You are egoist!

[misfit]

Ahuaeynjxs:

"Personas: The role that one assumes or displays in public or society; one's public image or personality, as distinguished from the inner self."

Now please give me some light on this.

When someone helps another human being with the purpose in mind that he is not helping nothing but himself (and not in the sense that he feels good about it) litteraly, where does persona enters in context.

By the way, how can we distinguish if we are really being ourselfs (what ever that means) and not representing a persona for the own ego satisfaction.


Restin:

Depends. After reading the actual definition of persona. If you call your role/play in this world 'I', then yes, you are right. But if you feel there's something else, other than the play itself then I think that's not who you should call I. Or, in other words, persona has no meaning at all. Only in our percetion of reality, as it is/isn't.

 

[mrvn]

Yes I am.
But than again you must be, otherwise you can't survive in this world we live in.

 

[misfit]

I have no choice on that field. Since it isn't a matter of choice.

But I can choose what to be (Relativly), and still not survive in this world.

 

[Ahuaeynjxs]

Indeed the root of the word means "the mask of the actor" ; you know you are yourself when you remember all your life (without much blank spots) and you can find a recursive pattern in it that you can recall by merely closing your eyes and meditating.

Then when your focus becomes optimal with some training, you can find multiple patterns upon many time lapses and levels, and thats who you really are ; the mask become a tool you sometimes use to get along in some social circles, but it does not fuse to your skull anymore, having to move fast in jerky ways to give real looks to people beyond it, if you see what I mean.

Of course it's good to see we are all one, but truely the human we are is us, but another's DNA is not exactly us, and since the body shares both the spirit and the DNA (that are both alive), then that leaves room for unicity, and where that exists, for the unpredictable, the unknown, thus, you are not merely helping yourself that is all, you're helping another like unique being, but it's not due to what our spirit is...

 

[misfit]

There are indeed many blank spots. But still, meditation is not one of the things I do. I've tried, but it seems that I can't actually take anything from it.

Well, I know, more or less, my story. What I've experienced. And that, indeed, it's who I am.

That's actually a problem. The need for a persona, for social relationships.
I've tried not to use it, and it brought me suffering (at least I think I haven't used it). But with time, I've learned to mold the way I perceive reality, with the necessity to socialize with others like myself. And it's more weird than any of the previous two approachs. But it feels better

I agree. I'm not my DNA (but still, it's part of me). Like I'm not my hand or my hair, but it's also part of me.
So I guess all I am is perception itself. And I have tools with wich I can manipulate what I experience. Tools come into existence, like me. But "work" or "exist" on another level.

But then arises the hearth beat, and how it beats. Breathing, how it breaths. bla bla...

 

[Ahuaeynjxs]

I'm not talking about something abstract here... meditation not like master your emotions... it's a light meditation.

You just close your eyes and sort through your memories... ditch what is unshareable, and preserve and review with recursivity what is.

 

[misfit]

 

[????????]

only the death are unselfish.

 

[Pariah]

Misfit, would you say that you believe in Psychological hedonism then?

"Whether aware of it or not we all act to maximise our own pleasure"

Is this the case?

 

[misfit]

????????:

How do you know? :roll:


Pariah:

I, actually, don't believe in 'anything'.
So, no.

But, as you probably noticed, I take it into account.

 

[Pariah]

"I, actually, don't believe in 'anything'. "

Seems to be another way of saying: "I believe I don't believe anything"...

 

[restin]

it's not about believing,it's about having a point of view :wink: hedonism is cool.

 

[Jahvisions]

From: Aldous Huxley's 'doors of perception'
http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/wri ... oors.shtml

The suggestion is that the function of the brain and nervous system and sense organs is in the main eliminative and not productive. Each person is at each moment capable of remembering all that has ever happened to him and of perceiving everything that is happening everywhere in the universe. The function of the brain and nervous system is to protect us from being overwhelmed and confused by this mass of largely useless and irrelevant knowledge, by shutting out most of what we should otherwise perceive or remember at any moment, and leaving only that very small and special selection which is likely to be practically useful." According to such a theory, each one of us is potentially Mind at Large. But in so far as we are animals, our business is at all costs to survive.

 

[misfit]

Restin:

+1


Jahvisions:

I agree with that paragraph, except the last phrase.

 

[Pariah]

Perhaps my use of "believe" was a little unclear - I use it synonymous with "think", but still, I would suggest those that avoid drawing conclusions need to stop fretting, and jump on into the waters of philosophy.

To milk the analogy even more:

The water may be sophist infested, but they're cowards - they may have sharp teeth, and swim fast, but one hit on the nose will have them swimming away to their mothers.


...anyway.

***



For those thinking that they don't have a say in their ethical conduct:


Psychological Hedonism doesn't stand up even remotely to proper theoretical scrutiny, and therefore doesn't have a place in moral theory.

Its a good thing too, the implications of psychological hedonism would be (and are) devistating to ethics and human relations in general.

The key is that psychological hedonism tries to justify the actions as the only moral way of acting - when it is in fact not - Psychological Hedonism is fatally flawed because it is unfalsifiable - with a self sealing premise see "Conciously or unconciously" in the definition of Psyc.Hed.


Free will should have been laid to rest, then personal identity / The mind body problem. before starting ethical theory - as is often the case, we're getting ahead of ourselves - asking questions we don't have the means to answer yet.

You might want to read up on:
The basis of identity (essence and accident) - restin's already done this.

Libertarianism (the metaphysical theory, not political ideology)

Substance Dualism and Functionalism

Then you'll be able to look into ethics without tripping up on the idea of not having a say in your own behaviour, or bringing up flimsy appeals to something called "spirit".

After that you would need to read Kantian formal ethics for a workable, fair way of going about life...

***



"Each person is at each moment capable of" .... "perceiving everything that is happening everywhere in the universe."

...erm, no. sorry to disagree with mister huxley - it might feel like it, but there's nothing significant (to my knowledge) that suggests this is the case.


***


Here's an analysis / overview of Ethical Egoism for anyone who cares:


Ethical Egoism: what is moral is what is in a persons best interest

-
Principle: a moral principle is a rule used to create other rules or judge actions.

Objective: something is objective if it doesn't matter who determines the truth value - any one who understands must agree.

Absolute: Something is absolute if it applys to everyone all of the time in the same way.
-


Psychological Hedonism: Everything you choose to do, you choose it because you conciously or unconciously believe it will maximise your pleasure.

Argument:

1) You cannot have a moral obligation to perform an action which it is impossible to perform.

2) It is impossible to choose to do something that you do not believe is in your best interest.

The only moral obligation you can have is to do what you believe is in your best interest.

What is moral is whatever is in your best interests.

To put Ethical Egoism into practice:

1) Determine short, medium and long term interests.

2) Determine the best interests in a situation.

3) If someones interests help you achieve your interests, convert them to ethical egoism and team up - these people are your friends 8)

4) If someones interests do not affect you, ignore them, they are not important.

5) If someones interests conflict with yours, they are your enemy: try to avoid conflict, convert them to an ethical theory that is not in their interests, or you must destroy them. :twisted:


***

Any of that look familiar? its the same way that many religions and cults seem to work, and has bearing in the way that the free market is used.


After breaking down Psychological Hedonism and visit other proper theories, you show that its not just a case of "get used to the rat race" but there is actually more potential for ethical human behaviour than keeping your "enemies" ignorant - there is at least one ethical theory which involves the education of those involved (kantian).

 

[restin]

amen for this post rayer: thank you. I might add something later but it is perfect as it is.

 

[GOD]

It sounds a bit like what is hapening on this site lately .

And

Freedom of speach my arse . Rasism and hysterical shit heads spreading poison or opening threads where it just goes round and round , down and down like a fucking dog chasing its own tail and eventualy dissapearing up its own arse are fucking this web site up .

 

[misfit]

Pariah:

In my opinion believing hasn't much to do with thinking. I can think of countless things without really believing them.

Maybe we're already on philosophical waters, thriving to find an island to explore.

I think Psychological Hedonism isn't fatally flawed and it isn't unfalsifiable. It can be wrong. And I tried, as you can read in my previous posts, to challenge, other ways of approaching that idea.

"as is often the case, we're getting ahead of ourselves - asking questions we don't have the means to answer yet."
As long as we know where our feets are standing, and don't get mixed up and confused. I think we are allright in those fields of exploration and wonder.


I think libertarianism exist, aswell as determinism. I guess it depends on the kind of person we are talking about. I, personally, can bring examples of both libertarianism and determinism in my life. So I guess they are both correct. And I'm sure you can give examples, of both ideas, of your lifes too.

--
Just for the record. I think not everything should be approached with a 'scientific mind'. Science itself proves to be wrong, inside out, in many cases.
--

Good analysis on the Ethical Egoism.


"5) If someones interests conflict with yours, they are your enemy: try to avoid conflict, convert them to an ethical theory that is not in their interests, or you must destroy them"
This reminded me of the Islam thread :lol:


Kantian ideas seem to be a bit cynical.

"Kant showed that many of our common sense views of what is good or bad conforms to his system but denied that any action performed for reasons other than rational actions can be good (saving someone who is drowning simply out of a great pity for them is not a morally good act)."
I don't know if the example was from Kant himself. But anyway, who ever wrote it, wouldn't mind at all if he was saved because of pity or self-interest by the saviour...

I am cynical myself sometimes... when self-interest is involved.


* I hope I didn't misunderstood the purpose of your post.

--

What's your opinion on Utilitarianism?
I can be cynical my whole life for an utilitarian 'goal'. Am I being egoist in that case?

 

[Ahuaeynjxs]

*yawns*

Reminds me of college philosophy classes... I haven't smoked yet today, perhaps thats why I didn't get into it.

:weedman:

I didn't know we could honestly think of doing philosophy on a static message board... to me it was always a live thing, like poker. You see all those people playing on poker on the internet, with static avatars... to me it's all very pointless, but I guess it's good to be clear on the terms ; I'm not critisizing anyone here.

Perhaps if we setup a "philosophy hour" on the board, everyone tokes at the same time and then everything we say will seem much deeper ; we don't really wanna find an island, I'd rather find sunken Mu, or an alien octopus humanoid city.

That would be cool.

 

[IJesusChrist]

conscious therefore ego