The True Root of All Evil...

[Not2BSubjugated]

Actually, got to it sooner, lol.

I do agree that selfishness can be looked at as one of the key ingredients in nearly every crime one human commits against another. Also key is the use of oxygen. I've never heard of anyone who doesn't breathe oxygen committing a crime against anyone else. Water drinking, as well. Nobody, and I mean nobody, who doesn't drink water, ever does anything fucked up to anybody on this planet.

My philosophy is that it is our ‘purpose’ to become enlightened and transcend our physical bodies so that ALL OF US join the ‘whole’ again, so that the illusion of separateness (and the prison it creates) is done away with. It must be all because we are all One.

“We” have a set amount of resources to use as tools (to exist – air, water, food) and have no choice but to consume these if we want to exist long enough to become enlightened and transcend. Knowing that you are consuming the air for the purpose of reaching enlightenment (or helping others do this) is not selfish because it’s absolutely necessary to reach this end goal.

Note that a truly unselfish, loving person would be willing – at any moment – to sacrifice his/her life if they found it necessary for the greater good of the whole. I am not one of these people

Very few are..

Essentially, what I'm getting at is that selfishness is a given. Whether you believe in a universal one'ness, as in your case, or aren't sure what to believe, as in my case, you must acknowledge that the fact of the matter, as according to the physical reality we can observe via basic sensory input, is that man is not a hive-minded creature. That is, we don't seem to act via a communal consciousness, but rather each human seems to have its own individual ideas and experiences. We all look at the world through our own window and no other.

We differ on beliefs here. I believe the separateness is an illusion, and we are blinded by this fact due to the dense, low vibrational nature of this “dimension” – if you want to call it. Although rare, many sages have recorded or spoke about their “enlighted” experience, and once they are able to physically transcend into a higher vibrational plane, things like knowing what the whole is thinking (one consciousness) becomes possible. I cannot describe it firsthand because I’ve never experienced this.



I definitely never said it would be easy, and completely realize that the perceived natural state is to be selfish. However, people have transcended the ego, and the experience is said to be life-changing and something one cannot “reverse”. Once you transcend, only unselfish love – for everything – makes sense. It is said Jesus was one of these people, which (to me) makes sense.

If one person can do it, the potential is there for everyone to do it.



But when you have 3 pieces of bread and you share it with your neighbor for no reason other than you feel compassion for him, isn’t that just a small step in the direction of wholeness? In other words, you’re treating him like you’d treat yourself. You and him are the same. He feels good, you feel good. Right?




It’s not “inescapable”. There are people who are enlightened and are willing to do anything – and I mean anything – for the betterment and evolution of mankind, even if it means self-sacrifice, torture, death, etc. Again, it’s a rare condition, but attainable. Again, I’m not one of those people, but I’m trying my best to reach that height.

We believe this to be the "nature of reality" from our (perceived) individual vantage point.



I completely, completely agree Not2B. It’s an extremely difficult and incredibly crazy goal to reach for. I have no idea how and if it would occur. But if you truly believe this is our ‘purpose’, there is nothing else worth working towards. Also, I find it neat how globalization has pushed us closer to this goal. How many people in 1500 were environmentalists and worried about “preserving forests” for reasons other than selfishness? We live in interesting times. Who knows what the future will hold..



Money in it of itself is not “evil”. It’s not anything really. It comes down to the reason you want the money. If a guy wants to make a $10 million so that he can start some sort of teaching program that will help and better society – that is not selfish. If a guy needs to make $x to buy food because he’s trying to stay alive and reach a higher plane of thinking (or help others, because he’s at least partially enlightened) – that’s not selfish.

But what is selfish is wanting to make $10 million so you and your family can live comfortably, go on leisure trips, etc. Those things might not be the most horrible of horrible things, or overall all that harmful, but at the end of the day it’s a form of selfishness that does nothing to help the whole achieve universal consciousness. If you believe - like me - that our only purpose here is to rejoin the universal consciousness, than any dollar, moment, ect you spend on leisure - personal enjoyment - is "wasted" due to selfishness. It accomplished nothing but make "you" feel good.

Now again, "resting" or whatever for the purpose of reducing stress so that you can more effectively do your duty at a later time is something different..

Again, I am no sage. I do leisure activities all the time. Just want to note this.



Ideally at any given moment we should be doing the things that better help the whole reach a higher consciousness. Obviously, it’s easier said than done, but I’ve read that once you “tap into” this higher plane of thinking, the things that are “necessary” in your time here become more recognizable. Again, I’m just a normal Joe so can’t really elaborate.




I’m the same in a lot of ways, however just know that any resource “you” have that you’re not using to reach your goal of “enlightenment” (or helping others reach this) is technically being “wasted”. These are just my beliefs.

Anything you have is something that someone else does not have. Everything is circular. And it gets tricky; you want to help your mom, and will probably protect her at all costs (even if it means screwing someone else over) and although I am the same way I recognize that this is just another form of selfishness. A truly enlightened person will only be doing work to “help” the whole. They have no favorites, because “everyone” is their favorite. It’s a difficult concept to grasp, know!



But aren’t dishonesty and subjugation branches of selfishness? If you believe that everything is one whole, there is no need to lie for any malicious reason because doing that is only benefiting the self. We lie because we don’t want to look bad as an individual. We lie to hide what we perceive to be our own personal shortfalls. Don’t you agree?

And power/domination (subjugation) for ANY reason other than helping the whole? Are those selfish traits? Why else would you want or crave power?

Think about it, though. . . if the lovers of wealth only acquired said wealth via honest trade and didn't use it to subjugate the initiative of others, selfishness wouldn't be a problem.

But if people are acquiring wealth for no reason other than bettering the “whole”, that’s not selfish.

Mind you, I'm not saying my fixes are particularly realistic, simply a higher-probability option. Dishonesty and subjugation are things society can realistically combat. Acts of dishonesty (theft, fraud, etc) can be punished and deterred, as can acts that subjugate the initiative of others (theft, murder, kidnapping, assault, etc) via the most basic of societal laws and standards. The life-view of every individual, on the other hand, isn't something that can be controlled at all. When humans decided to travel overseas, it was more realistic to build a vessel to deal with the realities of maritime travel than to wish for the continents to be closer together.

Lastly, minor point. You seem to misunderstand the basic premise of Libertarianism, which is individualism. Not only would Libertarianism not conflict with the existence of selfish individuals, it's actually a system that embraces and facilitates the selfishness of the individual. The whole idea of Libertarianism is that government should exert limited control over the people so that each individual has the liberty to pursue the values of their -own- conscience. Libertarianism -is- selfishness in action.

Well, this post isn’t necessarily promoting “libertarianism”, however I will say that the ONLY way a libertarian society would truly work in harmony is for ALL the people to be unselfishly loving of one another. Right?

Again, this is not a political thread; it’s just spiritual and conceptual.

Thanks for the response!

Okay, to save time and refrain from repeating myself, I'll start with a blanket statement that'll hopefully explain why I leave large portions of your reasoning out of my response from here-on-out.

I'll have to agree to disagree with you as to man's ultimate purpose and the true nature of the universe. Perhaps there truly is only one consciousness and we are, to our detriment (it must be detrimental if the possibility exists to miss enlightenment and not transcend), temporarily separated into multiple false entities. This can neither be proven nor disproven, so I'll leave it alone and only address what we can observe via standard, physical sensory input. I will say, however, that the fact that children have to learn concepts like sharing and empathy goes pretty far to support my point that selfishness is the natural state of man. There's nothing instinctive about loving thy neighbor unless thy neighbor provides some particular value to thy life.

Subtracting articles of faith in the unseen, all I can assume via physical, sensory input, is that I exist as a singular entity and that I have access only to my own individual consciousness.

Nowthen.

The only reason I would say that the argument could be made that breathing isn't a selfish act is that it is an involuntary one. Literally anything done in self-interest, regardless of how necessary it is to your existence, is inarguably selfish, at least according to the English definitions of the terms involved.

I would argue that even your following example, a truly loving person who would sacrifice themselves at a moment's notice for the good of humanity, is just as selfish as any human being, which is purely selfish.

Mind you, you might say that his values are unselfish, but even sacrificing your own life for the good of humanity is, in essence, trading one thing for something of greater value to you. In this case, the person's life is worth less to him/her than whatever benefit humanity gains by his/her death. While self-interest may not be the highest value held by the one acting, each of that one's actions, without exception, is designed to promote and facilitate that individual's values, which is by nature self-interested in that it's always one's own values driving one's decisions. Even when an action is to satiate someone else's values, it doesn't make the action contrary to the values of the actor, but rather implies that the second party's interests -are- the actor's highest value. The fact that all actions performed by rational beings is selfish is inescapable.

Now, despite my desire to avoid a religious argument, I do still feel the need to point out that, when you say some have "transcended" the ego, I have to point out that the fact that they reached that level of unconditional love for everything around them doesn't necessitate that they reached any sort of enlightenment at all. The argument could be made that Christ and the Buddha came across their philosophies via the same sort of conscious value decisions and psychological biases that have shaped every philosophy ever.

Anyway, back to more arguable ground.

Sometimes when I share my bread with someone who has none, I do feel good. Most of the time, even. That said, there's been many times in my life that I've seen someone in need and felt -no- urge to help. There are people out there that I perceive negatively and I have no problem admitting that I would garner no pleasure whatsoever from helping some of them, even if the means to do so required zero effort. Yes, spite is in my emotional repertoire. I find myself curiously unapologetic for my humanity. Again, though, feeling good via giving your bread to others may mean that your values are relatively un-self-centered, but your bread-giving is still designed to promote those values. . . -your- values.

Next up, minor point, don't try -too- hard to find a willingness to do -anything- for the betterment of humanity. Hitler was trying to speed along the evolution of the species and achieve what he considered the betterment of all mankind, after all. Charles Manson was also doing his part to make the world a better place for everyone. Jim Crowe wanted to oppress people of African descent because he believed that their involvement in the decision making processes of society would be detrimental to that society. In my view, these shit-heels are pretty clear proof that motives don't justify actions.

Also, when I say that selfishness is inescapable, I'm not saying that humans are incapable of self-sacrifice. Clearly reality would have proven me wrong countless times over. What I'm saying is that self-sacrifice initiated by a conscious being is, in itself, a selfish act. That's why selfishness is inescapable, because even to act in a manner one considers selfless is to act in a manner that promotes and facilitates one's personal values, which is, in and of itself, selfish.

This, granted, might be an illusion created by our vantage point. The illusion, though, or the actual physical, sensory input with which reality has provided us, gives us only that vantage. Anything else is pure speculation.

Personally, I'd have to say that, if globalization has pushed us further toward choosing a particular dogma (yours, for instance) and running with it, then fuck globalization. Universally held dogmas have never caused mankind to advance. All of our major advancements in knowledge and technology have come from people going against the dogmatic grain of their societies and going against the grain of the commonly held perceptions of their time. Everybody subscribing to a dogma leads to the Dark Ages and shit like genital mutilation. Renaisance happens when and only when the dogmatists fuck off enough for the truly gifted to pursue the values of their own conscience. Yours might be a more peaceful dogma than those that led to the examples of oppression I've given, but any time people refuse the proof of their own senses in favor of a faith based explanation, human advancement stops in place. You can't be very serious about acquiring a better understanding of reality if you refuse to accept that reality is real.

The only way that everybody jumping onboard a dogma doesn't cease human advancement is if the religion at the helm just happens to be correct. Given the literally infinite number of potential explanations for the nature of reality, you'll have to forgive me if I don't hold my breath for any one in particular.

Next up, the desire for money is always selfish. The desire for money is the desire for the means to facilitate your own values, however selfish or unselfish the values themselves may be.

As far as a truly enlightened person doing only what helps the "whole", as a proud individualist I flatly refuse to accept that enlightenment necessitates a collectivist viewpoint. Really, though, we might as well be arguing religions here. Individualism, collectivism. . . unless one can prove a hard standard for morality, neither is correct or incorrect.

Dishonesty and subjugation are no more branches of selfishness than anything else, and I can be plenty selfish without being dishonest -or- bossy. I can even be selfish without being detrimental to anyone else around me. Depends on my values.

And allow me to distinguish that power is not necessarily subjugation. Money is means, means is power, and I can have plenty of money without actually subjugating the will of anyone else. I can still leave everyone around me completely free to do as they will.

That said, subjugation for the purpose of helping the whole? Holy shit selfish! Helping the whole depends on your definition of what is best for the whole. If you're subjugating others to facilitate your opinions of what is best for everyone, yes: you aren't just selfish, you are selfish as fuck.

Acquiring wealth to better the whole? Again, building the means necessary to facilitate your values? Yes, selfish.

And as far as your idea on libertarianism, it's an interesting line of thought. First off, if the only way for libertarianism to "work" is for everyone to follow humanist morals, then that kinda makes it an oxymoron, as the entire idea is allowing each individual to pursue their -own- values. If everyone has to pursue one set of values for the system to work, then it's a pointless system.

The reason I don't view it as an inherently flawed system, at least to this degree, is that it depends on the nature of your definition of a working society. Would a libertarian society without a universal philosophy of unconditional love be able to create utopia in today's world? Not fuckin likely.

Dirty secret, though: Humanity is not currently capable of creating utopia. The technology, in terms of our ability to produce and sustain those things necessary for our sustenance, simply isn't there yet. There are claims that proper central planning could manipulate the space available to make high density agriculture sufficient to feed everybody appropriately, and it is conceivable that, if everybody could be trusted to adhere to the same set of unconditional love morals, the necessary, radical lifestyle changes that would be universally required to make such a system fly could happen.

If, however, you could trust everyone to adhere to the same set of morals, libertarianism wouldn't even be a concept. No governing body would be necessary at all, save some mechanism to decide which methods of helping one another are the superior ones.

So, to close out, no system of government could, with current technological capacities, create a utopian system unless everybody was on the same moral page, but if everybody was on the same moral page, we'd have very little use for a government system. Quite a little conundrum.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Pridefulness

1:a reasonable or justifiable sense of one's worth or importance <beaming with understandable pridefulness, the physically challenged graduate accepted his college diploma>

Synonyms ego, pridefulness, self-esteem, self-regard, self-respect
Related Words aplomb, assurance, confidence, self-assurance, self-assuredness, self-confidence, self-pride, self-trust, self-worth; dignity, face, honor, prestige

2:an often unjustified feeling of being pleased with oneself or with one's situation or achievements <an inordinate amount of pridefulness for someone who has much to be modest about>

Synonyms amour propre, bighead, complacency, conceit, conceitedness, ego, egotism, pomposity, pompousness, pride, pridefulness, self-admiration, self-assumption, self-conceit, self-congratulation, self-esteem, self-glory, self-importance, self-love, self-opinion, self-satisfaction, smugness, swelled head, swellheadedness, vaingloriousness, vainglory, vainness, vanity

Related Words assurance, confidence, self-assurance, self-confidence; self-righteousness; arrogance, disdainfulness, haughtiness, imperiousness, lordliness, self-assertion, snobbishness, superciliousness, superiority; hubris, overconfidence, presumption; pretense (or pretence), pretension, pretentiousness; egoism, self-centeredness, selfishness; self-pride, self-respect



As stated, one can exhibit pridefulness, without being selfish about it. It is arguably self-centered but again one can be self-centered without being selfish.

For example, I may donate all of my money out of pridefulness and even self-rightiousness. Arguing that giving everything away is selfish because you plan to brag about not being selfish.. heh that's funny.

One can be self-centered without being selfish?


Synonyms for self-centered

adj absorbed with oneself


egocentric
egotistical
self-absorbed
self-indulgent
selfish
egoistic
egomaniacal
egotistic
grandstanding
having a swelled head
independent
inward-looking
know-it-all
narcissistic
on an ego trip
self-interested
self-involved
self-seeking
self-serving
self-sufficient
stuck on oneself
wrapped up with oneself

Note the inclusion of "selfish" amongst synonyms for "self-centered".

Now, I hate to sit here and say that Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus is a higher authority on the English language than you are, but. . .

Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus is a higher authority on the English language than you are.

What part of "synonym" is confusing you? What part of my example showing how the two words don't mean the same thing thus selfish can't be the root confused you?

I'm not confused at all. The thesaurus says that self-centered and selfish are synonyms, which means they have the same meaning.

If they're the same thing, then you can't be one without being the other.

How are -you- confused?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

lust intransitive verb
: to have a strong sexual desire for someone
: to have a strong desire for something

Synonyms: ardor, concupiscence, eros, eroticism, horniness, itch, lustfulness, passion

Note: selfishness is not even mentioned as a synonym of lust.

self·ish adjective
: having or showing concern only for yourself and not for the needs or feelings of other people

Note: one can lust and still show concern, one can be lustful without being selfish about it.

More particularly lust does not have to have anything to do with selfishness.

Should I continue?

&#8212; adj
1. chiefly concerned with one's own interest, advantage, etc, esp to the total exclusion of the interests of others
2. relating to or characterized by self-interest


See what I did there, vs what you did there?

You found a definition of selfishness that necessitates a disregard for others. I found two that do not.

Point is, selfishness does -not- have to include a disregard for others to qualify as selfishness.

Therefore, lust, born of the instinctive desire to satiate oneself physically, is -always- selfish.

HUH? your definition of self interest means the exact same thing as my quoted definition and neither are the root of lust. Why do some people think "having" means only having, as in to the exclusion of all other.

I use websters, because I don't like wasting time with poorly written definitions.

Actually, my definitions don't mean the same thing as your definitions. That's what my whole post was explaining.

You've found a definition that REQUIRES disregard for others.

I'm saying that there are plenty of valid English definitions of selfish that don't necessitate this disregard.

If you can be selfish WITHOUT disregarding others (and according to the English language, you can), and the only example you can give me of lust that is unselfish is lust without disregard for the object of the lust, then you haven't given me a definition of lust that is a counterexample of lust being selfish.

You have yet to make a conclusive argument, and from what I'm reading of your responses, you honestly have yet to comprehend what I'm saying.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

If one is hungry, does one have to be selfish to desire food?

Much simpler than that. If one is human and breathing, one is inevitably selfish.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Bullshit. Turds are the root. If one has turds one needs nothing else. One does not need lust if one loves his turds. Why would you be wrathful if all you care about is turds?

Now, come on RKM. That's not a very helpful or meaningful response.

My point is the way you are using selfish could be just as easily replaced by any term.

Widgets are the root. If one has his widgets one needs nothing else. One does not need lush if one loves his widgets. Why would you be wrathful if all you care about is widgets?

IOW you drew up a long winded strawman argument.

Here, we finally agree.

Saying selfishness is the root of all evil is like saying that if humans just stopped breathing oxygen they'd probably stop doing eachother wrong.

If the entire nature of reality was somehow different, things could totally be improved.

 

[thebrucebeat]

What part of "synonym" is confusing you? What part of my example showing how the two words don't mean the same thing thus selfish can't be the root confused you?

They don't have to be synonyms for one to be the root of the other. That's simply silly.
If anger is the root of a murder, does that make anger a synonym of murder?
Of course not.

I'm thinking you don't know what root of a word means. root - definition and examples of root

We aren't talking about the roots of words. We aren't talking linguistics.
We are talking about what is at the root of a concept.
Well, we are.
You have gone off on an avoidance tangent.

 

[RKMBrown]

Now, come on RKM. That's not a very helpful or meaningful response.

My point is the way you are using selfish could be just as easily replaced by any term.

Widgets are the root. If one has his widgets one needs nothing else. One does not need lush if one loves his widgets. Why would you be wrathful if all you care about is widgets?

IOW you drew up a long winded strawman argument.

You can't seriously think you just made a credible argument.

All I did was prove that his argument is a strawman. If you believe in validity of strawmen arguments, well then carry on.

 

[RKMBrown]

If one is hungry, does one have to be selfish to desire food?

Much simpler than that. If one is human and breathing, one is inevitably selfish.

Even simpler. To err is human.

 

[RKMBrown]

They don't have to be synonyms for one to be the root of the other. That's simply silly.
If anger is the root of a murder, does that make anger a synonym of murder?
Of course not.

I'm thinking you don't know what root of a word means. root - definition and examples of root

We aren't talking about the roots of words. We aren't talking linguistics.
We are talking about what is at the root of a concept.
Well, we are.
You have gone off on an avoidance tangent.

Now selfishness is a concept? Who's avoiding what?

Selfishness does not "begat" lust. Lust is an entirely different desire than the desire for self gratification. One could just as easily have tried to make the argument that lust begat selfishness.

For example, it could be argued that lust is a chemical reaction to pheromones ingrained in our biology. Where selfishness is a learned trait, or at least a different desire based on a wholly different set of chemicals, such as adrenaline.

 

[thebrucebeat]

My point is the way you are using selfish could be just as easily replaced by any term.

Widgets are the root. If one has his widgets one needs nothing else. One does not need lush if one loves his widgets. Why would you be wrathful if all you care about is widgets?

IOW you drew up a long winded strawman argument.

You can't seriously think you just made a credible argument.

All I did was prove that his argument is a strawman. If you believe in validity of strawmen arguments, well then carry on.

No dear.
I actually know what a strawman is, and his argument wasn't one.
You on the other hand changed the goalposts when the rest of us were talking about the root of a concept and you cite linguistics, a complete and utter tangent that was completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

 

[Darkwind]

Selfishness is the root of all evil, despair, hate, pain, suffering, etc in this world. The only way we are going to experience peace here on earth is if we learn (as a whole) to unselfishly love everyone and everything.

I'm a believer in the idea that everything in the Universe is ultimately One thing, and that duality (ie the illusion of separateness that we experience as physical beings here on earth) is the cause of all problems here on earth.

Separateness leads to selfishness.
Wholeness leads to unselfish love.

Anyone have similar views? Thoughts?

Lecutus, that you?

 

[RKMBrown]

&#8212; adj
1. chiefly concerned with one's own interest, advantage, etc, esp to the total exclusion of the interests of others
2. relating to or characterized by self-interest


See what I did there, vs what you did there?

You found a definition of selfishness that necessitates a disregard for others. I found two that do not.

Point is, selfishness does -not- have to include a disregard for others to qualify as selfishness.

Therefore, lust, born of the instinctive desire to satiate oneself physically, is -always- selfish.

HUH? your definition of self interest means the exact same thing as my quoted definition and neither are the root of lust. Why do some people think "having" means only having, as in to the exclusion of all other.

I use websters, because I don't like wasting time with poorly written definitions.

Actually, my definitions don't mean the same thing as your definitions. That's what my whole post was explaining.

You've found a definition that REQUIRES disregard for others.

I'm saying that there are plenty of valid English definitions of selfish that don't necessitate this disregard.

If you can be selfish WITHOUT disregarding others (and according to the English language, you can), and the only example you can give me of lust that is unselfish is lust without disregard for the object of the lust, then you haven't given me a definition of lust that is a counterexample of lust being selfish.

You have yet to make a conclusive argument, and from what I'm reading of your responses, you honestly have yet to comprehend what I'm saying.

Nonsense.

First off your accusation regarding my quoted definition as having a "REQUIREMENT" for dis-regard is nonsense. Your's used the term esp. to add emphasis. Mine simply made the same statement your's emphasized without adding the suggestion that it was not a requirement. Mine did not say what you are saying it said. Thus, you have yet to comprehend what I'm saying.

"you haven't given me a definition of lust that is a counterexample of lust being selfish"

I provided a counter example for another type of desire, that of pride. I guess you missed it.

Here, for your reading pleasure. I give you a story of romance. A story in which the initial lustful desires of a couple for each other transcend into self-less love for each other. Yeah sometimes that actually happens. You see it is possible for lust to begat not from selfish desires but from the rewards of a loving self-less relationship in which either party would self-lessly give their time, money, nay even lives to forgo any such meaningless lust originating sexual gratification to the exclusion of their partner. Nay, I say unto you that the mere act of giving your partner pleasure may be much more gratifying than receiving same.

Thus, accusing self-less acts of giving (sexual pleasure to your partner) as being selfish acts is nonsensical, ridiculous, and provably incorrect. Ergo... proof complete.

 

[RKMBrown]

You can't seriously think you just made a credible argument.

All I did was prove that his argument is a strawman. If you believe in validity of strawmen arguments, well then carry on.

No dear.
I actually know what a strawman is, and his argument wasn't one.
You on the other hand changed the goalposts when the rest of us were talking about the root of a concept and you cite linguistics, a complete and utter tangent that was completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

I'll go real slow fer ya, cause you seem nice and lost

The statement "widgets are the root of all evil because they are" is my strawman.
The statement "selfishness is the root of all evil because they are" is the OP's strawman.

As to the root of words in linguistics being a slight deflection. Duh I suppose you could say I was being selfish.

My proof that the very same desires could root from self-less acts, being ignored. Gave me the motive for selfish revenge

 

[thebrucebeat]

All I did was prove that his argument is a strawman. If you believe in validity of strawmen arguments, well then carry on.

No dear.
I actually know what a strawman is, and his argument wasn't one.
You on the other hand changed the goalposts when the rest of us were talking about the root of a concept and you cite linguistics, a complete and utter tangent that was completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

I'll go real slow fer ya, cause you seem nice and lost

The statement "widgets are the root of all evil because they are" is my strawman.
The statement "selfishness is the root of all evil because they are" is the OP's strawman.

As to the root of words in linguistics being a slight deflection. Duh I suppose you could say I was being selfish.

My proof that the very same desires could root from self-less acts, being ignored. Gave me the motive for selfish revenge

Neither of those are strawman arguments.
They are circular reasoning.
Do you know what a strawman is?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

I'm thinking you don't know what root of a word means. root - definition and examples of root

We aren't talking about the roots of words. We aren't talking linguistics.
We are talking about what is at the root of a concept.
Well, we are.
You have gone off on an avoidance tangent.

Now selfishness is a concept? Who's avoiding what?

Selfishness does not "begat" lust. Lust is an entirely different desire than the desire for self gratification. One could just as easily have tried to make the argument that lust begat selfishness.

For example, it could be argued that lust is a chemical reaction to pheromones ingrained in our biology. Where selfishness is a learned trait, or at least a different desire based on a wholly different set of chemicals, such as adrenaline.

Selfishness is a learned trait? I had no idea infants were so altruistic. Here I thought that my experience in life, what with having to be taught that sharing is caring and having to figure out how things affected me before I could understand how they'd affect others, was pretty standard. I had no idea I was psychologically unique.

Why don't you point out some examples of selfless toddlers who haven't been taught to be self-centered yet. LMFAO!

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

HUH? your definition of self interest means the exact same thing as my quoted definition and neither are the root of lust. Why do some people think "having" means only having, as in to the exclusion of all other.

I use websters, because I don't like wasting time with poorly written definitions.

Actually, my definitions don't mean the same thing as your definitions. That's what my whole post was explaining.

You've found a definition that REQUIRES disregard for others.

I'm saying that there are plenty of valid English definitions of selfish that don't necessitate this disregard.

If you can be selfish WITHOUT disregarding others (and according to the English language, you can), and the only example you can give me of lust that is unselfish is lust without disregard for the object of the lust, then you haven't given me a definition of lust that is a counterexample of lust being selfish.

You have yet to make a conclusive argument, and from what I'm reading of your responses, you honestly have yet to comprehend what I'm saying.

Nonsense.

First off your accusation regarding my quoted definition as having a "REQUIREMENT" for dis-regard is nonsense. Your's used the term esp. to add emphasis. Mine simply made the same statement your's emphasized without adding the suggestion that it was not a requirement. Mine did not say what you are saying it said. Thus, you have yet to comprehend what I'm saying.

"you haven't given me a definition of lust that is a counterexample of lust being selfish"

I provided a counter example for another type of desire, that of pride. I guess you missed it.

Here, for your reading pleasure. I give you a story of romance. A story in which the initial lustful desires of a couple for each other transcend into self-less love for each other. Yeah sometimes that actually happens. You see it is possible for lust to begat not from selfish desires but from the rewards of a loving self-less relationship in which either party would self-lessly give their time, money, nay even lives to forgo any such meaningless lust originating sexual gratification to the exclusion of their partner. Nay, I say unto you that the mere act of giving your partner pleasure may be much more gratifying than receiving same.

Thus, accusing self-less acts of giving (sexual pleasure to your partner) as being selfish acts is nonsensical, ridiculous, and provably incorrect. Ergo... proof complete.

WTF!? I can understand missing the meaning of my argument, but not understanding the implications of YOUR OWN ARGUMENT!? Actually, that's overly generous. Fuck implications. You apparently don't understand the DIRECT MEANING of what you actually posted.

You literally based your -ENTIRE- opening argument on the requirement for disregard. Let me quote it for you and tell you how you did so.

"self·ish adjective
: having or showing concern only for yourself and not for the needs or feelings of other people

Note: one can lust and still show concern, one can be lustful without being selfish about it."

First of all, the very wording of the definition you used contains the requirement I was criticizing. "Having or showing concern ONLY for yourself AND not for the needs or feelings of other people". ONLY with yourself. AND not for the needs of other people, not OR, not MAYBE. AND. Since you're so concerned with linguistics, this should be easy enough for you to grasp, I won't go into the definitions of these very basic words.

You then reinforce the portion of the definition in question with your argument. "One can lust and still show concern. . .". This implies that showing concern negates its nature as a selfish act. If that is the case, then your definition most definitely does -require- a lack of regard for others to qualify anything as selfish.

So, if I'm not comprehending what you're saying, here, it's because you're using foreign definitions of the words "and" and "only". I'm also somehow missing how your argument here doesn't contradict itself.

The only reason you gave that your counterexample showed lust that was unselfish is that it could show regard for the other person. If that regard is the only remarkable trait you've pointed out (and it is), AND that regard excuses the act of lust from being a selfish act, then how can you claim that you aren't saying that disregard for others is a requirement for selfishness? The only thing I can think of is that regard for others sometimes excuses the act and sometimes doesn't, and for reasons that you have yet to articulate. If this is the case, please expound on where the distinction lies.

Come on, man, you don't gotta keep up with my arguments, but at least keep up with your own.

Your pride example was also errant, though mostly due to the peripheral issue. . .

"It is arguably self-centered but again one can be self-centered without being selfish."

Seeing as how selfish and self-centered are synonyms, no, one cannot be self-centered without being selfish.

More importantly, though:

Since you're just splitting hairs over how some motives make the act selfish and some make it unselfish, lemme just recap the overview.

Every act performed by a conscious being is a selfish one. Literally everything you do (unless you're possessed and being literally worked like a puppet) is the result of a value decision. When you give someone money, even if you do it SPECIFICALLY because you want them to have that money so they can eat, it's -still- a selfish act. You value that person having food to eat more than you value the amount of money that you gave them. If you did not, you would not have done so. Everything you do, including acts of altruism, is designed to promote and facilitate your personal values.

As a human being, you cannot escape that you are selfish. Everything you do is selfish.

If you drop the dogma-based, negative connotations that you seem to be harboring, you'll find this fact easy to swallow and, I daresay, liberating.

Now, before you go crazy calling this a baseless accusation, consider the fact that my ideas on selfishness have led you to assume that I've never been in a truly loving, meaningful, romantic relationship. Nay, that I'm unaware that such a thing could even exist!

Sorry to burst your bubble, but when I love, I do so all out! I don't even consider telling a girl I love her unless I care more for her than my own life, and don't doubt for one moment that I'd give my life in a heartbeat for the people closest to me. The difference between you and I isn't that I care less about people. The difference is simply that I acknowledge that even my willingness to die for a loved one is a selfish thing, born of the fact that I value a reality in which I die and they live on more than the alternative.

I also acknowledge that there's nothing selfless about love, especially that of the romantic variety. If the object of your affection didn't bring some value into your life, you wouldn't love them. I know you're probably going to take that statement as overly-literally as possible, so I'll preempt: When I say value, I don't mean physical value, necessarily. I mean simply that the net result of their presence in your life is a positive, emotionally. That person being a part of your life gives you happiness. If it didn't, you wouldn't feel the way you do about them.

Some might argue that you love even those whose presence equals a net negative. Anyone can call to mind many examples of people staying in friendships and even romantic relationships that are making them miserable. Don't mistake this with love, either. If you're staying around someone who makes you miserable, it's not love, it's a misplaced sense of duty. We like to call it love because nobody wants to believe that their motives are anything other than noble, but what it truly boils down to is avoidance, 10 times out of 10, though for varying reasons. Some people don't want to feel like an asshole who got buyer's remorse with another human being, some people do it for the kids, some people just plain don't like conflict. Still selfish.

 

[Clement]

Why is selfishness "evil"?

Is there anyone who is not selfish?

There are enlightened people here on Earth who have transcended the illusion of separateness and hence are (truly) no longer selfish. The ego has vanished. Very rare, however. Jesus was thought to be one, and the same goes for the Buddha.

Also, selfishness comes in varying degrees. A "little" selfishness might not have a profound effect (many people are largely good & caring), but extreme selfishness will tend to have a much larger "evil" (if you want to call it that) effect. Either way, selfishness is never (in the end) a good thing.

Think about it. Compare a world full of people who think only about themselves, and will consume vast amounts of resources from places they can care less about (because they know that they won't be around in 50 years to face the consequences), ..with a world full of people who are 100% aware that every resource they consume will have some sort of an effect on someone else (and will curb their habits in the best interests of the overall world community).

Which world will be filled with more suffering in the end?


.

Not too self righteous, are we?

Here's a little parable for you:

He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt: “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.’ But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”

 

[Traditionalist]

No, the root of all evil is people-men and women-disobeying God. Selfishness is merely a symptom of man's alienated state.

 

[KevinWestern]

You have the same problem as the OP. You think that because there may be associations between words that they somehow can magically be the same thing.

Try to write a sentence using only the term selfishness. Why do you think we have more than one or two words?

Put it a different way. Can you not explain the difference between selfishness and lust?

Selfishness is no more the root of lust than boobs are. By your argument I could say boob addiction is the root of all evil.

Why do we lust RKM? Lust is an uncontrolled craving for making oneself "feel good". How is that not a selfish activity?

Again, it's actually interesting you brought up the 7 deadly sins because every single one is clearly traceable to selfish roots.

Ayup... and one could also argue that anything is traceable to anything within a certain number of degrees. Call it the kevin bacon effect.

Well, if that's the case it should be no problem tracing back greed - for instance - to complete unselfish love for all things.

Can you?

 

[RKMBrown]

Actually, my definitions don't mean the same thing as your definitions. That's what my whole post was explaining.

You've found a definition that REQUIRES disregard for others.

I'm saying that there are plenty of valid English definitions of selfish that don't necessitate this disregard.

If you can be selfish WITHOUT disregarding others (and according to the English language, you can), and the only example you can give me of lust that is unselfish is lust without disregard for the object of the lust, then you haven't given me a definition of lust that is a counterexample of lust being selfish.

You have yet to make a conclusive argument, and from what I'm reading of your responses, you honestly have yet to comprehend what I'm saying.

Nonsense.

First off your accusation regarding my quoted definition as having a "REQUIREMENT" for dis-regard is nonsense. Your's used the term esp. to add emphasis. Mine simply made the same statement your's emphasized without adding the suggestion that it was not a requirement. Mine did not say what you are saying it said. Thus, you have yet to comprehend what I'm saying.

"you haven't given me a definition of lust that is a counterexample of lust being selfish"

I provided a counter example for another type of desire, that of pride. I guess you missed it.

Here, for your reading pleasure. I give you a story of romance. A story in which the initial lustful desires of a couple for each other transcend into self-less love for each other. Yeah sometimes that actually happens. You see it is possible for lust to begat not from selfish desires but from the rewards of a loving self-less relationship in which either party would self-lessly give their time, money, nay even lives to forgo any such meaningless lust originating sexual gratification to the exclusion of their partner. Nay, I say unto you that the mere act of giving your partner pleasure may be much more gratifying than receiving same.

Thus, accusing self-less acts of giving (sexual pleasure to your partner) as being selfish acts is nonsensical, ridiculous, and provably incorrect. Ergo... proof complete.

WTF!? I can understand missing the meaning of my argument, but not understanding the implications of YOUR OWN ARGUMENT!? Actually, that's overly generous. Fuck implications. You apparently don't understand the DIRECT MEANING of what you actually posted.

You literally based your -ENTIRE- opening argument on the requirement for disregard. Let me quote it for you and tell you how you did so.

"self·ish adjective
: having or showing concern only for yourself and not for the needs or feelings of other people

Note: one can lust and still show concern, one can be lustful without being selfish about it."

First of all, the very wording of the definition you used contains the requirement I was criticizing. "Having or showing concern ONLY for yourself AND not for the needs or feelings of other people". ONLY with yourself. AND not for the needs of other people, not OR, not MAYBE. AND. Since you're so concerned with linguistics, this should be easy enough for you to grasp, I won't go into the definitions of these very basic words.

You then reinforce the portion of the definition in question with your argument. "One can lust and still show concern. . .". This implies that showing concern negates its nature as a selfish act. If that is the case, then your definition most definitely does -require- a lack of regard for others to qualify anything as selfish.

So, if I'm not comprehending what you're saying, here, it's because you're using foreign definitions of the words "and" and "only". I'm also somehow missing how your argument here doesn't contradict itself.

The only reason you gave that your counterexample showed lust that was unselfish is that it could show regard for the other person. If that regard is the only remarkable trait you've pointed out (and it is), AND that regard excuses the act of lust from being a selfish act, then how can you claim that you aren't saying that disregard for others is a requirement for selfishness? The only thing I can think of is that regard for others sometimes excuses the act and sometimes doesn't, and for reasons that you have yet to articulate. If this is the case, please expound on where the distinction lies.

Come on, man, you don't gotta keep up with my arguments, but at least keep up with your own.

Your pride example was also errant, though mostly due to the peripheral issue. . .

"It is arguably self-centered but again one can be self-centered without being selfish."

Seeing as how selfish and self-centered are synonyms, no, one cannot be self-centered without being selfish.

More importantly, though:

Since you're just splitting hairs over how some motives make the act selfish and some make it unselfish, lemme just recap the overview.

Every act performed by a conscious being is a selfish one. Literally everything you do (unless you're possessed and being literally worked like a puppet) is the result of a value decision. When you give someone money, even if you do it SPECIFICALLY because you want them to have that money so they can eat, it's -still- a selfish act. You value that person having food to eat more than you value the amount of money that you gave them. If you did not, you would not have done so. Everything you do, including acts of altruism, is designed to promote and facilitate your personal values.

As a human being, you cannot escape that you are selfish. Everything you do is selfish.

If you drop the dogma-based, negative connotations that you seem to be harboring, you'll find this fact easy to swallow and, I daresay, liberating.

Now, before you go crazy calling this a baseless accusation, consider the fact that my ideas on selfishness have led you to assume that I've never been in a truly loving, meaningful, romantic relationship. Nay, that I'm unaware that such a thing could even exist!

Sorry to burst your bubble, but when I love, I do so all out! I don't even consider telling a girl I love her unless I care more for her than my own life, and don't doubt for one moment that I'd give my life in a heartbeat for the people closest to me. The difference between you and I isn't that I care less about people. The difference is simply that I acknowledge that even my willingness to die for a loved one is a selfish thing, born of the fact that I value a reality in which I die and they live on more than the alternative.

I also acknowledge that there's nothing selfless about love, especially that of the romantic variety. If the object of your affection didn't bring some value into your life, you wouldn't love them. I know you're probably going to take that statement as overly-literally as possible, so I'll preempt: When I say value, I don't mean physical value, necessarily. I mean simply that the net result of their presence in your life is a positive, emotionally. That person being a part of your life gives you happiness. If it didn't, you wouldn't feel the way you do about them.

Some might argue that you love even those whose presence equals a net negative. Anyone can call to mind many examples of people staying in friendships and even romantic relationships that are making them miserable. Don't mistake this with love, either. If you're staying around someone who makes you miserable, it's not love, it's a misplaced sense of duty. We like to call it love because nobody wants to believe that their motives are anything other than noble, but what it truly boils down to is avoidance, 10 times out of 10, though for varying reasons. Some people don't want to feel like an asshole who got buyer's remorse with another human being, some people do it for the kids, some people just plain don't like conflict. Still selfish.

Summary: you use a broad definition of the term selfishness to include all selfless acts, thus it is in your belief system that it is impossible for a human to perform a voluntary act that is not selfish. All acts from "birth" to "death" must be selfish, thus they are all selfish, thus all acts derive from said selfish desires no matter how altruistic they may appear on the surface.

IOW your definition of selfishness is really an attempt to find a term to describe all decisions of the soul, each and every decision we make reduced to biochemical reactions to stimuli by our brain. Said more simply, you don't believe in the concept of self determination, aka. the soul.

I on the other hand, disagree. I believe that while we may be reduced to soulless knee jerk reactive decision making based on eons of evolution, I also believe that we as humans have the ability to make conscious, soulful, decisions to do the opposite of what our biochemical reactive instincts are telling us to do. I believe we can fight up stream against our better judgement to do that which is not easy, not desirable, and not selfish.

Said yet another way, I don't share your philosophy.