Is Every Act Selfish?

[Zoid]

In the "What then?" thread in "Religion," Schrodinger said...
Which is better, a person who lives a good life because he wants to, or a person who tries to live a good life because of the fear of god?

Who simply lives a good life because he "wants" to? There are always consequences and incentives. Be it entrance to Heaven, Karma or simply to "get a warm feeling inside." Can one ever be said to perform an act that is truly selfless?

[scameter]

No. As long as we are physical, our body makes us to a certain extent subjective, which makes us bound by selfishness. But, this doesn't mean selflessness is impossible; nor does selflessness account for all that is good.

[Zoid]

Selflessness may not be theoretically impossible, but do you think, as humans, we ever, in practical terms, knowingly do anything which we perceive to be "good," which is also purely selfless?

[Taeguk]

Hi!

Zoid, you asked:

Who simply lives a good life because he "wants" to? There are always consequences and incentives. Be it entrance to Heaven, Karma or simply to "get a warm feeling inside." Can one ever be said to perform an act that is truly selfless?

Which is a classic philosophic question!

I think every genuine spirituality is selfless.

When there is no seperation between "self" and "other"...when one realizes that there is no self, except in the most provisional sense, how can selfishness begin to arise? :)

[Zoid]

Good point, Taeguk! :thumbsup:

I have actually recently been reading about Buddhism - for example the concept of "Anatta" (no self)... should've seen that one coming!

:lol:

[venom mama]

when i see a turtle in the middle of the road and know it's going to get run over i stop and move it to the other side. i don't gain anything from that. when i find a litter of puppies left at the dumpter i take them home,feed them, wash them and get them their shots. then i find homes for them. do i gain anything from this? i suppose knowing i have eased suffering makes me feel good.


but the reason for doing those things is because they need to be done.

[Taeguk]

Hi again, Zoid! :)

You wrote:

Good point, Taeguk!

I have actually recently been reading about Buddhism - for example the concept of "Anatta" (no self)... should've seen that one coming!

Thanks :)

Although anatta is a Buddhist concept, I suspect that the idea of "self-lessness" or "no self" is somehow present in every sincere spirituality.

Take Christianity, for example; I think it was Paul (?) who said "Not I, but Christ in me."

Christian mystics and many Christian social workers (including Mother Theresea) seek to apply this principle.

Is this really so different in spirit from the idea of "Buddha-Nature"? :)

[Taeguk]

Hello again!

Actually, I'd like to add to that last post I made! :)

I think anybody who's done any kind of art knows what means to be "self-less".

Where seperates the dancer from the dance?

After a certain point, the artist is not really interested in "self-expression". The "self" of the artist vanishes completely into the work. When this happens, I think the result is the best kind of art!

Plato spoke of poets and artists as being "divinely possessed" much in the same way oracles were; the artist becomes a sort of vessel, a channeling of creativity or energy.

Whenever you give yourself completely to something, there is no "you" involved!

In the writings of Chuang Tzu there is a very good passage describing this; I'll post it later if anybody's interested in seeing it.

venomgirl, you wrote:

when i see a turtle in the middle of the road and know it's going to get run over i stop and move it to the other side. i don't gain anything from that. when i find a litter of puppies left at the dumpter i take them home,feed them, wash them and get them their shots. then i find homes for them. do i gain anything from this? i suppose knowing i have eased suffering makes me feel good.

I'd also like to suggest that just because you feel pleasure from an action, it doesn't necessarily follow that the pleasure was the reason for why you acted! :)

The reason venomgirl gave for her actions, simply that "they needed to be done" I think is a perfect example of everyday selflessness. :thumbsup:

[venom mama]

But he who is truly wise
Always sees the absolute Self.

Celebrated, he is not delighted.
Spurned, he is not angry.
Pure of heart,
He watches his own actions
As if they were another's.

How can praise or blame disturb him?

-Ashtavakra Gita 3:9-10

[sahyo]

there is no self, except in the most provisional sense

what "except"?

[sahyo]

i suppose knowing i have eased suffering makes me feel good.

makes what feel good?


but the reason for doing those things is because they need to be done.

needed?

[Taeguk]

sahyo asked:

what "except"?

For example, there are different physical bodies, which some people interpret to mean a seperation between "self" and "other". :)

[sahyo]

The "self" of the artist vanishes completely into the work.

when painting there's no aritist to vanish

[sahyo]

For example, there are different physical bodies, which some people interpret to mean a seperation between "self" and "other".

you didn't say "some people interpret? but "there is no self, except in the most provisional sense"


:)

[sahyo]

The reason venomgirl gave for her actions, simply that "they needed to be done" I think is a perfect example of everyday selflessness.

what right/wrong?

[Taeguk]

Hi sahyo!

you wrote:

you didn't say "some people interpret? but "there is no self, except in the most provisional sense"

You are right, I probably should have mentioned "interpretation" in the first passage. Thanks for pointing that out! :)

You also wrote:

when painting there's no aritist to vanish

Exactly! :thumbsup:

what right/wrong?

I don't think there is a "right/wrong" in the context of venomgirl's actions! Something need doing, and was done. :)

[sahyo]

Thanks

thanks :)

I don't think there is a "right/wrong" in the context of venomgirl's actions! Something need doing, and was done.

]was referring "need"...what right/wrong to say was needed? :)

[Taeguk]

was referring "need"...what right/wrong to say was needed

Hmmm....again, sahyo, you are right. :)

Not "need", but....

A channel opens
Naturally, the water
Streams in

(if that makes sense?)

[sahyo]

:)


but vgirl said "reason":


the reason for doing those things is because they need to be done.

[Zoid]

Assuming firstly that there is such a thing as Self...

I have posited this question elsewhere, and been (indirectly) tarnished with the label of "cynic" - that I believe that no one does anything purely for the benefit of others. I believe no one knowingly does good things purely for the benefit of others, but that doesn't mean I don't believe there are good people who do good things. If my knowledge is correct thus far, a central Buddhist principle is a selfish one - one should look first to one's own soul. But one can only have a pure and good and enlightened soul if one is generous and compassionate. The central purpose, it seems, of a Buddhist, is to achieve enlightenment. One seeks this enlightenment via acts of compassion - but ultimately there is no getting away from the fact that this is in the cause of the enlightenment of one's own soul. Then, of course, there is the question of "anatta," which further complicates the issue...!

I'd also like to pick up on the concept of "need"... Surely this is an entirely relative and subjective term? What criteria must be fulfilled to be able to say that something needs to be done? One needs to breath and to eat and drink, if one is to stay alive, but I would not say one needs to be compassionate - except where the definition of need is relative to one's desire for enlightenment or "feeling good about oneself" - which brings it back round to compassionate acts being selfish!

:P

[sahyo]

compassionate acts being selfish


imaging-self(fear) won't compassion

[Taeguk]

Hi!

Zoid, you wrote:

One seeks this enlightenment via acts of compassion

Are acts of compassion the cause of enlightenment? Or are they one of its effects? :unsure:

I would also direct you to the Mahayana school of Buddhism, where there is what is called the bodhisattva vow. Mahayana Buddhists who take the vow resolve to postpone their own enlightenment until all sentient beings are also enlightened! :)

But Buddhism aside, Zoid, let me ask you: why don't you believe there is such a thing as a "self-less" act?

[Zoid]

Taeguk said...
But Buddhism aside, Zoid, let me ask you: why don't you believe there is such a thing as a "self-less" act?

To which I respond...

I don't believe anything is done, knowingly, without some sort of thought (conscious or unconscious) for consequences to Self (again, presuming there is such as thing as Self)... in a nutshell!

One can obviously, however, perform accidental acts of selflessness... B)

[Taeguk]

Zoid, you wrote:

I don't believe anything is done, knowingly, without some sort of thought (conscious or unconscious) for consequences to Self (again, presuming there is such as thing as Self)... in a nutshell!

Thanks for re-stating your position! :)

But let me ask you, simply because an action is accompanied by thought "for consequences to self", does it follow that the actions are done for the self?

Likewise, if I take pleasure in doing something, does that necessarily follow that the pleasure is the reason why I did something?

What about the point I brought up earlier, that of art? Several posts back, I suggested that:

I think anybody who's done any kind of art knows what means to be "self-less".

Where seperates the dancer from the dance?

After a certain point, the artist is not really interested in "self-expression". The "self" of the artist vanishes completely into the work. When this happens, I think the result is the best kind of art!

Plato spoke of poets and artists as being "divinely possessed" much in the same way oracles were; the artist becomes a sort of vessel, a channeling of creativity or energy.

Whenever you give yourself completely to something, there is no "you" involved!

[sahyo]

compassionate acts being selfish


imaging-self(fear) won't compassion



*imagining-self(fear)

[Zoid]

Taeguk… you’re not going to let me get away with a simple statement of belief, are you? Are you a philosophy prof, perchance? ;)

Okay then, taking each of your points in turn…

But let me ask you, simply because an action is accompanied by thought "for consequences to self", does it follow that the actions are done for the self?

In terms of actions which are performed knowingly , I would say that they aren’t accompanied by, but are preceded by thought "for consequences to self"… the action arises from a consultation (conscious or otherwise) with self. This is as opposed to unintentional or accidental actions (dropping a pencil, knocking over a cup…), which are performed without motivation, without any prior intention of their occurrence, and therefore without any consultation with the self.

Likewise, if I take pleasure in doing something, does that necessarily follow that the pleasure is the reason why I did something?

Not necessarily – the pleasure might be a… erm… pleasant… side-effect. This doesn’t mean you didn’t consult with your self in some other respect (e.g. “this action will increase my chances of getting into Heaven”). The outcome does not imply the motivation… the “effect” does not imply the “cause.”

I think anybody who's done any kind of art knows what means to be "self-less".

Where seperates the dancer from the dance?

After a certain point, the artist is not really interested in "self-expression". The "self" of the artist vanishes completely into the work. When this happens, I think the result is the best kind of art!

Plato spoke of poets and artists as being "divinely possessed" much in the same way oracles were; the artist becomes a sort of vessel, a channeling of creativity or energy.

Whenever you give yourself completely to something, there is no "you" involved!

I must confess, as an artists (a creator of written works… www.abctales.com/user/pepsoid (http://www.abctales.com/user/pepsoid)), I am not entirely sure what this means! I appreciate the meaning behind the general, non-philosophical sense of “losing oneself in one’s art”… but isn’t this really just an emotive turn of phrase? Or maybe I’ve just never personally “lost myself” in my art to the extent that I’ve forgotten who I am…!
:P

[Taeguk]

Hi, Zoid! :)

You wrote:

Taeguk… you’re not going to let me get away with a simple statement of belief, are you? Are you a philosophy prof, perchance

Philosophy proff? me?!

:goodlaugh:

No, no, can't say that I am! I have the same criticism of (many) philosophy professors that Kierkegaard did; the universe they teach can be so far removed from the universe where they get paid for teaching!

You go on to say:

In terms of actions which are performed knowingly , I would say that they aren’t accompanied by, but are preceded by thought "for consequences to self"… the action arises from a consultation (conscious or otherwise) with self. This is as opposed to unintentional or accidental actions (dropping a pencil, knocking over a cup…), which are performed without motivation, without any prior intention of their occurrence, and therefore without any consultation with the self.

Ah, okay, I think I understand your position now. Thanks!

Let me ask you, though, this consultation---does it really precede every action?

To use a philosophical cliche, what about a person who sees a child about to be run over by a huge truck? There is no time for a consultation with the self, no time for a cost/benefit analysis, no time to think about heaven and hell, or reputation after death. There's simply enough time to make a decision, shove the child out of harm's way, and have their face smashed in by an 18 wheeler.

In this situation, I don't see where a consultation would take place!

If that strikes you as too extreme, think about this, Zoid: do we really go through our lives making mental cost/benefit analysis for everything we do? That certainly hasn't been my experience! For more "important" actions, actions that take place over a longer period of time (i.e., moving to a new house, switching jobs, deciding whether or not to invade Poland), we certainly do employ discursive reasoning, but on a simple, day to day basis I think intuition plays a bigger role. To go back to venomgirl's example of helping the turtle, opportunities simply arise, and we take them.

Or remember sahyo's suggestion to eat a hot hot hot chilipepper? When you bite down into that chilipepper, and you run for water, do you "consult" with yourself?

To bring this back to my comment about Kierkegaard, one of the problems I have with contemporary ethical philosophy in the West is the mistaken notion that somehow formulating better ethical "principles" can make you a more ethical person! I don't know anybody who runs through abstract, meta-ethical tables of logic before making a decision, regardless of whether or not they have a consulation with themselves.

Just some things to think about! :)

Going on, you say this:

The outcome does not imply the motivation… the “effect” does not imply the “cause.”

Okay! Glad we agree on that :)

Finally, you concluded with this:

I must confess, as an artists (a creator of written works… www.abctales.com/user/pepsoid), I am not entirely sure what this means! I appreciate the meaning behind the general, non-philosophical sense of “losing oneself in one’s art”… but isn’t this really just an emotive turn of phrase? Or maybe I’ve just never personally “lost myself” in my art to the extent that I’ve forgotten who I am…!

An emotive turn of phrase? :) Perhaps, but it is intended to describe an actual experience!

Are you really concious of "who you are" when you're writing? Or are you simply channeling ideas, putting yourself into your work to a degree that there is simply an experience of "writing", not a subject (you) performing an action?

If not, it may have to do with the fact that you are a writer! The experience of selflessness I think is more common with arts like painting, dancing, acting etc, something based around either a physical motion or a visual component (or both).

Although, I have to say, I've known plenty of writers who definitely claim to be "self-less" when writing! In particular, I have a friend who's writing a novel. When she's writing, her characters literally "take over" for a while; she becomes her characters much in the same way that an actor becomes a character. She doesn't have control over this effect, though; some days certain characters are more in a mood to "talk" than others!

Oh, and I think there's something else we should think about here. sahyo, you wrote:

imaging-self(fear) won't compassion

Which is a key point! What is our definition of a "compassionate action"? Is any action inherently compassionate?

Or isn't it the case that an action is only compassionate or selfish because of the intention of the person performing it? True compassion, I think, has to do with a certain orientation, one that doesn't involve imagining the "self"! So by claiming "selfless actions aren't possible", Zoid, I think you may actually be claiming "compassionate actions aren't possible"!

And again, regardless of whether or not you subscribe to the philosophical doctrine of anatta, I think this orientation is something that is encouraged in every sincere spirituality! I already mentioned that I think it's very much present in Christianity; I think you'll find it in every religion, and amongst people who profess no particular religion at all.

[bito]

Consulation with the self is the belief that awareness can be here and there, and that either here or there knows the 'right' 'thing' 'to do'.

:lol:

:)

[sojourner]

There is no time for a consultation with the self, no time for a cost/benefit analysis, no time to think about heaven and hell, or reputation after death. There's simply enough time to make a decision, shove the child out of harm's way, and have their face smashed in by an 18 wheeler.


I think that even in a blink of an eye, the mind can perform cognitive processes that weigh options, and analyses costs and benefits. Intuition is still a result of cognition? meaning a result of "thinking"...

[Ryker]

If my knowledge is correct thus far, a central Buddhist principle is a selfish one - one should look first to one's own soul. But one can only have a pure and good and enlightened soul if one is generous and compassionate.That's a really interesting point. It does seem to a little self-defeating at first glance. The way I have examined this & the way that I understand it is this: How can you give what you do not have? If I have no respect for myself, how can I truly respect others? If I do not feel I am deserving of my own love, then how can I truly love others? Etc., etc. I can know what these various qualities mean & essentially feign them, but I don't think it's truly possible until you have it yourself. I think first, one needs to take care of their "insides" so that they truly know what it means & then when they extend that towards others, it will have a much deeper meaning. It's kind of like telling someone that you love them. Talk is cheap; actions speak louder than words.


But I digress. I just saw the point & wanted to respond. :P On to the topic.

Consulation with the self is the belief that awareness can be here and there, and that either here or there knows the 'right' 'thing' 'to do'.Very interesting! I suppose if we were to assume that awareness could be here & there, we would be dealing with a duelist philosophy? Would that mean that in order for us to really look into this question, we'd have to first place our frame of reference in a duelist philosophy?

[sahyo]

bito

http://www.thebigview.com/forum/index.php?...=80&#entry37082 (http://www.thebigview.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=4&t=1373&st=80&#entry37082)

[sahyo]

True compassion, I think, has to do with a certain orientation, one that doesn't involve imagining the "self"!

yes but what meaning taeguk using word 'orientation' ?

[sahyo]

When you bite down into that chilipepper, and you run for water



:thumbsup:


:D

[Taeguk]

Hi!

sojourner, you wrote:

I think that even in a blink of an eye, the mind can perform cognitive processes that weigh options, and analyses costs and benefits. Intuition is still a result of cognition? meaning a result of "thinking"...

You raise an interesting point! :)

But is "intuition" really "thinking" in the sense Zoid is talking about, though?

Definition of Intuition (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intuition)

The first part of the definition states:

direct perception of truth, fact, etc., independent of any reasoning process; immediate apprehension.

Emphasis on "independent of any reasoning process" :)

sahyo, you asked:

yes but what meaning taeguk using word 'orientation' ?

"Intention", or how one relates to "what is" (including if one has to "relate" or if one "has intentions") :thumbsup:

[sahyo]

taeguk

found good example intent:



True Self

A distraught man approached the Zen master. "Please, Master, I feel lost, desperate. I don't know who I am. Please, show me my true self!" But the teacher just looked away without responding. The man began to plead and beg, but still the master gave no reply. Finally giving up in frustration, the man turned to leave. At that moment the master called out to him by name. "Yes!" the man said as he spun back around. "There it is!" exclaimed the master.



:lol:

:D

thanking

[Zoid]

The trouble with us philosophers is that we ask too many questions! ;)

What is self?
What is compassion?
What is cognition?

My head… :duh:

Too many? Or not enough? Let me ask another…

What is intention?

In purely physical terms, the brain is intrinsically linked to the body. Every physical act is accompanied by (or preceded by) a mental act. Even when we act “instinctively,” we can never take the brain out of the equation. Nothing we do – nothing – is not preceded by some sort of mental process. We may not be consciously aware of this mental process, but it occurs. It may occur at close to the speed of light (or the “speed of thought”) – at a timescale that is imperceptible to our conscious awareness – but it occurs. Our brain – or at least our Central Nervous System – is always “consulted” before any intentional act is undertaken. It’s a long time since I did ‘A’ level biology… am I right here? The “self” may or may not be contained within the physical brain, but at the very least the brain is an analogy of the “self” (or the “soul”).

Why do you rescue a child from an onrushing truck? There is a reason. Your physical body does not do it independently of your mind. It may feel that way – but that is only because we are not, by definition, consciously aware of the almost instantaneous unconscious mental processes that occur before such an action. You rescue a child because it is “the right thing to do”… Why is it the right thing to do? Because life is sacred. Why is life sacred? What makes your brain believe life is sacred?... etc… etc.

Just as another small clarifier (that I have just thought of whilst typing this on my computer!)… When I hit the letter “t” on my keyboard, the letter “t” appears seemingly instantaneously on the screen. I know, logically, that it is not actually instantaneous, because I have some basic knowledge of how a computer works. The letter “t” is hit… the keyboard consults with the CPU (or some other part of the “brain” of the computer – I’m no IT expert!)… the CPU (or whatever) then communicates with the monitor… a letter “t” appears on the screen…

All this begs another question: does a computer have a “self”? But I’ll save that for another thread! :D

[Taeguk]

Hi again!

sahyo, you wrote:

found good example intent

:lol:

Thanks! :)

Zoid, you wrote:

Why do you rescue a child from an onrushing truck? There is a reason. Your physical body does not do it independently of your mind. It may feel that way – but that is only because we are not, by definition, consciously aware of the almost instantaneous unconscious mental processes that occur before such an action. You rescue a child because it is “the right thing to do”… Why is it the right thing to do? Because life is sacred. Why is life sacred? What makes your brain believe life is sacred?... etc… etc.

Oh, I completely agree! The mind and body aren't seperate! And I wasn't trying to suggest that they were (I'm sorry if it came off like I was!), but merely that in certain situations the mind might not bother going through a list of benefits for the "self" before performing an action. :)

You also wrote:

The “self” may or may not be contained within the physical brain, but at the very least the brain is an analogy of the “self” (or the “soul”).

Hmm...depends what you mean by "analogy" and by "self"! :lol:

And to go back to your first point:

What is self?
What is compassion?
What is cognition?

We should probably define these terms if we're going to be talking about them!

Hmmm...I don't know (although I've suggested what I think compassion is, a few posts back!)! What do you think, Zoid, or anyone else? :)

[sahyo]

when you not, compassion is,
though no thinking compasssion

[clyde]

Compassion is an encompassing and sensitive feeling that arises from the realization of suffering knowing that at every level we are interconnected.

Do no harm,
clyde

[Trevor]

when you not, compassion is,
though no thinking compasssion

I find this very reassuring.