The General Conversation Area

[ayase]

Yeah, I thought you would pull me up on that, and I guess it does suggest that to an extent. But it's really not that I don't think they should be allowed to what they want as much as it's, OK if they're gonna do it, at least be sure you really want to do this. And yes I would say that all potentially harmful jobs should disclose the fact of the job, however at the same time, I can't say that I've seen the owners of coal mines come down to colleges, or go on popular radio to tell 18 year old's that they will be bravely serving their country as real life life hero's if they get down the mines or whatever.

Not in present day Britain, no. But elsewhere and at other times? Certainly.

See, I think the idea of encouraging miners and soldiers (and quite a few other useful jobs) is actually a pretty good one. Somebody has to do it. If everybody thought "No way man, to risky, too much like hard work" then we'd find ourselves without energy or defence. The decision is still theirs, they're just being encouraged to fill a role which is of relatively high importance to the country and, quite rightly, to feel proud of that. They certainly do a more worthwhile job than the pointless paper pushing most of this country is now employed in. I do find a horrible presumption in society that white collar jobs are what everybody should want and strive for (and I blame Thatcher for that) - But some people actually enjoy shooting **** up or hitting things with hammers much more than being sat behind a desk all day. Get the mines open again and start the recruitment drives, I say.

Even the kindest of people feels happiness when doing kind things, therefore preventing their actions from being truly selfless. Everything you do, you do because you would rather do so than to not do so, or to do otherwise.

That gets a little more complicated when you apply it to say (to do a bit of topic-linking) a soldier sacrificing their own life so that others could live. They don't get happiness from doing that, they get death. If people were entirely self-interested this would never happen, because to live and experience more happiness has to be better for you than to experience momentary happiness at having protected others and then die. You could argue that it would cause the person sacrificing themselves more pain to live on if their friends died, so by sacrificing themselves they save themselves that pain. But that would create a paradox where by sacrificing themselves and dying while their friends live, their own death would cause pain to the survivors who they saved, thus negating any feeling of happiness they would get from saving them. I think.

 

[Sparrowsabre7]

That gets a little more complicated when you apply it to say (to do a bit of topic-linking) a soldier sacrificing their own life so that others could live. They don't get happiness from doing that, they get death. If people were entirely self-interested this would never happen, because to live and experience more happiness has to be better for you than to experience momentary happiness at having protected others and then die. You could argue that it would cause the person sacrificing themselves more pain to live on if their friends died, so by sacrificing themselves they save themselves that pain. But that would create a paradox where by sacrificing themselves and dying while their friends live, their own death would cause pain to the survivors who they saved, thus negating any feeling of happiness they would get from saving them. I think.

inb4 Selflessception

 

[Vashdaman]

See, I think the idea of encouraging miners and soldiers (and quite a few other useful jobs) is actually a pretty good one. Somebody has to do it. If everybody thought "No way man, to risky, too much like hard work" then we'd find ourselves without energy or defence. The decision is still theirs, they're just being encouraged to fill a role which is of relatively high importance to the country and, quite rightly, to feel proud of that.

Yeah that is understandable, but the problem with say the war in Iraq, is that it just wasn't necessary and isn't some noble cause, it was a poorly veiled mission to secure the country's oil. I know that it doesn't matter to the soldier, it's their job, ect. But I think it does matter, as if the government is going to throw away hundreds of young lives then I think they better make bloody sure it's for a legitimate cause. So that's why I think it's pretty shameful to be marketing a position in military as a proud one that's for the good of the country, when the military and all the men and women in it are just clearly considered as being expendable lives that can be throw away for some ridiculous at pointless cause to our leaders. Blair has a lot blood on his hands, make no mistake about that. You might say that that's always been the role of the military, but call me idealistic, I just think that if our military's aren't been used for just causes then they shouldn't be marketed as so. If they were enlisting young men and women to fighting for an actual justifiable cause then I would obviously feel differently.

While technically there is no "true" selfless act, as a result things with the intention of selflessness can still be called and seen as selfless. Yes, you might feel good about doing good, but provided the primary motivation was to help others rather than the feeling of 'doing good' then I think that can still be considered selfless, even if you still receive some joy from it.

Yeah, this is sort of what I was getting at. It's whether the motivation for doing the deed comes more from a desire of the person to feel good about themselves (even if it's in some sort of indirect, abstract or sub-concious way) or whether that motivation is completely concerned with another's well-being. I believe the vast majority of people doing great things in the world and helping others are ultimately doing it for themselves, but nonetheless they should of course still be commended for it, I suppose you could say they are being selfless to be selfish for their own peace of mind, and that is the best kind of selfishness.

That gets a little more complicated when you apply it to say (to do a bit of topic-linking) a soldier sacrificing their own life so that others could live.

While such sacrifice should obviously be commended to the fullest, I think the same thing could still apply to an extent. Would that soldier jump in front of one their comrade's gun to save the life of someone they didn't know or who is considered an "enemy"? It's probably more likely to be friend or some loved one, someone whose life they deemed was more worth saving over another's. So therefore even though it is the ultimate sacrifice there was probably some element of self interest involved, I would imagine.

However like I said in my earlier post, I do believe there are some incredibly rare individuals who do act out of pure selflessness. But I would think it usually requires a great deal of work to get to that stage, whereby our minds need to be brought well and truly under control and our five senses and natural selfish desires need to be superseded.

 

[MrLaserSharkKH]

Still up surprisingly, latest I've been awake for a long time, just as it seemed to be that I was starting to get back into the routine of early nights, oh well might pull a sickie tomorrow don't know yet, throat is quite sore!

 

[Tachi]

^ Yeah, did you never see that episode of Friends where Phoebe tried to do a selfless act and failed

I thought the same thing exactly whilst reading the latest posts

I do not believe there is such a thing, Vash. Even the kindest of people feels happiness when doing kind things, therefore preventing their actions from being truly selfless. Everything you do, you do because you would rather do so than to not do so, or to do otherwise.

And Muts, i don't believe you are correct. This weekend alone i have done various selfless acts.

On friday i went round to the gf's house because her dad was out that night so needed someone to be there incase something went wrong (sure there was the gf and her mum and sisters but needed a bloke about the house) i went out at 12 and drove round to pick up the gf's sister from a few miles down the road and brought her home as she had no money for a taxi.

On Saturday i drove into town to buy a mall voucher for someone at work (as its their birthday today), went to costa so my sister could see her friends on shift, met up with the gf and her sister and took them all out for nandos. The missus' mum and dad and the rest of the kids along with Dean and Lora (who me and the missus went on holiday with last year) we went bowling and i paid for the kids. Took a few of the kids along with my sister and the gf back to the gf's house in my car, then fixed the to-be-father inlaws laptop before driving both the inlaws to a restaurant in the town centre, went back to the gf's house to pick her up then we went back to my house and then at 8pm drove round to my sisters boyfriends house and picked him up, stopped off at the co-op on the way home to buy my dad some cigars too. at 3am on sunday morning i was driving my sisters bf back home.


I haven't received any money for the petrol costs, i haven't been given food in replacement of money for anything, i haven't particularly cared eitherway about doing these selfless acts or not - my mindframe was and usually is "sure why not" very passive even though my generous ways will one day run me to ruin.

All the things i've done this weekend to help others i could have easily said no to and they would have had to deal with the situation themselves, I don't tend to help others because it would make me feel good, but simply because i can and it kills time.

 

[Vashdaman]

Indeed, generosity like that will be the end of ya, kid! Be careful next time

 

[Mutsumi]

Tachi, would you have felt bad if you said no? If yes, the deed is not 100% selfless, as doing it led you to feeling happier than if you did not. Don't get me wrong, there are loads of really nice deeds you can do, but none of them are 100% selfless. See that episode of Friends for an entertaining explanation.

 

[Sparrowsabre7]

Tachi, would you have felt bad if you said no? If yes, the deed is not 100% selfless, as doing it led you to feeling happier than if you did not. Don't get me wrong, there are loads of really nice deeds you can do, but none of them are 100% selfless. See that episode of Friends for an entertaining explanation.

Well if Phoebe had let a wasp sting her that would've been selfless, as it wouldn't have died like the bee and would still have got to look tough in front of its wasp friends.

 

[Mutsumi]

Tachi, would you have felt bad if you said no? If yes, the deed is not 100% selfless, as doing it led you to feeling happier than if you did not. Don't get me wrong, there are loads of really nice deeds you can do, but none of them are 100% selfless. See that episode of Friends for an entertaining explanation.

Well if Phoebe had let a wasp sting her that would've been selfless, as it wouldn't have died like the bee and would still have got to look tough in front of its wasp friends.

But if that were true, she would have achieved her objective of performing a truly selfless good deed, which was what she wanted in order to win the argument, therefore making it actually not a selfless good deed.

Secondly, Wasps do not sting to look tough, they do so because they feel threatened, or to subdue prey. How can provoking it like that be a selfless good deed?

http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/resea ... faq.asp#q4

 

[Vashdaman]

Nonetheless it is still possible to become truly selfless, but as I mentioned, it's most likely that one will have to overcome their mind and overcome their senses first. As if you are no longer a slave to them then you can absolutely dedicate yourself to helping all life in true clarity and selflessness. There are also probably certain rare individuals born with an affinity for selflessness as well.

But at the end of the day, the action is obviously incredibly important, forgetting whether it is totally selfless or not. I think trying to cultivate selflessness because you are selfish for your own peace of mind, is a pretty good attitude to have until you reach sainthood. And besides cultivating this kind of attitude does still cultivate real selflessness in one as well, the action always comes first and eventually one's mind state should change.

 

[Tachi]

Tachi, would you have felt bad if you said no? If yes, the deed is not 100% selfless, as doing it led you to feeling happier than if you did not. Don't get me wrong, there are loads of really nice deeds you can do, but none of them are 100% selfless. See that episode of Friends for an entertaining explanation.

Not in the slightest, i have said no in previous weekends when asked to go pick up the gf's mothers best friend from down the road, or drop the kids off at sea scouts.

And i own the complete friends collection so i know what episode your talking about

Like i said, i did all those deeds purely because i could and had nothing better to do, i didn't mind driving round at 3am to drop off my sisters bf or the night before when i was driving round to pick up shannon from her friends house. All were cost and time implications to me with no recompence at a later time (through food or drink) so i believe that i managed a truly selfless act.

I bet if you looked through the past 24 hours you did something for someone else without realising that it was a selfless act too, cooking the mrs dinner or tidying up or doing the dishes without anything in return.

 

[Sparrowsabre7]

Secondly, Wasps do not sting to look tough, they do so because they feel threatened, or to subdue prey. How can provoking it like that be a selfless good deed?

Jesus... you take things far too seriously...

 

[MaxonTreik]

This thread has taken a rather depressing turn.

 

[Tachi]

How so Max?

I think its still laid back right now, the only real thing dragging it down may be the serious wasp post but thats hardly soul destroying lol

On another note, who still watches Friends or has everyone seen the complete collection?

 

[MaxonTreik]

How so Max?

I think its still laid back right now, the only real thing dragging it down may be the serious wasp post but thats hardly soul destroying lol

On another note, who still watches Friends or has everyone seen the complete collection?

I'm referring to all this talk of selfless acts. I could cut the cynicism from some people in here with a butter knife.

As for Friends, I sometimes watch it if it's on the TV when I'm back at my mum's house. Not that keen on anything past season 5.

 

[ayase]

Nonetheless it is still possible to become truly selfless, but as I mentioned, it's most likely that one will have to overcome their mind and overcome their senses first. As if you are no longer a slave to them then you can absolutely dedicate yourself to helping all life in true clarity and selflessness. There are also probably certain rare individuals born with an affinity for selflessness as well.

I think you and Mutsumi (and possibly Friends, I haven't seen the episode) are actually creating new definitions of selflessness as you go along here. To undertake a selfless act does not mean "to practice altruism towards anyone and everyone equally without discrimination" (I don't think there is even a word for that). A normally selfish person can still commit a selfless act, which can be anything which benefits another without benefiting them personally. If you honestly think that dying for your comrades still doesn't count because the knowledge that your friends might survive benefits you in the moments before your decision leads you to die (any decision to put yourself in harm's way cannot be classed as selfish) then there's probably not much I can say to change that.

My rebuttal to "Nothing is truly selfless according to my definition of selflessness" is that lots of things are selfless according to the popularly accepted definition of selflessness.

 

[Sparrowsabre7]

On another note, who still watches Friends or has everyone seen the complete collection?

I have all seasons on DVD and am waiting a while before rewatching them all again, sort of a rainy week activity I do still love 'em. I have the thinpak collection which spells "friends" if you have them all and "fries" if you're missing 6 through 9.

 

[Vashdaman]

A normally selfish person can still commit a selfless act, which can be anything which benefits another without benefiting them personally. If you honestly think that dying for your comrades still doesn't count because the knowledge that your friends might survive benefits you in the moments before your decision leads you to die (any decision to put yourself in harm's way cannot be classed as selfish) then there's probably not much I can say to change that.

I believe there are always elements of compassion whenever someone commits to an action that benefits another while asking for nothing in return from them, but those actions are very rarely completely selfless, the person performing the kind action may not be wishing for a material payment but they will be probably be after something. For example, someone may end up giving away all their material wealth to people who ask for it, yet it could be that the person giving is just to weak to say no, or charity workers doing stuff in third world countries, they might be motivated by a desire to feel like they are making a difference and helping the world. They might not be receiving anything material and they should still be completely commended but they are still being driven by a desire to feel a certain way within themselves, so how could you say it was completely selfless. Though, of course there are still aspects of great kindness involved, as I mentioned I do believe that continually trying to put others needs before your own, does eventual change you.

As for soldier sacrificing example, yeah that is the hardest example and I'm not claiming that all people who have done this have done it for self interest purposes, but it could be plausible. E.G wanting to be hero,scared of feeling shame, maybe they didn't think would die, or maybe that person felt they had little to live for anyway and so desired death. I'm not saying that all people to have sacrificed themselves for someone else have done so for these reasons, and obviously it is an incredibly kind action, but it's not automatically completely selfless just because they have put themselves in harms way. I've put myself in harms way for another before and got battered as as a result, but while I didn't do so with my own personal interests at the forefront of my mind at all, I'm not going to pretend that it was entirely selfless either, although I do I strive to be selfless.

 

[Tachi]

In a largely good mood, taking redeployment policies, redundancy policies and Employment Policies apart with a fine comb.

Seems like HR have just left themselves wide open. Being tactful i'm aiming for a raise, put bluntly i'll either get £11k extra OR they will be done for discrimination as i'm doing the same job as someone else but paid alot less.

cheeky f*ckers

 

[ayase]

No publicity is bad publicity...

Right?