Selfishness, selfless and the analysis of the self

Where do concepts come from, and most importantly, how were they conceived? If there was an error in conception, then there are errors all the way down. ideas are the concepts by which we see and interpret the world. If the idea was improperly formed, then everything based off that idea is improperly formed by definition. Since everything derived from that idea, inherits it’s misunderstanding of the men or humans that conceptualized the idea from their misunderstanding of the the world. And since all concepts are derived from the world, through the process of detection, observation, and modification, if one was not seeing the world properly, one was not conceiving based on what is true, only on illusions of what is true.

Definition of the self:
your consciousness of your own identity
(used as a combining form) relating to–of or by or to or from or for–the self; “self-knowledge”; “self-proclaimed”; “self-induced”

a person considered as a unique individual; “one’s own self”
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Selfishness:

concerned chiefly or only with yourself and your advantage to the exclusion of others; "Selfish men were… …
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

The self

When was it defined and by whom? We will never know… But this question is important because mankind has been ignorant of so many things, it was once thought things were made of fire. Then there was the theory of The Four Humours during the middle ages. Men are frequently thinking with ideas other men conceived and conceptualized from the world improperly and which have been passed down through the ages, so we must ask, were these concepts and ideas conceived properly when we compare it against a more clear understanding of reality? Are we arguing over the misinformed conceptualizations of ancient men who had no understanding of what they were conceiving?

So now we must ask, what is the self, in reality?. We must look to the human body for our answers. In looking at a human body and discovering how it functions. We know the self is the nervous system and brain that is attached to the body itself, one cannot disconnect the nervous system entirely from the body without severe damage, since the nervous system is critical in how a person is and how they feel and derive information from the world fundamentally. If key parts of the body is injured too gravely, the “Self” (nervous system) will die, that is, the key support systems will shut down and be damaged to such a degree that the brain/nervous system (person) is unsalvagable.

So we know at the very least, the self is made of many interconnected and interdependent parts. It is not a lone distinct object, it is an interconnected whole. A whole with pieces that are together or pieces that are further away. But these parts that make up the whole, and we consider it an object, a distinct person, something ‘separate’ from the rest. But in ultimate reality, they are not. We must eat and breath (a cycle of eating, a cycle of going to the bathroom), i.e. we are constantly taking in new things to replace old things, and those old things go back into the ground, to be taken up again, into the body. A circuit, or cycle. The cycle itself proves, that there is no such thing as ultimate separation from reality. That reality is a network of associations, that are either nearer or father apart, but in the absolute sense, not separate, similar to bubbles on a surface of the ocean.

The cells themselves still fundamentally all live together in a society, which we call a body (the collective individual) trillions of cells. All working and sustaining your body, muscles, and your mind without your awareness of it.

The idea that everything is selfish is incorrect when we look at nature.

APOPTOSIS, or programmed cell death is absolutely critical to the formation of human appendages and life itself, cancer is itself the elimination of all restraint (i.e. in political human terms, total unrestrained freedom, selfishness, non-interference)

For example, the differentiation of fingers and toes in a developing human embryo occurs because cells between the fingers apoptose; the result is that the digits are separate. Between 50 billion and 70 billion cells die each day due to apoptosis in the average human adult. For an average child between the ages of 8 and 14, approximately 20 billion to 30 billion cells die a day. In a year, this amounts to the proliferation and subsequent destruction of a mass of cells equal to an individual’s body weight.

Research on apoptosis has increased substantially since the early 1990s. In addition to its importance as a biological phenomenon, defective apoptotic processes have been implicated in an extensive variety of diseases. Excessive apoptosis causes hypotrophy, such as in ischemic damage, whereas an insufficient amount results in uncontrolled cell proliferation, such as cancer.

So when we look at how reality actually works, or ‘the self’ we see that the human concepts of selfishness and selflessness break down, since in the apoptosis example they are a matter of environmental necessity.

There is only actions, that occur depending on the environment in which they exist, sometimes it pays to be collective , other times it pays to be more ‘individua’, but the concepts themselves are incoherent when we look at nature, everything exists in a cycle, a recursive network of dependencies (air, food, water, cells shed back to the ground feed organisms, etc).

Consciousness is an interconnected network of cells

When we look at the body itself, there is both separateness and union, cells differentiate and interconnect and yet those individual cells are made of a network of interconnected parts again, and they all interact in countless ways.

Therefore the concept of selfish and selfless is incoherent, since they are matters of necessity, and geometry in nature.

All organisms seek to preserve and better themselves by that of survival. Their very motivation is for the advances of their individual bodies by that of consumption.

Seems pretty selfish to me. You can describe the self in many ways but in the end I don’t think it changes the prime motivation in why organisms through that of survival act.

As soon as humans develop recognition of their own individual identity, the ego is born and we seek to take what we want without consideration for others. But we soon learn that can lead to pain and other forms of discipline, along with the concept that if everyone didn’t manage their selfishness, we’d have chaos. So following the simple moral code of recognizing the equal of rights of all to their life, liberty or property, we come to the unavoidable moral principle of enlightened self-interest.

But the whole “enightened self interest” is a bit of a sham considering we don’t actually act according to enlightened self-interest (war, poverty, disease), we are practically on the level of bacteria in terms of thought and action (i.e. inferior beings).

We were all Enlightened Masters. As infants we knew not fear (psychological fear), suffering, and/or attachments. Somebody somwhere in the past imagined something and took it as true. Thanks to that and parents, preachers, schooling, etc.,it is passed along , most of the world is living a lie.
As Platos says people live and die for shadows.

Some do, some don’t, just as some of us do good while others do evil, while most do a little of both. We tend to understand the importance of esi, but our culture has been imbued with the ideal of unthinking selflessness as we and our ancestors have been indoctrinated.

There can be group righteous self-interest in war just as there can be individual righteous self-interest in self defense. Poverty is almost always brought on by government (95% +/-), misguided charity and just bad luck. Preventable disease comes under the category of poverty.

To be short, I think conepts like shelfishness arise spontaneously frm our ownn exieriences.

They aren’t concepts as much as they are descriptions of things we experience and distinguish.

I say an experiment where cappucin monkeys were shown to have a copncept of fairness.

They were locked in different cages side by side. one monkey had a sharp rock which could be used for opening a nut container which was in the cage of the other monkey.

The first monkey gave the other monkey the rock and actually showed him how to puncture the container. After he was successful the second monkey gave 3 of the 6 nuts to the first monkey, a fair share.

If we exhibit something like fairness, we are more likely to be successful more of the time. If every monkey shares, every monkey benifits.

Perhps concepts like fairness are hardwired in our rbains, or perhaps i is simply a logical conclusion which we all can come to.

Personally i am inclined to believe that they can be learned, discovered, and even might be supported by biological hard-wiring.

our genes are prompting us to seek ways to survive , If our endeavor to assure our survival crosses the endeavor of others ,then it is society that regulates such crossing with words like selfishness…

It isn’t fairness, but rather an excellent example of basic enlightened self-interest.

If every monkey shares, but some gather (produce) more than others (some, nothing at all), then every monkey doesn’t benefit by the unearned equal distribution of bananas. What happens if there are 2 males but only 1 female?

why else would anyone be fair ever?

it depends on the species.

evolution has trained different species very differently. cappuchins are polygamous :smiley:.

something for you to think about. you seem to think it would be “fair” for the 2 males to share the female? (and they do :laughing: )

but how about you. would you share your female with another male? :laughing:

I think that the words "selfishness and selfless, definitions aside, are to a large degree, dependent on the perception of the one who uses the word.

There is selfishness, which to most reasonable caring people may be obvious.

And there is “selfless” which to most reasonable caring people may be obvious.

That being said, because of our emotions, no one is completely reasonable all of the time.

There are some actions, which some may regard as selfish, which when examined by a reasonable person, is really a very caring act. There are times when our actions may hurt another, we may appear “selfish” but in the long run, that seemingly selfish act is for the good. For example, a man/woman may leave his/her mate because of the way their mate is emotionally/spiritually/physically harming themself. That so-called action may be viewed by some as completely selfish but its really done out of love for the other, and perhaps for themself, and there may be much agonizing over that “selfless” act. Doing what is right for ourselves is never selfish, as long as we can as much as possible think of the other.

The case of a man feeling a call to go off and fight in a war. People may wonder how he can leave his family – but he is simply doing what he feels called to do. In that way, perhaps it isn’t selfish/selfless, others might view it as selfish – and some may view it as selfless.

There is a lot to be said about perception. If someone gets himself killed (and perhaps feels it could happen) in saving someone else, that is a selfless act, although his family and friends who mourn him may think differently, saying he is selfish, he should have thought about them.

There are also people who may “appear” to be caring and selfless, but their motives really are selfish and self-seeking.

So, it is all about perception.

“Fairness”, as the left uses it, is when everybody is the same and has the same amount of stuff (except for the elite who are always excepted,) It’s one of those words which has been twisted beyond almost any usefulness. I don’t know who said it first, but life ain’t fair, and we must learn to deal with it. Fairness as in rules and laws that apply equally to all is ironically thrown overboard in the pursuit of the type of fairness they want to force down our throats–unfairly. “It isn’t fair that she was born smarter than he was, so we must do something about it.”

And I’m not sure how we are programmed, so maybe it’s a bad example. The idea is probably better stated that sharing among those who have contributed to an effort is different than sharing with those who won’t. Charity among humans, like forgiveness, has evolved into something where the recipient is not even engaged in or gives value to earning them. Most recipients of charity, especially government welfare, believe that it is their due and express little else but the opposite of appreciation. And forgiveness is offered where it has neither been requested nor has repentance/restitution been performed. We still pay somebody else to mow the lawn in government housing.

That’s another problem with the example. She isn’t property, therefore she only “belongs” to me if she continues to give herself to me and honor our commitment to each other. If she chooses to break her vow, then the commitment is broken. Others are free to have different vows if they so choose and should be free to do, even to polygamy or polyandry =; . The only moral imperative about sexual intercourse (among consenting adults) is that any children will if at all possible have at least two parents of opposite sex.

But I digress.

Morality is not of the animal kingdom. Animals seek food,shelter, and reproduction- no selfishness or selfless .
Pity is the near enemy of compassion.
“It isn’t fair that she was born smarter than he was, so we must do something about it.”
is pity.

This kind of thinking works when their is a struggle for existence - when the land is still undeveloped and there is not enough to go around. It works in pre-technological ages in which one has to expend the majority of one’s energy in aquiring basic necessities. The fact is, however, that technology has made it the case that the energy required for basic necessities is minimal, and the know how required to survive no longer exists. Any hardship one faces today is social hardship, it is there not because it has to be, but because someone wants it to be. The struggle for existence does not exist in western societies unless western societies choose for it to exist. The question that needs to be asked is why would anyone want to play “struggle for existence” with anothers life and well being, when one has to genuinely work to manifest the game itself. A society has to expend vasts amounts of energy to ensure that some will fail and some will succeed. It is pathetic. A bunch of grown men and women creating a game so that they can “win” it, and feel as if they’ve achieved something - as if they are superior to those that they’ve condemned to lose from the get go.

It is not, “it isn’t fair that she was born smarter than he was, so we must do something about it”, it is “he was born smarter than she was, so we must set it up that he is rewarded”. An artificial struggle is maintained. The “well-off” are parasites on the not-well-off. Leeches manipulated into thinking that there is a struggle for existence, when in actuality the only struggle is the struggle to maintain the struggle for existence.

again, you are asking a quetsion that should not be asked. what is “self”, is not a question because you have to be yourself in order to ask the question.

if you expand the hidden words in your question… I THINK… what is “self”. I think must preexist for you to even ask that question, so to even ask that question you have proven your existence.

Selfishness is different. Once you’ve interacted with other people, and seen how stupid, ignorant, ugly they are, then you’ll be selfish. Selfishness is not something inborn, but learnt but interacting with ugly, little people.

I agree. Simply put, animals are innocent, as are infants and toddlers. Only with the “installation” of the soul (ego) are we faced with being moral, making choices between good and bad.

OK, pity and this version of fairness are essentially the same. Compassion is another loaded word however, depending on whether it’s based on a true concern and the best way to address it to help an individual, or not.

People who want pity is useless.

People who want pity are useless.

Nonono! He can’t be ‘wrong’! *__-