heyrabbit

Yes, there is no such thing as unselfishness as it's currently understood by society's understanding of the word . i.e. that it's virtuous to not be selfish. This notion doesn't make any sense because it's based on a false premise of reality. Every action is a selfish action. So if someone is said to be acting unselfishly, you should be suspicious immediately because "unselfishness" a logical fallacy. If someone is not acting selfishly, i.e. not BEING CONSCIOUS, then who or what dictates their actions? The answer to this is morality. If someone is not acting according to their own morals, then whose morals are they living up to? THIS is where the church comes into the discussion. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that a religious culture follows religious (perverted,irrational) morals. So what does unselfishness mean in a religious culture? Well, it means unearned obligation. i.e. altruism. You are obliged to do what "is right" according to an unidentified, ambiguous source of information. This means that your morals are dictated by whim (faith) Why am i redefining words? What's wrong with a regarding the greatest evil as greatest virtue and vice versa? NLP has a greater influence on the psychological health of society than anyone realizes. It is the very act of defining symbols (abstract ideas) that makes us human. once you stop defining symbols, you stop being human. accepting everything in a present culture means to retard the progress of man. For the same reasons, accepting the ideas of a 16th century culture reverts man to that level barbarism. (religion) Of course you can prove that it's more reasonable, so why did you say it's a paradox? A group cannot be unselfish because there is no such thing as a collective mind. you can only generalize, which I hate. Do I have to argue cause and effect? irrational causes often result in negative effects. Yeah, of course not everyone thought WW2 was justifiable. that's because there are no absolute morals. that's my whole point First of all, objective evidence is the only evidence . The only alternative to this is subjective evidence i.e. "Gravity is real cause I just feel it is in my heart! cause I dunno. " I put it to you that there is absolutely no evidence in support of the theory that the earth was designed. And I'll say it again: the criteria for knowing what's true isn't thinking you know what's true. If that were the case, then science itself would be entirely redundant. "How certain can you be that there is no god?" You can be certain there is no god to same degree to which you are certain there is no Easter Bunny. You can't be called upon to prove a negative i.e. you can't be asked to know why goblins don't exist because it's impossible for you comprehend every possible fictional character or idea htat anyone can make up. So how can you be certain there is no god? How can you be certain there is no tooth fairy? The very fact that you don't know that god exists is sufficient in and of itself to know that it doesn't exist. The only requirement for being an atheist is that you are born. Science doesn't work by deciding what doesn't exist and then proving yourself wrong. you first establish positives with positive information. i.e. existence exists. What does existence consist of? why is it how it is? etc. it's the law of nature.

we only disagree symbolically, not principally. there are multiple definitions of the same words. the dictionary is really only useful for spelling. you have to figure out,on your own, the proper context for each meaning of each word The reason why you disagree with me is just because my use of the word "selfish" is your understanding of the word "unselfish" and vice versa. I disregard the conventional meanings of certain words that I feel do not make any sense. I do not subscribe to the fallacy that says that the religious/reason argument is a paradox. i.e. that the argument is somehow equal and unsolvable-- it's not. most people believe this idea either consciously or subconsciously.(You'll hear people say things like, "why bother arguing? it's pointless because neither of you can prove anything!") Well, what's the point of you arguing a scientific point if I'm completely mystical and incredulous?! The criteria for deciding what's more objective isn't simply deciding that you're objective. Like anything else, you have to qualify and quantify your argument with evidence and in accordance with the laws of logic, nature, and the principles of science. If you're interested in knowing the truth and and proving it, that's "the point". Although if you're debating with someone incredulous who believes in this "equality paradox", or whatever you want to call it, then there is no point in arguing anything because everyone's argument is equally valid! This is what philosophy and science is. In many cases it's extremely hard to analyze and judge what's more objective, but religion is probably the greatest exception to that. religious belief is the antithesis of objective reality, (subjective faith), and there's absolutely nothing objective about it. There is nothing to argue about because there is no evidence, as you know. in the case of stalin and mao, all I'm saying that everyone forms their own moral code. the only application of the knowledge about them is whatever you decide to do with it. it only "matters" insofar as you decide that it matters. If you decide that it effects you, according to your code of morality, then do something about it. My point is that there is no absolute morality for the very reason that Mao doesn't think he's despicable, stalin don't either and you disagree with them, and I disagree with you. i.e. everyone forms their own morality. The axis lost because of the individual stupidity of many of its members and because of the selfishness of many individual allies. You can't say that an entire group is unselfish or selfish, because the collective is just a bunch of individuals. You're not wrong in suggesting that the axis' decision to battle was objective rational in the sense that they had a reasonable chance. The point is that even if you say that the Axis had a 99% chance of victory, the conflict they initiated was based on their own gross irrationality and prejudice. essentially what I'm saying is that, "they started it". Kids often say this, and parents think it's immature. But kids are highly perceptive in terms of morality because they've yet to be tainted and influenced by culture. They have a good sense of objective morality. The Axis did start it first because of their own stupid, irrational, subjective dogma. That's why kids are so indignant when "He started it!". It's because it's objectively immoral. *(notice that when we were children we were admonished to feel guilty and responsible for any incident, fight, or for "tattling", no matter who started it or who was more immoral in their actions. * Parents also say "two wrong's don't make a right." Yes they do! If the second "wrong" is defending yourself against the first immoral wrong-doer. Saying that they lost because of the allies isn't entirely untrue, but it's analogous to saying that murders go to jail because of police officers. it says nothing about the morality and rationality of each individual action. We can generalize by saying that the group is selfish or unselfish, but you have to remember that it's because we've analyzed certain individuals attitudes, intentions, knowledge, intelligence. he DID think that. and that's precisely what makes it irrational, unselfish, and altruistic.

hahah. man I gotta reply to all of that now. you don't disagree with me, you just don't understand me. but that could be my fault. you have to think on the level of every individual action. you judge the morality of an action regardless of the result. That's why it's not okay to try to kill someone. religion is not necessarily people acting out of the best interest of others; it's people who think (irrationally) that they are acting out of the best interest of others. What makes it evil is the fact that it's irrational (unselfish).You know and I know that it's irrational, but to them it's a good, unselfish thing to do. we've decided that we're right, and we are, because our observations are more objective. There's another example of confusion regarding semantics. Religious people make rational decisions, but decisions which are irrationally rational. i.e. everyone has a reason for doing everything, but that doesn't mean that it's a good reason. There are degrees of "rational". Our opinion on that is more rational/reasonable because it's based on objective observation. whether or not the soldiers acted in their rational self-interest depends on the degree to which their decisions were based on objective reality in accordance with their values. People have different values, so not everyone's "self-interest" is the same. for argument's sake we'll make it simple and generalize by saying that soldiers value their lives more than anything, even though that's obviously not always true. okay. If the soldiers thought they had a better chance at life by risking their lives, that's not unselfish because it's what they wanted to do for rational reasons. That makes it a selfish (rational) decision. If they thought that they didn't have a chance at winning, but fought for the Allies because it's what theyfelt they should do - for unidentified moral reasons- then THAT is altruism, unselfishness, selflessness, irrational, etc. See we both think that the allies were (good) because their decisions were rational and moral. The Axis was evil regardless of whether or not they won or lost(you judge the action not the result). This is because their actions were irrationally selfish and immoral - altruistic - for "the good of man" - not based on an objective code of morality. Their losing was a natural consequence of their unselfish, irrational, stupid war. That doesn't negate the fact that it was irrational and unselfish in the first place.

no I'm absolutely not kidding. unselfishness is irrational selfishness, which basically means people who act irrationally when they feel that what their doing is "moral" for "society". If people aren't selfish, then they must be acting for...who? society? you know exact'y what happens when people act irrationally out of "the best interest for others." the result is communism, fascism, every religion, everything bad in the world. If actions aren't rational then they are inherently irrational. so essentially what altruism is is nice people doing stupid things. That's why religious people are the most altruistic. I was demonstrating that morals are defined subjectively (individuals). however, they are defined subjectively based on objective observation. this means that some morals are more consonant with man's nature, i.e. more "right" according to me ( insofar as a person bases his morals on reality) nobody ever said that libertarianism is for the best interest of everyone. it's the opposite of that. what you described is utilitarianism, socialism, collectivism, etc. What some people do say is that libertarianism is more morally justifiable than other systems and I agree with that. it's impossible for everyone to work in their own rational best interest because, obviously, not everyone is rational! the result of everyone acting in their interest is existence, because that's all anyone can do. our government right now is the result of everyone acting in their best interest for however-many-years its been

they are two different meanings though. the conventional meaning of unselfishness or selflessness is a logical fallacy because you can't not have concern for yourself, or act for someone else. if you have concern for others it's only because in your own best interest first.(even if that means that you feel good because you're a pretentious, altruistic egoist. ghandi, aid workers, save the whales, etc). if you help others it's only because you expect something back in equal value, whether it be love, friendship, intellectual stimulation, whatever. otherwise you're just a smiling idiot running around helping everyone for no reason. Nobody does that. and that's for a reason people generally believe that unselfishness is one of the highest virtues, when it's actually the greatest evil and selfishness is the highest virtue. this isn't because your morals are greatly different from mine, but because societies' general understanding of the word is based on a false premise. mao and stalin have been despicable, but not according to their set of morals. I am a libertarian. i doubt that the movie destroyed libertarian concepts, but I'll check it out. im not a full libertarian anyway. if I had to describe myself, I'd call myself a libertarian-capitalist-minarchist-anarchist Lol.

that sounds like an absolute moralist position. morals aren't absolute-- they're subjective. it's not as if someone discovered a cave one day with a list of morals ( although that's exactly what religion says) the fact that many of us agree on what is moral does not negate the fact that we decide individually. if the individual does not decide what's moral, then who does? a murderer thinks murdering is moral (good and justifiable ) to him. and it is! it's moral to him. it's an irrational set of morals, but they aren't better or worse than our morals. all actions are selfish. it's literally impossible to do something you don't want to do. deciding to give all your possessions to charity is selfish because you think it's what will make you the most happy at that moment. shooting heroin is selfish because it's what you wanted to do at that moment. the very fact that that you've done anything is testament to the fact that you wanted to do it. whether or not it's "good" or "bad" depends on the extent to which your decisions are rational. eating a whole pizza is selfish but irrational. studying for 10 years in order to achieve happiness later is selfish because it's what the person wanted to do. there is no "unselfish". it's altruism trading your highest value for something of less value is self-sacrifice, which is tantamount to slavery. The truck driver probably gave his life under the premise that he would rather not live than live knowing he caused someone's death. but because of the situation, it wouldn't have been his fault. that makes it an irrational, altruistic, self-sacrificial,"moral" thing to do the question is: despicable according to whom? you wouldn't have lasted 30 seconds according the morals of the majority during the inquisition ive never heard of Nash-whatever

so he committed suicide then. that's not admirable every single decision everyone makes is inherently a selfish decision. it's impossible to be "unselfish". you inherently do what you want whether that means helping yourself, or others, or hurting yourself and others. The decision to shoot yourself in the head is a selfish decision because it's what you think is best for you at the given moment. You can't do what you don't want to do, because deciding to do what you don't want to do is what you wanted to do. you know it's what you wanted to do because you did it. Whether or not your decisions are "good" or "bad" depends on how rational they are and what you value. If you value your life more than the life of some random stranger, then killing yourself for them is irrationally selfish. what if the person whose life you saved was a pedophile? If he gave his life to save his child, that's probably rationally selfish because many parents value their child's lives over their own so if you don't value your life over other people's lives, why don't you give me all your posesssoins? you'll be a hero. unselfishness = irrational selfishness = evil. if everyone is irrationally selfish, they're not doing what's in their own best interest which means they're not doing what's in everyone else's best interst

what's heroic about suicide? how many random people do you have to give your life to in order to be considered a hero? ghandi put himself in the situation to be assassinated. the truck driver likely made a split second decision, so it's hard to judge his intentions there. let's assume that he knew that driving off the road , or whatever he did, would kill him and save others. if that's the case, then he's not unselfish. he did it because he would rather die than live with the pain of knowing he killed someone. that's not unselfish because that's what he WANTED to do. i.e. it would be rationally selfish. if he did it because society expects him to be a "hero", then that's irrationally selfish. i.e. he traded something of high value for a non-value, or maybe something of less value. (maybe the person whose life he saved was a jerk) your highest value is usually your own life, or possibly the lives of very close family members or friends, not random people

thanks bishop killing yourself for someone else doesn't automatically make you a hero. on the contrary, many people who kill themselves for others are among the most worthless egoists who ever lived (ghandi) whether or not a person is a hero depends on your personal view on what a hero is. but I will say that killing yourself for " society" is evil it's not a matter of whether or not theorizing works, but whether or not its pointless. everyone here is acting like its pointless which doesn't make any sense because that's like saying that thinking is pointless. (thinking=integrating abstract ideas). that's what makes us human and I don't understand how anyone can think that theorizing is pointless. einstein didn't find relativity under a rock.

because there is no such thing as unselfishness. there's only rational or irrational selfishness. killing yourself is irrationally selfish because it's impossible to be happy when you're dead I'm not assuming anything, just thinking and theorizing (which is what you do to gain knowledge) . everything in science fiction until it's created or discovered it's thinking romantically ( thinking about how the future state of the world should be or ought to be). not many people here understand cause most of us are naturalists in an artistically degenerate culture. "that's not the way the world is!"

well you're right if the conditions you described came to be. but if you're inferring that it's unselfish to let yourself die to the benefit of others, it's not

nothing, because nobody owes anybody a living.

honest question: how does society contribute to your well being when your dead? i.e. it's only possible for you to care about contributing to society when your alive, and it's only possible for that to be reasonable insofar as you receive something back frm society

that's assuming that you know where technology will be in 100 years. EDIT - you're too smart to base your life's purpose on utilitarian ideals. what does society have to contribute to your well being when you're dead? nothing

what's the point of living right now? once life is not worth living, it's not worth living. but there is a chance that it will be worth living. if that's the case, it wouldn't make any sense to not live it. I understand what you're saying lauren. I wouldn't want to live a useless life either. but again, why wouldn't you want to live a life worth living (exist)? you have to keep it in perspective. if you'd shown a microwave to someone 100 years ago, it would blow their minds away. ( or a pocket calculator) hahah, what's trippy about my avatar.

I understand that death is likely, but that's not the point. everything great is unlikely. our existence was unlikely. everyone's mindset is completely naturalistic. death is necessary for what reason? so new generations can live? that's assuming that we couldn't co-exist. and health costs, who the hell knows what type of government will exist in 100 years ( or even if there will be one )? see when does your death become necessary? I find it bizarre that nobody cares about their own consciousness. maybe there's a 1 in trillion bazillion chance that you could have 50 more happy years of existence, but why wouldn't approve of that idea. once you're gone, your entire consciousness is gone forever.

yeah but you phrase it as if it's "our destiny" to die. there's a reason why everyone dies, although not every death is morally justifiable to you. if that were the case, you wouldn't consider murder to be immoral the fact that death is considered moral when you're old and decrepit relies on you being old and decrepit. so the difference between you wanting to live today - and being alright with death in 80 years - is only a difference of however-many-years

there's only how much more for us to figure out and according to whom? you shouldn't be resigned to death (at what age?) just because that is natural today.

it seems like an impertinent question, but it's really not. we're talking about your entire existence. you want to exist today, so why should you want to exist in 100 years time if the opportunity is available to live? of course anyone is indifferent to the idea if you assume that technology will be hte same in 50 years time, but it won't be. for it to be practical, it depends on certain things like society becoming highly efficient with its resources. we'd need a cultural and intellectual revolution, but I don't see why it's not possible

we should only life for how long? according to whom? If you could extend your life, would you?

exactly, so what's going to be obvious to civilization 100 years from now. our lives will probably look like an outhouse to those people or did our progression end when 21st Century Living came out loL?. evil ambition

because the body atrophies. if 95 percent of your body is new (or whatever hte percentage is) there's that much more chance that you'll live longer. we're already living twice as long as people from only 200 years ago maybe in the near future we'll be able to prolong our life expectancy to well over 100, although your organism can't be sustained forever( and you wouldn't expect or want that anyway)

yeah you wouldn't live forever, but an 70 year old brain and an 18 year old body could buy you 30, or 40 years of life! how would that be a waste of time?

I've talked about this with some people. when will we have the technology to transplant brains? We can already transplant hands, hearts, kidneys, etc. this technology can't be far away And once we have this technology, why can't we clone our own bodies (or other bodies) and transplant our brains into younger versions of ourselves, escaping death? It would be expensive, of course, but it seems like a viable idea to me. and it seems to me like it would be the obvious first method of prolonging human life. Why wait until we can create some kind of robot substrate when we can already create human bodies?! brains have a shelf life, but organs are known to survive for years after the death of its body. there are "moral" implications involved (you'd have to grow the body as a vegetable in order to morally justify removing its brain), although I don't see why this idea wouldn't work( a part from the fact that we don't have this technology yet) Discuss

I'm really excited about this one. It's the second most influential book in america, second only to the bible (but in complete contrast) Angelina jolie is set to play dagney. I think she's perfect for the role