The Selfish Nature Of All Actions

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 6 Jun, 2007 06:33 pm
@boagie,
boagie wrote:
kennethamy,



The main point I have tried to make is that no matter what the nature of the action is,it is first serving the self-interest of the subject,that is,no matter what the action is.




http://ww3.telerama.com/~joseph/wman.html


Why do you think that is true? Sometimes it is. But sometimes it is not. A soldier who is sacrificing his life for his companions is not first serving his own interest.

For example:

Navy SEAL Dives on Grenade to Save Others
By THOMAS WATKINS, AP

CORONADO, Calif. (Oct. 14) - A Navy SEAL sacrificed his life to save his comrades by throwing himself on top of a grenade Iraqi insurgents tossed into their sniper hideout, fellow members of the elite force said.
Petty Officer 2nd Class Michael A. Monsoor had been near the only door to the rooftop structure Sept. 29 when the grenade hit him in the chest and bounced to the floor, said four SEALs who spoke to The Associated Press this week on condition of anonymity because their work requires their identities to remain secret.
"He never took his eye off the grenade, his only movement was down toward it," said a 28-year-old lieutenant who sustained shrapnel wounds to both legs that day. "He undoubtedly saved mine and the other SEALs' lives, and we owe him."
Monsoor, a 25-year-old gunner, was killed in the explosion in Ramadi, west of Baghdad. He was only the second SEAL to die in Iraq since the war began.
Two SEALs next to Monsoor were injured; another who was 10 to 15 feet from the blast was unhurt. The four had been working with Iraqi soldiers providing sniper security while U.S. and Iraqi forces conducted missions in the area.
In an interview at the SEALs' West Coast headquarters in Coronado, four members of the special force remembered "Mikey" as a loyal friend and a quiet, dedicated professional.
 
boagie
 
Reply Wed 6 Jun, 2007 07:36 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy,Smile

Yes even in these cases there is a reality that the act serves some preconceived notions, ideas of ones self that makes such sacrifice possiable.Now these perhaps are very high ideals but none the less proceed or modivate the action.If you had read the link that I provided it would explain it better than I might do.It is about a fifteen minute read perhaps twenty minutes.

We all have preconceived ideas about ourselves,in the military there is a whole warriors mythology involved, some things we must do or give up that idea about ourselves.Of course I am always weary of absolutes but if you do the read you might decide for yourself if you can see where this is a exception.Essentially there is a premise which is at least mostly true,and that is,one must be moved within before one moves without.I can think myself of a possiable acception,perhaps if you do the read we could discuss it further,it really is a bit of an eye opener though.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 6 Jun, 2007 07:44 pm
@boagie,
boagie wrote:
kennethamy,Smile

Yes even in these cases there is a reality that the act serves some preconceived notions, ideas of ones self that makes such sacrifice possiable.
.


I wonder how you know that. Why isn't the "reality" that the Navy Seal desires to save his comrades more than he values his own life? At least, that seems to be the evidence. Have you other, contrary evidence? Did you know the person? Or is this just a priori?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 7 Jun, 2007 03:30 am
@mike9989,
mike9989 wrote:


If this be the case, I might just say this:
If our actions are always selfish, then getting a glass of water to relieve thirst is selfish (as mentioned originally), however, if we must be selfish to survive we must ask firstly, is selfish then, always bad necessarily? if so, what is selfish?


In other words, using the term, "selfish" in such a loose way that it covers all action, robs the term of its meaning. If all actions, even those we normally do not call "selfish" are nevertheless, called, "selfish" then the term is drained of all its usual meaning and just comes to mean an action we desire to do. As W.S. Gilbert wrote, "If everybody's somebody, then nobody's anybody".
 
boagie
 
Reply Thu 7 Jun, 2007 06:38 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
I wonder how you know that. Why isn't the "reality" that the Navy Seal desires to save his comrades more than he values his own life? At least, that seems to be the evidence. Have you other, contrary evidence? Did you know the person? Or is this just a priori?


Read the link I provided in previous posts,the dialogue will be much richer if you do.As someone had stated earlier we seem to be caught up in a problem with semantics.All actions are self serveing first, whether they are relative to another individual or not.As I stated myself I tend to feel some discomfort when considering an absolute and indeed I personally believe there are acceptions to this statement but not many.Schophenaur delt with this topic of over rideding the prime directive of personal survival but I do not wish to get into it unless others read the link I provided.This link was the stimulus for starting this thread, Smile

http://ww3.telerama.com/~joseph/wman.html
 
Irishcop
 
Reply Thu 7 Jun, 2007 07:23 am
@boagie,
I had to edit this post, after reading your link, Boagie.

I see the point you are trying to make, and I'm big enough to admit I was wrong, by misinterpreting your meaning.

However.
Quote:

O.M. It is a quite natural opinion--indeed an inevitable opinion--but YOU did not create the materials out of which it is formed. They are odds and ends of thoughts, impressions, feelings, gathered unconsciously from a thousand books, a thousand conversations, and from streams of thought and feeling which have flowed down into your heart and brain out of the hearts and brains of centuries of ancestors. PERSONALLY you did not create even the smallest microscopic fragment of the materials out of which your opinion is made; and personally you cannot claim even the slender merit of PUTTING THE BORROWED MATERIALS TOGETHER. That was done AUTOMATICALLY--by your mental machinery, in strict accordance with the law of that machinery's construction. And you not only did not make that machinery yourself, but you have NOT EVEN ANY COMMAND OVER IT.


I can possibly buy into your argument, but where does all original input come from?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 7 Jun, 2007 08:31 am
@boagie,
boagie wrote:
.All actions are self serveing first, whether they are relative to another individual or not.

http://ww3.telerama.com/~joseph/wman.html


How can you know that the Navy Seal who sacrificed his life for his comrades was being self-serving? You did not look into his mind. You did not even know him? Should you not have evidence for your assertion? Especially when all the evidence there is available is contrary to your assertion. I don't see how any link you provide can tell me what was going through the mind of the Navy Seal. And isn't that what counts?
 
boagie
 
Reply Thu 7 Jun, 2007 08:37 am
@Irishcop,
Hi Irishcop,

I do not mean to lessen the importance of self-sacrifice either.I had intended to approach this from both the perspective of Mark Twain the said link no one is apparently willing to read and Schopenhaur's treatment of explaining what might over ride that prime directive self-survival.These story are inspireing but I shall check back in at a later time to see if anyone has been willing to read the inspirational link that started this thread.
 
boagie
 
Reply Thu 7 Jun, 2007 08:40 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
How can you know that the Navy Seal who sacrificed his life for his comrades was being self-serving? You did not look into his mind. You did not even know him? Should you not have evidence for your assertion? Especially when all the evidence there is available is contrary to your assertion. I don't see how any link you provide can tell me what was going through the mind of the Navy Seal. And isn't that what counts?


kennethamy,

The link is provided I think five times throughout the thread and in the quote of me in your last post.
 
boagie
 
Reply Thu 7 Jun, 2007 08:52 am
@Irishcop,
Irishcop wrote:
I had to edit this post, after reading your link, Boagie.

I see the point you are trying to make, and I'm big enough to admit I was wrong, by misinterpreting your meaning.

However.


I can possibly buy into your argument, but where does all original input come from?


Irishcop,

You could always put god there!,but I will hold him responsiable for the flaws in his work----------lol!
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 7 Jun, 2007 09:11 am
@boagie,
boagie wrote:
Hi Irishcop,

I do not mean to lessen the importance of self-sacrifice either.I had intended to approach this from both the perspective of Mark Twain the said link no one is apparently willing to read and Schopenhaur's treatment of explaining what might over ride that prime directive self-survival.These story are inspireing but I shall check back in at a later time to see if anyone has been willing to read the inspirational link that started this thread.


It may inspire me. But since Twain did not know that Navy Seal, I don't think it will change my mind given the evidence that we do have.
 
boagie
 
Reply Thu 7 Jun, 2007 09:35 am
@kennethamy,
How do you know that without having read the piece? There are generalities that can be made about the human species,man has more generalities in common than particulars that make him a distinctive individual.Smile
 
Irishcop
 
Reply Thu 7 Jun, 2007 10:27 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
How can you know that the Navy Seal who sacrificed his life for his comrades was being self-serving? You did not look into his mind. You did not even know him? Should you not have evidence for your assertion? Especially when all the evidence there is available is contrary to your assertion. I don't see how any link you provide can tell me what was going through the mind of the Navy Seal. And isn't that what counts?

It can tell you what's going on in Boagie's mind, which isn't as apathetic as it first meets the eye. Otherwise, I would not have erased a long point I was making.
 
Irishcop
 
Reply Thu 7 Jun, 2007 10:45 am
@boagie,
boagie wrote:
Irishcop,

You could always put god there!,but I will hold him responsiable for the flaws in his work----------lol!


It (the link's content) is purely about God being the source of all input, that is inherently saying the Universe is an open system, something you have advocated.
The point of my spear here, and don't take this defensively, is if you accept the principle layed out at that link, and you also accept that we are in an open system, what acceptable form then can the source take?
 
boagie
 
Reply Thu 7 Jun, 2007 11:15 am
@Irishcop,
Irishcop wrote:
It (the link's content) is purely about God being the source of all input, that is inherently saying the Universe is an open system, something you have advocated.
The point of my spear here, and don't take this defensively, is if you accept the principle layed out at that link, and you also accept that we are in an open system, what acceptable form then can the source take?


Irishcop,

The universe does seem an open system,its totality however is beyond our comprehension,it is a bit like saying the universe is of itself whole,but we do not have the capcity to view it as such,but only through the imagination.Certainly one acceptable form would be a god of some sort but not one of a personality cult.Christians often refer to a personal god,but in doing so they must realize in the same breath the possiablity of the impersonal god,the one defines the other.It is logical to look toward a source,it is when believers insist on a particular image and the certainty of that image.I can more easily deal with a universal concept,"The truth is one,the sages speak of it by many names." Upanishads We are however getting a little off topic.I thought I might suggest the reading of Schopenhaur on this topic of self-sacrifice but that would be asking to much,if any one is interested however it is to be found in his works,"The World As Will And Representation."

Thanks Irish,for the vote of good intent,for a while there I felt like a suspect in the Charles Lindbergh kidnapping,vile creature of the shadows.
 
Irishcop
 
Reply Thu 7 Jun, 2007 01:21 pm
@boagie,
boagie wrote:
Irishcop,

The universe does seem an open system,its totality however is beyond our comprehension,it is a bit like saying the universe is of itself whole,but we do not have the capcity to view it as such,but only through the imagination.Certainly one acceptable form would be a god of some sort but not one of a personality cult.Christians often refer to a personal god,but in doing so they must realize in the same breath the possiablity of the impersonal god,the one defines the other.It is logical to look toward a source,it is when believers insist on a particular image and the certainty of that image.I can more easily deal with a universal concept,"The truth is one,the sages speak of it by many names." Upanishads We are however getting a little off topic.I thought I might suggest the reading of Schopenhaur on this topic of self-sacrifice but that would be asking to much,if any one is interested however it is to be found in his works,"The World As Will And Representation."

Thanks Irish,for the vote of good intent,for a while there I felt like a suspect in the Charles Lindbergh kidnapping,vile creature of the shadows.

Geesh, I wish you had posted this in the Almighty thread, this would have spun off some purdy good tangents. I might have snookered you into a Verbal Judo choke-hold..... but alas.
 
boagie
 
Reply Thu 7 Jun, 2007 02:19 pm
@Irishcop,
Irishcop,Smile

Yes,I can see where that would be tempting,the non-local control of our actions leaves it wide open for someone/thing pulling the strings of the puppet.Actually it might be said that,that thing pulling the strings is the environment itself.I know,you are salivating aren't you.I think that is a sin of some sort------isn't it?:p
 
Irishcop
 
Reply Thu 7 Jun, 2007 03:58 pm
@boagie,
boagie wrote:
Irishcop,Smile

Yes,I can see where that would be tempting,the non-local control of our actions leaves it wide open for someone/thing pulling the strings of the puppet.Actually it might be said that,that thing pulling the strings is the environment itself.I know,you are salivating aren't you.I think that is a sin of some sort------isn't it?:p

Salutations. Sure, if it's a salivation sin, ...I shall receive salivation salvation.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 7 Jun, 2007 04:26 pm
@boagie,
boagie wrote:
kennethamy,

The link is provided I think five times throughout the thread and in the quote of me in your last post.


Yes, I read some of it. And Twain also seems to think he can determine what goes on in the minds of people who do good things for others, and who sacrifice themselves for others, in the absence of any evidence, but on the basis of some vague analogy between human beings and machines, which he has not bothered to substantiate either. Just what makes you think that this analogy (and that is all it is) is correct?
 
boagie
 
Reply Thu 7 Jun, 2007 06:54 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy,

You most definitely seem to have your mind made up that there is no need for further discussion.It did not sound like you even finished the piece,the material is in line with the topic as listed.If you find it to disturbing that hero worship might be more complex than surface observations then I guess there is no discussion.Do you have a statement you would like to make about the nature of self-sarifice,something more developed than you admire those who make the sarifice?


The God is not the unknown,the unknown is God.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 12/13/2024 at 09:15:25