Gendanken said:
Stoopid metaphor: Freezing of guilt is only possible in the icy, abstract cool of language.
Stoopid? Doth she offend me? Or is it like phat? Doesn't seem as though she disagrees... Hmm. /*Edit: Duh! I get it. You were referring to
your metaphor. Well, freezing of guilt was yours too. I think. Did you come up with it or did I? I know I came up with at least one coinage in that thread... Can't remember which it was... Regardless. I think this is the first self-disparaging comment I've seen you make. Your ban must have really changed you.
Snap out of it, woman!!
*/
Anyway, this reminds me of an episode of south park where the townsfolk wanted to release a convicted baby-killer from prison so they thought they'd go the governor and cool his hot heart with a cool island song. Or was it thaw his cold heart with a warm island song? The question was theirs, not mine. I'm sure you see what I'm talking about.
You're telling me you actually believe altruism possible?
I'd... like to. But, I subscribe to the belief that there is no truly unselfish act.
I didn't mean by my original statement to imply that I did. I should have said reciprocal altruism. And when the psyche is twisted later in social development, reciprocal altruism is capable of greater and greater acts of seeming altruism. Yet, it's still selfish in the end. Our self-image depends on those selfless acts. We could not live with ourselves otherwise.
A common argument against this philosophy is in those sudden acts of bravery. The one where thought is not ivolved. "Look," they say, "Look. He leaps into the burning building to save his dog. And afterwards he said he doesn't know why he did it. He didn't even think. An unselfish act. Truly unselfish." The thing about this argument is that it is enacted by the limbic system. It is emotional and tied to highly emotional associations. The body acts as it will and often we must rationalize our own behavior to ourselves. This instance is no different. And it is selfish, the rush of adrenaline and endorphins from the act thrill the body. The chemicals that imbue tragedy and loss spur us on. And, it is still tied into the upper brain functions despite the limbic system base of operations.
Whitewolf said:
I abhor this. This is where all the obligations come from.
What can you do? Thus is the social contract.
Is it possible for one to do something and expect nothing in return from other people?
Depends on the level of abstraction, doesn't it? Take the early humans and apes. I've mentioned how those who can't spot cheaters wouldn't succeed as well as those who can. What about those who purposefully don't look for cheaters. That's what someone who expects no return is doing. They are purposefully not looking for cheaters. Evolutionarily speaking, I can't imagine they'd do well.
Perhaps patting oneself on the head is enough. How about doing something for no reward at all, only knowing that another person is in need? Is that possible?
I'm sure you've heard this philosophy before. It's not unique. And it's not even unusual anymore.
We have a self-image. If we fail to save the drowning child then we couldn't live with ourselves. There's the payoff. We have moved beyond the instinct for survival. Able to sublimate it.
But, if there is a race of martyrs, who will their descendants be? I suppose there must be some individuals who cheat. Who don't martyr themselves. Who play the game and allow others to martyr themselves while the cheaters get the gold.
See what I mean? Evolutionarily speaking who wins? The altruistic? The cheater? Or the reciprocally altruistic? In which circumstances does one succeed over another? Which is the best overall for the advancement of the species?
