Is there such thing as a truly selfless act?

[Solar Eclipse]

o.k. so now there are solid arguments for and against selfish actions. I think that there are selfish actions but not all actions are selfish. is this agreeable?

 

[LightbulbSun]

o.k. so now there are solid arguments for and against selfish actions. I think that there are selfish actions but not all actions are selfish. is this agreeable?

What actions do you consider "not selfish?"

 

[JUSTANAME]

Self is what is progating on this thread. Not selfless. The need to be right is not a selfless act. What occurs is going after a poisition on a thread to attempt to be the big dog.

To understand the question and the answer you must enter a relm you don't even know exists. You must pay the price to climb the mountain. You cannot say it exists or does not exist through the words of a book or the eyes of another.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Self is what is progating on this thread. Not selfless. The need to be right is not a selfless act. What occurs is going after a poisition on a thread to attempt to be the big dog.

This is not what's happening. This is a classic case of simple reasoning.

To understand the question and the answer you must enter a relm you don't even know exists. You must pay the price to climb the mountain. You cannot say it exists or does not exist through the words of a book or the eyes of another.

To understand any question and the answer you must constantly use the terms "realm" and "beyond our existence" to get everything all entangled to the point of debating becomes useless. You cannot say it exists within this current realm because anecdotes are the gospel, and I'm anti-intellectual.

 

[JUSTANAME]

If one wishes to make an discussion, one should place forth the limiting parameters of the system. Self is the topic. To be selfless. Hmm... So what is the self. What will your answer be? Will it be quoted from a book? 10 books? 100? 1000? What is it? Read it? Tell me what it is. LOL...

Self? Who will define it for me? Maybe it would be the Cocaine addict Fred? Fraud? Frued that's it. LOL Maybe it will be some professor who loves to write paper upon paper to justify his position of academia and has long forgotten the soul of truth or the hope of its understanding. Maybe. maybe. maybe...

What is self? Please use the sum of your experience and not someone elses. What are it's defining characteristics? Does it have limits? What are they? What is the function of the system? How did this system arise? After you have defined self, what systems does it apply to? What characteristics must that system have? Yada yada yada...

 

[LightbulbSun]

Self? Who will define it for me? Maybe it would be the Cocaine addict Fred? Fraud? Frued that's it. LOL Maybe it will be some professor who loves to write paper upon paper to justify his position of academia and has long forgotten the soul of truth or the hope of its understanding. Maybe. maybe. maybe...

Wait a minute, are you seriously contending that academia is hindering the truth?

What is self? Please use the sum of your experience and not someone elses. What are it's defining characteristics? Does it have limits? What are they? What is the function of the system? How did this system arise? After you have defined self, what systems does it apply to? What characteristics must that system have? Yada yada yada...

Can you give me an example of a truly 'selfless' act?

 

[baywax]

ok. so suicide isn't a gene. does that mean it violates the laws baywax stated and is indeed a selfish act?

There will always be the perception that someone committed suicide in a selfish act. The actual causes can probably be traced back to some factor that can be described by "Chaos Theory". This type of perception takes the decisions out of our hands and attributes them to the laws of nature. That's what I was proposing but I don't know if its a truth or not.

The only way I could know if determinism and the laws of nature govern our actions is by me personally knowing every event that takes place in the universe during all time and being able to observe the synergistic links between each of these events.

It would be another thread to discuss if that is possible.

 

[LightbulbSun]

I don't do it to stop her from asking for food.

I don't feel good about feeding her. I do it without even thinking. I see an empty bowl and I fill it.
While I understand the whole "habit fulfillment" thing being considered selfish in some way, isn't it really a subconscious selfishness? Can that even be considered selfish?

I guess I think its all up to semantics. Selfish in my book means a primary concern for ones self. Actions that just happen to benefit you without consideration I do not deem selfish.
I do not feed my cat to feel happy about myself. I may do it so she doesn't starve. The fact that I MAY feel happy about it (or may not) is inconsequential. It was not the REASON the act was performed.

But if you don't care for it, the cat will end up dieing and won't you feel regret from it?

 

[robertm]

It is impossible to be involved in anything physically without involving yourself. So no you can't do anything 'sans the self'. However this thread is pretty pointless because the question is one of semantics, and semantics are notoriously difficult...ie... 9 pages and over 3,000 views.

 

[baywax]

It is impossible to be involved in anything physically without involving yourself. So no you can't do anything 'sans the self'. However this thread is pretty pointless because the question is one of semantics, and semantics are notoriously difficult...ie... 9 pages and over 3,000 views.

Lao Tzu would say:

“All difficult things have their origin in that which is easy, and great things in that which is small.”

and

"Do the difficult things while they are easy and do the great things while they are small. A journey of a thousand miles must begin with a single step."

Josh Billings would say:

"It's not only the most difficult thing to know one's self, but the most inconvenient."

Shakespeare wrote:

"Our doubts are traitors,
and make us lose the good
we oft might win,
by fearing to attempt."

and

Seneca said:

"It is not that things are difficult that we do not dare;
it is because we do not dare that things are difficult."

 

[cristo]

I think if this question hasn't been answered yet, it never will be!