Egoism/Altruism

[Received]

It all depends on how the self is understood in action.

If I understand the self as "consciousness turned inward" (i.e., self-consciousness: the "I" perceiving "me"), then clearly there are completely selfless acts: I give to another person without a thought of how it will affect myself. I give a person a gift, a smile, a hello, a hundred dollars, and so long as I don't have my self (that is, my I-perceiving-me-ness) in mind, my act is selfless.

But if the self is "consciousness and all the stuff connected to it," including the body and neurochemical rewards, then the only selfless acts are the ones that don't have a result of reward (i.e., don't add to our pleasure or happiness). I give a person a gift, a smile, a hundred dollars, and if I get any type of positive feeling from it, even if I'm not aware of the reward (and many neurochemical reinforcers are subtle in this way), I (my self: consciousness, body, sensation, etc.) am rewarded, so therefore the act isn't selfless because I'm getting something from it. With this view selflessness is possible, but it is the very opposite of anything that involves pleasure and (by extension) happiness.

Regardless of the idea, we might conceive of kindness of character as a type of conditioning between neurotransmitters and positive actions; good folk are simply those who have this conditioning, whereas bad folk think they can find the endorphin rush with other activities, namely bad actions. If this is true, it's possible to be good and selfish or bad and selfish, or good and selfless and bad and selfish, depending on the view of self presented above. With the second view, it's not selfishness per se that's bad (you can't help but be selfish, unless you think misery and selflessness is more important than happiness and selfishness), but the way in which you're selfish. Great historical figures (e.g., Jesus, Gandhi) simply had the most refined selfishness, unless you think they didn't get any pleasure or reward from the actions they committed.

I don't buy into the second view of self. Who I am is constituted by the decisions I make with my moments of self-consciousness. Put differently, I am what I will to be, and this willing is only possible when I'm initially aware of myself -- the self-turned-inward is the default state for decision-making and identity. And if I make a choice with my self as the end, I am selfish; if I make a choice where my self isn't even considered, I am selfless. So it's totally possible to be selfless and enjoy things like art, music, reading, and other solitary tasks, so long as the end isn't consciousness-turned-inward.

Right?

 

[Elioenai26]

It all depends on how the self is understood in action.

If I understand the self as "consciousness turned inward" (i.e., self-consciousness: the "I" perceiving "me"), then clearly there are completely selfless acts: I give to another person without a thought of how it will affect myself. I give a person a gift, a smile, a hello, a hundred dollars, and so long as I don't have my self (that is, my I-perceiving-me-ness) in mind, my act is selfless.

But if the self is "consciousness and all the stuff connected to it," including the body and neurochemical rewards, then the only selfless acts are the ones that don't have a result of reward (i.e., don't add to our pleasure or happiness). I give a person a gift, a smile, a hundred dollars, and if I get any type of positive feeling from it, even if I'm not aware of the reward (and many neurochemical reinforcers are subtle in this way), I (my self: consciousness, body, sensation, etc.) am rewarded, so therefore the act isn't selfless because I'm getting something from it. With this view selflessness is possible, but it is the very opposite of anything that involves pleasure and (by extension) happiness.

Regardless of the idea, we might conceive of kindness of character as a type of conditioning between neurotransmitters and positive actions; good folk are simply those who have this conditioning, whereas bad folk think they can find the endorphin rush with other activities, namely bad actions. If this is true, it's possible to be good and selfish or bad and selfish, or good and selfless and bad and selfish, depending on the view of self presented above. With the second view, it's not selfishness per se that's bad (you can't help but be selfish, unless you think misery and selflessness is more important than happiness and selfishness), but the way in which you're selfish. Great historical figures (e.g., Jesus, Gandhi) simply had the most refined selfishness, unless you think they didn't get any pleasure or reward from the actions they committed.

I don't buy into the second view of self. Who I am is constituted by the decisions I make with my moments of self-consciousness. Put differently, I am what I will to be, and this willing is only possible when I'm initially aware of myself -- the self-turned-inward is the default state for decision-making and identity. And if I make a choice with my self as the end, I am selfish; if I make a choice where my self isn't even considered, I am selfless. So it's totally possible to be selfless and enjoy things like art, music, reading, and other solitary tasks, so long as the end isn't consciousness-turned-inward.

Right?

Im liking what im reading here mate and upon a cursory inspection I say you're spot on. Let's see where it goes....

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Right? MAybe if you stretch the core meanings of the term.

For me typical selfishness and altruism may be appropriate depending on context. One size does not fit all.

I often conflate individualism with selfishness, but I dont think they are the same thing.

 

[Received]

I'm a bit sheepish looking at the OP, because it was late and I was in a philosophical mood. But dang this is a really complicated subject.

If I take the first view of self, this means that I'm literally selfless, "without a self," during all activities, even the ones that were made with my self as an end. I don't know if that's true. It seems strange that we're technically only selves in moments throughout the day, unless we're really bored (I've understood boredom as a sort of being "stuffed with the self," as Walker Percy would say).

Maybe the self is consciousness itself, but to be selfish means is to value the "me" over the "I" of consciousness. That is, there are two selves -- one transcendent (consciousness, "I"), and one immanent ("me"). My "me" is all the stuff associated with consciousness (body, thoughts, sensations, etc.); "me" is in the realm of personal identity, the application of a label to a collection of body, mind, and anything that can be *impacted* that's associated with my consciousness. To be selfish, then, is to be concerned about stuff associated with consciousness (my deeper self, my "I"), and to act with these things in mind as an end.

So maybe it's a choice between the self as consciousness, and the self as consciousness and everything associated with it. There might be a false dichotomy given that we have two selves, one as consciousness, the other as all the stuff associated with it. If so, it doesn't really matter how the self is conceived, given that both conceptions are housed in who we ultimately are.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

When i studied psychology i was told we have different selves (multiple identities or multiple selves). Thus an athletic book worm may view himself differently at the track (limber speedy) that whilst reading (analytic intellectual).

Neitzsche favoured human self affirmation. Perhaps that is not all done in one self mode, but in many ways of seeing ourselves and through diverse social and personal roles. And much of the effort resulting in affirmation may in fact be non-reflexive, periods lost in a task (flow) rather than self aware. for instance reading or running for two different affirmative modes.

So from a deep set of personal attributes self awareness draws on just a few via selective attention. So self awareness is really subset of self awareness. And in acting we are creating a self of which we can be aware (as opposed to the theory of atman - the hindu eternal self)?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

When i studied psychology i was told we have different selves (multiple identities or multiple selves). Thus an athletic book worm may view himself differently at the track (limber speedy) that whilst reading (analytic intellectual).

Neitzsche favoured human self affirmation. Perhaps that is not all done in one self mode, but in many ways of seeing ourselves and through diverse social and personal roles. And much of the effort resulting in affirmation may in fact be non-reflexive, periods lost in a task (flow) rather than self aware. for instance reading or running for two different affirmative activities resulting in affirmation later on.

So from a deep set of personal attributes self awareness draws on just a few via selective attention. So self awareness is really subset of self awareness. And in acting we are creating a self of which we can be aware (as opposed to the theory of atman - the hindu eternal self which is not contingent on circumstances or reincarnate name and form)?

 

[Davian]

It all depends on how the self is understood in action.

If I understand the self as "consciousness turned inward" (i.e., self-consciousness: the "I" perceiving "me"), then clearly there are completely selfless acts: I give to another person without a thought of how it will affect myself. I give a person a gift, a smile, a hello, a hundred dollars, and so long as I don't have my self (that is, my I-perceiving-me-ness) in mind, my act is selfless.

But if the self is "consciousness and all the stuff connected to it," including the body and neurochemical rewards, then the only selfless acts are the ones that don't have a result of reward (i.e., don't add to our pleasure or happiness). I give a person a gift, a smile, a hundred dollars, and if I get any type of positive feeling from it, even if I'm not aware of the reward (and many neurochemical reinforcers are subtle in this way), I (my self: consciousness, body, sensation, etc.) am rewarded, so therefore the act isn't selfless because I'm getting something from it. With this view selflessness is possible, but it is the very opposite of anything that involves pleasure and (by extension) happiness.

Regardless of the idea, we might conceive of kindness of character as a type of conditioning between neurotransmitters and positive actions; good folk are simply those who have this conditioning, whereas bad folk think they can find the endorphin rush with other activities, namely bad actions. If this is true, it's possible to be good and selfish or bad and selfish, or good and selfless and bad and selfish, depending on the view of self presented above. With the second view, it's not selfishness per se that's bad (you can't help but be selfish, unless you think misery and selflessness is more important than happiness and selfishness), but the way in which you're selfish. Great historical figures (e.g., Jesus, Gandhi) simply had the most refined selfishness, unless you think they didn't get any pleasure or reward from the actions they committed.

I don't buy into the second view of self. Who I am is constituted by the decisions I make with my moments of self-consciousness. Put differently, I am what I will to be, and this willing is only possible when I'm initially aware of myself -- the self-turned-inward is the default state for decision-making and identity. And if I make a choice with my self as the end, I am selfish; if I make a choice where my self isn't even considered, I am selfless. So it's totally possible to be selfless and enjoy things like art, music, reading, and other solitary tasks, so long as the end isn't consciousness-turned-inward.

Right?

When choosing between those two views, on what did you base your decision? The one that made you feel better about yourself? The least uncomfortable? A particular ideal you aspire to?

 

[Received]

When choosing between those two views, on what did you base your decision? The one that made you feel better about yourself? The least uncomfortable? A particular ideal you aspire to?

It depends. I dig Kierkegaard's account that purity of heart is to will "the good," and only the good -- i.e., act on something for its own sake. I do this sometimes, like when I act nicely toward my uncle even though he's an alcoholic and can be pretty crude (but is really the most sensitive person in the universe). No self in mind.

Other times I do things out of motivation to not get (basically) punished. Self is totally in mind here.

Sometimes I do things because they seem like a pretty good thing to do -- with no concept of myself in mind.

Other times I do things because I think they'll be pretty nice *for me* -- i.e., self in mind.

I'd like to call the first and third selfless, and the second and fourth selfish.