Caged Animals: Civilization and Human Nature

[studiodekadent]

This thread is aimed at having a productive discussion on the issue of Meta-Anthropology, or the philosophy of human nature.

Recently, I have been having a series of interesting speculations regarding this topic, principally by contrasting and comparing two basic attitudes typically considered opposites; one of these attitudes is called Hobbesianism (after Thomas Hobbes), and the other is called Romantic Primitivism (and is typically identified with Rousseau, even if Rousseau only agreed with part of it).

Hobbesianism and Romantic Primitivism take different approaches concerning the subject of "Man and Civilization," or the relationship between human nature and "civilization."

Hobbes is known for his famous political argument that "Leviathan," or an absolute State, is necessitated by human nature (it is this argument which Classical Liberalism (via John Locke) rejected and in doing so gained its first intellectual foothold). Hobbes' argument was simple; in a pre-civilization world (what Hobbes' called the "State Of Nature"), agreements between people are impossible to enforce. Hobbes then argued that human beings are not naturally honest or interested in honoring their agreements, and they'll break these agreements whenever it suits them. The only solution to this problem, according to Hobbes, is to have a central authority of practically unlimited powers, so as to force people to stick to their agreements.

Digressing for a moment, the Classical Liberals attacked Hobbes' argument on two fronts. The first is that Hobbes' Leviathan was a massive overreach; why do you need an omnipotent State to enforce contracts and stop people shooting each other? Classical Liberals argued that all of these could easily be accomplished with a very small State.

The second rebuttal on Hobbes was in attacking his dark and brutish view of human nature. The British Empiricists (and Classical Liberals) David Hume and Adam Smith, whatever their errors, forcefully rejected Hobbes by arguing human beings naturally have benevolent desires towards each other. In seeing another person, we see someone that (to varying extents) reminds us of us, stimulating empathy and a desire to assist them. We are naturally more inclined to help each other, rather than to screw each other over (whilst I believe Smith and Hume's moralization of this theory to be an error, the observation is in my opinion generally valid).

Returning to the topic at hand, Hobbes argued that civilization is needed to tame the darker side of man; to lift us up above our depraved and base natures and civilize us, or tame the animals which we naturally are.

Romantic Primitivism is in many respects the inversion of Hobbesianism. The concept of the "Noble Savage" is the popular reflection of Romantic Primitivism, and this attitude is typically associated with Rousseau; this association is only partially true, for reasons we'll come to later.

Romantic Primitivism inverted Hobbes' position that man was brutish in the State Of Nature; according to Romantic Primitivism, in the State Of Nature we human beings were nonviolent and much more inclined towards benevolence.

Rousseau himself did not believe this; he believed that in the State of Nature human beings were technically amoral, but had a set of Hume-esque natural moral sentiments which encouraged benevolence (although it is true that Rousseau said "uncorrupted morals" prevail in the State of Nature, so this kind of misinterpretation of Rousseau (which even Voltaire made) is at the very least a plausible one).

But civilization has changed that; and now we have fallen from the higher moral character we would have had in the State Of Nature. Civilization corrupts and darkens our natural goodness, and turns us into the monstrous creatures we are now. This critique was indeed pioneered by Rousseau, who argued that civilization generated envy and desires to prove oneself better than others, and that arts and sciences are the product of this pride and vanity (Rousseau also argued that increased productivity created opportunities for idleness, which itself assisted moral decay).

To be charitable, Rousseau actually argued on some grounds which Objectivism would agree with to an extent; Rousseau argued civilization perverted people's natural and noble self-love and desire to preserve oneself, and turned this noble egoism into a predatory desire to overpower and dominate and prove oneself superior to others. In Objectivese, this would rougly equate to turning a Howard-Roark-Egoism into a Gail-Wynand-Predator-Morality, and actual self-esteem into a pseudo-self-esteem.

Irrespective of the fact Rousseau's own viewpoint was somewhat more nuanced and less primitivist than the popular interpretation of his would have one believe, it is clear that his work influenced the development of the Romantic Primitivist argument, even if he wasn't in agreement with the entirety of it.

Irrespectively, both of these variant pictures of man are widely believed. Conservatives, especially of the religious variety, are typically Hobbesian and believe that the Fall of Man has made us all intrinsically evil. The State must therefore encourage us to virtue through promoting "good values," which (especially in the American Religious Conservative context) seem to be disproportionately focussed upon restraining our sex drives.

Ironically, this same Hobbesian system of belief is characteristic of Sigmund Freud, who is typically seen as a moral degenerate and has inspired the Left more often than the Right. Freud argued in Civilization And Its Discontents that Civilization is built upon the repression of the human Id, which is that dark and volcanic source of psychological motive power preoccupied exclusively with killing and fucking. Arguably, Plato shares the same theory, with man's base Appetites (or Id) needing to be repressed by Reason (or Superego).

The Romantic Primitivist view of human nature, however, is very much a pillar of Leftist thought. Environmentalism is a clear example of this viewpoint, with its argument that modern civilization is unnatural and that human happiness would be better served by being "closer to nature."

Socialism also has learned a lot from Rousseau's critique, and Marxism especially seems to have similarities to Rousseau's belief that civilization fundamentally alters human behavior by generating envy over wealth. Those theorists such as Clive Hamilton (author of Affluenza) who argue for skepticism on how much modernity has genuinely improved the condition of most people's lives are essentially repeating Rousseau's argument.

In context of my previous article on the concept of "Alienation" as understood by Erich Fromm, I think it is fair to say that the Romantic Primitivist argument is characteristic of Dionysian Damnationism (since Romantic Primitivism tends to characterize civilization as a product of the mind/rationality, and sees it as corrupting us away from our "real" selves). The Hobbesian argument is a product of Denialism (seeing man as no different to any other animal), or (in the case of religionist Hobbesians) Transcendentalist Damnationism (seeing the soul as pure and holy and the body as the sinful beast that's predisposed to immorality).

To summarize, Hobbesians accept the following three premises:

- Man is innately evil, brutish and violent

- This must be repressed by social institutions

- Civilization therefore raises us up above our base natures by repressing our innate evil.

Romantic Primitivists accept the following three premises:

- Man is innately good (this is disputable in Rousseau's case)

- Enlightenment social institutions will corrupt this character

- Civilization therefore drags us down, beneath our natural nobility, by repressing our innate good.

The core differences are obvious. Both attitudes assign a different moral significance to human nature. They also assign different moral significance to civilization (Hobbes sees it as good, RP's sees it as bad), and they both characterize civilization differently (Hobbes identifies civilization with an Authoritarian state, and the RP's identify civilization typically with some sort of private property rights; as Rousseau wrote in Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men, "The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said "This is mine," and found people naïve enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society" (although whether or not Rousseau himself contested private property rights as a whole is an open question considering he wrote in France which was Feudalist at the time. Modern RP's tend to attack the whole "Capitalist project" but this isn't exactly a precise definition).

But let's take this pair of apparent opposites and do some false-dichotomy busting (and/or dialectics, if one is so inclined). What do these attitudes have in common?

I think the fundamental similarity between the outlooks is that both Hobbesianism and Romantic Primitivism believe that civilization is fundamentally in conflict with human nature. Even terminology such as "State Of Nature" to refer to an uncivilized state seems to carry shades of implying a gulf between "nature" and "civilization." In both Hobbesian and Romantic Primitivist views, civilization is a mechanism which causes human beings to deviate from actions which would be in accordance with their postulated basic nature.

Comments and further discussion welcome.

[9thdoctor]

There’s a lot of material here, but I think a quick way to get to the root of the matter is to note that both thinkers were ignorant of what mankind’s “state of nature” consisted of. Neither knew that we evolved as groups of hunter-gatherers on the plains of Africa, and if there’s any proper referent for our “state of nature”, that’s got to be it. Both thought of man as naturally solitary, and the evidence doesn’t agree.

[BaalChatzaf]

There’s a lot of material here, but I think a quick way to get to the root of the matter is to note that both thinkers were ignorant of what mankind’s “state of nature” consisted of. Neither knew that we evolved as groups of hunter-gatherers on the plains of Africa, and if there’s any proper referent for our “state of nature”, that’s got to be it. Both thought of man as naturally solitary, and the evidence doesn’t agree.

Humans are social animals, but not hive or herd animals.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[anthony]

There’s a lot of material here, but I think a quick way to get to the root of the matter is to note that both thinkers were ignorant of what mankind’s “state of nature” consisted of. Neither knew that we evolved as groups of hunter-gatherers on the plains of Africa, and if there’s any proper referent for our “state of nature”, that’s got to be it. Both thought of man as naturally solitary, and the evidence doesn’t agree.

Funny, my impression is the opposite: that both schools of thought are implicitly collectivist.

The metaphysical nature of man IS solitary, autonomous and volitional. That he can choose to band

together within civilisations for mutual benefit and individual specialization, does not contradict that identity.

It enhances it.

[9thdoctor]

The metaphysical nature of man IS solitary, autonomous and volitional.

Reference to the long childhood serves to refute this, taking you literally. Please don't bring up Tarzan. To try and reframe this in an Objectivist flavored way, Man’s mind is solitary (and autonomous and volitional), and the mind is his means of survival; this point is at the root of individualism.

That he can choose to band together within civilisations for mutual benefit and individual specialization, does not contradict that identity.

It enhances it.

I agree. Rousseau didn’t. Also, I’m leery of making reference to the “state of nature” in the first place; all I was doing in the earlier post was showing that Hobbes and Rousseau were working from bad data. Both thinkers are important in intellectual history, but I think their actual ideas belong in the ashcan.

[Xray]

There’s a lot of material here, but I think a quick way to get to the root of the matter is to note that both thinkers were ignorant of what mankind’s “state of nature” consisted of. Neither knew that we evolved as groups of hunter-gatherers on the plains of Africa, and if there’s any proper referent for our “state of nature”, that’s got to be it. Both thought of man as naturally solitary, and the evidence doesn’t agree.

It looks like both thinkers' premises have been exposed as false.

Humans have always lived in groups. But "group being" does not simply translate as 'collectivist'; the issue is far more complex.

The metaphysical nature of man IS solitary, autonomous and volitional. That he can choose to band

together within civilisations for mutual benefit and individual specialization, does not contradict that identity.

It enhances it.

No human being - from the moment of birth to adulthood - can survive and thrive without constant caregiving by other human beings. Therefore to claim that the "metaphysical nature of man" is "solitary" and "autonomous" does not correspond to reality.

[anthony]

There’s a lot of material here, but I think a quick way to get to the root of the matter is to note that both thinkers were ignorant of what mankind’s “state of nature” consisted of. Neither knew that we evolved as groups of hunter-gatherers on the plains of Africa, and if there’s any proper referent for our “state of nature”, that’s got to be it. Both thought of man as naturally solitary, and the evidence doesn’t agree.

In short, both thinkers' premises have been exposed as false. Humans always lived in groups. But "group being" does not simply translate as 'collectivist'; the issue is far more complex.

The metaphysical nature of man IS solitary, autonomous and volitional. That he can choose to band together within civilisations for mutual benefit and individual specialization, does not contradict that identity. It enhances it.

No newborn human being can survive without constant caregiving by other human beings. Therefore to claim that the "metaphysical nature of man" is "solitary" and "autonomous" does not correspond to reality.

Can I think for you? can I eat for you, breathe for you,** or make your next decision?

What about reading your thoughts, telepathically - or literally (not empathically) walking a mile in your shoes?

Denying your metaphysical autonomy is denial of reality. You are alone, I am alone - metaphysically.

What we do about it is another matter, entirely. Which brings it back to the topic of civilisation, and individuals forming groups: -

by choice, to beneficiate and enable themselves, with minimal interference (Rationally individualist society).

Or because we need to be herded together by a central power for the 'greater good' (Hobbesians). Or, we must condemn civilisation, and return to Gaia to fulfil our perfect

destiny, as packs of animals (Romantic Primitivists).

Two philosophies, both with malevolent views of Man's (metaphysical) nature - and sharing the same premise of collectivism.

[edit:**I realise I'm jumbling physical autonomy with metaphysical autonomy - the one is meant as metaphor for the other. Sorry.

Also to SDK for diverting a little! Good post btw]

[Dglgmut]

Well, it's natural for us to learn by emulation. Language allows us to express ourselves without action, and so now people are taught through instruction rather than example.

To learn by example makes sure that there can not be an inequality between the teacher and the student. To teach by imitation and artificial reinforcement demands an inequality.

To be taught "a lesson" often means, simply, being taught to obey. There is no understanding gained about the "learned" behavior, only that it is the safest option.

Children need to be taught to obey, to a degree, for their own safety. When they learn the reason for their instructions, it's easy to understand... but there are many things we are told to do, not for our own good. What gives someone else the right to tell us to do something, if they aren't looking out for us? Most people don't question it, they just think it must have some mysterious necessity.

To follow orders is to believe that it is in one's own best interest to do so--at first. Subconsciously, obeying orders can be convoluted with one's instinctual sense of self-preservation through mindless repetition.

The extent of our "social nature" is just to be around each other--it doesn't mean we have to be ateam. So while we do need something from other people, it is mainly a frame of reference to help us understand what we are. A mentally independent parent looks after their child as an extension of their own ego, and so the child is getting no favor. The child doesn't owe the parent anything for its own life, because it is naturally the parent's free choice to look after the child (many species make this evident: a bird doesn't look after its chicks because of social pressure).

Our judgment, our ability to reason, is natural. If we are allowed to learn by the example of a self-interested adult, we would quickly pick up the necessary skills for sustaining our own lives. We can suspend our aptitude for reasoning only if we first reason that it is necessary. Once we allow ourselves to reason again, however, we have our previous actions of evidence of our own beliefs, without understanding the reason we would have those beliefs.

It is the question of why people do the things they do that children cannot possibly answer, because the answers have gotten so complicated. They have to simply accept that that's the way things are, and they must comply and get on with it. Then they comply, and when they let themselves ask, "Why do I do what I do?" they must identify with a lie, or realize that it was not by free choice; that it was not by rational thought that they decided to act, but they acted habitually.

How social are humans? How social do they need to be? I believe we need freedom of choice before we need company.

[9thdoctor]

Denying your metaphysical autonomy is denial of reality. You are alone, I am alone - metaphysically.

A newborn can’t survive on it’s own. It’s only autonomous in the sense that it has it’s own stomach etc. Every autonomous adult was previously a newborn. If you’re going to talk about man in a “metaphysical” sense, is it correct to only reference the attributes of his mature state?

In deriving the Objectivist ethics and politics, we do. Usually this comes up in answering the question “what will happen to the lame, halt, blind” etc. and the answer is that they depend for their survival on the efforts of the able. So, add babies to that list, I don’t see a problem here. No one’s autonomous from cradle to grave, though most are for the really important part in the middle.

I’m afraid we’re going to get off the track of discussing Hobbes vs. Rousseau.

It looks like both thinkers' premises have been exposed as false.

Humans have always lived in groups. But "group being" does not simply translate as 'collectivist'; the issue is far more complex.

Amen.

[anthony]

Denying your metaphysical autonomy is denial of reality. You are alone, I am alone - metaphysically.

A newborn can’t survive on it’s own. It’s only autonomous in the sense that it has it’s own stomach etc. Every autonomous adult was previously a newborn. If you’re going to talk about man in a “metaphysical” sense, is it correct to only reference the attributes of his mature state? In deriving the Objectivist ethics and politics, we do. Usually this comes up in answering the question “what will happen to the lame, halt, blind” etc. and the answer is that they depend for their survival on the efforts of the able. So, add babies to that list, I don’t see a problem here. No one’s autonomous from cradle to grave, though most are for the really important part in the middle. I’m afraid we’re going to get off the track of discussing Hobbes vs. Rousseau.

It looks like both thinkers' premises have been exposed as false. Humans have always lived in groups. But "group being" does not simply translate as 'collectivist'; the issue is far more complex.

Amen.

ND,

I came back to add an edit to my post for this very purpose: that physical autonomy, does not get

confused with metaphysical autonomy, as it seemed I was doing. You got in first.

That goes for the infirm, the young, and so on, their dependence on others is contained within the nature, or state, of individual men,women and children - at those stages of life - it is not the metaphysical "Nature of Man, qua Man", or at all contradictory to it, I think.

A far broader concept, which embraces all ages and stages.

[anthony]

There’s a lot of material here, but I think a quick way to get to the root of the matter is to note that both thinkers were ignorant of what mankind’s “state of nature” consisted of. Neither knew that we evolved as groups of hunter-gatherers on the plains of Africa, and if there’s any proper referent for our “state of nature”, that’s got to be it. Both thought of man as naturally solitary, and the evidence doesn’t agree.

It looks like both thinkers' premises have been exposed as false. Humans have always lived in groups. But "group being" does not simply translate as 'collectivist'; the issue is far more complex.

The complexity lies in the over-riding principle, mixture of principles, and what-have-you, we get today.

'Collectivism' isn't just people getting together in groups,(for which there are the best

of reasons) it's a concept of "togetherness" that negates the best in humanity.

You can have your own definition of collectivism if you like, but Objectively its central meaning is that we are our brother's keeper, and are subservient to the mass of our 'brothers'.

For a collectivist society to exist for any length of time, it has always been dependent on some measure of its polar opposite, individualism, being present to support it.

Otherwise, collectivism is dead simple: it's contra-freedom, and at bottom the source of

every major injustice by men on men.

[anthony]

How social are humans? How social do they need to be? I believe we need freedom of choice before we need company.

Hi Calvin,

A quick word so I don't hijack this thread - totally.

There has been some absorbing input here, not least your remarks which I'd like to

go over later to understand better.

Before the 'hard-wiring and instinct' brigade arrives, (not that they are completely wrong - only that they try to create a dichotomy where there is none)I'd say humans are about as social as you observe and know them to be. Which is quite high on average.

Rather than how social people "need to be", I'd ask how social each one of us WANTS to be, personally.

That's one beauty of society, in my mind: near- infinite selection variability, over and apart from, being alone when one chooses.

"..we need freedom of choice before we need company". Hmm, do you mean we need many people

to pick and choose from? But sure, choice precedes all else. No, strike that - we start with the existents, and then apply choice.

I don't get whether "before" means "higher than" or "previous to".

Befuddled and heading for bed See ya.

[Dglgmut]

"..we need freedom of choice before we need company". Hmm, do you mean we need many people

to pick and choose from?

I meant that if in order to surround ourselves with other people, we have to deny ourselves the freedom to behave how we want to, then the sacrifice is likely not worth it. I think in Rand's world, nobody would go out of their way to socialize, they would only do it if they had the desire to, and found something worthwhile in the other person.

If everyone was independent-minded, yes, they would be very social, and by choice. The fact is, when everyone is trying to say what they think everyone else wants to hear, nobody's getting any real satisfaction out of the exchange.

I had the realization a few days ago, wondering, again, about whether we can lie to ourselves. We cannot. We do not evade the truth, and we do not trick ourselves into believing anything that would lead to us behaving irrationally. There is no thought process behind irrational behavior, it is habitual. Naturally, we should be rewarded, with life, for being able to sustain ourselves, however, as the quality of life has raised exponentially, the reward system has been changed. Our means of survival has become: Make other people happy.

So, it is not that people "believe" they have a duty to others, but they have been trained, like a dog, to serve others for their own benefit. They have been trained not to analyze any situation from the point-of-view of a living thing trying to survive, but as a part of a collective that can survive as long as people are all making each other happy.

I mentioned this in my last post, but I think it's probably true, and very interesting if it is: After acting without thinking, we have the memory of the actions. Those memories are part of who we think we are. So, at first we realized we depend on our parent for our life, then our parent ordered us to act in a way contradictory to our beliefs. After forming a habit of trying to please others for no known reason, we are left with the fact that we did attempt it... And we look back and think, "I want to make other people happy."

Honestly, I think a lot of human behavior is very comparable to Pavlov's dog, salivating at the sound of a bell. It all starts with forcing children to act without their understanding of why, and with no explanation coming in the near future.

[Dglgmut]

When we look at irrational behavior, we wonder, "Why?" The fact is, I believe, that the question is improper. There is no reason for irrational behavior. The question ought to be, "How?"

People can be made to act without knowing a reason, and if they are made to do that enough it becomes automatic. We obey when it is in our best interest, but with enough repetition, we can associate the particular order with self-preservation, and forget our reason for participating in the first place.

People do not choose to be irrational, but their capacity to choose can be suppressed.

[Peter]

Dglgmut wrote:

People do not choose to be irrational, but their capacity to choose can be suppressed.

end quote

I think that even the lower mammals like a cat can behave randomly or perhaps more correctly, “chaotically.” They do it deliberately which implies rudimentary volition though they are fundamentally ruled by instinct, and causation.

So rather than saying a human's capacity to choose is suppressed I would say their capacity to choose is intact. Irrationality is somehow pleasing to them until it ‘comes time to pay the price. American Indians called them "Contraries."

Peter Taylor

[Dglgmut]

What I mean is, they've learned to associate certain automatic behaviors with their instinctual sense of self-preservation. Our brains are naturally motivated by self-interest and survival, but we can be trained by manipulating that instinctual motivation toward altruism.

For example: Whilst in a store, a child sees something he wants, and asks his parent. The parent says no. The child asks again, starting to get upset. The parent says, "What do you say?" and the kid says, "Please."

Now how is that much different than giving a dog a treat after performing a trick? And how is that supposed to help form an independent, rational adult?

In nature, our mental activity would revolve around the question, "How can I take care of myself?" and we'd slowly put all the pieces together until we could go off on our own and start our own families... Now the question is changed to, "How can I get what I need from others?"

[anthony]

"..we need freedom of choice before we need company". Hmm, do you mean we need many people to pick and choose from?

I meant that if in order to surround ourselves with other people, we have to deny ourselves the freedom to behave how we want to, then the sacrifice is likely not worth it. I think in Rand's world, nobody would go out of their way to socialize, they would only do it if they had the desire to, and found something worthwhile in the other person. If everyone was independent-minded, yes, they would be very social, and by choice. The fact is, when everyone is trying to say what they think everyone else wants to hear, nobody's getting any real satisfaction out of the exchange. I had the realization a few days ago, wondering, again, about whether we can lie to ourselves. We cannot. We do not evade the truth, and we do not trick ourselves into believing anything that would lead to us behaving irrationally. There is no thought process behind irrational behavior, it is habitual. Naturally, we should be rewarded, with life, for being able to sustain ourselves, however, as the quality of life has raised exponentially, the reward system has been changed. Our means of survival has become: Make other people happy. So, it is not that people "believe" they have a duty to others, but they have been trained, like a dog, to serve others for their own benefit. They have been trained not to analyze any situation from the point-of-view of a living thing trying to survive, but as a part of a collective that can survive as long as people are all making each other happy. I mentioned this in my last post, but I think it's probably true, and very interesting if it is: After acting without thinking, we have the memory of the actions. Those memories are part of who we think we are. So, at first we realized we depend on our parent for our life, then our parent ordered us to act in a way contradictory to our beliefs. After forming a habit of trying to please others for no known reason, we are left with the fact that we did attempt it... And we look back and think, "I want to make other people happy." Honestly, I think a lot of human behavior is very comparable to Pavlov's dog, salivating at the sound of a bell. It all starts with forcing children to act without their understanding of why, and with no explanation coming in the near future.

It seems you are analyzing, psycho-epistemologically, the roots of duty and selflessness, and I think it is highly worthwhile.

With the best will in the world, our mentors - parents, teachers - primarily urged us to follow what they knew best, which was to "fit in." They wanted after all, that which they had always sought in their lives, for us to be model citizens.

In the process, something gets lost.

There are wrong reasons and right reasons to engage with our fellows, and the wrong is to do so at cost to one's honesty and independence, I think. It happened probably somewhere early in school, that many of us were faced for the first time with the decision of standing up to our peers for what we (not-very-confidently) believed was right and true - or, accepting the power of numbers and settling for arbitrary popularity. That first choice made the next easier.

We are all human in desiring to be liked, while being honest and true to ourselves. Sadly, they are often dichotomous.

The reality is that not many people really want honesty, and most are nervous of independence.

Explicitly, and sub-consciously, I think our parents hoped we'd avoid the pain of what they considered alienation from others, by coaxing us to settle for conformism, and duty to people. That we would also lose a portion of selfhood, seemed a fair sacrifice to them, perhaps - that we would much later, recognize our loss (many don't), and face a long hard road reclaiiming it (many can't) is understandable, if barely (but necessarily) forgivable. WTH, our present culture and implied philosophy supports them.

Of the absolute contrast between a society (or world) of people integrating willingly from mutual values and virtues - OR, doing so from duty or guilt or coercion, you obviously need no convincing, Calvin.

Also, I agree, self-honesty and independence - egoism - is the essential precursor to choice and volition. The identical choice, returned back at us by certain people with equal values is the 'visibility', not popularity, we need and desire.

[Dglgmut]

Well, I think I've figured it out. Irrationality, dependence and faith are all the same thing.

It's like the belief in karma; "I'll help others as much as I can, and that way, I'll be taken care of."

I thought this need to make others happy was the best place to start looking at irrationality, but it is the stage just before: The hope that you will be given what you need.

Parents, teachers, even the government, encourage dependence, to a degree. It's like everyone wants everyone else to be in a constant state of fear of losing those that they depend on, and so they should give whenever they have the opportunity, and feel guilty whenever they don't.

[studiodekadent]

Well, this thread has certainly gone in an unexpected direction.

[anthony]

Well, this thread has certainly gone in an unexpected direction.

My doing. Apologies and please re-direct.

[BaalChatzaf]

Well, I think I've figured it out. Irrationality, dependence and faith are all the same thing.

It's like the belief in karma; "I'll help others as much as I can, and that way, I'll be taken care of."

Being willing to help could promote an ambiance where help is forthcoming when needed. It is the karma of trade.

I record books for blind folk. One of the reasons I do it (aside from the fact that it is an exacting task that requires skill) is that if a day comes when I need the service I will not be ashamed to ask for it. I will not come as a beggar man. I will come as a trading man.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[BaalChatzaf]

Well, I think I've figured it out. Irrationality, dependence and faith are all the same thing.

It's like the belief in karma; "I'll help others as much as I can, and that way, I'll be taken care of."

Being willing to help could promote an ambiance where help is forthcoming when needed. It is the karma of trade.

I record books for blind folk. One of the reasons I do it (aside from the fact that it is an exacting task that requires skill) is that if a day comes when I need the service I will not be ashamed to ask for it. I will not come as a beggar man. I will come as a trading man.

Giving help may be thought of as paying premiums on an informal kind of social insurance. Everyone who buys insurance against casualty and hazard prepays on the expectation of receiving coverage when it is required. First you pay, then you get. Fair trade, even-Steven, quid pro quo and This for That. No one is getting a Free Lunch.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[anthony]

Well, I think I've figured it out. Irrationality, dependence and faith are all the same thing. It's like the belief in karma; "I'll help others as much as I can, and that way, I'll be taken care of."

Being willing to help could promote an ambiance where help is forthcoming when needed. It is the karma of trade. I record books for blind folk. One of the reasons I do it (aside from the fact that it is an exacting task that requires skill) is that if a day comes when I need the service I will not be ashamed to ask for it. I will not come as a beggar man. I will come as a trading man. Giving help may be thought of as paying premiums on an informal kind of social insurance. Everyone who buys insurance against casualty and hazard prepays on the expectation of receiving coverage when it is required. First you pay, then you get. Fair trade, even-Steven, quid pro quo and This for That. No one is getting a Free Lunch. Ba'al Chatzaf

Right and true, though you would probably say if pushed, that rendering that service is important to you, alone,

without any return. The secondary value - the cherry on top - is the pride of 'trade'.

I believe that Calvin doesn't discount this.

Not speaking for him, I'd say it's all about where we 'start' from: Coming from a state of independence, which assumes others to be the same, we can deal as the best, with the best, in each other.

Starting from a place of mutual need, interdependence, learned dutifulness - and guilt at never 'doing enough' - will always result in resentment (for not getting back what you think you're owed) and perhaps loathing of other people. It's human.

Broadly, I sense the rational and conscious egoist can, and will, move easily to genuine appreciation of people, while the altruist will rarely be able to undo his faulty premises and instruction, to move to egoism.

[Dglgmut]

Well, I think I've figured it out. Irrationality, dependence and faith are all the same thing.

It's like the belief in karma; "I'll help others as much as I can, and that way, I'll be taken care of."

Being willing to help could promote an ambiance where help is forthcoming when needed. It is the karma of trade.

I record books for blind folk. One of the reasons I do it (aside from the fact that it is an exacting task that requires skill) is that if a day comes when I need the service I will not be ashamed to ask for it. I will not come as a beggar man. I will come as a trading man.

Ba'al Chatzaf

But even if it is fair that you ask for a favor to be returned, if you did not make an agreement before hand that established this, who is to blame if you don't get anything out of the deal?

This sort of unspoken insurance can be dangerous if you expect a return on an your investment when the other party has not agreed to it.

It depends how well you know the person you're doing the favor for, I suppose. But I think we are aware that the more concern for our own interests we display, the less appreciative others will be of the "favors" we do them.

In your example I'm sure you aren't taking much of a risk, but sometimes people do expect something in return without any evidence that they'll get it, and that is the sort of faith/dependency/irrationality I'm talking about. When people think in order to make themselves happy, all they have to do is make other people happy, they are depending on others. They think, "If I do for them, I'll be taken care of." And the more they can do for others, the more secure they feel, until they actually need something in return.

Making other people happy can only make you happy if those other people represent your own values. So, if someone indiscriminately sacrifices himself for others, in hopes that it will make him happy, he is gambling that these people will represent his values, or that they will return the favor in some form of value to him. The irrationality is not the trading part, but the uncertainty that anything positive will come of his sacrifice.

[BaalChatzaf]

But even if it is fair that you ask for a favor to be returned, if you did not make an agreement before hand that established this, who is to blame if you don't get anything out of the deal?

This sort of unspoken insurance can be dangerous if you expect a return on an your investment when the other party has not agreed to it.

The risk is all mine, since I have no enforceable contract with others. However, now understand this now, I will not be ashamed to ask for help. That is the point. A beggar can be ashamed. A trading man need not be. Got it?

Ba'al Chatzaf