Selfishness

[Mr. Perfect]

Secular (Atheist) Leftists like to try to trip up Christians with various statements from Jesus et al about giving away your possessions and self denial, "selflessness", and as we've been demonstrating those are largely false interpretations when viewed from the macro gospel message. IE the pursuit of salvation is a selfish pursuit. Even Ibs came around to that pov.

Ayn Rand came along and wrote a book called "The Virtue of Selfishness" which leftists also did not read and so falsely attribute ideas to her she didn't say. It's a whole book, so I recommend you reading it, but one of the summaries is that if you give away all your stuff because that is what you believe and it makes you feel good then you are acting selfishly. And she is right, so I'm glad she wrote that book.

You will see this debate bubble up from time to time in other places. In the 90's there was a tv show "Friends" that did a whole episode on it, and they came down on Ayn Rand's side.

What is often forgotten is the curious case of George Price who took to "mathematically" solve the paradox, and the result is that it drove him to madness and eventually suicide. So, moral of the story, it's not a simple as you might think.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/alt ... 58399.html

[YMix]

and as we've been demonstrating those are largely false interpretations when viewed from the macro gospel message

Oooooh, you're making a joke. I got it.

[Mr. Perfect]

I dunno, we did a whole thread on Christ as a capitalist nobody refuted it on a single point. And as always, salvation is a selfish pursuit (salvation being the real gospel message).

[Nonc Hilaire]

I dunno, we did a whole thread on Christ as a capitalist nobody refuted it on a single point. And as always, salvation is a selfish pursuit (salvation being the real gospel message).

Christian salvation as a selfish pursuit is pure sophistry.

[Mr. Perfect]

Citation needed.

My citation is the parable of virgins.

Either way, you should read the story of George Price, the subject led him to take his own life. Heh, he's even on youtube.

WYdgcKjbp3Y

[Simple Minded]

Bravo Mr. P.

The Virtue of Selfishness is a great book.

I've never yet met a human who did not feel better about themSELVES (increased SELF-IMAGE or SELF-ESTEEM) as a result of helping someone or contributing to charity.

Seems to me to be a long term survival mechanism hard wired into humans.

The argument always seems to result from the fact that different people use the same word to mean different things (left, right, fair, just, etc.)

[Nonc Hilaire]

Mr. P,

It goes like this. Christ surrendered every divine advantage and chose to live as a a mendicant. He refused to even earn his own living as a tekton. He chose to be born in a stable, and lived as the poorest of the poor. He suffered and died for the sake of others.

This tradition of selflessness was carried out by all of the apostles. They gave up everything they had, including their lives.

This is not a parable.

[Mr. Perfect]

It also doesn't address the question. Seeking the salvation of one's soul is a selfish pursuit. See parable of the virgins.

Giving ones life for who you love is also a selfish pursuit. Giving your life for someone you do not love is selfless.

[Simple Minded]

Mr. P,

It goes like this. Christ surrendered every divine advantage and chose to live as a a mendicant. He refused to even earn his own living as a tekton. He chose to be born in a stable, and lived as the poorest of the poor. He suffered and died for the sake of others.

This tradition of selflessness was carried out by all of the apostles. They gave up everything they had, including their lives.

This is not a parable.

That is why it is a fascinating subject, that unfortunately devolves into arguing about semantics regarding the words self, selfish, and selfless.

I think the apostles pursued their own rational self-interest. A few decades of suffering in exchange for eternity in Heaven!

Reminds me of Bill Cosby's routine that his parents treat their grandchildren much better than they treated him and his brother. "You have to realize, these are a couple of old people trying to get into Heaven!"

IMSMO, Rand's book was an excellent explanation for defining charity beyond a religious ideal or philosophical duty, and advocated charity as a practical aspect of a rational life.

Based on the second-handers opinions, that I have read, they all think I am wrong in my interpretation. Guess opinions will always vary.

Oh well, I've been called worse than wrong. The Lord works in mysterious ways.......

[Mr. Perfect]

Pretty confusing stuff, for some. It even took a man's life (George Price).

[Zack Morris]

Most sensible people would not have much trouble differentiating between satisfaction derived from gratifying and enriching others, and satisfaction derived from gratifying and enriching only one's self. I'm sure Jesus also grasped this tricky distinction.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

It's a false dichotomy that Mr.P really seems hung up on. Ego and altruism are at odds only if your entire ethical system lacks any ethical norms and relies solely on agreeable psychological states of mind. I don't see how Christianity, with its ethical norms, suffers from this problem.

[Simple Minded]

Hmmmm.... expecting other people to agree with you....

is that an example of vanity, which the religious people vow to not practice.....

or an example of being self-centered, which the Rand detractors claim they are not?



People......

[Mr. Perfect]

Most sensible people would not have much trouble differentiating between satisfaction derived from gratifying and enriching others, and satisfaction derived from gratifying and enriching only one's self.

Gratification is gratification.

I'm sure Jesus also grasped this tricky distinction.

If he existed, right.

[Mr. Perfect]

It's a false dichotomy that Mr.P really seems hung up on. Ego and altruism are at odds only if your entire ethical system lacks any ethical norms and relies solely on agreeable psychological states of mind. I don't see how Christianity, with its ethical norms, suffers from this problem.

Eh, the point of this thread is that I am not hung up on it, but other posters have been, over and over and over.

[Miss_Faucie_Fishtits]

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1 ... 3675115343

http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=s ... burns.html

[Simple Minded]

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1 ... 3675115343

http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=s ... burns.html

LG,

If you could advocate some procedure one could follow to attain enlightenment..... that did not require any personal effort such as reading, or thinking.....it would probably appeal to a much wider cliental......

just sayin....

[noddy]

It's a false dichotomy that Mr.P really seems hung up on. Ego and altruism are at odds only if your entire ethical system lacks any ethical norms and relies solely on agreeable psychological states of mind. I don't see how Christianity, with its ethical norms, suffers from this problem.

well, everyones personal system that comes from their culture and family upbringing has ethical norms.

the trick being that in the modern complexity of multi culti western politics that their aint a particularly clear version of the ethics we all agree on which is what mr p is getting at (i think)

all of the arguments on these forums are around that central prevailing issue with some of us thinking the solution is to bust things up into smaller groupings that do have a coherant shared view and others wishing the authorities get more aggresive forcing a unified viewpoint through with law.

the authoritarian/freedom split as opposed to the left/right split.

[kmich]

all of the arguments on these forums are around that central prevailing issue with some of us thinking the solution is to bust things up into smaller groupings that do have a coherant shared view and others wishing the authorities get more aggresive forcing a unified viewpoint through with law.

the authoritarian/freedom split as opposed to the left/right split.

These contemporary divisions are rooted in group identification as informed by shared and deeply held convictions. They have no basis in any intelligible political philosophy. Clarity and strength of declared principle can effortlessly override any incoherence.

[Miss_Faucie_Fishtits]

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1 ... 3675115343

http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=s ... burns.html

LG,

If you could advocate some procedure one could follow to attain enlightenment..... that did not require any personal effort such as reading, or thinking.....it would probably appeal to a much wider cliental......

just sayin....

I wanted to bring forward in the discussion of selfishness, there has to be a concept of the self, and the divide between the Christian and Buddhist viewpoints is the biggest one I can think of. Then you come into Western culture and give it a big ol' slug of materialism, and there's another spew to contend with...'>>.....

[noddy]

all of the arguments on these forums are around that central prevailing issue with some of us thinking the solution is to bust things up into smaller groupings that do have a coherant shared view and others wishing the authorities get more aggresive forcing a unified viewpoint through with law.

the authoritarian/freedom split as opposed to the left/right split.

These contemporary divisions are rooted in group identification as informed by shared and deeply held convictions. They have no basis in any intelligible political philosophy. Clarity and strength of declared principle can effortlessly override any incoherence.

sounds neat, where would i look to see such a thing in contemporary politics ?

[Endovelico]

all of the arguments on these forums are around that central prevailing issue with some of us thinking the solution is to bust things up into smaller groupings that do have a coherant shared view and others wishing the authorities get more aggresive forcing a unified viewpoint through with law.

the authoritarian/freedom split as opposed to the left/right split.

These contemporary divisions are rooted in group identification as informed by shared and deeply held convictions. They have no basis in any intelligible political philosophy. Clarity and strength of declared principle can effortlessly override any incoherence.

We are basically tribal. Could it be our "human nature" showing?...

[Simple Minded]

I wanted to bring forward in the discussion of selfishness, there has to be a concept of the self, and the divide between the Christian and Buddhist viewpoints is the biggest one I can think of. Then you come into Western culture and give it a big ol' slug of materialism, and there's another spew to contend with...'>>.....

True nuff!

Based on my studies of Christianity, Buddhism, Objectivism, and Islam, the common core of all is significant. Depending upon on how you slice it, 20-80% maybe?

Given the same stimulus, say an "insult" (how to label that stimulus?) from another person, all four adherents could have the same reaction, and take pride (vanity alert!) that their good conduct was based in conforming their specific ideology. The observer would not have a clue which of the above labels to apply to the person who exercised excellent conduct.

Anyone who seeks "purity" in the label they apply to themselves, and the image they wish to project to others (Vanity and Self image alert!) might not want to admit there is any common ideology at all. Especially with the group they have chosen to label as "bad." Maybe me not be intillektual or hyper-sensitive enough to know the differences.

Abandoning my sense of self is a good thing that will lead to enlightenment, happiness, and life eternal?!?! GREAT!

Where does the person formerly known as I sign up? Er, uh, I mean, uh, once I abandon my sense of self, umm, what's in it for me?


Show me the person who does not eat, and I will show you the person who has overcome their sense of "self."

As numerous religious, spiritual leaders, and philosphers have warned us for millennium, taking oneself toooooo seriously, is definitely not in one's best self-interest!

Especially if you want those other self-centered SOB's to like, respect, or admire you!!

ps. Please don't be mad or upset with me, I have no idea whose fingers typed this goofy post!

[Mr. Perfect]

all of the arguments on these forums are around that central prevailing issue with some of us thinking the solution is to bust things up into smaller groupings that do have a coherant shared view and others wishing the authorities get more aggresive forcing a unified viewpoint through with law.

the authoritarian/freedom split as opposed to the left/right split.

These contemporary divisions are rooted in group identification as informed by shared and deeply held convictions. They have no basis in any intelligible political philosophy. Clarity and strength of declared principle can effortlessly override any incoherence.

You should look at the case of George Price (above). Let me know where he went wrong.

[kmich]

You should look at the case of George Price (above). Let me know where he went wrong.

I doubt anyone will ever really know. George Price likely had many of his own demons that we will never know that compelled him to sever his carotid with a pair of nail scissors.

However, David Hume was correct when he wrote in “Of Morals” in his Treatise, “Morals excite passions, and produce or prevent actions. Reason of itself is utterly impotent in this particular. The rules of morality, therefore, are not conclusions of our reason.”

Continuing with Hume, ethics such as “altruism” are derived through the felt experience of sympathetic relations and not through the machinations of reasoning. An intense attempt to apply reason using mathematical methods to such moral issues may have hollowed out and twisted Price's positive ethical inclinations into demonic, destructive obsessions. The need for scientific detachment may have collided with his passions, and his moral inclinations may have lost their proper experiential moorings. His passions may have turned on him with an intolerance of his very existence. Who knows?

What all this has to do with Ayn Rand, the Gospels, and “secular leftists,” I don't know. I don’t consider people’s ethical character by what philosophical or religious positions they promote anyway, and I don’t trust righteous ideologues, religious or secular, "left" or "right."