[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 29 KB, 300x300, dude.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3001590 No.3001590[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

/lit/, show me an example of pure altruism.

>> No.3001594
File: 72 KB, 300x407, jesus-christ-icon.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3001594

>> No.3001596

you will find the smallest indications of selfishness anyway, like feeling good because of your action.
this question is nonsense

>> No.3001602

>>3001590
Only if you show me an example of pure selfishness.

>> No.3001603

>>3001590
>/lit/, show me an example of pure altruism.

Can not be, such a lifeform would wither instantly because it doesn't take care of itself enough to sustain life. An entity can never be truly altruistic, since an entity has a self and having a self automatically implies being at least to some point self-centered.

>> No.3001605

>>3001602
Robbery, Theft?

>> No.3001606
File: 62 KB, 386x520, stirner20.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3001606

>>3001594
>be all about your dad
>turns out you are your dad

Yeah nice backdoor egoism.

>> No.3001609

>>3001605
If you felt the slightest pang of guilt stealing something, then it wouldn't be purely selfish since that wouldn't be to your benefit.

It's the opposite of feeling the slightest pang of happiness when giving away something for charity. It isn't purely altruistic either, just as the former example isn't purely selfish.

>> No.3001610

>>3001608
Define "Define" first.

>> No.3001608

>>3001590

Define "pure" and "altruism" first.

>> No.3001611

>>3001609
>It's the opposite of feeling the slightest pang of happiness when giving away something for charity. It isn't purely altruistic either, just as the former example isn't purely selfish.

I've stolen shit and don't feel the slightest pang of remorse for it.

>> No.3001613

>>3001610
If one refuses to define "define", then your imperative is simply meaningless since you're using a term (define) that you haven't defined yet. Why should one even answer something as nonsensical as that?

>> No.3001616

>>3001611
I'm not sure what's your point. If you give something away as well without feeling any happiness from it (which you will not, if you so claim to be devoid of empathy). You have a pure altruistic act right there.

>> No.3001622

>>3001590
A doctor helping a patient. Not because it will make him feel good, but because it's the right thing to do. Or: a soldier dying for a comrade.

>> No.3001625
File: 156 KB, 560x461, fullretard.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3001625

>>3001610
In this case: To lay out the boundaries and significance of a term in order to assure mutual comprehension during later use.

But I'm thinking you're not really interested in a serious discussion, if you think "define define" is a viable thing to say.

>> No.3001626

>>3001622
>A doctor helping a patient. Not because it will make him feel good, but because it's the right thing to do. Or: a soldier dying for a comrade.

A doctor do what a doctor do so he' get good pay check too. And if they save some for free they earn reputation.

The soldier one is harder. Cause once they're gone, they are gone. I can't really explain that, but I wouldn't call it altruism.

>> No.3001627

>>3001625
Im thinking this is an anonymous image board, and not the outset for a scientific essay.

Pure is pure, and altruism is altruism.

Look the words up in a lexicon if you must know their definition. Stop being such a try-hard.

>> No.3001630

>>3001626

Then what? How about people giving up seats in lifeboats or life jackets during the sinking of a ship?

>> No.3001636

>>3001627
I see. In that case: You are a glorified cumstain desperately trying to look deep by flinging around concepts without any desire to obtain understanding or reflection from it. It's like when a child goes around saying naughty words to get a rise out of the grownups.

I fucking wish this was a troll thread.

>> No.3001639
File: 11 KB, 221x221, дайте відповідь.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3001639

>>3001627
>loltautalogies
>dictionaries are what gives words meanings

>> No.3001643

>>3001630
They wouldn't be able to live with themselves if they didn't. It's the least of two evils for them. They merely choose the least amount of suffering for themselves, and that can be an altruistic act for those under the spell of society's ethics.

>> No.3001645

>>3001636
>I see. In that case: You are a glorified cumstain desperately trying to look deep by flinging around concepts without any desire to obtain understanding or reflection from it. It's like when a child goes around saying naughty words to get a rise out of the grownups.

I didn't realize that this was a board filled with 2.0 gpa Rhodes scholars and Harvard alumni. I better up my game.

>> No.3001646

>>3001626
>A doctor do what a doctor do so he' get good pay check too. And if they save some for free they earn reputation.

What if the doctor helps a patient secretly for free with no reward at all? And it doesn't make him feel good, he feels bad for helping him but he helps him anyway because INTELLECTUALLY he knew it was the right thing to do?

There are exceptions to everything. Not every single act is selfish.

>> No.3001647

>>3001646

OP here, I'm a homosex
They wouldn't have been able to live with themselves if they didn't.

>> No.3001648

>>3001643
Yes, i'd agree with this. They are a slave of what society tells them, they wouldn't be able to live with the shame otherwise.

I mean seriously, refusing to die might beget you immortality as a coward.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Bruce_Ismay

>> No.3001651

>>3001645

The premise for your thread is so vague that no satisfactory answer can ever be given. Without a definition of altruism (and selfishness) we are all trapped in a wasteland where any offered type of act can be dodged by refusing to disclose the perimeters for an acceptable example.

>> No.3001656

>>3001651
This is what postmodernists really talk like.

>> No.3001659

>>3001651
>Without a definition of altruism (and selfishness) we are all trapped in a wasteland where any offered type of act can be dodged by refusing to disclose the perimeters for an acceptable example.

Yes, Yeeess, YEEEEES! How insightful.

>> No.3001661

>>3001647
Maybe some of them couldn't, but not every single one.

>> No.3001663

>question poorly framed
>implying an empirical instance of pure altruism can or cannot happen
>implying altruism can be conceived as something logically possible or not

>> No.3001666

Isn't that kind of objectivism? The notion that nothing can be truly altrustic and that everyone acts out of greed and or selfishness. Thus it is an "objective" look on life.

Inb4 theonewhomsnamecannotbementioned

>> No.3001670

>>3001666
Yeah, fuck Nietzsche.

>> No.3001682

>>3001666
>implying you can avoid mentioning her when you get her philosophy that fucking wrong

>> No.3001685

>>3001682
I've never read her. So I don't know. Instead of berating me, explain.

>> No.3001732

generally altruism has some kind of personal reward. it could even be that they are by definition linked, as perceiving yourself as what we consider good makes you feel good about yourself.

actually it probably is like that.

>> No.3001771
File: 49 KB, 500x294, 1344307279824.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3001771

Before going on altruism or selfishness, one has to define the difference between the two subjects involved in the action. This is where conversation can be taken pretty much anywhere.

The fact that people have trouble seeing altruism, but not at all selfishness tells a lot about ourselves today.

If you 'zoom' in the issue of altruism you end up with a conclusion such as "you are just doing it because it feels good to you, you are still just caring about yourself". The problem with this is that we split ourselves in two, as witnesses of cognitive dissociation. That's because, consciously, you were being altruistic, your intentions were focused in doing good to the other. But at the same time, your intentions, your will, your drive, whatever you call it, is based on some sort of reward mechanism that you don't perceive at first glance.

But would that stop the intention from being altruistic? That is, as a whole, a unity, you are tricking yourself all the time in order to protect and elevate yourself. But part of you was really being altruistic.

The key here is with identity. We are used to considering that the "I" that is selfish is this human being here. But in several occasions, you can be split into a lot of other pieces of "I" just as much as a group like a family, a group of friends or a country might be seen as a unity that can be selfish on its own. Inside the group one person can sacrifice oneself for the greater good (that includes the person).

>> No.3001772
File: 26 KB, 349x480, 25e8983c0144bcb5a13010fb3fc2c9291cfade5b_m.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3001772

Any act, whether it's helping someone or giving something without feeling happiness, is an act the self consider 'valuable for self' or 'least invaluable for self' with it's present/immediate situation perspective/worldview/belief system. Any perceived or intended act of altruism is an act the self find least invaluable for it's self-conception. Old souls like Gandhi and Mother Theresa who are perceived to be 'altruistic', merely have widened their perception of self. They include other beings in their ego.

>> No.3001775

>>3001772
>>3001771
Enlightening. Thanks.

>> No.3001778

Truly altruistic people can exist, just as retards and gays exist, yes it is evolutionarily unfit however there is a small percentage that suffer from these genetic defects.But yeah most 'altruistic' acts are not genuine.

>> No.3001836

>>3001772
>Old souls [...] who are perceived to be 'altruistic', merely have widened their perception of self. They include other beings in their ego.
Oh, that's pretty beautiful. Don't mind me if I steal that.

>> No.3001843

I replied to your shitty thread

>> No.3001846

*ba-dum tssssh*

>> No.3001850

>>3001846
you just spoiled his pure altruism

>> No.3001851

India’s invasion of East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), ending a huge massacre; and Vietnam’s invasion of Cambodia in December 1978, driving out the Khmer Rouge just as their atrocities were peaking.

>> No.3001853

>>3001851
>India’s invasion of East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), ending a huge massacre; and Vietnam’s invasion of Cambodia in December 1978, driving out the Khmer Rouge just as their atrocities were peaking.

Wow those are pretty shitty examples. It is very common for neighbouring nations to intervene because the unstability will eventually spread over the border.

A nations wealth is dependent on stability and trade with neighbours.

>> No.3001854

>>3001853
derp, instability

>> No.3001859

>>3001853
bull-shit.. both were examples of nation-states intervenign in humanitarian catastrophes and taking a massive, non-reimbursable financial hit, in the process.

but whatever, you obviously choose to believe whatever you happen to like the idea of

>> No.3001874

>>3001859
>Going to war
>Pure altruism


So it can be altruistic to kill someone?

>> No.3001899

>>3001859
In both cases the invading country benefits because they now have a great deal of influence over one of their neighbors. They were just taking advantage of an opportunity to invade another country and install a friendly government.

>> No.3001902

>>3001859
I'm not him, but also didn't like your examples.

Talking politics within the spectrum of intention willbe just a mess. Soldiers take orders. You never know where personal ideas end and propaganda and manipulation begins. The actions of a country will always be filled with mixed reasons given the context, regardless of how people feel. Nations are abstractions and sometimes (quite often, really), the collective of a nation will act in a way that the majority of the people does not agree. I don't think altruism or selfishness applies to nations and wars and of course invading another country, regardless of one's intention is a something that is not desirable by the invaded country.

>> No.3001913

>>3001611
Then you're just a sociopath.

>> No.3001920

>>3001685
Don't worry. Most people who hate her works haven't.

>> No.3001923

>>3001874
Of course. To stop their suffering and all. True altruists try to kill as many people while causing the least amount of pain possible.

>> No.3001938

>>3001923
>the greater good

>> No.3001952

The key to pure altruism is becoming altruistic without the intention to.
As soon as someone recognizes their own altruism, the beauty in it is gone. The word becomes a character trade that they are proud of having. Pride becomes their profit.

>> No.3001958

b-bump

>> No.3001965
File: 4 KB, 244x207, tau_haters.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3001965

>>3001938

Fuck yeah

>> No.3001985

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_Equation#Example:_Evolution_of_altruism

>> No.3002023
File: 60 KB, 500x235, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3002023

this thread

>> No.3002033

I feed a child a piece of fruit. Then I open my mouth and let the child feed me a piece.

That child's being altruistic as fuck.

>> No.3002043

>>3002033
I feed a child a piece of fruit. Then I open my mouth and let the child feed me a piece.
Then I shove the baby in my mouth and munch on it as well.

That child's being eaten as fuck.
I am being hungry as fuck.

>> No.3002052

>>3002033
>I feed a child a piece of fruit. Then I open my mouth and let the child feed me a piece.

You should be locked up for that you sick fuck. Do you really think it's okay to be hanging around playgrounds trying to put things in children's mouths. Jesus.

>> No.3002215

>>3001923
>As soon as someone recognizes their own altruism, the beauty in it is gone. The word becomes a character trade that they are proud of having. Pride becomes their profit.

Since this debate eventually will come here sooner or later.

Nazi-germany killed an enormous amount of people because they think that they would create a better world, for the proper human race, and create a master race. They also wanted to get rid of the jews because of the suffering they had inflicted on the human race.

The greater good, is hardly good at all.

>> No.3002256

>>3002215
>getting altruism confused with utilitarianism

>> No.3002273

western movies

>> No.3002313

This scene from Huck Finn:
It was a close place. I took . . . up [the letter I’d written to Miss Watson], and held it in my hand. I was a-trembling, because I’d got to decide, forever, betwixt two things, and I knowed it. I studied a minute, sort of holding my breath, and then says to myself: “All right then, I’ll go to hell”—and tore it up. It was awful thoughts and awful words, but they was said. And I let them stay said; and never thought no more about reforming.

Huck stands to lose his salvation in the afterlife and his place in society by helping Jim escape slavery but he does it anyway. It's really a great novel, you just have to disregard that last chapter or so.

>> No.3002314

>>3002215
Trying to do good to others can hardly be compared with imposing your idea of "good".

I mean, even within the context of this thread. If someone asks for help and you help, that is altruism (and from there we discuss whether that exists or not and what are the consequences of it), but if you are talking about political ideas, eugenics and "greater goods", it's like assaulting your fridge to fight your obesity. It's just an invasion.