There's a Reason this Hits Home

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

There's a Reason this Hits Home

 

This thing is going viral and there is a strong reason.

 

 

From my studies, I realize what a large dose of oxytocin this produces in the brain. That, and mirror neurons, are ultimately what make us tear up. 

 

Our natural reaction to this kind of situation produces, in my view, a real issue a philosophy of rational individualism has to face if it is going to take on the major religions. If the best philosophy emerges from human nature, that reaction is human nature, too. 

 

I believe this is not a conundrum, nor is it that hard. But neuroscience cannot seen to be the enemy of philosophy, otherwise it will be hard.

 

There is a difference between using altruism as a primary code of ethics--thereby opening the way for power mongers to use it as an instrument of control--and empathy, even tearjerking empathy on trying to end the suffering of another.

 

It's OK to cry at a video like this. Our brains are wired to.

 

I'll go further. It's OK to call the POW good after he went home, even though he mostly did charity work.

 

He was passing on what was given to him in a terrible situation. Ironically, I see this as a very selfish decision that brought him great happiness. A form of standing up to a bully on a metaphysical level.

 

I see no reason to exclude this kind of emotion and reason for it from the lives of those who experience the heroic exultation of productive achievement. It's not either/or. We can have both.

 

The bully is the bad guy, not the oxytocin.

 

Anyway, my type of good guy has always been the one who kicks the ass of the bad guys, but also helps little old ladies across the street, even in my most Randroidish phase.

 

Michael

[Selene]

Excellent Michael.

I am working on a piece that is analytical in nature.

However, it addresses the misplaced rigidity of the early Objectivists.

Additionally, you are also correct as to why Objectivism had, and has, a significant problem penetrating the 90% of society that is religious/spiritual.

It feels great to help a child, rescue an animal and frankly, as you aptly pointed out, engage in selfish pursuits as the survivor in the video chooses to achieve with his life.

I was part of a pre-Cana classes**** before I got married because the wedding was going to be in a Catholic church. So that was part of the drill.

Of course, I was carrying a copy of Atlas and proceeded to get into some fascinating conversations with the group.

Essentially, got the priest teacher to admit that serving God and submitting to God's will made him ecstatically happy.

I agreed and therefore, he was the most selfish person in the room.

Turned that marriage is self sacrifice argument into confetti.

A...

****http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Cana

[Brant Gaede]

Replace God with Reality. Faith with reason. In the transition drop God and drop faith. Or, faith is only in the, the base of, axiomatic reasoning, the "First Cause," leaving reason for the rest of it. Finally, switch the nomenclature: God becomes Reality. Reality always was God but reality was too unknown relative to the known--there was too much of it--hence, the supernatural was invented. Thanks to science we can drop the religion of faith and come with the religion of reason. Take about 500 - 1000 years.

--Brant

wildly optimistic with this Reality worship

[moralist]

Essentially, got the priest teacher to admit that serving God and submitting to God's will made him ecstatically happy.

I agreed and therefore, he was the most selfish person in the room.

Right actions are where Objectivism and religion overlap.

Secular doing what's objectively right and religious doing what's objectively right are the same.

Objective reality only recognizes what you do, so it doesn't matter why you do it.

Greg

[moralist]

Replace God with Reality. Faith with reason. In the transition drop God and drop faith. Or, faith is only in the, the base of, axiomatic reasoning, the "First Cause," leaving reason for the rest of it. Finally, switch the nomenclature: God becomes Reality. Reality always was God but reality was too unknown relative to the known--there was too much of it--hence, the supernatural was invented. Thanks to science we can drop the religion of faith and come with the religion of reason. Take about 500 - 1000 years.

--Brant

wildly optimistic with this Reality worship

I see the same thing from the other side...

It doesn't matter to God whether people believe in Him or not... only that they do what's right... because that's what brings Paradise down to Earth.

Greg

[George H. Smith]

A few years ago I posted on OL some excerpts from my early article "Objectivism as a Religion." Some of the points I made seem relevant to this discussion.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=11798&p=157334

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

George,

Later today, I'm going to discuss some relevant points from over there to over here.

For now, I just want to mention the part about NB and penis size, flaccid and erect.

Cool.

(I'll worry about the relevancy of that later. )

Michael

[Francisco Ferrer]

Another demonstration that altruism is not evil.

Branden asked, "What is to be the goal or purpose of a man’s actions? Who is to be the intended beneficiary of his actions? Is he to hold, as his primary moral purpose, the achievement of his own life and happiness—or should his primary moral purpose be to serve the wishes and needs of others?" ("Isn't Everyone Selfish?" in The Virtue of Selfishness)

Examine the last sentence above. Why must we assume a dichotomy between achieving one's own life and happiness and serving the wishes and needs of others?

In some individuals, as in the video above, the purpose may be the same.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Francisco,

Dayaamm!

I think we agree.

WTF?

There is a huge difference between pointing out how compassion, empathy, etc. (i.e., altruism sort of) can be used as an intellectual/emotional con game to rule others, and trying to prove that it is evil as a human value--or at best, without worth one way or another.

Rand did the first brilliantly, but she also ventured into the second at times. I agree with her for the first, but not the second.

Once more, I have a scope difference with her thinking. It's brilliant in the part it nails, but it is not valid for the whole shebang.

Humans developed oxytocin and mirror neurons for a biological reason. Any philosophy that calls such a large part of our biology evil or without worth is not identifying human nature correctly. Ditto for religions that put this above all else.

Michael

[anthony]

Another demonstration that altruism is not evil.

Branden asked, "What is to be the goal or purpose of a man’s actions? Who is to be the intended beneficiary of his actions? Is he to hold, as his primary moral purpose, the achievement of his own life and happiness—or should his primary moral purpose be to serve the wishes and needs of others?" ("Isn't Everyone Selfish?" in The Virtue of Selfishness)

Examine the last sentence above. Why must we assume a dichotomy between achieving one's own life and happiness and serving the wishes and needs of others?

In some individuals, as in the video above, the purpose may be the same.

"Why must we assume a dichotomy..."

Rght you are, there isn't one. Except I'd take issue with the "serving". And note that NB critically writes "primary" (moral purpose).

The many-layered physical and conscious person (yes, from oxytocin and neuroscience through his good emotions to his highest ideals) should indeed not be at war with any part of himself.

At least, for no more than a short while.

Therefore that man's apprehension of all other composite, complex beings can only be of good will, facing as we do a common reality.

Rand I see recently confirmed this, when asked something about society, she replied (roughly), " Exactly, as long as it's a HUMAN society".

It is hard-thought and -won convictions which ultimately are the protector of a person's fine feelings, anyhow, I've believed.

There is plenty more to philosophical altruism, FF, than what you've delineated.

Altruism literally is loss of self to others' selves, to the eventual point of uselessness to one's self, or in fact to others .

[Francisco Ferrer]

How would an objective observer know the difference between a man selfishly devoting himself to others and a man selflessly devoting himself to others?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

How would an objective observer know the difference between a man selfishly devoting himself to others and a man selflessly devoting himself to others?

Watching whether he is displaying boredom and agony as opposed to happy vibes?

This reminds me of a self-help thing I was looking into (but I can't remember where right now).

The question was raised about how people can tell those who assimilated the training from those who didn't get it. And the answer was that if you saw folks walking around with silly grins on their faces most of the time, those are the ones who probably got it.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

How would an objective observer know the difference between a man selfishly devoting himself to others and a man selflessly devoting himself to others?

Why would he care? I find that a more interesting question.

Selflessness is the product of not making the best choice for oneself from the discernable menu. Every choice costs the choice not made. A wrong choice can be innocent or not for sundry or myriad reasons. We end up calling those "mistakes." Sometime these mistakes really weren't, just a rear-view mirror longing for a reality in which more choices were possible out of current satiation. Well, turn around and continue with your life for the past is dead, dead, dead.

What selflessness really is is giving up of individual autonomy for collective indulgence. Hence the moral taste of some for authoritarianism which might in turn devolve into totalitarianism sometimes fueled by mob hysteria feeding on itself. You can have a mob of college kids going on a panty raid--or a football game--and tens of thousands, even more, Germans going to one of those massive Nazi rallies. Such are the extremes. These are surges of epistemological energy of basically the same type in a much more modest way you can get at the theater from a dramatic performance. A real actor loves that audience interaction and the same for the audience. That's good; this sort of thing doesn't have to be bad. I suppose it's why so many sports fans love to go to the game even though it seems to me qua game it's better on TV. The few games I ever went to caused too much dead-time boredom. An NBA basketball game might work for me, but I've never gone. The college game would be too slow, I fear.

The best morality, selfishness or rational self interest, is for the autonomous person. Selflessness is surrender of autonomy and is the moral justification for any cultural-intellectual-political construct--and means of control--of what is less than freedom or predominantly not freedom in the extant society.

--Brant

[Francisco Ferrer]

There's an accountant friend of mine who every spring works 18-hour days and curses his way through the great stacks of forms that have to move across his desk. He's quite wealthy and well past the standard retirement age. He could be enjoying these first warm days in the pool in his backyard or playing golf at his private club. Yet he grumbles and drags himself to work every day as if under a death threat.

I ask him often why he doesn't just quit, and he tells me he'd hate not doing it more.

I've come to the conclusion that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it's best to assume that people do what makes them happy (or happier). As Mises says, "Acting man is eager to substitute a more satisfactory state of affairs for a less satisfactory."

Perhaps we should not care about any objective differences between a man selfishly devoting himself to others and a man selflessly devoting himself to others.

Perhaps there are none.

Perhaps there is no objective reason for assuming that anyone acts unselfishly.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Perhaps there is no objective reason for assuming that anyone acts unselfishly.

Perhaps there is no objective reason for anything at all?

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Perhaps there is no objective reason for assuming that anyone acts unselfishly.

Perhaps there is no objective reason for anything at all?

Michael

Objectively speaking?

--Brant

No objective reasons = no subjective reasons only reasons, for one idea needs the other and to say differently is a contradiction and all this only exists inside one's head and the ID is is it real existentially with "real"? leaving behind or beyond all reasons which are only epistemological end-product labeling with reason justified as the gateway to the reality underlying ostensible realities

[Francisco Ferrer]

Claim: The boiling point of water is 100°C or 212° F at 1 atmosphere of pressure (sea level).

Proof (evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement): I can confirm this in a rented beach house with a stove, a pot, a thermometer and a few ounces of H2O. Thus there is objective proof for at least one claim about the world.

Claim: Some people act unselfishly.

Proof: . (still waiting)

[Selene]

There's an accountant friend of mine who every spring works 18-hour days and curses his way through the great stacks of forms that have to move across his desk. He's quite wealthy and well past the standard retirement age. He could be enjoying these first warm days in the pool in his backyard or playing golf at his private club. Yet he grumbles and drags himself to work every day as if under a death threat.

I ask him often why he doesn't just quit, and he tells me he'd hate not doing it more.

I've come to the conclusion that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it's best to assume that people do what makes them happy (or happier). As Mises says, "Acting man is eager to substitute a more satisfactory state of affairs for a less satisfactory."

Perhaps we should not care about any objective differences between a man selfishly devoting himself to others and a man selflessly devoting himself to others.

Perhaps there are none.

Perhaps there is no objective reason for assuming that anyone acts unselfishly.

Perhaps this is Frank's sophist selfishness...

Finally, the period saw the flourishing of a challenging, rationalistic climate of thought on questions including those of morality, religion and political conduct, to which the sophists both responded and contributed. It is important to emphasize the individualistic character of the sophistic profession; its practitioners belonged to no organization, shared no common body of beliefs and founded no schools, either in the sense of academic institutions or in that of bodies of individuals committed to the promulgation of specific doctrines.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sophists/

A...

[Francisco Ferrer]

sophist:

1: philosopher
2 capitalized : any of a class of ancient Greek teachers of rhetoric, philosophy, and the art of successful living prominent about the middle of the fifth century b.c. for their adroit subtle and allegedly often specious reasoning
3: a captious or fallacious reasoner

None of those definitions fit me.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Claim: Some people blank out information right in front of their nose.

Proof:

Claim: Some people act unselfishly.

Proof: . (still waiting)

Added to this:

How would an objective observer know the difference between a man selfishly devoting himself to others and a man selflessly devoting himself to others?

Watching whether he is displaying boredom and agony as opposed to happy vibes?

Whether one likes this proof or not, this is something.

So not still waiting at all. But if one blanks out, one can still be waiting.

Ah... for the desire of my youth to be convinced I was superior to others through word games...

I envy those who still entertain this...

(I better stop now before I get entangled in another personality thing that pisses time away in nothing. Besides, George Smith mentioned some real ideas instead of this bullshit. I think I'll pursue those...)

Michael

[Selene]

Yep...

[Brant Gaede]

Claim: Some people blank out information right in front of their nose.

Proof:

Claim: Some people act unselfishly.

Proof: . (still waiting)

Added to this:

How would an objective observer know the difference between a man selfishly devoting himself to others and a man selflessly devoting himself to others?

Watching whether he is displaying boredom and agony as opposed to happy vibes?

Whether one likes this proof or not, this is something.

So not still waiting at all. But if one blanks out, one can still be waiting.

Ah... for the desire of my youth to be convinced I was superior to others through word games...

I envy those who still entertain this...

(I better stop now before I get entangled in another personality thing that pisses time away in nothing. Besides, George Smith mentioned some real ideas instead of this bullshit. I think I'll pursue those...)

Michael

"Yep..."

[Francisco Ferrer]

I think we already have agreed that we need not assume a dichotomy between achieving one's own life and happiness and serving the wishes and needs of others. One may help others and thereby increase one's own satisfaction and thus purpose in life.

The only question is whether there are some individuals who act on behalf of others and in so doing do not increase their own satisfaction/purpose-fulfillment. If so, how would we distinguish them from those who serve others selfishly?

Now the problem of blanking out information may come from time to time. I certainly hope that I have not blanked out any important information in this discussion. So, regarding the question of establishing the existence of truly unselfish people, where do we look for evidence?

"Happy vibes"? I did not blank this out. I responded with the example of my accountant who gives off conspicuously unhappy vibes about the work he does yet refuses to give up the work. He crunches numbers, he complains, and he crunches again. At the same time there is little chance that his luxurious home and savings would go away were he to stop working.

If Person A performs Action X again and again--even while complaining--why should we assume that he is not increasing his level of satisfaction/fulfillment of life's purpose? If in the absence of coercion an individual repeats or continues in an activity, negative vibes aside, there is no reason to suppose that person is not acting selfishly. See Post #1 for an example.

If people attended a self-help seminar and appeared miserable afterwards, it might be a fair assumption that they regretted the activity. On the other hand, if they came back again and again, no matter how unhappy their vibes appeared to be, it is obvious that they are acting to increase satisfaction/fulfillment of life's purpose.

How can one prove that, say, Mother Theresa, a poster child for altruism and a big complainer ("In my heart there is no faith, no love, no trust: there is so much pain") was not acting selfishly?

[Selene]

Think...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adam,

There is no arguing with the faith-based about their faith.

Besides, from observing Francisco's posts for a while, in my judgement, he shows a great deal of the characteristics identified in the following 2005 article by a magnificent young thinker, Scott Berkun:

Why smart people defend bad ideas

Michael