifice possible.

It's the latter idea, that true sacrifice is noble, a duty even, that Kant and Hegel promoted and that lead to the rise of the Nazis.

The German people in the 30's were highly educated, perhaps the most educated on earth, and I believe it was that very fact that allowed Hitler to rise to power, as the average german had been well taught the philosophies of kant and hegel in university, and they believed it.

slguy says on Feb 18, 2008, 15:58:

pod- one neeeds to read her to detract from her meaningfully, I think. ;)

Atlas Shrugged was a thing that I found in my father's belongings after his death, wh