Is altruism nothing more than an exacerbated form of egoism?

Dec 10, 2019 7:02 AM

Offline

Feb 2017

2128

I agree with you old man.

I spread solutions about climate change cuz i care about myself. A very real dystopian future could be waiting for us within 20-30 years and if i dont end up dying by some accident I'll very much be alive at that point and really don't wanna die knowing the fact that humanity won't survive cuz i find the demise of humanity to be sad.

Sep 5, 2022 8:43 PM

#52

Disapeared_Ghost

Offline

Dec 2017

27752

Whoa, this kind of thread is something i would have made ages ago.

OT

YEP.

Sep 5, 2022 8:55 PM

#53

silentview

Offline

Jun 2020

871

Bakchos said:
I have been taught by my dad that people that make sacrifice for others or that help others wanting nothing in return do so because they are doing those things for themselves. What he means by this: they help others because either it makes them feel good about themselves, on a moral high ground of sorts, or because not helping makes them feel bad, so they don't feel guilty, they go on to help.

What are your thoughts on my father's theory? Do you think it has merit?

There is truth in what your father said, but egoism isn't bad.. it isn't bad to do things if it makes you feel good about yourself. If you refrain from doing something because you don't want to do it just to make yourself feel good or morally superior, isn't that also in some way tied to egoism as well, in a different form? Egoism isn't bad, we all humans have ego, and one can perhaps never dissociate from their ego. (perhaps)

But altruistic acts are more than just egoism.. they have good impacts, good influence, they leave something good in the society.. An individuals ego or psychology behind altruism is their own affair, whereas a good deed for society is afterall, a good deed, irrespective of the psychology/intention/source behind it.

Sep 5, 2022 9:25 PM

#54

rian2

Offline

Jun 2022

2322

at last a good thread
at last a good union of egoists
i am posting of my own will, acting in my own self interset
a union of egoists is what all true comrades strive for

rian2Sep 5, 2022 9:41 PM

Sep 5, 2022 10:03 PM

#55

NyarlatAnime

Offline

Jul 2022

Satan said:

Well, on a biological level, yes. And there's a whole book on this subject already. If you're interested:

Ya, Dawkins has some interesting stuff to say in both the movie "Nice Guys Finish First" as well as his book "The Selfish Gene."

Pretty standard stuff.

There is a whole lot of interesting stuff going on with the dynamic though, and I would also argue that the discussion can change pretty dramatically alongside the evolution of tools and technology. Meaning, the benefits of selfishness vs altruism can be quite different in a society or culture which is pre-neolithic vs one that is (hypothetically) post-scarcity. What might be detrimentally altruistic in one could be seen as beneficially selfish in the other when examined through personal, collective, subjective, and objective measures. And not just in vague subtleties, but quite dramatically.

There is also the persistent battle between idealism and reality that always plays a role in the discussion, as well as peoples day-to-day actions and beliefs. This is a line that becomes blurred as more individuals and social groups perceive the world increasingly through a digital filter of curated information.

And of course, ye olde common sense idiom of "being nice is sometimes the least kind thing you can do" plays a role throughout. Which brings in the facets of efficacy and long-term benefit. Which again, tends to get lost in the mix in a population which interacts with the world more and more through short term, digital mediums.

NyarlatAnimeSep 5, 2022 10:24 PM

Sep 8, 2022 7:56 PM

#56

Butterfly_White

Offline

Dec 2010

2903

Recently, I have this thought about people's negative notion/perception of power and how it always lead people to misinterpret. This gave me the flashback to threads similar to this one in the past.
It's strange after many years on this unresolved question, it's never fully explored and answered. So I decided to take a brain-racking session on it.

When it's come to altruism and power, it's strange that the conception seems to be tied within the fact that by giving away something, you lose something for yourself. This line of thought is conjunction with those that want to prevent loss due to others' intentions and values. Yet, the argument presented is almost contradictory when presented as a question to all of us to answer. Why is it tied to the ego now? It's because it has an association with power. More accurately, its' misuses. When looking thru the lens of the nefarious intentions, people tend to associate negative values and intentions with the misuse of power on attempting to satisfy their own gain. It's clear by now, that they associate this with the pursuit of an unhealthy ego. So by reversing the entire situation, the people attempting this area of negative intentions and values, use this method to bind it to your ego instead, should you argue that altruism is for the egoistical, as if it's an dichotomy. Then, they can proceed to go on about their intentions with no interferences. Essentially, they just made it your problem instead of theirs. It's clearly intellectual dishonesty.

Let me go back a lil on the notions of power and how people tend to see this. It's a situation when at least 2 parties are involved in an argument about an issue and then they proceed to argue in a negative spiral to attempt to defend themselves or attack the others' points. All too familiar, ain't we? And it's similar to a Nash bargaining game or the Nash equilibrium. There is also the min-max theory. The problem with this game theory as we know it, is that it's a zero-sum game. Let's say there is a table full of varieties of scarce resources, and two parties are involved in a discussion on who deserves to get what, just like in the game theory. If there isn't a scarcity, and there are abundances, we can all assume that the 2 parties will fight it out due to the nature of desires and perhaps, even power because resources are tied to that to some extent. And if there is a scarcity, just enough for one person, it's clear they will still argue among themselves. One might argue at this point, if you destroy just a lil more resources, just so that all conditions on the nash equilibrium game become of the same outcome for all variations (that no matter what, no one will get enough to survive), they will still fight over it. So it clearly shows that scarcity or abundance is never really the problem. It's the humans' intentions and values.

To resolve matters of conflicting stances, we have to look beyond arguing for the basic resources at hand and ask what creates the problem, in the first place. And it's obvious when we look at the nash equilibrium that it's due to the nature of its zero-sum game that is causing the negative responses. Human intentions and values could play a part in helping creating this problematic circumstances. And how do one break a zero-sum game. It's simple. You add something else to it. And what's if nothing tangible can be added? You add the intangibles.

Let's go back to our lil game and look at it again as if we are of on one side. You look at the table of resources and you ask yourself many questions. You know that by taking everything, you leave nothing for the other, and it will end with the overall situation of an argument and a fight. So by methodology and also by values, you decide against taking every resources. You decide to take less resources and the necessary one for your own survival/defenses. And it's just happens you are a weak person and you do not need/want/consume as much as the other person do. Here comes the problem, the other person could be aggressive and want to take everything, or as much as they can for themselves. But we all know the resources on the table may not be enough for more without harming the other person, per usual as in most game theory. This is where the intangibles come in. Negotiations on deals that should allow for rooms. They want to take more? Fine, but on the other hand, we should have access to your extra resources for other uses. I'm certain if the resources on the table of a variety even tho scarce, there are other points where you can strike a deal with the other party, officially ending the game. If both parties allow accesses to certain resources, it's like both of you take away 100% of the resources for both of you without having to work on everything together. It's just so happens that on certain side of the issues involved, you happen to be allies. And even if you took less, and they decide to lie about it and happen to request more, no one gets anything so it's in no one's flavors. And by introducing positive values such as kindness along the process in dealing with matters, you essentially made matters better for everyone and allow the promotion of that value both in name and in practice.

Of course, this is a simple example of a more complex situation but a lot of other stuff comes into play. Let's just say for this nature of questions raised in the past, it's nothing more than nefarious human intentions and values at play. We literally had all been duped by the problems of this classic psychology, that if it's not this about you, then it must be there about you. A faux-pas rationality on the values and nature of humanity. As if the only way to look at a healthy self is either an inflated ego or deflated one. Problematic, to say the least. It's like saying you should not feel good about yourself, should you help others because there is unhealthy egoism and thus, no one goes on to do it. Good Job, fellow societal liars.

Sep 8, 2022 8:20 PM

#57

GrimAtrament

Offline

Feb 2010

11966

@IceySongstress

imagine writing and essay, but not checking the date of the thread....

"among monsters and humans, there are only two types.
Those who undergo suffering and spread it to others. And those who undergo suffering and avoid giving it to others." -Alice
“Beauty is no quality in things themselves: It exists merely in the mind which contemplates them; and each mind perceives a different beauty.” David Hume
“Evil is created when someone gives up on someone else. It appears when everyone gives up on someone as a lost cause and removes their path to salvation. Once they are cut off from everyone else, they become evil.” -Othinus

Sep 9, 2022 8:56 PM

#58

NyarlatAnime

Offline

Jul 2022

@GrimAtrament Some might say that is literally one of the best parts of the internet; conversations can take place in time spans that deal in minutes, hours, days, years, decades, and eventually.. centuries. Of course, another equally amusing part are the comments about it alongside its related complaint.. the dreaded "repeat topic."

@IceySongstress I would say that a whole lot of the perspective and psychology surrounding the situation derives almost entirely from context and circumstance. Perhaps its a bit of a "Chicken or the Egg" scenario. Do these societal lies sprout from the intrinsic nature of our species, or from the Cultural Story that derives from aspects like scarcity and the things we tell ourselves to be more comfortable about the power dynamics of the situation? On the surface, these will manifest and appear so similarly as to be indistinguishable. Only becoming disparate when "You add something else to it." Yet, up until very recently in our civilization, there wasnt anything else to add to it that would genuinely change the situation.

Even then, is it really an either/or dynamic between resources vs intent/values? Or are they so closely intertwined that they create a feedback loop over relatively vast spans of time and generations?

In some ways, I suppose it could be said it moves away from the original topic, but I do think they are deeply connected.

On some level, its something of a survival mechanic run amok. On a level that is largely subconscious, we collectively adopt systems that realize potential to the greatest degree. The processes by which this is enabled, historically, tends to result in the centralization of power that is proportional to the tools/technology of a given era. This tends to lead to subjugation, which is eventually resisted and eventually reaches an equilibrium between the centralization required for the efficient distribution of resources and the tendency for these structures to lead to problematic power dynamics. Rinse and repeat, and here we are.

"Altruism," in this respect, becomes a balance check on the systems that arise in order to distribute abundance and reduce scarcity. Because those structures can self-organize in "bad" ways, and it can obviously become detrimental to the purpose of the systems themselves.

However, when a species reaches a stage where it can build these structures on an individual level, we begin to deal with a dramatically, fundamentally different paradigm. I would go even further and state that the true extent of the repercussions of such a shift are probably beyond our ability to comprehend. We have not only grown up in the older system; but our entire civilization has existed according to its whims, restrictions, and cycles for its entire lifespan. It essentially becomes our Civilization Mythos, our Cultural Story.

However, lets jump allllll the way to the stage where every individual is self-sufficient. This is clearly not currently possible in any way that resembles modernity (groups like the Amish kind of get there though), and its skipping a whole lot, but it serves a purpose in the conversation. Right off the bat, if we have an individual or group of individuals that distributes resources in the same way as, say, "feeding the hungry," we have a context where this becomes nothing more than an avenue to foster dependency and control (according to the reliably predictive process outlined earlier). Now, this particular response to "feeding the hungry" currently happens all the time here and now too. "If they dont starve, how else would they be motivated to work?" etcetc. It has a kernel of truth, certainly, but largely becomes a "societal lie." However, that flips in a scenario where there was a choice between distributing the resources directly, or distributing the means for others to have said resources without external intervention, in perpetuity. What would have previously been the altruistic approach to effectively realizing potential on large scales, at least when done within reason, is now the LEAST optimal way to go about the problem. Even further, there is an increasingly complete removal of the historically typical means of coercive control and power; the control of the distribution of resources like food, energy, information. and manufactured goods can no longer be used to manipulate behavior.

Using this framework and tying it back to your points, but specifically using the framework of altruism as more of a survival mechanism and less of a moral dilemma (i.e. intent and values), we are looking at a situation that is so substantially different that it does indeed redefine conflict, among many other things. It certainly doesnt eliminate conflict, but all the prior facets like zero-sum philosophies, equilibrium, and scarcity vs abundance become largely obsolete and archaic in their application. In this way, we are not only "adding something else" to the mix (a vast array of tools & technologies), but we are also removing the very factors we use to define the current foundation of the conversation and conclusions themselves. The tools and technologies that are inherent to this paradigm simply make it so.

Examining things as they exist, I think you are spot on in most of what you say. However, in more advanced paradigms, I think it is in error to use the same understanding and the same conclusions. It would be like trying to examine the repercussions and moral quandaries of the Industrial Revolution through the eyes of an individual or culture that hasnt even been exposed to agriculture or animal husbandry. In fact, I would go so far as to state that the difference is even more dramatic. There may be similarities and persistent themes, but I do think the intent and values will largely derive from the context rather than the other way around. And, because that context is completely unique from any that has ever existed.. we can only truly apply our current comprehension, as an entire species, to glimpses into the transitional period at the absolute most.

TL;DR: At an individual level, these topics will invoke ego and of course, the lies we tell ourselves for a variety of reasons. That doesnt necessarily change the end result though. So, "what creates the problem" is so closely linked to what actually makes our species thrive that we can only hope to keep it in check. At least until the point where our tools & technology enable resource gathering and manufacturing at a completely granular, individual level. My personal speculation and prediction is that this will all happen much, much sooner than most think; within 3~5 generations. Even within that transition, the conflict becomes about whether the individual will control their own resources (never before possible at an advanced level) or whether centralized hardpoints will continue historical trends. Very few are talking about this, much less the means and methods to accomplish it. C'est la vie.

In the theme of building frameworks which not only ensure species persistence in the most diverse scenarios possible, but also enables a given civilization to continue to thrive (and therefore survive) to the greatest degree possible.. Which path is more altruistic? It is, perhaps, not as easy of a question to answer as some might think. Though, I certainly have my own ideas about it.

Do individual intent and values even remain relevant in the way we have approached them throughout history, either in an immense transition or after? Do the intent and values of individuals even matter at the macro scale when the external actions are the same, or similar?

Sep 9, 2022 9:18 PM

#59

rian2

Offline

Jun 2022

2322

GrimAtrament said:
@IceySongstress

imagine writing and essay, but not checking the date of the thread....

critical support for necroposting

now all will see my glorious stirnerposting once more

@IceySongstress
step 1 all is my property.
step 2 i help others because it is my will and i am acting in accordance to my will. you cannot understand me, you fools! you think you could understand the whole of experience?
step 3 maximum ego inflation achieved. all arguments defeated.

game theorists have failed to account for my olympic medal in mental gymnastics

Sep 13, 2022 2:50 PM

#60

Butterfly_White

Offline

Dec 2010

2903

@GrimAtrament
I'm not the one who revived the thread. The length of the post is of an inconsequential nature. The mods will do their job when they need to.

@NyarlatAnime
First of all, it matters little whether it's a chicken or egg scenario. It is more accurate to say that you are looking at matters in the middle of the events happening and not taking account that it is just the influences of the individual events leading to a bigger problem. And resources vs intent/values is a mentality I don't get comparing on. These values and intents are attached to the resources. It's similar to a mesh data of a 3D object.

It's strange you explored the negative nature of the topic in such a "holistic", transcendent and nihilistic manner that detached itself from the objects. And technology is just a tool. You just went off the tangent exploring one negative line of thoughts. That goes for your entire line of power check dynamics, resources distribution and how altruism can manifest in "bad" ways. And building infrastructure on an individual level, that must be one arduous task that requires effort beyond your lifespan when you can just enlist others to the task as well.

Your next point proves your previous statement to be contradictory. You can't be self sufficient so you are unlikely to build everything. Another line of thought that lingers on how every contract can go wrong. And a contract is not the same as altruism if you refer to a certain policy in China. If not, based on "trickle down" economy, we all know people don't make the best decisions for everything factored in an economy, just those that they are concerned about. No one's mind can focus on every single criteria in a given moment. So in a sense, it doesn't work and we all know this by now.

While I agree that altruism has ties back to survival, please don't tie your points to mine. Your entire point focus on the power of redistribution of resources, and historically means of removing coercive power and your points are everywhere. By trying to tie your entire argument together, here's what we get. To you, technology is used to suppress as a tool and redistribution of resources is a mean that does not work but then, a top-down approach is the key to resolving the issues because redistribution of resources and power is the least optimal way of resolving any of those issues while telling us all that the future is all about producing your resources yourself as if akin to 3D printing. Have you looked at the cost of using such technology to reproduce materials, and food? How is one supposed to then reproduce resources without using technology and tools? And by having everyone own every single production to reproduce for themselves, there will not only be not a need for currencies but also, there will be a huge wastage of resources around the globe.

Now let's move on to the most important point of this. Can you get your stance on technology straight? You discount the entirety of the points as writing off the entire point of this conversation where clearly, in further detailed examination, it is not. You come from a very negativistic view and gave no real solutions to the problems you analyse. I did a little re-interpretation for you to the closest I can get and I still find it problematic. Don't forget the point in applications is to resolve a problem. Those factors you mentioned are still relevant in a discussion and in a given formula if applied mathematically but it does not mean any new factors cannot be added to the original formula for other usages. We are here, examining on the problems of some of these factors can cause and how to eliminate the downsides to such a factor occurring in a given hypothetical scenario. It does not discount the factors for analytic purposes but in application methods, we seek to reverse its negative effects. In this sense, it is discounting the factors as you see it because you only focus on the factors for everything negative.

Still, beyond this, we already can clearly tell, no matter how we try with logical stances, there are only so much we can do because a lot of this ties back to human nature. It does not mean it is okay to do harm nor has any of these ties back to ego. The focus on this individualistic stance that largely correspond more to the entirety of human nature and more so to the external circumstances when it comes to the current situation and as a whole, how altruism is tied entirely to the unhealthy ego is just one huge misconception and propagation towards the divided mentality of extreme outlook. It's like saying you are poor because you are lazy to everyone under the sun right now when the economy has been in crumbles for at least 2 decades now. It is not to say that individual factors don't matter, but the external environmental factors affecting people these days and its larger influences account for more of the damage done. People also ties a lot of negative view to even a healthy ego especially, in all places, America.

And my original argument has more to do with negotiations and diplomacies than with this "trickle down" of a redistribution method.

Butterfly_WhiteSep 13, 2022 3:04 PM

Sep 13, 2022 6:52 PM

#61

NyarlatAnime

Offline

Jul 2022

@IceySongstress

I will take some responsibility in the miscommunications we are having. I am utterly fascinated that you think I have a negative and nihilistic view of it all though. I would humbly suggest this is more on you than it is on me, as it couldnt be more off. Admittedly though, I can envision some paths in the future of our species that dont look so great.

And of course I didnt provide my own specific solutions :P Im not writing some treatise here, even if the post was longer than the typical forum reply. For what its worth, I do have extensive, direct experience with the types of technology that could lead to the hypothetical scenarios illustrated.. ..eventually.. ..But the word "hypothetical" was sprinkled throughout for a reason.

This is a conversation about altruism, using the backdrop of history as well as looking off into the future and how that change in context could change human nature itself. Whereas, and correct me if I am wrong, your claim has been that it is a matter of directly addressing that human nature through tactics like negotiations and diplomacy. My response to that is that the altruistic tendencies (or lack thereof) that arise from said human nature are derived from the cultural and social framework over generations and millennia. Which itself is based on the environment in which humanity resides. A shift in this paradigm would inevitably change the nature of negotiations and diplomacy itself. Arguably, this is a large factor in potential failure/success.

I do largely agree with your thoughts regarding ego though. I dont view it as something that is innately "bad," and the trend of approaches like "destroying the ego" are little more than detrimental illusions based in misunderstandings of long-standing esoteric practices & methods. Further, the very topic of ego is too vague to be particularly useful in many (most?) conversations.

TL;DR:
1) Altruism is most effectively examined as a survival mechanism. Bringing "ego" into it (as in the OP) is more decoration and shower thoughts than anything.
2) Survival mechanisms are based in the framework where the systems reside
3) When that framework changes, whether thats from environmental shifts to how the systems themselves interact with the environment and themselves (tools/tech/etc. socialization, or evolution over large spans of time), so too changes the nature of survival
4) As a derivative of said framework, examining this solely through the end result (i.e. "human nature") and eschewing the process itself misses a vast portion of the full picture
5) To better grasp that full picture, it is useful to bring in large spans of time as they are critical to the conversation. Including introducing hypothetical changes in the future, juxtaposed with how similar situations have behaved in the past, and how they could change the manifestation of human nature and altruism when the environment itself shifts. Meaning, a large shift like the Neolithic Revolution versus potential future paradigm changes
6) A similar shift in the future that is comparable to the scope of the Neolithic Revolution is likely to occur significantly more rapidly than many seem to assume. This is more tangential though.

I would encourage you to read back through the other post I made with that in mind, as I would be genuinely curious as to your input. Or dont.. that aint up to me lol

From what I can see, we actually agree more than you seem to think. You are speaking more to the end result, I am speaking to the process that gets there over relatively large spans of time (which includes the end result, here and now). Essentially, our biggest difference is the temporal scale we are applying to the topic.

ETA: You do bring up some interesting points with regards to things like currency that would be fun conversations, but they start to veer off topic. Since we both appear to be rather verbose, maintaining some focus is probably prudent!

NyarlatAnimeSep 13, 2022 7:01 PM

Sep 13, 2022 10:38 PM

#62

ManuelFragment

Dust collector

Offline

Sep 2021

217

Probably yes. But I think the reason doesn't matter if you are doing something that’s objectively a good action.

Oct 15, 2022 7:07 PM

#63

evilturkey5

Offline

Oct 2019

293

That's exactly how I feel about things. Nobody goes out of their way to do something for someone else unless they benefit from it in some way. So-called "selflessness" just means that you aren't getting anything material from the interaction; however, you are still getting something out of helping the other person, whether it be self-satisfaction from feeling like you're a good person, avoiding the awkwardness that may or may not arise from NOT helping another person, or just generally feeling happy and good afterwards. When people say that they like helping people, it just means that helping people gives them happiness, which is what motivates them to do good things for others.

Nov 9, 2023 12:25 AM

#64

Shishio-kun

Online

Feb 2010

11503

Reply to traed

A view used by some to excuse hedonistic egoism. It's a way for some people to claim no matter what people do they are all the same selfish bastards so it doesn't matter what you do to other people. This is false to claim it's of moral equality because there is clearly unequal results of actions and these are not without meaning because the universe doesn't revolve around "you" and "you" alone. Selfless does not mean totally devoid of self it means placing needs of others above one's own. People need to stop being so literal with this term. Besides it is unproven to claim that all actions all people take are for their maximum enjoyment of options they had to choose from. There also is the problem that this simplifies things too much. There are different kinds of good feelings and you can experience them not always together. Something can feel pleasurable but also make you feel emotionally bad or hurts your body but makes your mind feel good. It's just not so simple.

@traed Very good points!!!

Especially this part

Selfless does not mean totally devoid of self it means placing needs of others above one's own.

There's been an ongoing problem where issues increasingly require a lot more nuance. There's few black and white areas in life. Even the idea of taking sides to me, I think is dumb, barring it's not like choosing sides between us and some invading alien force who wants to eat us all

Some of my thoughts of this subject: I think it can be argued I also have more credibility than others with the idea of self-sacrifice with like + like 5k questions or requests answered and
https://myanimelist.net/clubs.php?cid=19736
though I call it volunteering or helping since it's just donating time and energy, "self sacrifice" is kind of a strong term better used for more serious things.

Anyways, it's never been about what I can get out of it. There's something of a motivation/reason hierarchy:

* the primary motivation is I dont want others to struggle with this as I know that frustration, and I want them to able to make cool things they're happy with. I would do this anonymously even (sometimes I do) and even if I didnt see the results, like when I release a video just to "help the public" which I've done many times, not just for MAL stuff. I just want the solution "out there".

I guess someone could derive that's selfish on my part somehow, like I want the feeling of knowing ppl could be less frustrated, but damn at that point near everything could be labeled selfish lif you twisted it enough ol

* the secondary motivations would be for me to SEE the works ppl make, which is real important to me, and there are other secondary motivations like being able to compete with others, MAL to look cooler, or show ppl designs. This is why I would say I dont want to be anonymous. I agree those motivations can be considered selfish to a degree.

Other motivations like an attempt at being well known, dont even come to mind, that's lame af imo. However it is discouraging how many ppl dont say thank you or will endlessly send requests, even when I ask them not to. However, since those aren't part of my motivation hierarchy I dont care much at all about those its just in the back of my mind. Sometimes its burnt me out temporarily but I recover fast because my motivations arent selfish so I "shake things off" quickly

For ppl who do help for other reasons, I think they cant shake that off and become resentful - will post below about this- but an another important reason to helping others is also because "the work instills the worth", basically, it builds character to help others also it helps you as a person get better, improving your own skills greatly.

When you have motivation and thinking like how I've described my own reasoning, it doesn't become a burden to help others over time. However I remember I had another user who also helped ppl a lot, and they once told me that (paraphrasing) "helping others for 12 years" (actually almost 20 years across other sites) has made me unforgiving and resentful with ppl. That's not true at all. I think he was projecting on me, since he was becoming so short with so many ppl he was trying to help. I dont believe he saw helping the same way I do, possibly this took a toll on his patience which he couldnt shake off as easily as I do, which is particularly important when I'm extremely discouraged and burnt out by some users being obnoxious (or even assholes with relentless pushing when they're asked to stop). The mindset is extremely important. I think the OP and his dad have the wrong mindset and lack the same motivations or reasoning I do.

All that said I do have limits like when ppl demand too much (like many hours of my time) I have to start charging for time, and I also wont take abuse, threats, spam, accusations, or dishonesty from ppl at all O_O somehow, it's confused that volunteering your time = pushover (!?) or I'm being "unforgiving".. but its more like I have no tolerance for bullshit and self-respect to not put up with the bullshit of others.

Shishio-kunNov 9, 2023 1:18 AM

Nov 9, 2023 12:49 AM

#65

Kamikaze_404

Offline

Feb 2022

259

To be honest it depends on what you even mean by altruism. If you're referring to the sane practice of helping out your community, then no I wouldn't call it egotism. Just because someone expects you to be useful doesn't mean that them helping you out has ulterior motives, and them expecting help in return is a bad thing. That's a pretty selfish view to have of things, since you have to realise this is how human societies functioned most of the time and it was a pretty great thing whilst it was still thriving.

If you're on about altruism as it's generally expressed in modern "first world countries" then yeah, it's egotistical - it lost it's original "you scratch my back, i'll scratch yours when you need it" essence and has instead just morphed into a social manipulation tool ("well I deserve A and B for free because I do X and Y" or something of the sort). Even in cultures where altruism isn't this dead I do agree that some people do it to feel better about themselves, but at the same time those are few and far between. People that actually do operate on this principle moreso do it because you're part of the community and you need help - that's it, usually (I know this because I come from a culture that still keeps this concept of altruism somewhat alive). Of course they're gonna expect you to help them out in return later, that's just how normal human beings act .

Dunno, I'd say modern conceptions of "altruism" are mere perversions of the original concept that people only like using because it's advantageous and lets them have a better hand in what they perceive to be the "game of life" or whatever lol. That is what is egotistical about what people usually perceive as "altruism". This is probably born out of the fact that cultures have become less homogeneous, and therefore any sense of community certain cultures had has been utterly destroyed by various things all going tits-up at once. We live in low trust societies where the perverted version of altruism thrives, not altruism itself.

Nov 9, 2023 1:37 AM

#66

traed

Offline

Mar 2008

48915

@Shishio-kun
Hm well there is some people who help others as a way of stroking a narcissistic ego "look how skilled and valuable I am! You would be nothing without me. I made you" kind of thinking. I've actually seen guys say the quiet parts out loud. Which is different from gaining something while helping others out of just willingness to do so for the sake of another.

Nov 9, 2023 1:56 AM

#67

KingOfPneumos

Offline

Apr 2023

319

I love this random post being raised from the dead, but hell it's a neat little subject and certainly not what I envisioned my drunk self finding at 2 in the morning, looking to antagonize people on the internet for lulz. Especially not on a weeb site.

As someone whose job is very much in the field of helping others (as a nurse), I often feel the subject of this thread is true. It's somewhat terrible, but I know that deep down I love helping people because I love feeling proficient at what I do and enjoy the praise of doing a good job and feeling appreciated, and that people want me around. Maybe it's because I was pretty commonly ignored as a kid and left to my own devices, I wanted someone to notice me? Who the hell knows.

In a pragmatic light, I think being altruistic for an innately selfish reason doesn't matter as much as the fast that good is being done. But I do definitely believe that it's worth considering why someone is using such a good for their own gain or advancement. Such as: were you not to praise or commend someone for a job well done, would they still continue to do it? I think those that would continue on in good works should be praised for the effects they bring, while those that simply use their good deeds as stepping stones should be recognized for their true intentions.

Nov 9, 2023 2:06 AM

#68

Kamikaze_404

Offline

Feb 2022

259

@EyeAmTheI What you take, you give back. It's not an "ulterior motive" nor is it deceptive, but rather a fair exchange of effort between individuals. If you do not think it'd be fair of you to return the favour then I'm sorry but you have the mentality and expectations of a child. Of course, you are not obligated to help out in the end, but you'd likely lose some respect in the eyes of the people around you if you only take and take, and expect it to be fine to give nothing in return. The opposite of what you're describing as "deceptive" would literally be exploitation and it's what happens most of the time.

The nature of altruism itself is always reciprocal, it is not an individual thing nor can it ever be such. It's a selfless thing despite people expecting to not be treated as disposable slaves that can be summoned on a whim but rather as peers.

Kamikaze_404Nov 9, 2023 2:10 AM

Nov 9, 2023 4:20 AM

#69

Kamikaze_404

Offline

Feb 2022

259

@EyeAmTheI I'm gonna be honest this comes off as you having never lived within a culture that operates on the principles of altruism. My guess would be that you've either been uprooted from your native culture and therefore lack a proper sense of community altogether, or your community has simply gone to utter shit. Of course you're not going to understand altruism beyond this reductionist "social contract" conception you seem to have of it.

You are for some reason equating the expectation to be an adequate and non-egotistical human being with "ulterior motives". Why? As I said, it's a matter of helping your community flourish by giving back, and a matter of attaining and maintaining the amount of respect others accord you. Why would you not want any of those things? You have to realise that decent people, when they agree to help someone, do not instantly think "ah yes now he's indebted to me, and I will use this for my own benefit", but they just want to help a friend. If that friend refuses to help them for no particular reason in times of need, of course they're going to look back on helping their friend when they needed it bitterly because they've essentially been told that they are not deserving of help nor mutual respect. It's a shameful way to act, and only spoiled children act as such.

"When the time comes they hand the bill to you" - I'm sorry but do you mean bill as in "oh no I need to give my friend a hand also because it's the nice thing to do!"? Objectively, nobody is forced to help out anybody even if they were previously helped by that person. People help out in return for being helped out because they care about the people around them, not because they're "indebted" to them. Only a complete social failure would think that helping out someone is anything like entering a "debt" or a "contract". Being kind and expecting others to treat you kindly also is not an ulterior motive, it's a normal human desire and a completely rational social expectation.

Nov 9, 2023 4:37 AM

#70

tsukareru

Offline

Feb 2018

2203

I read that as autism at first and was very confused. Anyways that's all i wanted to say here

│Resign? 🕊➤Yes / No│

│Resign? Yes / ⚔➤No│

Nov 9, 2023 8:20 AM

#71

Kamikaze_404

Offline

Feb 2022

259

@EyeAmTheI Unironically the most insane cope I've read this week. I don't think you projecting your negative traits onto others construes a fair assessment of other people's motives. I am arguing with you on this because I have seen the exact opposite of what you are describing because, guess what? I do come from a culture that, as I've said before, still operates on the principles of altruism. You can not imagine a world as such because you are:
1) Unable to imagine anything except your own reality
and
2) Very clearly removed from such a community in the first place, therefore the assumption.

You may need some minuscule amount of self-awareness to realise you're selfish, but seemingly that's where it ends for you. Now that you've had that eye-opening realisation, you think everyone is like you and therefore the concept of altruism altogether is completely misguided and does not reflect reality.

In regards to your example, that is very clearly not applicable. Do you legitimately think this applies? If so, then I'm sorry for the people that have to interact with you on a daily basis. Let me break it down for you in an actually applicable example:

If you compare my example with yours, it's far more sane and it's actually related to the topic at hand. What is meant by altruism isn't "be a doormat or you're a horrible person", but rather "treat your peers fairly, and help when needed". Would cheating on your wife be treating someone fairly? No, definitely not and I'm pretty sure you know this, but seemingly you just brought it up as a "what-about"ism. If we had no instinct like this, a drive to help the people around us and especially those we care about, then we'd be far less advanced as a species than now. My issue with your argument is that you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. This is not to mention you are purely referring to the modern delusion of altruism, and not altruism itself. If you ever experience real altruism from someone, I can only hope that it will change you into a better person and not this egotistical mess you are right now.

EyeAmTheI said:
in life more often than not the situations are not as black and white as you try to portray with sentences like: "If that friend refuses to help them for no particular reason in times of need", because there is usually a "particular" reason, yet people still feel betrayed at the end even if they do understand the reason.

In regards to this, I never said it's "black and white" nor is my statement referring to that. No particular reason would be something among the lines of "I don't feel like it", obviously. Do i really need to explain this to you like you're 5 years old?

Anyways, stop projecting your terrible personality traits onto other people just because you can't comprehend your immediate reality reflecting what I'm talking about. Sympathies to your worker who no longer has a chimney, but you're retarded

Nov 9, 2023 8:51 AM

#72

removed-user

Offline

Jul 2018

564137

A human being could devote himself to purely altruistic aims due to a capacity for abstract thought. However, because of the emotional and instinctual aspects of the mind, he would often find himself subconsciously acting in alignment with other motivations. He would have feelings that pushed him into certain decisions. That doesn't mean that it's not admirable to endeavor to become a better or kinder person.

But at least aim for altruism in the areas of life where you have some kind of measurable effect. When people think of altruism in the modern day I think most people think about the world and how to contribute to it. But that's nonsensical thinking (unless you have such wealth that you can change things at that level). It's much better to think about what can be done to help someone close to you, like ensuring your reclusive sibling has enough money for his gacha games.

Nov 9, 2023 10:22 AM

#73

GinInYourJuice

Offline

Jul 2017

1922

Hm, it's hard for me to say for sure. I would assume that real altruism is probably very uncommon, but I do think that it exists.

Google and AI might know the estimated percentage of altruistic and non-altruistic people in the world, but even then, it might just be somewhat of an educated guess rather than a fully accurate answer.

See All Discussions

» I believe in solipsism. Is that crazy? purple_rayn - 4 hours ago	13	by Sadahon »» 1 minute ago
» How often do you go to the gym or workout in general? ZakuF_ - 5 hours ago	8	by Dumb »» 8 minutes ago
» Can I Still make Shit posts on MAL? MellowJello - Today	22	by philtecturophy »» 25 minutes ago
» Would you give a 2 week notice if the job did you wrong? The-Nsider - 8 hours ago	5	by Yuno »» 56 minutes ago
» What are some authors and figures that you hold in high esteem? FilthyApollo - Yesterday	20	by Meusnier »» 2 hours ago

Is altruism nothing more than an exacerbated form of egoism?

More topics from this board

» I believe in solipsism. Is that crazy?

» How often do you go to the gym or workout in general?

» Can I Still make Shit posts on MAL?

» Would you give a 2 week notice if the job did you wrong?

» What are some authors and figures that you hold in high esteem?

MoreTop Anime

MoreTop Airing Anime

MoreMost Popular Characters