Doing good "out of kindness"

[WonderBeat]

His argument is not dependent on that view. There is no fallacy there.


eudaimonia,

Mark

All of us know God; but we hide away from Him due to projection, and the intoxicating wine of skepticism....

 

[WonderBeat]

How can we possibly know if non-human animals "know God"? And what reason would we have to think that they are acting on knowledge of God?

They have a pre-reflective knowledge. Just as a fish out of water would know something is wrong, even though all throughout its existence in water it had been unreflective of the fact. Just so all living entities have an intrinsic knowledge of God's being, as their own self.

As far as human beings are concerned, I don't see how one can demonstrate that it is specifically some sort of knowledge of God that is the basis for kind or moral action.

The fact is so subtle that proof in the analytical sense is not possible to achieve. One can only prove this fact by surrendering to it.

I'm an atheist, and my kindness and morality is based on knowledge of other human beings, and of human well-being. God doesn't enter into it.

That is because you are not conscious Who God is, not That He is.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The fact is so subtle that proof in the analytical sense is not possible to achieve. One can only prove this fact by surrendering to it.

Unfortunately, one can just as easily surrender to a falsehood as to a fact. Neither counts as a proof.

That is because you are not conscious Who God is, not That He is.

This is an empty claim.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[WonderBeat]

Unfortunately, one can just as easily surrender to a falsehood as to a fact. Neither counts as a proof.

You can never surrender to a falsehood. The 'falsehood' then partakes of the truth in part if not in full.

This is an empty claim.

Resistance.

 

[Eudaimonist]

You can never surrender to a falsehood. The 'falsehood' then partakes of the truth in part if not in full.

Then it still remains a falsehood, not a truth. A partial falsehood is still a falsehood.

Resistance.

I am resistant to empty claims. That's keen of you to notice.


eudaimonía,

Mark

 

[WonderBeat]

Then it still remains a falsehood, not a truth. A partial falsehood is still a falsehood.

There is some measure of truth. Therefore, in that sense we surrender to the truth.

I am resistant to empty claims. That's keen of you to notice.

Actually, you are resistant to the truth as it is. But, that's ok. Most of us are.

 

[quatona]

Actually, you are resistant to the truth as it is.

Ok, now that´s a compelling argument. I´m already convinced.

 

[Gadarene]

It truly is remarkable how some people can make dozens of posts and not actually say anything cogent, or of substance.

 

[Eudaimonist]

There is some measure of truth. Therefore, in that sense we surrender to the truth.

I can't think of any reason why anyone would not be able to surrender to a falsehood. It's easy to misinterpret one's experiences, so even if one feels that one is surrendering to reality-as-it-is-experienced, one will be left believing in falsehood about that experience.

Actually, you are resistant to the truth as it is. But, that's ok. Most of us are.

Only most?

You've given me no reason to think that I'm "resistant to the truth" like "most people". Perhaps you are one of those "most" and I am not. It seems to me that you have decided that I am resistant because I disagree with you.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Received]

I think much of the problem of "reward" is based in the lack of a distinction between external rewards (what we get as a result of helping someone) and internal rewards (the psychological benefit of helping someone).

I can help someone out simply because I'm a mature person who values the reward of knowing I helped the life of someone else. Camus related this to beauty: to help another person is a type of aesthetic enterprise analogous to any act of creation, in this case an act of creating the other person, i.e., love is an act of creativity.

But if this is true, then by the technical definition of altruism, I'm not altruistic. Yet this is clearly a much better form of egoism than the type that is dead set on helping out a demanding ego when in consideration of the needs of others.

 

[quatona]

I´ve been wondering something else: When altruism is such a great ideal - who the heck will sacrifice his altruism to mine and accept my altruistic gifts/help/assistance/support?
And - wouldn´t that mean that I am exploiting this person selfishly?

 

[WonderBeat]

Ok, now that´s a compelling argument. I´m already convinced.

Arguments have nothing to do with the truth. They are a projection of belief- and belief is always belief in something particularized. Truth is universal. It has no opposite. So it can't be argued 'for' or 'against' - it simply is as it is.

You already know the truth so there's no need to be convinced. All you have to do is quit projecting so that you can see the truth as it actually exists.

 

[WonderBeat]

It truly is remarkable how some people can make dozens of posts and not actually say anything cogent, or of substance.

What you call 'substance' is really just distraction. People love to be bedazzled by reasons, by flashy instances of "discourse." But really that is just an attempt to escape the obvious.

 

[WonderBeat]

I can't think of any reason why anyone would not be able to surrender to a falsehood. It's easy to misinterpret one's experiences, so even if one feels that one is surrendering to reality-as-it-is-experienced, one will be left believing in falsehood about that experience.

Let me explain. When we surrender in the proper sense it can only be to our own Self. This self is universal, and whenever a particular statement or proposition calls to us this universality, we will to surrender to that universality. That is called the Heart.

Only most?

You've given me no reason to think that I'm "resistant to the truth" like "most people". Perhaps you are one of those "most" and I am not. It seems to me that you have decided that I am resistant because I disagree with you.


eudaimonia,

Mark

You are clearly resistant to the truth because you do not know the self (not pre-reflective knowing but reflective).

 

[Received]

I´ve been wondering something else: When altruism is such a great ideal - who the heck will sacrifice his altruism to mine and accept my altruistic gifts/help/assistance/support?
And - wouldn´t that mean that I am exploiting this person selfishly?

 

[quatona]

Arguments have nothing to do with the truth.

Even less so empty truth claims.

They are a projection of belief- and belief is always belief in something particularized. Truth is universal. It has no opposite. So it can't be argued 'for' or 'against' - it simply is as it is.

You already know the truth so there's no need to be convinced. All you have to do is quit projecting so that you can see the truth as it actually exists.

Be that as it may - I was not talking to the truth but to someone who believes she has stopped projecting and is in hold of the truth.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I can help someone out simply because I'm a mature person who values the reward of knowing I helped the life of someone else.

I'd go even deeper than that. I would value simply having helped the life of someone else. IOWs, if I knew that my memory of the event would be wiped clean, this would not discourage me from helping.

Camus related this to beauty: to help another person is a type of aesthetic enterprise analogous to any act of creation, in this case an act of creating the other person, i.e., love is an act of creativity.

I'm not particularly a fan of Camus, but I like this way of looking at love. I have to quibble just a bit and say that I don't think that I would literally be creating the other person, but would be more like a gardener who helps to create the right conditions for his plants to grow through their own methods.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

You are clearly resistant to the truth because you do not know the self (not pre-reflective knowing but reflective).

What leads you to this conclusion about me?

Oh, and please define "truth" for me. It sounds like you are using that as a synonym for "reality" or "consciousness". This is making communication difficult, because for me a truth is an accurate description of some part or aspect of reality.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Received]

I'd go even deeper than that. I would value simply having helped the life of someone else. IOWs, if I knew that my memory of the event would be wiped clean, this would not discourage me from helping.

I wouldn't mind my memory being wiped clean either, so long as I get the reward of knowing that the other person is better off because of love (not necessarily my love) in the moment at which it's happening. It seems like the type of pleasure a person can get from knowing someone is better off, whether or not this is because of the intended love of the other subject, can be an incredibly noble type of egoism.

And actually, just saying the above, I think it's possible to love someone and see their betterment without knowing how much my intended love has contributed to their betterment. There's altruism.

 

[WonderBeat]

What leads you to this conclusion about me?

Basically your denial of the Self.

Oh, and please define "truth" for me. It sounds like you are using that as a synonym for "reality" or "consciousness". This is making communication difficult, because for me a truth is an accurate description of some part or aspect of reality.

Reality has no parts; that is where you err.

Peace.