Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (60331)	9/30/2002 4:25:46 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Of course it matters. People do things to feel good about themselves. If it feels good to do something that does not "appear" self interested, that in itself is an immense ego boost to the self. That is why people talk about the "good" they do. They are gratified by their improved image of themselves, and they are further gratified by sharing that image. Very self gratifying, very self interested. Not that there is anything wrong with that. It runs the world, imo.

To: Neocon who wrote (60331)	9/30/2002 6:36:51 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Well, we disagree here. I'm not sure how we can resovle this. But I think throwing oneself on a grenade is, in the end, a matter of self-interest. Perhaps we disagree because we have different definitions of self-interest, yours narrower than mine. I think altruism is motivated by self-interest, for example.

To: Neocon who wrote (60331)	10/7/2002 2:03:17 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

"Yet the reductionist asserts that because we feel like doing them, they must, ultimately be self- interested. That is nonsense." That is incorrect. Understanding the essential nature of human interaction as being a function of self interest is not in the least reductionistic; whereas, reducing the complexity of self interest to "duties" invented for the cause of social control and power is indeed reductionistic. I do not object to it on that basis: reductionism is a valuable methodology; however, it may be objected to on the basis that it is antithetical to the emancipation of the individual from totalitarian control, and therefore dismissive of democratic concepts and trivializing of the ideas of freedoms, rights, free will, and responsibility. Your assertions rest on unwarranted assumptions which are themselves based on old fashioned and fanciful ideas. Certainly, it is ALL self interest. To claim that the self can be disinterested or unaffected about anything in which it may be assessed is specious. And to confuse self interest in general with its immature and neurotic form--SELF CENTEREDNESS--is careless. Everything is in relationship with everything else; and every conscious creature acts to affect the nature of reality en toto. If I move a rock I have changed where birds land, where badgers dig, where water flows and accumulates, where mosquitos breed, etc.--Ad Infinitum. I relate to all things even if the relationship is one of disinterest or ignorance. These, too, are ways of relating. When I act to value something it is ALWAYS because that act supports what I believe at that moment. The proof that what I value or believe resides within my self interest rather than in the external object is that I can change my mind and act to repudiate the particular act later, or abstain from the original intention. The object had not changed; what had changed was internal, and strictly a consequence of how the self assessed its own interest in the particular relationship. If it was not a matter of self interest there could be no basis to reconsider the act. If one recognizes that the self is in relationship with everything else then one recognizes that all acts are selfish because the relationship informs the interaction and the interaction only takes place if it includes the self. At the highest levels "self interest" encompasses a rational regard for all creatures in our environment. The modern concern with habitat, ecology, and so forth springs from a more profound realization of the interconnectedness of all things and the mutual interdependence which binds people to equality of treatment in matters of rights and freedoms. The discovery that people had "rights", or that skin colour was not a moral quality likewise waited on a higher order of conceptualizing how self interest involves the entire reach of consciousness and reason. Though we may view the self within certain physical parameters; in reality the "interest" of the self is without limitation or boundary. Therefore self interest is always that in which the self has interest. How the self values is generally a function of attachment (either rational or passionate) and it always involves some relational reciprocity because the self cannot RELATE actively to an OTHER without experiencing the self interested MOTIVE of that relationship. The interest of the self is always interpreted in RELATIONSHIP to others. It is the rational level of this interpretation together with the empathic reach of the individual which will determine the nature of that interest and the bias intrinsic to it. Thus the concern for the life of a stranger would rarely rise to the level of concern for a loved one unless the individual had internalized a rather neurotic and unhealthy belief system which removed from him the ability to assess, judge, or value rationally (or unles the individual had reached some higher plane of impartiality...if such is indeed higher than passion which I doubt). People like Dahmler had no empathic reach, so their "self interest" could not encompass the feelings of others or their rational value, and thus remained merely self CENTERED. In Dahmler's case he tried to physically incorporate others into "physical self" so that he would have a "felt" relationship to something in his environment. Self interest infuses all your relationships--whether with people, things, or Institutions. It is always a weighing of ones attachments to others and to the system (and if you like you can use the word "duty", but it is really quite meaningless). People are always in control of themselves to the point where outside force is brought against them; so only those who are motivated by control over others have any need to yammer about "duty"--which is strictly a word designed to channel (or subjugate) the self interest of individuals into the "SELF INTEREST" of the SOCIAL GROUP.