Generosity is bullshit

[3Bey]

To stargroup100:
Let me use your example of game to show what I'm thinking:

In your game, what make you realize that you still have a chance to fail? Rationality.

Rationality can make you realize that you used her in a wrong way.

Just because you found the meaning of life and the perfect way to live life, doesn't mean that every single human being on the planet will live that way, or choose to live that way.

Yes, I know. I never said that everybody act like we should act. I'm not saying "we should act in a selfish way". I'm saying “everybody act in a selfish way”. It's not because it's what we should do; it's because that’s what we do! I’m analyzing the action that we are making now. I’m not analysing the action that we should do.

If you don't understand the motives of people, then it doesn't matter how good your logic is.

So…it doesn’t matter how good my logic is to find the fundamental purpose, which is the fundamental motive of everyone, if I don’t understand the motive? It’s doesn’t make sense.

because it's so absolutely difficult to understand no matter how beautifully it's explained if you don't have the experience.

What experience brings us is just some element that comes from empiricism or other rational development that other thought of. Nothing can't prevent me to reach the same reasult that the other rationaly came to. And for empiricism, are you really saying that you recommend empiricism instead of rationality?

You don't need to have a single conscious fundamental purpose. Plenty of people are supremely happy just living each day as it is.

Hu yeah... but, how the fact that plenty of people living in happiness can contradict that what we want is happiness? You're too far; we're still arguing on the happiness’ fact. Never did I say something against the farmer choice... his action can still be rational even if it's not what everybody will do...

Just by how the farmer reacts, he is thinking that what he wants is happiness. He already have is answer to it. What I'm trying to do, is to be sure about it. With this, I can after make the "selfishness conclusion".

know that with your logic it seems like there can only be one fundamental purpose, but look through your logic again and see if there are any holes. You're assuming a lot of things that are not necessarily true.

But in this specific case, you might be headed a little bit too far in the wrong direction. For example, using the axioms of mathematics you can rigorously prove that 1+1=2. But let's say you made a mistake and proved that 1+1=1 somehow. Instead of backtracking and saying, "Oh dear, that can't be right, 1+1=2 is obvious." you said, "Oh my, that changes all of the rules of math!" Breaking down into the fundamental purpose is almost like the rigorous way of trying to figure the motives of people's actions. You can get some insight through this approach, but there are plenty others that probably are more applicable to real life, realistic, fulfilling, and more relevant to the goals you are trying to achieve through this thought process.

Yes! Exactly! That's why I'm doing this thread. Can you see the holes I did? Can you give another logic approach to it? I'm not saying I just found the truth. I'm arguing to find it.

Just like I said:

This thesis is kind of the base of my complete theory of life, so I want to test it.

Do you have an opinion about it?

To Cavernio:
But I still answered you…

And that is why some people have indecision.

You have nothing deeper that can help you finally make a decision. It's at the end of the chain, because it's fundamental. So it will not just be an indecision, it would conduct us to some nihilism. A complete absence of choice. We would not be capable of continuing our life.

. Furthermore, have you ever met a depressed person who feels as if they have no purpose?

. They don't know how they can achieve their purpose, but one thing for sure, it's that they want their situation to change. Why? Because it make then unhappy.

. You have assumed that we are always conscious beings, which we are not.

.

. Here, what I'm saying, is that, when we're not physically manipulated, our psychosocially (with hypnotism, for example), we do always pursuit a purpose.

.

And… I never said we are always conscious beings…

. But yet this is like the reality we live with every day. If you've ever changed your mind, you reach point 3, which makes point 2, well, irrelevant. The thing is, people do understand each other even if the person's point of view changes. That's like, well, how we can discuss something and have your mind changed.

.

Yes, we change our mind. But not our fundamental purpose. With think that this other things should be better. According to what? We must use something to judge that the situation is better then what we though. We must use something to judge and say: I must do that, it’s better for me, for my life, for what I want. It’s according to the fundamental purpose. So yes, people change their mind, but still do it “for something”, “according to something”.

. The thing is, people do understand each other even if the person's point of view changes.

.

. It's not just a point of view. What I'm talking is way deeper than a point of view.

.
We understand that someone change is mind, his point of view, because he considers other things, but still, his goal is the same. But if his fundamental goal changes, we wouldn’t be able to. Because, it would be pretty difficult to understand someone with a fundamental purpose like: destroying the world. We would still ask him “why are you doing this”? According to us, his act would be illogic. But he just has another fundamental purpose. That’s why I’m saying that, if it always changes, we wouldn’t be capable to understand each others.

. We never do fully understand ourselves or others most of the time, hence why you're trying to figure out altruism with this post of yours

.

Yes, but you have a difference between what you are talking here and a complete incomprehension. (like in my “destroying the world” example)

. Besides which, if we never changed, we'd all be like adult babies, (mentally speaking here.)

.


I’m not saying we can’t change. We still can change. But always according to the fundamental purpose. That’s not making us adult babies.

. And lastly, your premise only follows true if we are always making conscious decisions, which is just not the case. We are not beings of pure logic and thought who always strive for the best.

.

I’m not saying that we always take the best solution according to the fundamental purpose; I’m saying that we take the best solution, according to what we are thinking in the moment, to our fundamental purpose. “Conscious” doesn’t means “pure logic”, by the way…

. So, in conclusion, to only have 1 fundamental purpose is flawed from the get-go, regardless of whether personal happiness would end up being that ultimate purpose or not.

.

By this quote, you’re assuming yourself that what we are seeking is happiness…

I think you’re a little confused…

So, what I say is that your argument doesn’t apply to the fundamental purpose, so it can’t discredit it.

For Reach

That,s what I'm thinking... even if I accord more importance to logic compare to "
Psychology" experience.

Finally, for Reincarnate

I still think it's inaccurate to say generosity doesn't exist, as it certainly does. We just can't call it fully selfless.

To say the truth... the title was more about attracting people...

My vision of our actions is still positive. Being selfish doesn’t means’ being evil, and generosity still has good effects even if it's fundamentally selfish.

Definitively, “generosity is bullshit” was a bad title, even if I got some respond… I'm sorry!