/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3639900

Liberty is the answer.

There is no objective answer, it's up to you to decide for yourself.

>>3639906

(that's why I'm asking you guys)

>>3639900

I think this is a superfluous question

Self-determination

personal experience dominates

those who claim altruism don't realize that they do so because of the personal experience it affords them

>>3639912

Utilitarians do not exist.

I hope people find themselve in contributin' to sosciety.

>>3639912

Personally I can't be bothered with the progression of the human species, I'd rather worry about myself, but I don't want to get in the way either.

I don't care to contribute to humankind.

I study science out of a selfish desire to understand the universe.

Do you owe something to humankind?

I just want to benefit myself and trade knowledge, services, goods, and experiences with other humasn.

>>3639932
humans*

>>3639900
Using the options you gave its clear that you want the answer to be contributing to science or literature. WHat's the point of the thread if that's what you'ring aiming for?

Many times selfish desires can match public desires.
If you have something that will contribute to mankind and is also of personal interest, it would be preferable that you share it with the rest.

>>3639932
>>3639931
>>3639929
>>3639915

that's quite selfish of you all

>>3639940

taking your mother out to dinner doesn't contribute to public desires

>>3639939

And likely you're just as selfish. The difference is, we admit it.

>>3639941

no? how did you even come to that conclusion?

who the fuck wants to contribute to science? also, most arent capable to make any worthwhile advancements (like me)

That depends on your values.

>>3639947

pic

>>3639955

You sure told me.

>>3639915
this, it may seem arbitrary but it is infact objective because of the fact that you can identify the circumstances and values that your choices are derived from.

you wouldn't say that a sciencetific experiement is arbitrary just because their are variable involved.

if there is something imminent that may effect your ability to live adequately and your intellectual dedication is required in resolving the situation, or if there is any circumstance that would make in proportionally irrational to not dedicate your intellectual productiveness, then it is only objective to do so, to dedicate yourself.

it is not arbitrary to have to judge probability, circumstance or variables.

>>3639945
Because you refused to allow the middle option.
Most people have personal lifes you know.
My opinion is that given current state of human existence (limited lifetime), you would want a mix of both. From a utilitarian perspective, you should contribute as much as possible, or at least to get humans out of their current mortal state, so they could contribute without having a time limit. From a personal selfish perspective, you would do well to spend your time acquiring as much personal experience as possible. However, in the latter case you're reducing the amount of high quality personal experience for others (which could benefit from your contributions). Hence why most people choose the middle ground of doing selfish things that would still contribute to the public.

Well....if you spend time with your mother you are greatly contributing to her life thereby making her a happier person. She then is able to contribute more to the lives of those around her, effectively creating a wave. If you contribute to science as a whole, you make many (but much smaller) ripples of contribution. I think it depends on the mother and depends on the specifics of the scientific contribution, but at a quick glance they are both important.

>>3639939
You didn't understand my point then. There is nothing but ultimate selfishness. Those who make sacrifices for others do so because they desire the sense of doing the right thing. Nobody ever does anything that is completely against every single one of their desires. Ultimately all decisions are made to satisfy the most highly prioritized desire.

For some, that is helping others, but it would be delusional to ignore the goal of self-satisfaction even in that.

Now, what desires you have (being a greedy exploitationist, advancing mankind through science, etc) are completely arbitrary and we'd all be better off if people were less egocentric.

Still, everyone does everything for personal reasons ("feels good to help people", "feels good to be a good person", etc).

Do both OP, you fucking moron.

personally i think you have to walk a long ways down the "selfish" path to be able to give back. to actually have something to contribute. but that begs the question... is it really selfish if it is a necessary step in the process of philanthropy/altruism/anti-cancer?

as a side note, science is only a map of the current consensus of our understanding of the universe. it can only take you so far, then you have to go alone, some places can only be understood through personal experience (currently). ex: god, truth, death, etc.
going where no man has gone before will surely allow one to bring back a wealth to share. ya dig?

>>3639948
That's what I got from your options. One is clearly advantageous and the other isn't plus you don't leave space for the middle ground.

>>3639989

altruism is the cancer, it's the conception that it is ok to force the productive to sacrifice their products to the unproductive. now if there was a prior force in place that would limit other individuals ability to be productive then the concept would be justifiable, but there isn't and it is a fallacy to believe so.

any form of wealth, productiveness, invention has been derived from voluntary cooperation and self indulgence.

altruism is an explicitly destructive ideology, it's consequence is death by a chaotic cannibalistic mentality of a mob.

>>3640018
Only when you have truly limited resources. If your goal was to remove this restriction, there would be no problem.

>>3640018

but don't the productive also benefit from other productive people?

>>3640018
>>3640018
>>3640018

whoa brah, I said nothing about being forced. to elaborate, i mean giving back on your own terms, like writing a book with ideas you want to share, or finding out some specific greenhouse design is more efficient than the conventional model, allowing more people to live in abundance. actually to be quite specific, what i mean is sharing self-empowering knowledge that you have acquired, so that others may be self-empowered. I should also state that a race of creatures is far more likely to survive than a single specimen, and that DNA itself is far more likely to achieve immortality than a single species, or a single specimen.

empowering self<empowering species<empowering all life.

i should also state that the individual is an illusion, the ego keeps us safe, keeps us apart. etc.

you should now better be able to understand what i mean. but definitely not completely. words are inefficient.

I want to help others have a good quality of life, because that improves my quality of life and it makes me happy seeing others happy.
But that doesn't mean it's a negative thing per se.
However, I'm trying to figure out the mysteries of the universe before I start to help people.
I need to satisfy my cravings for knowledge as best as I can before I decide what my goals in life are.

>>3640038

they do, but that's not altruism, altruism is the ideology of sacrifice

>>3640091

>Valuing other forms of life over your own species
>2011

seriously hoping

>>3640091

>2011
>Believeing the individual is an illusion

ISHYGDDT

>>3640091

>2011
>Smoking weed all day and believing in hippy nonsense

Not even gonna say it

>>3640091
>whoa brah, I said nothing about being forced. to elaborate, i mean giving back on your own terms, like writing a book with ideas you want to share, or
>finding out some specific greenhouse design is more efficient than the conventional model, allowing more people to live in abundance. actually to be quite
>specific, what i mean is sharing self-empowering knowledge that you have acquired, so that others may be self-empowered. I should also state that a race
>of creatures is far more likely to survive than a single specimen, and that DNA itself is far more likely to achieve immortality than a single species, or a
>single specimen.

>empowering self<empowering species<empowering all life.

well this is the ideology of rational egoism, you are in effect saying that to be selfish is to be productive and to be productive is to be socially beneficial. and you would be right to say so. but this is not altruism.

>i should also state that the individual is an illusion, the ego keeps us safe, keeps us apart. etc.

no it is not. it is true that mutual cooperation between individual can creates a more beneficial out come for everyone involved, but there is no moral justification for subjugating the individual to the collective.

>you should now better be able to understand what i mean. but definitely not completely. words are inefficient.
>epistomological nihilism
communication is not so futile, if you fail to identify your concepts it is your ability to articulate that has failed not the words.

>>3640138
>2011
> not smoking weed
>no picture needed

Personal enjoyment is all that has any meaning to me. The idea or literal existence of "Humankind" does not matter outside of what directly benefits me, as one day I will cease to exist. And sometime after that, so will everybody else and everything that we build. All endeavors are ultimately futile.
I had a vague notion that my attitude would change once I had children. Well I do and it has not. In creating comfort for myself I have created enduring comfort for them as a side-effect, no extra effort required. And being of tangible use to other humans was a requirement in creating my comfort, so my attitude on the subject is irrellevent either way.

>>3640093

that is reasonable, word of advice though, if you want to increase an others quality of life then help increase their ability to be productive, if you institute environments of dependence you are cripple those dependent's ability to live. I'm not saying forsake all charity and be a fucking stooge all day every day, but it would be more beneficial to create a 1000 jobs than feed 10000 for a day.

>>3640166

Ethnicity:White male
Age:20s
Location:4chan
Status: Full retard

Define "contributing to humankind as a whole."

Do you mean increasing their happiness? There is nothing we can do that will increase everyone's happiness. Much of happiness is genetic, and people tend to stay around the same level of happiness, with only slight changes that eventually balance out back to a default level.

We could provide small benefits, but ultimately happiness is all up to the individual, it depends on the glasses through which you see everything that happens to you.

TL;DR: Personal experience, because there is nothing you can do to truly increase general happiness.

>>3640169

you are quite pessimistic, but at least you get it.

>>3640138
What does it matter? If that is what he enjoys, that is his pejorative. The world will turn with or without his participation, or yours. Until the day that it does not. Which neither of you could prevent anyways regardless of your personal philosophies.

This is the way I see it. There are two kinds of people in the world: leaders and followers.
Those who benefit mankind as a whole are the leaders, or the shepherds. Those who are creative and as a result, essentially create the environments of the followers and themselves.
Those who prefer personal experience(sheep) live their lives without contributing much, but are necessary in order for the shepherds to survive.
Without sheep, a shepherd has no purpose. And without a shepherd, the sheep are lost. It is one of the many intricate balances of nature, and neither side is more significant.
Sure, one or the other could be more important to a particular person, based on which type they are. Leaders would obviously believe leaders are more significant, while the followers probably believe they are the most significant. But as far as true significance relating to mankind as a whole, there really is no true victor.
But, I will say this, in my personal opinion, those who dedicate their one short period of life to others by contributing to science make larger leaps in our evolution, which is more important as a species that is rapidly evolving.

>>3640220

their is no justification to be stagnant

>>3640220

I don't see how focusing on yourself requires following others. In fact, that seems to not make sense.

>>3640260
Well, let me put it this way, the leaders live their lives for others by creating something that affects people on a large scale. Sheep live for others, but not as effectively.

>>3640151
Good words sir, i hope you are still lurkin' like a turk.

>no it is not. it is true that mutual cooperation between individual can creates a more beneficial out come for everyone involved, but there is no moral justification for subjugating the individual to the collective.

who said anything about subjugating? what I'm talking about is extremely abstract, not on the plane of social mechanics.

>communication is not so futile, if you fail to identify your concepts it is your ability to articulate that has failed not the words.

nonsense. maps and muddles my friend. the menu does not taste like the food. the map is not the territory. words are sign posts to the understanding i believe myself to have and that i would wish that my concept of you(other) would understand (if you even go about "understanding" the same way i do.) it's an abstraction.

what is the definition of a word?
what is the definition of a definition?
words floating among ideas, trying to pin them down. words are inefficient. they are just words. they depend on my articulation/expression and your perception, both of which are highly questionable, and totally unaligned.