I'm suggesting that the ideal of being collaborative and altruistic is put on display while other motivations aren't. Which leads to an imbalance in the representation of ideas in forums like these. I'm asking whether that is true, if so why that is and whether that undermines the discussions here. — Judaka

Of course people will display socially beneficent attitudes and behavior if they are not sociopaths. What would you expect from a social animal?

This has got me thinking about people who do not collaborate. Are these the people that really contribute towards our advancement, who drive themselves towards their objective, maybe their destiny which they’re aware of.

I think you're right Brett, we are mostly living lives of 'no harm done but no good either' and whether that should be characterised as being moral, getting on with our lives or cowardice really depends on the situation.

My biggest concern isn't that we shouldn't be aiming to collaborate, I'm a big fan of doing what's "best for yourself and the group" and collaboration out of self-interest. It's that as individuals discussing problems in society, we are doing so while simultaneously restricting ourselves to ideas and motivations which are great for showing what a good person you are. We're not getting the complete picture, we can accuse others, we can paint pretty ideals but our motivations are tainted.

If I can admit that I am prone to this kind of behaviour, that it's my nature and the nature of others to paint this pretty picture and present an image of ourselves that is pristine, can this be useful and how?


Well, I'm with you, how does knowing what you know impact your opinions on how discussions play out on the forum or in similar discussions? Do you have a process by which you vet people for their authenticity or do you possess any general scepticism towards the discussions on topics where the motivation of displaying or hiding certain thoughts and behaviours is plausible from this point of view?

f I can admit that I am prone to this kind of behaviour, that it's my nature and the nature of others to paint this pretty picture and present an image of ourselves that is pristine, can this be useful and how? — Judaka

I think it would be useful for many things; it keeps the wheels of society running smoothly, reduces tension, encourage inclusiveness, it’s democratic, it’s the basis of our success as a species. But, does it breed mediocrity, does it hold us back? Was modern society built on collaboration or fiercely independent individuals?

I’ve being thinking about this lately; the idea that philosophy is action. I haven’t any reference to philosophers who might fit that idea; Sartre decided he needed to take to the streets, action over writing, Machiavellian is of interest or the idea of the Warrior King who carries the book and sword.

Are we really getting anywhere with this consensus we fall back on. If climate change is the problem people imagine does it require strong individuals to drive through change? Is that the revolution? Is Trump just the first of what will come, of individuals intelligent and strong who take what’s needed, who drive through their objectives, and is that a good or bad thing?

Well, I'm with you, how does knowing what you know impact your opinions on how discussions play out on the forum or in similar discussions? Do you have a process by which you vet people for their authenticity or do you possess any general scepticism towards the discussions on topics where the motivation of displaying or hiding certain thoughts and behaviours is plausible from this point of view? — Judaka

I don't know how to answer this. I try to avoid imputing particular psychological motivations to what people say on forums like this. I presume good faith; a desire to get at the truth, until I believe I have been proven wrong in that assumption. If I become convinced that someone is not interested in questioning their own ideas then I tend to lose interest in engaging further; or I might just ask the occasional critical question to see what kind of response I will get.

My question is basically
1) Do you agree that posters on this forum generally and quite strongly emphasise altruistic and humanitarian aims?
2) Do you agree that people in the real world, while still being generally good people, are less concerned with being as altruistic?
3) If you agree then why do you think this is? — Judaka

1) I think there are certainly posters on this forum who do strongly emphasise altruistic and humanitarian aims, but there are also many who merely give lip service to it, and many more who misunderstand what is meant by collaboration, as a concept that is more fundamental than altruism or humanitarianism.

2) I think we have developed a social reality which downplays the value of altruism in favour of the individual. I think we still recognise some value to collaboration, but we misconstrue the aim of that collaboration as serving only those individual ends which ‘naturally’ align with those of others - and once we have achieved these we look to where our ends diverge and we are in conflict, or where those we have helped to achieve are then serving their own ends to our detriment. I think we are generally ‘good’ as long as we are surrounded by ‘good’, and we see altruism as any ‘good’ that we observe whenever we deem that surrounding ‘good’ to be insufficient. Altruism is not something we acknowledge in ourselves - only in others.

3) I think that we generally misunderstand the origin of altruism and the fundamental nature of collaboration. We seem to believe (thanks to Darwin) that it all developed out of our need for survival, and that humanity has excelled at this to the point that we no longer need collaboration to survive, which indicates to me that we’ve lost sight of its fundamental role in our existence. To define collaboration as ‘working together for a common goal’ implies motive, but there is evidence of collaboration without a clear motive even in the most basic chemical reactions.

Collaboration is simply ‘working together’. It does not require self-consciousness, a known motive or even life - only the simplest sense that what matters is this vague awareness of and connection with more than this, here and now. This basic collaboration occurs to some limited extent in every process and every cell of every body, in every chemical reaction that contributes to them, and in every atom that interacts both within and around us.

That the vast majority of interaction in the universe does NOT result in much collaboration, connection or even awareness does not preclude its fundamental necessity in our own highly unlikely existence.

To define collaboration as ‘working together for a common goal’ implies motive, — Possibility

I think this is probably true. Someone cannot just create the idea of collaboration because they can sense a motive, it has to exist first. Motive can’t create a human trait.

I'm suggesting that the ideal of being collaborative and altruistic is put on display while other motivations aren't. Which leads to an imbalance in the representation of ideas in forums like these. I'm asking whether that is true, if so why that is and whether that undermines the discussions here. — Judaka

I don’t see altruism or collaboration as motivation in itself. I think perhaps this is a misunderstanding: that we should be striving to be ‘altruistic’ for its own sake. Altruism and collaboration are not what drives us - they are the means by which we succeed at anything. Once we determine where we want to go, what we hope to achieve, then collaboration is the most effective means to achieve this; the ONLY means to achieve anything. We are limited only by our lack of collaboration, which stems partly from our lack of connection, which in turn stems partly from our lack of awareness. The capacity is there - we’re just so afraid of failure that we refuse to try. We’d rather keep excluding, isolating and ignoring what doesn’t fit into our neat intellectual concepts of the world, than admit that our concepts are lacking, that there is more to reality, and that we cannot make sense of it alone.

I think that philosophy, more than most pursuits of knowledge, recognises the importance of collaboration - at least in some areas. Most of the information that contributes to philosophy comes from the painstaking research, study and exploration by those with little to no interest in philosophy at all. What undermines the discussions here may simply be this assumption that people are pushing an agenda of ‘altruism’ or ‘collaboration’ for its own sake, and the distrust we may have for what appears to be an open-ended or undisclosed result. That’s understandable. We like to think we’re working towards something concrete, and many so-called philosophers these days seem reluctant to lose sight of the shore - especially those of us here who are otherwise alone and isolated in our philosophical studies.

The general view is that there is currently no concrete step forward - there hasn’t been for a while now. And just because we’re earnestly looking for one that seems solid enough, doesn’t mean we’re prepared to test them out. It can be difficult to tell here if anyone is ‘walking the talk’ - particularly when it comes to ‘altruism’ and humanitarian aims. But the ultimate aim of philosophy should be to arrive at a practical understanding of the real world, rather than one that sounds reasonable in theory. In as much as a philosophy highlights anomalies in our experience of human behaviour - whether ‘altruism’ or ‘evil’ - it must be deemed insufficient as practical understanding.

I think when we’re trying to protect our philosophy from the real world, it probably needs a rethink.

Once we determine where we want to go, what we hope to achieve, then collaboration is the most effective means to achieve this; the ONLY means to achieve anything. — Possibility

This might have been the case once, but it may not be the only way for people to reach their goals anymore, and I say reach their goals because they are individual goals.

Diversity puts a strain on collaboration. There are far more “tribes” with different agenda than we’ve ever had. Communities no longer have common goals. Who do you collaborate with? those with similar goals. Diversity creates adversity.

Collaboration might be like the vestigial organs in humans. It still seems to be part of being human and we act it out but it does nothing anymore and many no longer truly feel it.

This might have been the case once, but it may not be the only way for people to reach their goals anymore, and I say reach their goals because they are individual goals.

Diversity puts a strain on collaboration. There are far more “tribes” with different agenda than we’ve ever had. Communities no longer have common goals. Who do you collaborate with? those with similar goals. Diversity creates adversity.

Collaboration might be like the vestigial organs in humans. It still seems to be part of being human and we act it out but it does nothing anymore and many no longer truly feel it. — Brett

You don’t have to ‘feel’ collaboration for it to occur, and it certainly doesn’t require common goals as such. Collaboration only requires that the outcome, not necessarily the motive, is the same.

Diversity interferes with collaboration only because we place more importance on the motive or the ‘individual goal’ than the actual outcome in how we relate to each other, and to the world.

When Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin, it was on a contaminated petri dish that he had previously discarded from an unsuccessful experiment. Once we can recognise and predict the outcome we’re chasing and map the causal conditions, then we can consciously collaborate to recreate the required conditions, and the diversity in the ‘individual goal’ is quickly forgotten.

You don’t have to ‘feel’ collaboration for it to occur, and it certainly doesn’t require common goals as such. Collaboration only requires that the outcome, not necessarily the motive, is the same. — Possibility

How is there an outcome without a motive? Could that happen?

Once we can recognise and predict the outcome we’re chasing — Possibility

How do we recognise the outcome we’re chasing, who’s outcome, how do we arrive at it?

How is there an outcome without a motive? Could that happen? — Brett

The origin of life is an outcome without apparent motive. Any ‘motive’ we try to attribute to this outcome is a self-justifying prophecy, because there can be no ‘motive’ prior to the existence of life.

How do we recognise the outcome we’re chasing, who’s outcome, how do we arrive at it? — Brett

The outcome doesn’t belong to anyone. In Fleming’s case, an outcome - inhibition of bacterial growth - was observed and recognised as being desirable, found to be predictable and was replicated in order to achieve Fleming’s goal of curing disease. But the ‘individual goal’ of the penicillin mould was not to cure disease, not to collaborate, but to isolate and exclude bacteria to achieve its own ends. And yet, by Fleming collaborating with this recognised ‘potential’ in the mould, by working together with it, he was able to arrive at the outcome he was chasing, which was the same as the outcome the mould was chasing.