I believe what is truly good for the individual is also good for the whole. — Tzeentch

So we disagree. Great!

Loving is the act of using - and being used - as an object by another selfish individual other than yours; — Gus Lamarch

This is diametrically opposite to that which I'm referring to. Language can be a funny thing. Cats can be termed dogs and dogs cats if there is common consensus. But we two so far have no common consensus on what the term love references. So, you are denying the reality of that which I described in my previous post, yes?

[...] that the other is not and cannot be part of what makes you unique and be able to deal with that fact. — Gus Lamarch

"Unique" can be a vacuous term when it comes to identity. No two sunrises have ever been exactly the same - some stand out, others don't; some are tumultuous, others are tranquil; etc. - and so each sunrise in the history of sentience on this planet has been unique. Notwithstanding, all sunrises are exactly the same in being just that, sunrises. Same can be said of romantic love affairs, or of parental love, and so forth.

What makes you you? The you of four minutes past was a unique constituency (be it of givens such as intentions and percepts or of brain and bodily states, take your pick if needed) that is not the same you of the present moment. Yet you are the same, quote-unquote, unique you. How so?

So, you are denying the reality of that which I described in my previous post, yes? — javra

Yes. Love is too, an act of egoism.

What makes you you? The you of four minutes past was a unique constituency (be it of givens such as intentions and percepts or of brain and bodily states, take your pick if needed) that is not the same you of the present moment. Yet you are the same, quote-unquote, unique you. How so? — javra

I can be a different person with each passing second, however, the death of my cells and the creation of new ones does not negate the fact that my "I" is the only one to witness these changes. No other being in existence can feel, and experience my existence in transition through time.

Egoism is the nature of humanity. — Gus Lamarch

This is a false metaphysical statement. Ego is only part of the human psychological system.

This person's act of selfishness was to focus only on what he needed at the moment, now, having realized his needs - in a way - that person could very well be an empathic, charitable, kind person, but only because he can and not because it's the rule. — Gus Lamarch

This is still a one sided reading of the story. A complex adaptive system like a society is the product of a local~global dynamic. Nature harnesses the complementary forces of competition and cooperation to strike balances.

My point of view was not born through memes, but through a research base in existentialist philosophies. — Gus Lamarch

So yep. Not science but the meme factory of Romanticism.

This is still a one sided reading of the story. A complex adaptive system like a society is the product of a local~global dynamic. Nature harnesses the complementary forces of competition and cooperation to strike balances. — apokrisis

You are ignoring the fact that I have already stated that all this dynamic that creates the organism of society is based on the human nature of wanting to be fulfilled individually - selfishness -. Commercial relations only happen because both sides - individually - want something to fulfill their wishes.

Not science but the meme factory of Romanticism. — apokrisis

It is complicated to debate when people already come with the purpose of disagreeing. Not enough, they resort to verbal aggression tactics. I expected nothing less to speak the truth. Have a nice day/evening

Yes. Love is too, an act of egoism. — Gus Lamarch

Thank you for the honest reply. So, the more one loves, the more egoistic one becomes?

I can be a different person with each passing second, however, the death of my cells and the creation of new ones does not negate the fact that my "I" is the only one to witness these changes. — Gus Lamarch

You are a different person, a different "I", with each miliisecond as well. But this does not address why or how you nevertheless remain the same person, the same "I", throughout. Not such if you're understanding what I'm here addressing, so I'll drop it for the time being.

No other being in existence can feel, and experience my existence in transition through time. — Gus Lamarch

Not when it comes to many of the details regarding these experiences, but these details can well be argued accidental and not essential to that which is you (as an "I") through time. When it, for example, comes to things such as belief that cats are termed cats in English, or to the very experiencing of being as a being, we both feel/experience the exact same thing. In the latter two cases, my experiences are identical to yours, and yours to mine. No uniqueness whatsoever. Uniqueness only presents itself in the differences, which then divide, or ration, or give boundary to, some given from some other.

Experiences can be shared. And some experiences are universal to all beings by sheer virtue of such being beings. How would you disagree with this, if you do disagree?

The point is that you cannot be the cat, or the tree, or the street, but only yourself. I can't feel what you're feeling, as you can't feel what I'm feeling right now. From your point of view, the world spins around you, as it does to me. — Gus Lamarch

You can feel what I'm feeling. Irritation, maybe annoyance that you are dodging people's responses instead of confronting them. I can feel what you're feeling. Smug satisfaction, a little perverse joy that all these suckers have taken the bait and are responding to you at all. You are correct that your motivation is extremely selfish, but the reason the rest of us are responding is exactly because we are not solely motivated by selfishness.

Look, your philosophical assertion has been eviscerated and swept aside by every response here. Even if you were just an ego, you are still capable of reason, and reason soundly extinguishes your position.

I suppose your feelings may be somewhat accurate if you are a sociopath, and maybe you are. But that is a condition specific to you, not the general experience of everyone.

You can feel what I'm feeling. Irritation, maybe annoyance that you are dodging people's responses instead of confronting them. I can feel what you're feeling. Smug satisfaction, a little perverse joy that all these suckers have taken the bait and are responding to you at all. You are correct that your motivation is extremely selfish, but the reason the rest of us are responding is exactly because we are not solely motivated by selfishness. — Pro Hominem

:up: :up: :up:

You are ignoring the fact that I have already stated that all this dynamic that creates the organism of society is based on the human nature of wanting to be fulfilled individually - selfishness -. — Gus Lamarch

But you are making claims about the nature of societies that don’t fit the facts. It is essential to a complex system that it optimises a balance of the selfish and the cooperative.

So to the degree that we egocentrically make society, we have to be skilled at striking this particular balance.

You can call that calculation self-interested - because we “follow the rules” only because we believe in some general collective benefit. But to say we are unselfish for selfish reasons becomes a rather contorted description of what is going on.

It leaves you arguing that “being selfish” is the primary fact and the ultimate good when the ability to intelligently and sharply switch behaviour is what is central to forming modern scalefree networks of competition and cooperation. Societies as functional collections of interest groups.

Your approach embodies the confusion of Romanticism. It makes it arbitrary whether you choose to be selfish or altruistic in any social situation. If you ask yourself, “how should I behave?”, the only answer is “well, how do I feel?”. And how you feel turns out to be some confused mix of your social conditioning and neurobiology. Or worse, you may have some highly stereotyped and inflexible ideology about “what’s right”.

Humans work well when they are able to make clear in the moment choices that are flexible and adaptive. When they are supple rather than rigid.

It is complicated to debate when people already come with the purpose of disagreeing. Not enough, they resort to verbal aggression tactics. I expected nothing less to speak the truth. — Gus Lamarch

Hah. Yes life is complicated like that. Intellectual discussions are dialectical as every thesis presents its antithesis.

One can either stick rigidly to one’s precepts or follow that two sided flow of ideas to discover where it goes.

So, the more one loves, the more egoistic one becomes? — javra

Yes I agree. The development of the feeling of love for a being other than yours, the egoism- here, referring it only to the love for another person - grows and gets stronger and stronger - if it is an exemplary relationship, something utopian, of course -. And it is to be believed that your partner also has his selfishness exacerbated if he feels in the same dose as you.

You are a different person, a different "I", with each miliisecond as well. But this does not address why or how you nevertheless remain the same person, the same "I", throughout. Not such if you're understanding what I'm here addressing, so I'll drop it for the time being. — javra

Your perception remains the same through the movement through time. You - here understand as your ego, conscience, individuality - remains you intact through the change of "form". You do not have lapses of mileseconds of different personalities, ways of being, etc ... because time passes and with it you change, no, what makes you an "I" remains fixed.

Not when it comes to many of the details regarding these experiences, but these details can well be argued accidental and not essential to that which is you (as an "I") through time. When it, for example, comes to things such as belief that cats are termed cats in English, or to the very experiencing of being as a being, we both feel/experience the exact same thing. In the latter two cases, my experiences are identical to yours, and yours to mine. No uniqueness whatsoever. Uniqueness only presents itself in the differences, which then divide, or ration, or give boundary to, some given from some other. — javra

The point is that there is no scientific, philosophical, theoretical, etc ... evidence that you - your self - can somehow come and take my place in space within the Universe. There is no way for you to experience what "I" feel. Ex: - We can smell the same smell of something, however, it will never be the same, because it was detected in one way by you, and in another way by me. Can they be compared? Sure, but they are not felt - or rather, experienced - in the same way.

Thank you for the honest reply. — javra

I thank you for taking the time to debate with me respectfully.

But you are making claims about the nature of societies that don’t fit the facts. It is essential to a complex system that it optimises a balance of the selfish and the cooperative.

So to the degree that we egocentrically make society, we have to be skilled at striking this particular balance. — apokrisis

Yes, you could say that the balance is needed. But the balance only exists and is created by our egoistic wills.

But to say we are unselfish for selfish reasons becomes a rather contorted description of what is going on — apokrisis

In my view, it is not a distorted point of view because the human being really is evil. The view that the human being only acts the way he does because his whole base is born from an internal force that makes him look for - and also creates - things to be done individually, and that the whole concept of what is good and bad also comes from this need, seems to me a very convincing and real proposition, just look around you. You may even think that it is a pessimistic thought, but humanity is not a species of angels, but beings that act in good and bad ways just because they want something individually.

Hah. Yes life is complicated like that. Intellectual discussions are dialectical as every thesis presents its antithesis.

One can either stick rigidly to one’s precepts or follow that two sided flow of ideas to discover where it goes. — apokrisis

The problem is when the lack of respect becomes present.

But the balance only exists and is created by our egoistic wills. — Gus Lamarch

Again, the problem lies with this Romantic psychology. It may be "existential philosophy", but it isn't credible as psychological science.

If I ask you for the evidence behind your claim, where is it ... except in literary sources?

The problem is when the lack of respect becomes present. — Gus Lamarch

I guess it is consistent with your egoism that you would want respect? That you could demand it rather than earn it?

Sorry. I respect arguments clearly put and backed up by suitable evidence. I was interested to see if you could mount a more spirited defence. That hasn't happened. So we can move on.

psychological science. — apokrisis

Then we have a misunderstanding here. I never said that I was an expert at psychological science and neither did I say that this was about science at all. I'm talking about philosophy and "only" philosophy - That's why I putted this discussion under the "Philosophy of Mind" segment -.

except in literary sources? — apokrisis

In the deep analysis of human history, its development in society in the passing of the years and how the State organism - here ignoring any ideology or government method - works during the passage of time with the direct human influence.

I guess it is consistent with your egoism that you would want respect? That you could demand it rather than earn it? — apokrisis

Both are true ways of getting respect - if doing an in depth analysis of your commentary -.

Sorry. I respect arguments clearly put and backed up by suitable evidence. I was interested to see if you could mount a more spirited defence. That hasn't happened. So we can move on. — apokrisis

Again, I think we had a misunderstanding from the beggining. Please, read the answer to the first quote. Good day/night

The development of the feeling of love for a being other than yours, the egoism- here, referring it only to the love for another person - grows and gets stronger and stronger - if it is an exemplary relationship, something utopian, of course -. And it is to be believed that your partner also has his selfishness exacerbated if he feels in the same dose as you. — Gus Lamarch

I get the feeling you're conflating esteem and heightened well-being with selfishness.

How then do you account for altruism (such as in cases where love is to be found)? Does one willfully sacrifice one’s being out of an interest to optimally preserve the very same being one sacrifices?

Your perception remains the same through the movement through time. You - here understand as your ego, conscience, individuality - remains you intact through the change of "form". You do not have lapses of mileseconds of different personalities, ways of being, etc ... because time passes and with it you change, no, what makes you an "I" remains fixed. — Gus Lamarch

Difference and sameness are for me not as simple as you present them to be. Yes, we remain the same over time, granted, but in which way? Most everything about us changes over time, and no two moments we experience are identical in their details.

The point is that there is no scientific, philosophical, theoretical, etc ... evidence that you - your self - can somehow come and take my place in space within the Universe. — Gus Lamarch

In using terms such as “evidence”, by which I take to mean modern understandings of empirical evidence, you are setting up the goal post in a way that necessarily leads to the conclusion you want. The same tree cannot be seen in the same way by you or me due to our different bodily locations in space. But sensory information does not exhaust the spectrum of givens which are termed experiences. The faculty of understanding is one such example. To understand the theory of evolution, for example, is neither to see it, smell it, touch it, taste it, nor hear it. That said, how can you demonstrate that your understanding of tree is not an identical experience to my own? I presume you can’t. And if our experienced understanding of tree were to in fact be completely unique to each of us, we could not then be referencing the same thing by this empirically apprehended term.

Same applies to what we term feelings. The more complex ones, such as sweet sorrow, are shared by fewer. But the more basic feelings, such as that of pleasure, are universally shared by all. Pleasure in response to what stimuli will differ among individuals, as will its nuances, but all individuals will feel the same thing in terms of what we term pleasure as a state of conscious being.

If one were to solely focus on the differences to each instantiation of pleasure, the concept of pleasure would lose all meaning.

I thank you for taking the time to debate with me respectfully. — Gus Lamarch

You’ve so far been neither rude nor insulting. Simply replying in kind … and starting off by presuming a better case scenario rather than a worse one.

And what philosophy, deep down, is nothing more than a mere internal projection to others? — Gus Lamarch

You want to convince as many people of things you believe will help them/others sure. But unless you're doing so politically/religiously that's not of utmost importance. It's about discovering a higher truth for yourself, granted usually with a purpose of helping others, if not just people you deem worthy.

The cynicism and lack of respect here is really impressive. Have a nice day / good night — Gus Lamarch

That's not quite how philosophical judo works. You can't suddenly one day redefine thousands of years of true, selfless empathy on a whim because you may or may not do so solely out of indifference or as you say as "a tool to project your own ego". I don't know you or anyone here personally, I'm berating an idea/attitude not a person. Separate the art from artist.

Does one willfully sacrifice one’s being out of an interest to optimally preserve the very same being one sacrifices? — javra

The person in question that would sacrifice itself could have been "rightful" on his motives to do it - as being certain that he was doing something that was not egoist - but in the end - unconsciously - the only motive for his actions was one of egoism - maybe eternalizing his person forever to the one saved? Maybe to righ something he had done wrong for someone that the person he was saving knew, etc... the possibilities are endless -. Understand: - I am not saying that people cannot or should not be altruistic, empathetic, humble, etc ... I am just saying that indirectly, these same actions are the result of the individual's selfish will, even if they do not know that and are acting as if they were virtuous, and seen by society as good people.

And if our experienced understanding of tree were to in fact be completely unique to each of us, we could not then be referencing the same thing by this empirically apprehended term. — javra

We could say that through the term "tree" we would both be talking about the same concept - a tree - and the same object - the tree itself, as being in the universe - however that would be pure speculation by comparison. The fact that we can only "compare" already shows that it is not something complete, something that demonstrates the experience of observing the same object through the same observer, therefore, my opinion still holds. The unique is unique and indivisible by experience because he cannot be experienced by anything but itself.

It's about discovering a higher truth for yourself, granted usually with a purpose of helping others, if not just people you deem worthy. — Outlander

True, I just answered what at the time seemed to be the most conducive to the questioning whether my thoughts are an autobiography - which are not, however, as I said in my answer that you answered here, all philosophy is an internal projection to others -.

The person in question that would sacrifice itself could have been "rightful" on his motives to do it - as being certain that he was doing something that was not egoist - but in the end - unconsciously - the only motive for his actions was one of egoism - maybe eternalizing his person forever to the one saved? Maybe to righ something he had done wrong for someone that the person he was saving knew, etc... the possibilities are endless -. — Gus Lamarch

Or one could sacrifice one's ego for the benefit of a whole of which one's ego is but one constituent of. Some soldiers have been known to do this. Sometime for love of one's country. Sometime for the love of some ideal, such as that of democracy. The ego here holds part of its identity as that which inheres into something greater than itself ... and can willfully sacrifice its own life for it.

Understand: - I am not saying that people cannot or should not be altruistic, empathetic, humble, etc ... I am just saying that indirectly, these same actions are the result of the individual's selfish will, even if they do not know that and are acting as if they were virtuous, and seen by society as good people. — Gus Lamarch

The example I just tried to illustrate depicts what is commonly appraised as virtue. Not a mere acting as if one were.

I'm not yet certain, but, from one vantage, I think I can get what you mean. As egos we are at the center of the world we experience. Hence, your use of the term "egocentrism". Even so, altruism, empathy, humility are commonly described as selfless endeavors. This being shorthand for "less selfish than those endeavors that are the opposite" or something to the like.

There's a difference between, for example, being empathetic and pretending to be. The first is deemed to be a virtue in most cases, the second not. The first is commonly deemed a selfless endeavor, the second a selfish endeavor.

If you endorse things such as altruism and empathy, are you confident that you use of selfishness is an accurate description of what you want to present?

To me, and doubtless to many others, your use of selfish to describe things such as altruism and empathy makes no sense. Selfishness describes the opposite of these things.

We could say that through the term "tree" we would both be talking about the same concept - a tree - and the same object - the tree itself, as being in the universe - however that would be pure speculation by comparison. — Gus Lamarch

I feel you've overlooked my argument. For starters, we could not converse were we to not hold many of the same experienced understandings, for instance, regarding what a majority of these terms mean. But so be it.

Or one could sacrifice one's ego for the benefit of a whole of which one's ego is but one constituent of. Some soldiers have been known to do this. Sometime for love of one's country. Sometime for the love of some ideal, such as that of democracy. The ego here holds part of its identity as that which inheres into something greater than itself ... and can willfully sacrifice its own life for it. — javra

Of course, if the individual thinks and accepts as true for himself, the fact that sacrificing himself for a nation, or for a greater number of people - with the moral that a life is worth less than many - will accomplish it individually - selfishly -; There is nothing wrong with that. I respect those who are able to act that way, and I would respect them even more if they were able to understand that they only do it out of selfishness.

I'm not yet certain, but, from one vantage, I think I can get what you mean. As egos we are at the center of the world we experience. Hence, your use of the term "egocentrism". Even so, altruism, empathy, humility are commonly described as selfless endeavors. This being shorthand for "less selfish than those endeavors that are the opposite" or something to the like. — javra

You're on right track, but not there yet.

There's a difference between, for example, being empathetic and pretending to be. The first is deemed to be a virtue in most cases, the second not. The first is commonly deemed a selfless endeavor, the second a selfish endeavor. — javra

My point is that people who are "truly" empathetic are nothing more than negative-egoists. They are internally, and their unconscious know it, however the conscious person does not. There is nothing wrong with being an unconscious selfish, I just think that if you became aware of that fact, and accepted your nature, you would be a better person.

selfishness is an accurate description of what you want to present? — javra

I'm pretty sure that it's accurate.

To me, and doubtless to many others, your use of selfish to describe things such as altruism and empathy makes no sense. Selfishness describes the opposite of these things. — javra

There we got to another point that I don't know if this discussion would be the right place, but it is the fact that selfishness had been a virtue that we - humans - have distorted so much to the point of becoming a concept seen as evil. It is a good start to have discussed with me and to let yourself try to understand what I say. Many here do not try to do it.

There is nothing wrong with being an unconscious selfish, I just think that if you became aware of that fact, and accepted your nature, you would be a better person. — Gus Lamarch

OK. So how do you find that everyone’s increased selfishness will lead to improved conditions for selves?

FYI, survival of the most selfishly powerful as being those most fit – this at everyone else’s expense - easily comes to mind. Sadism could fit the bill nicely. Still, I’m open to being surprised by your answer.

There we got to another point that I don't know if this discussion would be the right place, but it is the fact that selfishness had been a virtue that we - humans - have distorted so much to the point of becoming a concept seen as evil. It is a good start to have discussed with me and to let yourself try to understand what I say. Many here do not try to do it. — Gus Lamarch

Please don’t misunderstand. Trying to better understand your point of view does not equate to me agreeing with it.

Are you guys absolutely sure you do not dodge the fact that some people are extrovert and some introvert?

OK. So how do you find that everyone’s increased selfishness will lead to improved conditions for selves? — javra

I can give you an example of that:

You are poor, or even miserable; empathy, humbleness, and other of these "virtues" would not help you out of this state at all. What would benefit you most would be the act of focusing on yourself, getting a job in some way, doing things that otherwise would be seen with evil eyes - like leaving your family, your friends aside, but not because you are evil, and yes because the purpose of getting out of this miserable state is greater -. You work, you even change your personality - in a way, all the people you have a good relationship with today only have that kind of relationship with you because you are what you are, a drastic change in thinking, way of acting, can make that many will not be ble to cope with this breach of comfort - and eventually - over days, months, years, etc ... - manage to turn the corner and become a very successful person, financially stable, etc... This person's act of selfishness was to focus only on what he needed at the moment, now, having realized his needs - in a way - that person could very well be an empathic, charitable, kind person, but only because he can and not because it's the rule.

If everyone was concerned with resolving only their lives, their personal, individual interests, they would gradually change the whole of society. The individual makes up the community, and society is a pure reflection of the community that is made up of the individual. Egoism is at the core of it all. If people were more true to themselves about their true desires and purposes, their lives would be much more satisfying and graceful - accept that you're an egoist, with now with that in mind, go change your life -.

Please don’t misunderstand. Trying to better understand your point of view does not equate to me agreeing with it. — javra

I'm in no way mistaken, i'm quite sure that this is just a discussion - and one that continues until now, productive -.

Are you guys absolutely sure you do not dodge the fact that some people are extrovert and some introvert? — Ansiktsburk

I'm sorry, but I didn't quite got the point of your question. Could you expatiate more about why the concepts of extrovert and introvert would fit into this discussion?

You are poor, or even miserable; empathy, humbleness, and other of these "virtues" would not help you out of this state at all. — Gus Lamarch

Think I've read this before. It does not address the question posed, but gives one specific hypothetical where, it would so seem, being a merciless and arrogant person are endorsed. Why wouldn't empathy and humility greatly assist in getting hired at the job interview if one is poor, for one example. Or in getting others' assistance if one is miserable.

As it is, I'll take a break from this conversation.

Selfishness

From the OP:

- Is there a way to perceive the world, the Universe, from someone else's perspective? Honestly, is there a way to see the world through someone else's eyes?

Well those bloody mirror neurons help, and som got those working by birth and some not.

(Btw pretty new in this forum - how to inlude the text you want to reply to? Normally, forums do inlude that text automatically)

And what philosophy, deep down, is nothing more than a mere internal projection to others? — Gus Lamarch

Proper philosophy depends on overcoming egotism, although your OP equates that with 'nihilism'. But many of the classical philosophies, East and West, see the task of philosophy as being able to rise above the ego. That doesn't amount to 'nihilism', nihilism is the attitude that nothing matters or that nothing is real.

(Btw pretty new in this forum - how to inlude the text you want to reply to? Normally, forums do inlude that text automatically) — Ansiktsburk

Highlight the text, a small floating 'quote' will come up, click it.

You are poor, or even miserable; empathy, humbleness, and other of these "virtues" would not help you out of this state at all. What would benefit you most would be the act of focusing on yourself, getting a job — Gus Lamarch

Insufferable incompetent! What man would benefit most from was changing the system that imposes his oppression in the first place. Here intelligence is required as opposed to a delusion of the will.

If everyone was concerned with resolving only their lives, their personal, individual interests, they would gradually change the whole of society. — Gus Lamarch

Did you make the clothes you wear? Did you grow all the food you eat? Silence, contingent and ignorant one, your quality is bound up in the labor of others! You would not go without it, you are oblivious to your own hypocrisy.

I, again affirm: - There is no way in reality that you could feel, perceive, live, etc ... as someone else, just compare your experiences and accept - in a way - that both are equal, however, nothing can be me except me. Individuality - or the ego, as I put it - is born and dies with its own. — Gus Lamarch

Ok. Provide me with a definition of you, Gus Lamarch and I'll show you you're not unique enough to be different from all of us.