Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2017 16:34:05 GMT
Is there such thing as a 100% selfless act?
|
|
|
Post by Catman on Aug 28, 2017 16:48:43 GMT
In real life, probably not.
In fiction, Tarrlok killing himself and Noatak comes close.
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Aug 30, 2017 3:52:16 GMT
Is there such thing as a 100% selfless act? funny you should say that. I just posted about this in another thread (random act of kindness). I think yes. Those that don't bring you any pleasure from the persons gratitude (such as anonymous kind act) or those that even bring you extra problems or take up a lot of your energy/resources. Or those ultimate ones that take your life (so you cannot get off on how much good you did for someone you mathertheresa you). for me giving money to wikipedia is something I consider selfless. Yeah they do send me a thank you note but its generic and I don't really get any pleasure from reading it. And I don't really see any benefit from giving the money to them (other than considering they survive on donations so the fact they still exist could be said is the benefit but its very intangible), and I hate "giving money away". So how about that?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 30, 2017 4:05:36 GMT
Is there such thing as a 100% selfless act? No. Ayn Rand had it right.
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Aug 30, 2017 4:13:57 GMT
Is there such thing as a 100% selfless act? No. Ayn Rand had it right. also joey and phoebe had it right
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 30, 2017 4:24:24 GMT
Is that a Friends reference? I'm in the small minority of people who never saw a single episode.
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Aug 30, 2017 4:28:16 GMT
Is that a Friends reference? I'm in the small minority of people who never saw a single episode. yes. They debated this very topic there. Its a good show. I know it is disliked by many, for some reason, but to me it was (along with Seinfeld or Frasier for example) one of the few good ones that you can still watch today and you forgive them for what they are wearing and their hairstyles, because the content is still valid, funny and smart. I have great admiration for long running sitcoms like that.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 30, 2017 4:31:06 GMT
Is that a Friends reference? I'm in the small minority of people who never saw a single episode. yes. They debated this very topic there. Its a good show. I know it is disliked by many, for some reason, but to me it was (along with Seinfeld or Frasier for example) one of the few good ones that you can still watch today and you forgive them for what they are wearing and their hairstyles, because the content is still valid, funny and smart. I have great admiration for long running sitcoms like that. Oh, I don't necessarily dislike it. I've just never watched it. What was the result of the debate?
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Aug 30, 2017 4:41:34 GMT
yes. They debated this very topic there. Its a good show. I know it is disliked by many, for some reason, but to me it was (along with Seinfeld or Frasier for example) one of the few good ones that you can still watch today and you forgive them for what they are wearing and their hairstyles, because the content is still valid, funny and smart. I have great admiration for long running sitcoms like that. Oh, I don't necessarily dislike it. I've just never watched it. What was the result of the debate? that there can be some that are truly selfless. When as a result of the deed you yourself don't feel any joy (or other feelings you may crave). for various reasons but usually because of the intense personal sacrifice you had to make in order to do it. in the show one character offered to carry someone elses babies, even though giving them up after the 9 months was extremely hard/painful for her. Or the Ultimate one - like Clooney in Gravity or Val Kilmer in Red Planet. Or the finale of Homeland season 6. Peter Quinn looks both ways and KNOWS he is not going to survive the ride, but still out of love and respect for Carrie and her goal he goes and saves them while dying himself.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 30, 2017 5:04:08 GMT
Oh, I don't necessarily dislike it. I've just never watched it. What was the result of the debate? that there can be some that are truly selfless. When as a result of the deed you yourself don't feel any joy (or other feelings you may crave). for various reasons but usually because of the intense personal sacrifice you had to make in order to do it. in the show one character offered to carry someone elses babies, even though giving them up after the 9 months was extremely hard/painful for her. Or the Ultimate one - like Clooney in Gravity or Val Kilmer in Red Planet. Or the finale of Homeland season 6. Peter Quinn looks both ways and KNOWS he is not going to survive the ride, but still out of love and respect for Carrie and her goal he goes and saves them while dying himself. Fair enough, but I still say Rand had it right. Even self-sacrifice is done because it's wanted to be done. In the given case of Peter Quinn, for example, he gave his life because he wanted Carrie to achieve her goal. Where there's want, there's selfishness. Altruism can only go so far, but ultimately, there are are no truly 100% selfless acts. Toss in acts done out of love and respect, and that percentage is even lower. Some would say that's what separates man from God, but that's an entirely different conversation.
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Aug 30, 2017 5:08:35 GMT
that there can be some that are truly selfless. When as a result of the deed you yourself don't feel any joy (or other feelings you may crave). for various reasons but usually because of the intense personal sacrifice you had to make in order to do it. in the show one character offered to carry someone elses babies, even though giving them up after the 9 months was extremely hard/painful for her. Or the Ultimate one - like Clooney in Gravity or Val Kilmer in Red Planet. Or the finale of Homeland season 6. Peter Quinn looks both ways and KNOWS he is not going to survive the ride, but still out of love and respect for Carrie and her goal he goes and saves them while dying himself. Fair enough, but I still say Rand had it right. Even self-sacrifice is done because it's wanted to be done. In the given case of Peter Quinn, for example, he gave his life because he wanted Carrie to achieve her goal. Where there's want, there's selfishness. Altruism can only go so far, but ultimately, there are are no truly 100% selfless acts. Toss in acts done out of love and respect, and that percentage is even lower. Some would say that's what separates man from God, but that's an entirely different conversation. well then how about Jesus? I dont think he wanted to go on the cross and die. I even remember him pleading not to have to go. Similarly maybe quin wanted to help carrie but maybe at the same time he didnt want to die, he chose to do something he really didnt want to do because he saw a greater value would arise out of it. And look, we are back to Jesus…
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 30, 2017 5:14:30 GMT
Fair enough, but I still say Rand had it right. Even self-sacrifice is done because it's wanted to be done. In the given case of Peter Quinn, for example, he gave his life because he wanted Carrie to achieve her goal. Where there's want, there's selfishness. Altruism can only go so far, but ultimately, there are are no truly 100% selfless acts. Toss in acts done out of love and respect, and that percentage is even lower. Some would say that's what separates man from God, but that's an entirely different conversation. well then how about Jesus? I dont think he wanted to go on the cross and die. I even remember him pleading not to have to go. Similarly maybe quin wanted to help carrie but maybe at the same time he didnt want to die, he chose to do something he really didnt want to do because he saw a greater value would arise out of it. And look, we are back to Jesus… The greater value is desired, thus the sacrifice.
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Aug 30, 2017 5:29:32 GMT
well then how about Jesus? I dont think he wanted to go on the cross and die. I even remember him pleading not to have to go. Similarly maybe quin wanted to help carrie but maybe at the same time he didnt want to die, he chose to do something he really didnt want to do because he saw a greater value would arise out of it. And look, we are back to Jesus… The greater value is desired, thus the sacrifice. I would say that in the ultimate sacrifices the greater value is RECOGNIZED, and not really desired. You can recognize something is important yet have no personal interest (or gain) in doing it. And not only becacause you wont be around to experience the aftermath. But you do it because you see the benefit to other as greater than the damage to you by doing it. definition of selfless is: "concerned more with the needs and wishes of others than with one's own" - to me both Jesus and Quinn have committed selfless acts. They were concerned more with the needs of others than with their own. And at least in case of Jesus we know he Really didn't want to go up there and get nailed to the crossed. In the end he simply recognized the need of others. But even from his behaviour and words on the cross you can deduce he was totally not into it. For his act to not be selfless he would have had to get some of his own needs met by it. He didnt. Unless you count "pleasing daddy" as one of his needs. :-)
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 30, 2017 5:40:09 GMT
The greater value is desired, thus the sacrifice. I would say that in the ultimate sacrifices the greater value is RECOGNIZED, and not really desired. You can recognize something is important yet have no personal interest (or gain) in doing it. And not only becacause you wont be around to experience the aftermath. But you do it because you see the benefit to other as greater than the damage to you by doing it. definition of selfless is: "concerned more with the needs and wishes of others than with one's own" - to me both Jesus and Quinn have committed selfless acts. They were concerned more with the needs of others than with their own. And at least in case of Jesus we know he Really didn't want to go up there and get nailed to the crossed. In the end he simply recognized the need of others. But even from his behaviour and words on the cross you can deduce he was totally not into it. For his act to not be selfless he would have had to get some of his needs met by it. He didnt. Unless you count "pleasing daddy" as one of his needs. :-) Being "concerned more with the needs and wishes of others than with one's own" does not mean that the one has no needs. Even Jesus felt the need to put us before himself. Clearly his desire was our salvation.
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Aug 30, 2017 6:02:27 GMT
Being "concerned more with the needs and wishes of others than with one's own" does not mean that the one has no needs. Even Jesus felt the need to put us before himself. Clearly his desire was our salvation. true but I didnt say he had no needs and we are not talking about having needs. Having needs does not preclude the existence of a selfless acts. It would be if by committing the act you have those particular needs satisfied and THIS BENEFIT is the reason behind the act. You would have to make it about your needs being met (over some one else's). In this particular case ok lets say he did have a need for the salvation of humanity but by committing the act (of going to be crucified) and that was met by him on the cross. still the primary satisfaction went to the need of others (to get the salvation), which in my eyes rules over the degree to which he had his own needs satisfied. Also you can argue that if you are not around to enjoy the fact your needs were met, how could that count as having been met? but lets turn away from Jesus. More simple scenario: I have a cupcake that I want to eat. I see you are very hungry and there is no other food. I will give you the cupcake (to make sure you don't pass out/die of hunger). I didn't want to give you the cupcake (trust me), I have no benefit from it and NONE of MY needs were met by giving you the cupcake. I simply chose to be selfless and prefer your needs over mine (and will forever hold a grudge as a result you can count on that). That doesn't mean I don't have any needs, but it means I chose to satisfy yours over mine. Not because satisfying your need would please me but because I saw you needed it more than me. Recognition of importance of something for someone else does not mean any of my needs were necessarily satisfied. Unless you broaden it to "my need for the world to prioritize actions by importance to their subjects" and say that was just met, but even then I would say that an element you cannot ignore is a joy (or absence of it) arising from the result. And only then (if that positive feeling is experienced) it would stop being a selfless act. And just as Quinn wasn't around to feel any joy over what he did, I am not happy I now have no cupcake, believe you me! Therefore my giving the cupcake to you was a completely selfless act motivated by doing a simple comparison of the damage the giving up of the cupcake would do to me vs the benefit you would have from the cupcake. I chose your benefit over my loss. It simply means I am economical, not that I am not selfless.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 30, 2017 6:17:56 GMT
Being "concerned more with the needs and wishes of others than with one's own" does not mean that the one has no needs. Even Jesus felt the need to put us before himself. Clearly his desire was our salvation. true but I didnt say he had no needs and we are not talking about having needs. Having needs does not preclude the existence of a selfless acts. It would be if by committing the act you have those particular needs satisfied and THIS BENEFIT is the reason behind the act. You would have to make it about your needs being met (over some one else's). In this particular case ok lets say he did have a need for the salvation of humanity but by committing the act (of going to be crucified) and that was met by him on the cross. still the primary satisfaction went to the need of others (to get the salvation), which in my eyes rules over the degree to which he had his own needs satisfied. Also you can argue that if you are not around to enjoy the fact your needs were met, how could that count as having been met? but lets turn away from Jesus. More simple scenario: I have a cupcake that I want to eat. I see you are very hungry and there is no other food. I will give you the cupcake (to make sure you don't pass out/die of hunger). I didn't want to give you the cupcake (trust me), I have no benefit from it and NONE of MY needs were met by giving you the cupcake. I simply chose to be selfless and prefer your needs over mine (and will forever hold a grudge as a result you can count on that). That doesn't mean I don't have any needs, but it means I chose to satisfy yours over mine. Not because satisfying your need would please me but because I saw you needed it more than me. Recognition of importance of something for someone else does not mean any of my needs were necessarily satisfied. Unless you broaden it to "my need for the world to prioritize actions by importance to their subjects" and say that was just met, but even then I would say that an element you cannot ignore is a joy (or absence of it) arising from the result. And only then (if that positive feeling is experienced) it would stop being a selfless act. And just as Quinn wasn't around to feel any joy over what he did, I am not happy I now have no cupcake, believe you me! Therefore my giving the cupcake to you was a completely selfless act motivated by doing a simple comparison of the damage the giving up of the cupcake would do to me vs the benefit you would have from the cupcake. I chose your benefit over my loss. It simply means I am economical, not that I am not selfless. By choosing to satisfy my needs over your own, my needs become yours. Your desire to sacrifice the cupcake was met. This act was done willingly, which makes it self-serving, even if only in the slightest degree. In the case of sacrificing your life, while it's true that you won't be around to reap the rewards, you were there to perform the act, which is where the issue lies, for it's the intent, not the effect that dictates whether or not any given action is selfless. Maybe I'll eat the cupcake, maybe I won't...does it matter?
|
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Aug 30, 2017 9:54:25 GMT
apparently jesus doesnt count. see above… (I am fighting the good battle too :-))
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Aug 30, 2017 16:46:54 GMT
Not really, because even when you get nothing out of it, you still get the joy of having done something good for someone. But that's ok. Still, I think people who always do selfless acts are doing it for some internal reason, right? Is that too cynical? lol
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Aug 30, 2017 17:06:59 GMT
Not really, because even when you get nothing out of it, you still get the joy of having done something good for someone. But that's ok. Still, I think people who always do selfless acts are doing it for some internal reason, right? Is that too cynical? lol you see this logic I dont get. Because not always when I do something good for someone I feel good about it on my end. Especially when its a huge sacrifice on my part. Like the damn cupcake Admin is not even gonna eat!. Then I will just begrudgingly give it to him (to make sure the sissy doesn't die of hunger) but will be super bitter about it, will be missing the cupcake later, internally hating on Admin (and the whole world) and no amount of telling myself "it was just a cupcake and you saved a human life" may bring me the joy the cupcake would have.
I am joking but I think you get the point. If someone for example gives their life for someone else, maybe, just maybe, they are not always dying "happy that they could help someone" but "afraid/sad/lonely/in pain" just trying to rationally convince themselves they did the "right thing". I have done many "right things" that I didnt internally feel I wanted to or should do. But I KNEW (rationally) that it WAS the right thing to do so I did it. One example I can think of is a friend of mine who gave up a job because his wife (who was treated somewhat poorly there at the same company) gave it up too. He did it to show support for her. But he Really missed his job, was Super unhappy about doing it, and on some level maybe even held it against his wife for a while. Which is not great sure, but he was acting selflessly yet had bigger damage from giving up the job then joy from helping his wife. Do you know what I mean?
|
|