i have to say that i agree with mostly all of the above, however i'd like to ask, how do you define "doing" from "being"? they both seem, not necessarily equal, but, more or less adequate in this context, no? would not one imply the other? maybe there is some "fatal flaw" i am missing that you could elaborate on in regards to that statement, guhyayoga. thanks in advance
I would say that doing implies being in the way that a cart implies a horse, and that being contains the potential of doing in the way that a horse is a potential draftsanimal.
What I'm getting at here is not so much that there's a steep-sided divide between doing and being - they're two aspects of the same coin and obviously indivisible, but that it's much more important to consider "What do I want to do?" rather than "Who do I want to be?"
Who you want to be is an image being projected, it's secondary, it's the form without the function.
What's wrong with an egoic goal? You say it just because everyone sais it. But it is good to think about it again...why is allways thought altruism is good and egocentrism is bad?
Because ego-centrism leads to people prioritizing their own happiness over others, creating a willingness to do and say things that will benefit oneself at the expense of others.
The biggest creations in the world are products of egocentrism.
From where I sit, it seems like the best things we have are products of altruism. What are the
big things you're talking about?
Exploitative multinational corporations? Totalitarian governments? Parasitical capital structures? Industrial unsustainability? Ecological unsustainability? Geopolitical maneuvering? Social posturing? Widespread ignorance and complacency because people are too busy serving their reptilian brain's easily manipulated desires - catering to their ego?
Yep, all testaments to the glory of egocentricity.
People being full of what they do, being full of their new creation, happy not because they help people, but because of being busy with their own passion.
This comes off as a non-sequitur to me. I know people who are full of what they do, full of their new creation, busy with their own passion -
which is helping people. I'd like to think the guy in the mirror counts as such a person.
An altruist depends on others to be happy, he gains happiness from second hand, he needs people who suffer.
These too are misconceptions. Let's go over them:
An altruist depends on others to be happy
First, this is a misleading statement to begin with. Imagine a world in which nobody existed. No other being. No other life. Well, first, you wouldn't be able to survive in such an environment, and I'm fairly sure survival is a prerequisite for happiness. But let's just say that, somehow, the laws of ecology are in temporary abeyance and you've managed to survive by being so wonderfully centered in your ego, and thereby able to work ingeniously to devise some new creation (which you're
full of, I might add), that somehow enables your survival.
Oh, but nobody is there to recognize what an awesome ego you are. There is no limelight for the ego to bask in. No appreciation, no recognition, not even monetary recompense. No other egos to compare yours to in the endless game of self-evaluation according to the metrics imposed by society and its various subcultures.
No others.
And you're happy. Mmhmm.
But hey, I know you didn't mean it that way - although that is what it extrapolates to. Even taking it the way you meant it, it's still wrong.
There is a long tradition of hermit-altruists who depended on nobody for their own happiness, instead finding happiness within. Milarepa is a case example. However, they recognized that their own yearning to be happy was parallel to that of everyone else, and that finding happiness within themselves meant that others could too - that realization carrying with it an ethical duty to help others. It is not necessary to depend on others for happiness to be an altruist. This is baggage you've attached to it extraneously. One can depend on oneself for happiness, yet still derive additional happiness from serving others. Maximizing utility/felicity and all that jazz.
he gains happiness from second hand
Again, this may be true of some altruists, but is by no mean a defining characteristic.
The brain is actually hardwired to derive happiness/contentment from altruistic acts, even without mirror neurons being stimulated by vicarious happiness of another - the very act of giving is itself enough, and that is first hand.
he needs people who suffer
Compassion presupposes suffering, adoration does not. This is one of the reasons Buddhism emphasizes the distinction between compassion (karuna) and loving-kindness (maitri).
Compassion seeks the elimination of suffering. As it is not egoic in nature, it should not be considered through the lens of egoism. What I mean here is that 'compassion presupposes suffering, therefore compassion needs suffering to continue its existence' pre-supposes that compassion has an ego concerned with its continued existence.
This is not the case. A genuine altruist would love to see an end of suffering, and enjoy respite in a universal full of perfectly aware, perfectly happy beings - this is the maitri component, which is before, and after, karuna.
Such a universe would be forged by altruism, and maintained in altruism, in which each being is optimizing the interests of every other being, whether in the elimination of suffering or the enjoyment of one-another as one.
Altruism can be thought of as an almost-ecological process. Just as toxins are bio-remediated in an ecosystems, suffering is psycho-remediated through service and alleviation - the more mutual, the more reciprocal, the more efficiently suffering is eliminated from the system.
The altruist does not need suffering, the altruist finds that suffering exists, and thus that the situation - suffering wants, and needs, altruism.
An egocentric doesn't need others to be happy he gains his happiness from first hand.
Wrong for reasons that should be apparent by now, but in case they're not: egoists are reliant on conditional means of happiness which are a product of both their own efforts and the social (and economic structure) around them. This is still a very flimsy happiness, easily ravaged by the play of events.
Altruism is incompatible with freedom, with capitalism and with individual rights.
I'm curious as to what basis you have for these assertions.
Altruism is a prerequisite for freedom. Well, at least freedom for the people as a whole. Otherwise, only egocentric people at the very top of the sociopolitical and socioeconomic pyramids enjoy freedom. You think these egocentrists decided one day it'd be a good idea to implement freedom to the detriment of their own agendas? Or the talented individuals who advocated freedom and built its foundations for future generations to squander (in what Isaiah Berlin called negative liberty, which we prioritize at the expense of positive liberty) wouldn't have enjoyed considerably freer, more comfortable lives if they had chosen to use those talents in the service of the elite? Many of them ended up in chains for their altruistic efforts on behalf of humanity.
In the early age of more perfect ecological competition, people did not give a rat's ass about the freedoms of others. It is only because empathy, and altruism as an extension, have been inculcated in the social psyche -
as definitely pointed out by Adam Smith in his Theory of Moral Sentiments, which is necessary reading to understand the capitalism that is so poorly understood by the many capitalist neophytes no less zealous for their lack of knowledge.
In fact, in the very first passages, Smith writes:
How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortunes of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of seeing it. Of this kind is pity or compassion, the emotion we feel for the misery of others, when we either see it, or are made to conceive it in a very lively manner. That we often derive sorrow from the sorrows of others, is a matter of fact too obvious to require any instances to prove it; for this sentiment, like all the other original passions of human nature, is by no means confined to the virtuous or the humane, though they perhaps may feel it with the most exquisite sensibility. The greatest ruffian, the most hardened violator of the laws of society, is not altogether without it.
Yes, it is true that Smith viewed universal altruism as beyond man's purview, squarely within God's preserve, and sought ways to make self interests compatible for the greatest good,
an altruistic endeavor for him. The entire point of capitalism is to structure incentives and social contracts/mechanics so that personal selfishness is converted to impersonal altruism.
I tend to agree that universal altruism is solely God's domain, and therefore absolutely essential for those who wish to transcend humanity and awake as divinity. This is the central premise of Mahayana Buddhism.
Although Smith goes on to say:
Though our effectual good offices can very seldom be extended to any wider society than that of our own country; our good-will is circumscribed by no boundary, but may embrace the immensity of the universe. We cannot form the idea of any innocent and sensible being, whose happiness we should not desire, or to whose misery, when distinctly brought home to the imagination, we should not have some degree of aversion.
Anyway...
Smith was seeking what, in the language of more modern economics, is called equilibrium - a state of stability balancing everyone's interests, by way of facilitating individual self interest and channeling it constructively. Remember, Smith was a moral philosopher before an economist.
When he talks about virtues, he says:
How amiable does he appear to be, whose sympathetic heart seems to reecho all the sentiments of those with whom he converses, who grieves for their calamities, who resents their injuries, and who rejoices at their good fortune! When we bring home to ourselves the situation of his companions, we enter into their gratitude, and feel what consolation they must derive from the tender sympathy of so affectionate a friend. And for a contrary reason, how disagreeable does he appear to be, whose hard and obdurate heart feels for himself only, but is altogether insensible to the happiness or misery of others! We enter, in this case too, into the pain which his presence must give to every mortal with whom he converses, to those especially with whom we are most apt to sympathize, the unfortunate and the injured.
Smith was a humanist whose humanism tended to border on altruism, although as an economist, he was very interested in what is now called behavioral economics, and preferred to base his philosophy on observation of human behavior - as often selfish - rather than an unreachable ideal of universal benevolence incompatible with the realities of social conditioning then and now, as in communism.
Proper capitalism should be seen as converting personal selfishness to impersonal altruism, and facilitating, by making economically sustainable, altruism.
You mentioned core of being. The only way such a core makes sense in the context of equilibrium is if everyone's core, everyone's purpose, if you will, is mutually complementary. ie, your purpose is served by others, your purpose serves others. Ecologies of purpose.
One cannot combine the pursuit of happiness with the moral status of a sacrificial animal.
A sacrificial animal has no choice in the matter, it is sacrificed by another for egoic goal. Whereas an altruist sacrifices her own interests for the greater good. Or rather, sacrifices her egoic interests, and instead makes her interest the interests of others. You're right though, this is generally incompatible with the
pursuit of happiness, which is precisely what makes altruism such a wonderful catalyst for happiness.
Earlier in the thread, someone's signature contained a quote from Alan Watts to the extent that nirvana - a state of absolute happiness, unstained by any kind of suffering - cannot be found, because finding it presupposes that it is something that needs to be searched for; pursued.
Happiness is much the same, and searching for it as an object in of itself, or something non-intrinsic, will only fasten the weary pursuers to the hedonic treadmill chasing it in one ephemeral object - mental or physical - after another, whether these objects are derived from one's own equally conditional activities, or those of others'.
But to bring arguments a little closer to
home, after you read this, I suggest you call your mother - I'm sure she'd love to hear your voice anyway, and ask her if she ever sacrificed her own interests for your well being, if she regrets doing so, and if she derived happiness from doing so.
Altruism, at least or particularly in the context of kin selection theory, is an evolutionary stable strategy; evolutionary biology (and ecology) presuppose its development for civilization to occur. In the gene-centric view, it's hardwired so that the
selfish genes are furthered by unselfish people. Evolutionary ecology takes a somewhat broader view. Even robots in our experiments and simulations develop rudimentary altruism from mutating code. Altruism was selected for by evolutionary pressures.
We need inspired creators now.
The most inspired creators I know personally, and know of - in history and the current, are nearly all altruists.
But, in the need for inspired creators, we agree.
was bordering the lines of war and peace: unabridged, but i managed to get through it, and i think it sums things up quite nicely without much cause for trolling replies. or iow: pwned :!:
