In what way do you feel this planet is the wrong planet?

Page 6 of 7 [ 97 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

qawer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,424

23 Feb 2013, 8:33 am

Redstar2613 wrote:
Caz72 wrote:
i think it is the wrong planet because everyone is very self-centered or just prefer people similar to them or they dont want to know you. i get a lot of this at work. i am not always on the same wavelength of other people this is why i don't have any friends but i don't care. the way i see it, theyre all weird. :)


Of course people prefer someone similar to them... it's only logical. No one wants to have a long conversation about something they have no interest in. So of course you'll try to surround yourself with people that will share similar interests. That's not being selfish, it's choosing to have a good time with someone, instead of being bored to death.


Yes, it is logical because that's how nature is. It is being "selfish" in a broad sense to surround yourself with people similar to yourself. It only seems logical because nature states that one should act selfish to become happy. It is not logical in the same way as 1+1=2. It is only logical on the basis of the knowledge that you should be selfish in order to become happy.

If nature stated that you should be as helpful as possible in order to become happy, you should prefer people that needed your help the most. That's not how nature is! If you feel a need to help someone, nature states that it is only a rational feelingif the act of helping that person in the end does help yourself in some way or another - perhaps just by feeling better about yourself.

Without acting "selfish in a broad sense" you cannot be at proper mental health in this world. That's what's wrong.



nessa238
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jul 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,908
Location: UK

23 Feb 2013, 8:41 am

You're talking about true altruism, which it is in dispute about whether it exists

All interactions are transactions - I give you something and get something back in return, even if it's just feeling happier from having attention off another person

A certain amount of self-interest is healthy in my opinion, otherwise you'd end up giving everything you had away and end up homeless

Read this about George Price:-

http://www.darwinwars.com/wdhessay.html

"The deathbed of an altruist can be a terrible place: "A mattress on the floor, one chair, a table, and several ammunition boxes made the only furniture. Of all the books and furnishings that I remembered from our first meeting in his fairly luxurious flat near Oxford Circus there remained some cheap clothes, a two-volume copy of Proust, and his typewriter. A cheap suitcase and some cardboard boxes contained most of his papers, others were scattered about on ammunition chests."

These were the effects of George Price, an American science journalist. He had perfected an existing mathematical equation that shows how altruism can prosper among basically selfish animals - even humans. So shocked was he by his success in this, and the darker truths about human nature implied by the equation, that he embarked on a desperate career of service to the outcast, and finally killed himself with a pair of nail scissors in a London squat in January 1975."

A fascinating man but his life shows that if you try and take altruism to the ultimate extreme it won't have a happy ending



qawer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,424

23 Feb 2013, 8:59 am

Hi Lintar, welcome to the thread!

Lintar wrote:
First of all you are making too many basic assumptions and, from these mere assumptions, extrapolating 'facts' (ex. assumption 1 - 'I believe that everyone who says there is a deeper meaning than this is only believing that because of their ego'. Therefore it is because 'we want a deeper purpose with our lives in order to gain motivation. Besides, we are afraid of the naked fact of the matter'). Well, I don't agree with the underlying premise here, that life's only purpose is self-perpetuation, and it is not because of my 'ego'.


I'm curious how you could so easily rule that out? Your ego will do anything in order for you to survive. That including making yourself believe that you have a higher purpose than self-perpetuation. Think about it, do you do anything in your daily life that is not directly or indirectly related to your own self-perpetuation? Remember that self-actualization is also just a human need eventually aimed at self-perpetuation.




Lintar wrote:
The title - 'The Meaning of Life and the Secret of Happiness' - has the underlying assumption built into it that there is ONLY one meaning, and one secret. I'm sure I'm correct when I say that, for each and every individual, 'the Secret of Happiness' will be different, depending on their specific circumstances.


It is correct that for each and every individual, 'the Secret of Happiness' will be different, depending on their specific circumstances. That's because people are different. But behind those different "secrets of happiness" only remains self-perpetuation. We build our own purposes in life in order to survive, because we have a way greater probability of survival if we believe our lives truly have a larger purpose. But I agree with you in the sense that it's a hell of a great illusion ! I've begun to just accept it - that's only another survival technique :wink:



Lintar wrote:
'Cybernetic' perspective?! Contrary to what many believe today, we are not machines. Machines do not reproduce, they are not self-aware, sentient, can only do what we programme them to do, can be disassembled and reassembled at will and still work perfectly, they cannot create anything new unless we specifically use them - as a tool - to do such. I could go on and on here. The dissimilarities between lifeforms and machines are too numerous to list, so I fail to see how a 'cybernetic perspective' can offer anything of value to understanding who we are and why.



I interpret "Cybernetic' perspective" as just looking at life objectively without the interference of humans' subjective look on what their purposes are.


Lintar wrote:
I've been going over this article, and it is (I have to be honest) completely over-the-top and ludicrous. Who wrote it? It contains so many baseless assumptions about the nature of humanity that, as a potential insight into it, it is completely worthless. I'm sorry for being so blunt, but it is really bad.


Here it is,

http://taxwar.net/the-meaning-of-life-a ... SjGh6KN6uI



qawer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,424

23 Feb 2013, 9:07 am

nessa238 wrote:
You're talking about true altruism, which it is in dispute about whether it exists

....

A fascinating man but his life shows that if you try and take altruism to the ultimate extreme it won't have a happy ending


I'd just like that life also rewarded true altruism :thumright:



qawer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,424

23 Feb 2013, 9:11 am

nessa238 wrote:
A certain amount of self-interest is healthy in my opinion, otherwise you'd end up giving everything you had away and end up homeless


Exactly! I'd say that nature teaches us that self-interest in the end is the only thing that is healthy. That is the fact I find sad.



Last edited by qawer on 23 Feb 2013, 9:25 am, edited 2 times in total.

nessa238
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jul 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,908
Location: UK

23 Feb 2013, 9:23 am

qawer wrote:
nessa238 wrote:
A certain amount of self-interest is healthy in my opinion, otherwise you'd end up giving everything you had away and end up homeless


Exactly! I'd say that nature teaches us that self-interest in the end is the only thing that is healthy. That is the fact I find sad.


No you can have a mixture of self-interest and altruism in my opinion - it doesn't have to be one or the other

They've proved a certain level of altruism does occur, but it is mainly to ensure a person's genes get passed on
but can also be seen as looking out for the genes of your own species as opposed to those of other species so ultimately
in that respect it could still be seen as self-interest depending on how precisely you want to define it all.



qawer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,424

23 Feb 2013, 9:29 am

nessa238 wrote:
qawer wrote:
nessa238 wrote:
A certain amount of self-interest is healthy in my opinion, otherwise you'd end up giving everything you had away and end up homeless


Exactly! I'd say that nature teaches us that self-interest in the end is the only thing that is healthy. That is the fact I find sad.


No you can have a mixture of self-interest and altruism in my opinion - it doesn't have to be one or the other

They've proved a certain level of altruism does occur, but it is mainly to ensure a person's genes get passed on
but can also be seen as looking out for the genes of your own species as opposed to those of other species so ultimately
in that respect it could still be seen as self-interest depending on how precisely you want to define it all.


I believe that's where it's heading -> in the end it really is self-interest.

One could surely have a mixture of self-interest and altruism...in that case you'll experience a mix of reward and punishment from nature...



nessa238
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jul 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,908
Location: UK

23 Feb 2013, 9:36 am

qawer wrote:
nessa238 wrote:
qawer wrote:
nessa238 wrote:
A certain amount of self-interest is healthy in my opinion, otherwise you'd end up giving everything you had away and end up homeless


Exactly! I'd say that nature teaches us that self-interest in the end is the only thing that is healthy. That is the fact I find sad.


No you can have a mixture of self-interest and altruism in my opinion - it doesn't have to be one or the other

They've proved a certain level of altruism does occur, but it is mainly to ensure a person's genes get passed on
but can also be seen as looking out for the genes of your own species as opposed to those of other species so ultimately
in that respect it could still be seen as self-interest depending on how precisely you want to define it all.


I believe that's where it's heading -> in the end it really is self-interest.

One could surely have a mixture of self-interest and altruism...in that case you'll experience a mix of reward and punishment from nature...


Lol yes - I'm living proof of the punishment you get from being too generous to people who give little to nothing back in return!

It makes you feel devalued and depressed!

I think this is a major cause of depression - people not getting an equal amount back out from what they put in



qawer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,424

23 Feb 2013, 9:39 am

It will obviously be difficult to convince people that there only is self-perpetuation, because that is to tell them their illusion of a true purpose of their lives other than self-perpetuation only is an illusion. It might be perceived as offensive.

But what the h***, fighting for our survival is important enough anyway! :thumleft: :wtg:



nessa238
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jul 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,908
Location: UK

23 Feb 2013, 9:43 am

qawer wrote:
It will obviously be difficult to convince people that there only is self-perpetuation, because that is to tell them their illusion of a true purpose of their lives other than self-perpetuation only is an illusion. It might be perceived as offensive.

But what the h***, fighting for our survival is important enough anyway! :thumleft: :wtg:


Exactly

None of us would be here if our ancestors hadn't had sufficient self-interest

and as I don't want children, I evidently don't have enough self-interest to perpetuate my genetic line

I am more altruistic than self-interested and this has mitigated against me getting to pass on my genes

it's frightening to see it all proving itself!



qawer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,424

23 Feb 2013, 9:44 am

nessa238 wrote:
qawer wrote:
nessa238 wrote:
qawer wrote:
nessa238 wrote:
A certain amount of self-interest is healthy in my opinion, otherwise you'd end up giving everything you had away and end up homeless


Exactly! I'd say that nature teaches us that self-interest in the end is the only thing that is healthy. That is the fact I find sad.


No you can have a mixture of self-interest and altruism in my opinion - it doesn't have to be one or the other

They've proved a certain level of altruism does occur, but it is mainly to ensure a person's genes get passed on
but can also be seen as looking out for the genes of your own species as opposed to those of other species so ultimately
in that respect it could still be seen as self-interest depending on how precisely you want to define it all.


I believe that's where it's heading -> in the end it really is self-interest.

One could surely have a mixture of self-interest and altruism...in that case you'll experience a mix of reward and punishment from nature...


Lol yes - I'm living proof of the punishment you get from being too generous to people who give little to nothing back in return!

It makes you feel devalued and depressed!

I think this is a major cause of depression - people not getting an equal amount back out from what they put in



Yes, depression is a common punishment from nature's side. Sorry to hear that :(

On the other hand, I really like you very much for being your generous you, you know :wink: ,,,,screw nature :D



qawer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,424

23 Feb 2013, 9:50 am

nessa238 wrote:
qawer wrote:
It will obviously be difficult to convince people that there only is self-perpetuation, because that is to tell them their illusion of a true purpose of their lives other than self-perpetuation only is an illusion. It might be perceived as offensive.

But what the h***, fighting for our survival is important enough anyway! :thumleft: :wtg:


Exactly

None of us would be here if our ancestors hadn't had sufficient self-interest

and as I don't want children, I evidently don't have enough self-interest to perpetuate my genetic line

I am more altruistic than self-interested and this has mitigated against me getting to pass on my genes

it's frightening to see it all proving itself!



And that's the big problem. Your genes should be worshipped according to me. Nature is wrong.

I agree, it is frightening to see how everything proves itself in real life.



nessa238
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jul 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,908
Location: UK

23 Feb 2013, 9:50 am

qawer wrote:
nessa238 wrote:
qawer wrote:
nessa238 wrote:
qawer wrote:
nessa238 wrote:
A certain amount of self-interest is healthy in my opinion, otherwise you'd end up giving everything you had away and end up homeless


Exactly! I'd say that nature teaches us that self-interest in the end is the only thing that is healthy. That is the fact I find sad.


No you can have a mixture of self-interest and altruism in my opinion - it doesn't have to be one or the other

They've proved a certain level of altruism does occur, but it is mainly to ensure a person's genes get passed on
but can also be seen as looking out for the genes of your own species as opposed to those of other species so ultimately
in that respect it could still be seen as self-interest depending on how precisely you want to define it all.


I believe that's where it's heading -> in the end it really is self-interest.

One could surely have a mixture of self-interest and altruism...in that case you'll experience a mix of reward and punishment from nature...


Lol yes - I'm living proof of the punishment you get from being too generous to people who give little to nothing back in return!

It makes you feel devalued and depressed!

I think this is a major cause of depression - people not getting an equal amount back out from what they put in



Yes, depression is a common punishment from nature's side. Sorry to hear that :(

On the other hand, I really like you very much for being your generous you, you know :wink: ,,,,screw nature :D


Lol

It's no easy way to be I can tell you!

I've had to cut my losses with the person I was seeing as it was unremitting taking and giving nothing back!

No one but a fool would continue along that route but Christianity would have me doing just that!



Dragoness
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 375

23 Feb 2013, 10:52 am

Lintar wrote:
The title - 'The Meaning of Life and the Secret of Happiness' - has the underlying assumption built into it that there is ONLY one meaning, and one secret. I'm sure I'm correct when I say that, for each and every individual, 'the Secret of Happiness' will be different, depending on their specific circumstances.


You have a very good point, and I agree with you.



Dragoness
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 375

23 Feb 2013, 10:54 am

qawer wrote:
It will obviously be difficult to convince people that there only is self-perpetuation, because that is to tell them their illusion of a true purpose of their lives other than self-perpetuation only is an illusion. It might be perceived as offensive.


That's why you've had so many people arguing with you on this thread.