Should I Be Selfish?
These days, it seems the only people with whom I am able to discuss philosophy are Christians and Mormons. For all of their delusions, at least these people are willing to have philosophical conversations, and as I am a bit starved for these kinds of discussions I have been attending a house church and inviting Mormons into my home.
These recent moves have satisfied my need to be challenged on some of my philosophical stances, which is why I attend the house church. So far, I've attended three, our hours sessions and I must say that I'm pleased with the mental stimulation that these meetings provide. It is not that I expect Christians in general would be able to challenge me, but that this particular house church is made up of seminary professors, students and hardcore intellectuals. I'm fascinated by how these well educated people can embrace something as narrow as Christianity. One answer has already presented itself. These people have little to no knowlefe of any other philosophy. They are well educated, but have only really studied Christianity. I noticed one professor has nothing but Christian books on her bookself. Wait there was a copy of Anna Karinina too.
As the only nonchristian in the group of around 12, I have plenty of challenges. As I expected, none of these challenges have changed the way I think yet, but it has been fun watching the Christians get worked up when I connect what we are studying in the bible to Taoism or existential philosophy.
The few that are able to keep up with my connections (by few I mean two or three), say that Christianity encompasses all other philosophies rather than merely being part and parcel as I tried to point out.
Last Sunday I introduced to them the idea that one must first be selfish, before one can be beneficial to humankind in any real way. They did not like that word, "selfish," at all.
One argument they presented was that an author who only writes for himself does not benefit anyone but himself. That produced an Iceman "Well..." Of course I brought up Kafka, and how he only wrote for himself, by himself, and how he was the best writer in the world because of it (in my opinion of course). I went on to say that people who are not initially selfish are hollow followers who have no authenticity and therefore are good to no one except tyrannical dictators like god seems to be in the old testament. Then I pointed out how paranoid Moses and his followers always are because people are being swallowed up by the earth for worshiping other gods, being impaled in the sun for fornication with the women of Moab, being stoned to death for picking up sticks on the Sabbath etc.
I think one of the biggest, maybe the biggest problem with humanity is that most people are afraid to be selfish. One German woman in the group actually agreed with that. She is the wife of a seminary professor, and she agrees with me more than anyone. She said that it is easier to blame failure on people who told you what you should do rather than to blame ourselves for failing at what we alone decided we should do.
Speaking of "should." I told them that "should" is only respected by the fearful and insecure, which is what Pollo, X and I came up with over winter break in PR. They are still having a rough time with that one. None of them have been able to articulate why that quote is untrue, but yet they say that it is. This is where I brought in "The Grand Inquisitor," which NONE of them had read or heard of. Wow, I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but I thought Dostoyevsky was required reading for Theology majors.
One last comment. These people of whom I speak are extremely open-minded (for Christians)and genuinely friendly. They would have to be to allow me to be a part of their group. If any of the members stumble onto this blog, I really hope they are not offended, for that was not my intention when writing this. My intention was to perhaps provoke some discussion from my brothers, the average dudes.
Analysis:
Christians loath the word "selfish," while embracing the word "should."
P.S. Only two members have left after I began attending.
These recent moves have satisfied my need to be challenged on some of my philosophical stances, which is why I attend the house church. So far, I've attended three, our hours sessions and I must say that I'm pleased with the mental stimulation that these meetings provide. It is not that I expect Christians in general would be able to challenge me, but that this particular house church is made up of seminary professors, students and hardcore intellectuals. I'm fascinated by how these well educated people can embrace something as narrow as Christianity. One answer has already presented itself. These people have little to no knowlefe of any other philosophy. They are well educated, but have only really studied Christianity. I noticed one professor has nothing but Christian books on her bookself. Wait there was a copy of Anna Karinina too.
As the only nonchristian in the group of around 12, I have plenty of challenges. As I expected, none of these challenges have changed the way I think yet, but it has been fun watching the Christians get worked up when I connect what we are studying in the bible to Taoism or existential philosophy.
The few that are able to keep up with my connections (by few I mean two or three), say that Christianity encompasses all other philosophies rather than merely being part and parcel as I tried to point out.
Last Sunday I introduced to them the idea that one must first be selfish, before one can be beneficial to humankind in any real way. They did not like that word, "selfish," at all.
One argument they presented was that an author who only writes for himself does not benefit anyone but himself. That produced an Iceman "Well..." Of course I brought up Kafka, and how he only wrote for himself, by himself, and how he was the best writer in the world because of it (in my opinion of course). I went on to say that people who are not initially selfish are hollow followers who have no authenticity and therefore are good to no one except tyrannical dictators like god seems to be in the old testament. Then I pointed out how paranoid Moses and his followers always are because people are being swallowed up by the earth for worshiping other gods, being impaled in the sun for fornication with the women of Moab, being stoned to death for picking up sticks on the Sabbath etc.
I think one of the biggest, maybe the biggest problem with humanity is that most people are afraid to be selfish. One German woman in the group actually agreed with that. She is the wife of a seminary professor, and she agrees with me more than anyone. She said that it is easier to blame failure on people who told you what you should do rather than to blame ourselves for failing at what we alone decided we should do.
Speaking of "should." I told them that "should" is only respected by the fearful and insecure, which is what Pollo, X and I came up with over winter break in PR. They are still having a rough time with that one. None of them have been able to articulate why that quote is untrue, but yet they say that it is. This is where I brought in "The Grand Inquisitor," which NONE of them had read or heard of. Wow, I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but I thought Dostoyevsky was required reading for Theology majors.
One last comment. These people of whom I speak are extremely open-minded (for Christians)and genuinely friendly. They would have to be to allow me to be a part of their group. If any of the members stumble onto this blog, I really hope they are not offended, for that was not my intention when writing this. My intention was to perhaps provoke some discussion from my brothers, the average dudes.
Analysis:
Christians loath the word "selfish," while embracing the word "should."
P.S. Only two members have left after I began attending.
posted by Iceman at 11:26 AM
26 Comments:
"Confucians, along with Hebrew, Islamic, and Catholic scholastics, as well as protestant fundamentalists, are like tourists who study guidebooks and maps instead of wandering freely and looking at the view."
-Alan Watts
"The hens in a hundred hen yards complained in placid voices of their evil lot."
-John Steinbeck, Tortilla Flat
"99.9 per cent of every thing you think, and every thing you do, is for yourself - and there isn't one."
-Wei Wu Wei
"I am everything because no thing is what I am."
-Wei Wu Wei
"What you are looking for is what is looking."
-St. Francis of Assisi
"Play your part in the comedy, but don't identify yourself with the role."
-Wei Wu Wei
"Freedom ain't for the lazy or the overly motivated too."
-Shag
"The Tao that can be spoken ain't the one that gets used."
-Shag on Lao Tzu
"Herpes is forever."
-Anonymous, or unbeknowst to I as me or you
"Man is the origin of Man"
-Sarte, Jean Paul
" ...girls..."
-Beasty Boys
"Relatively regarded, every sentient being must be an incarnation of God. Absolutely, every sentient being can only be whatever God is."
-Wei Wu Wei
"Goddamn well I declare, have you seen the like..."
-Grateful Dead
"I am what remains when the last thing, the ultimate object, is denied."
-Wei Wu Wei
"Denied access!"
-Ed
"...and that's to be no pullsit!"
-Old Finlander, most likely
once again we must look at how the collective mine defines, or trivializes the word 'selfish'. if one relates to one's self in relation to one self, despair may be recognized and or acknowledged...then and only then can the possibility of being, existing authentically, be tangible. otherwise you,re left not wanting to be who you are, or wanting and unable to become who you are...and furthermore, even if there exist a fixed objective and a concrete, overt meaning to this cycle called life, without a relationship to one's self relative to one's self nothing can possibly be achieved towards that invisible goal. so, even if some do cite the presence of human essence (or human nature) that preceeds human existence (as do xtians), the neccesity of "selfishness" is unshakable...
but, and a big butt it usually is,
the word is reduced to taking the bigger part of the wad for herself....phaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack
Pollo, if I'm catching your drift you are talking about first realizing the absurdity of existence before being able to create an authentically meaninful one right?
but if that is what Pollo means (how Iceman summed it)then how could it be possible to create something authentic out of something that is authentically absurb and thus meaningless or even non-existent?
I think Pollo is right in that the "collective mine" (I like that chicken) conceptualises selfishness in such a way as to effectively render it (selfishness) its complete opposite and thus "trivialises" it.
the collective mine will do anything to preserve the self, they enforce the preservation of the self, selflessness is punished by destruction or exile from the kingdom, the self is revered above all other concepts and is thus defined and set in stone...the ultimate expression of selfishness!
meanwhile back at the batcave: the individual expressed as authentic self, the one self, the true self cannot be denied (only exiled or destroyed), and thus remains as what is termed selfish as it is in essence the only tru expression of what we all are...perhaps the most unselfish thing of all.
yes ice, you got my drift.
and yes ed. you are correct. you have arrived at the desired point...the answer lies in one of iceman's favorite quotes by sartre..
Man is the origin of man.
so boys,
it is all you! you get to decide what it is all about..
some folks consider the following a death sentence (which it is)...as you get to decide the meaning and the worth, you also carry the responsibility of being your own judge. What a deal! you get to, ultimately, judge yourself!
by the way, for those readers who choose otherwise, i know of a talking monkey that is giving out free passes to the Bridge of No Hope...
Yeah, I didn't see ed's conclusion as a contradiction either.
Somewhere in my Marxoid history I recall something to the effect that man created god in his own image. Look into the mirror Don Quixote who do you see? God can look really fucked up first thing in the morning. I am not much of a philosopher instead I offer the maxim: "Philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it."Karl Marx "Theses On Feurbach"
Somewhere in my Marxoid history I recall something to the effect that man created god in his own image. Look into the mirror Don Quixote who do you see? God can look really fucked up first thing in the morning. I am not much of a philosopher instead I offer the maxim: "Philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it."Karl Marx "Theses On Feurbach"
Hopefully those who attempt to change the world know themselves and the world
well. Unfortunately, this has seldom been the case in the past. It is almost as though philosophers are necessary to change the world.
Ironically, Marx, himself was a philosopher.
Good point about Don Quixote. It's funny how the same people (xtians, specifically) who believe that man was made in the image of god, refuse to see the ugly and weak side of god.
I contend that we need to examine the ascertion that it is necessary to change the world or even care. If we create our own meaning then that meaning is only relative and applicable to the we that are doing the creating. Thus in the context of any other we our meaning would be meaningless. Therefore, if all meanings are mutually negating (i.e. meaningless) how can it possible matter what we do unless it is in direct relation to the meaning established by the collective mine?
In a nutshell: if good and evil are relative concepts with relative meaning they as concepts are meaningless - there is no absolute truth and thus no need to change the world or do anything.
stating that there is no absolute truth is an assertion of an absolute truth. and yes, it is all relative. so, once again you are free to create your own meaning an act accordingly.
changing the world, or changing the way in which one, as an individual interacts with the world. the world changes on its own. it appears that humans are just a cancer.
Chemotherapy for humanity!
I agree that stating that there is no absolute truth is an ascertion of absolute truth just as stating that we are free to create our own meaning and act accordingly is also an ascertion that we are not free to create our own meaning and act accordingly. It's somewhat absurd, from my limited point of view to quantify or qualify what we are talking about with language in the first place...but we need to to communicated this way.
What I am trying to get at is that meaning, whether created by you or for you (by the collective mine), is meaningless. Freedom doesn't exist. All conceptual states of "being" are bondage, servitude and slavery to our own relative concept of "reality"...why? Because they don't exist except in the mind.
So, the question remains. I do not question that humans appear to you (and perhaps others) as a cancer. But, you see cancer and Joe sees the cure (what you meant by creating our own meaning?). The "reality" would seem to be that any meaning you create, are free to create, is meaningless and therefore existentially "pointless". So by creating your own meaning you are just doing exactly what the collective mine are doing except that you may not (or may) be forcing it upon others like is commonly done by the collective. It's kinda like how communism started out as a pure and humanistic concept and then turned into an "evil" expression of collective mine.
I guess what I am meandering to say is that we can create meaning but only so that we can delude ourselves from the "truth" long enough to live then die. No one truth is any better than another.
I suppose this brings us to Camus' ultimate philosophical question:
Do we commit suicide or no?
In conjunction with that question I'd like to add: why do you do the "good" things that you do? (i.e. if everything is meaningless or just meaning created by each individual, why not just kill, fuck, and steal everything in your path - why not extreme hedonism?)
...once again in a nutshell: are the things "you" do conditioned or "authentic"? How can you tell? Are you being experienced? Or are you the experiencing?
And by "you" I don't necessarily mean you Pollo or ICE or OSO or ME...I mean "I" for all.
Oh, one last thing (sorry): I don't know if I think the world changes on its own, that would imply that there actually is a world outside of our own conceptual experience of a world. Okay I'm done.
Cuz Ed, you sound like someone who did not appreciate the philosophy behind The Fountainhead. Do you disagree with the six tenets of Objectivism? They are very similar to the tenets of Existentialism and Taoism. In fact, they are all connected as I see it.
Howard Roark was created to represent the superman as Nietzchse commonly referred to it.
Your pontifications sound a bit nihilistic, which is cool if you're into marmots and Jack Daniels.
again,
you are your own judge. punto final. if you cannot sleep at night due to your relation to yourself, try religion, or again, i know a monkey with free passes to the Bridge of No Hope.
"So by creating your own meaning you are just doing exactly what the collective mine are doing except that you may not (or may) be forcing it upon others like is commonly done by the collective. "
..exactly the same thing EXCEPT THAT YOU MAY.....BE FORCING IT UPON OTHERS...holy schnikees...not the same thing at all....
and, i agree with Ed's questioning about language....language is our attempt to communicate thought...but it is only an attempt..take the dictionary for example..just a big circle of words...
i cannot remember who said it.."doctors and poets have a lot in common..."
Cuz Ed, judging by your sarcastic tone, I think it is safe to say you are not a nihilist. Too bad, because I thought I was going to have an interesting weekend following you around.
Are you a relativist then? No absolutes and all that?
I teach Objectivism today. It seems a bit too objective for my tastes. I agree with everything except its rejection of intuition and universal forces beyond our understanding.
Objectivism is also stresses NOT TO IMPOSE ONE'S BELIEFS ONTO OTHERS. Nor does it respect the word, "should." Which is what I like about it.
ice,
thanks for a brief intro to objectivism...i will reread fountainhead, as i read it 20 years ago and have changed a bit since then, like it or not..the name is a bit of a turn off, but i am beginning to see that i am attempting to cast judgement based on a title..for shame!
elimating the word "should" from my vocab., which i have been thinking about even prePR, is no easy task...you have to be conscious of what you say...and, consciousness can be a painful road to authentic happiness, and authentic suffering..
how is Rand received by you students....
Last night I had a dream that there were assassins after me, because I was teaching Rand.
Then in the same dream 3/4 of my students bailed out of my classroom, while I was teaching Rand.
The reality is quite different, however. My students are more engaged than I've seen them so far this semester. Anthem is blowing their minds.
I had an intense discussion with Cuz Ed last night about Wei Wu Wie or whaterver that dude's name is. Cuz Ed made his point clear with some good analogies. I'm still thinking about it.
Have any of you ever seen the movie Waking Life? I highly recommend it. Cuz Ed took it home with him last night. I'm sure we'll hear from him soon.
If there was anything to hear, you'd most likely hear it...and soon no doubt.
I am too a nihilist Ice, goddamn right! I'd piss on an electric fence again, just to smite yah!
"..exactly the same thing EXCEPT THAT YOU MAY.....BE FORCING IT UPON OTHERS...holy schnikees...not the same thing at all...."
Si, I believe that it is the same thing...absolutely and completely.
A concept of meaning, whether your's only not forced on others or that forced upon you or others, is nothing but a concept and thus -nothing...it's all mental slavery...and we are all slaves to our concepts for better or worse.
What's next?
I'll tell you what's next Cuz Ed, the continual persuit of the same thing. But I guess it was a rhetorical question wasn't it?
The human drama continues. If it did not, Shakespeare would have only written one play, and Steini one novel. Yes a worthy comparison.
I think I understand your point about how the self doesn't exist, but I just have one question for you Ed, when you beat off, who feels the orgasm?
mental slavery... you are your own master as well...not so easy...but it sure is pretty to think so.
"Ed, when you beat off, who feels the orgasm?"
I think I do, but really we all do.
This is not a rhetorical question: why do you think the human drama continues?
Pollo, I'm not sure if you know what I am saying or not. I really don't know. Basically, I am saying that all knowledge, concepts, philosophies, et al only exist in the past. As soon as we have a thought it is dead. OUr thoughts, beliefs, knowledge, philosophies, meaning is all but a memory or recollection. OUr attachment to these above mentioned things is what gives us pleasure and despair. Pleasure when we get to have the things that we remember liking (and thus wanting), despair when we don't. It is that way because we are living in thought rather than in the moment, spontaneously...perhaps authentically. We all are attached to one or more concepts that if lost completely would cause us despair. Fear is the usually response to such thought stimuli. If we had no thought, we'd have no fear, loathing or despair...would that be pleasurable? Only if we were indifferent to the concept (or idea) of it being pleasurable.
So, creating our own meaning is no different than having someone else create it for us. Being our own judge is no different than being judged by someone else. Unless your mind is still, thoughts mere passing clouds in the sky of consciousness, you are experiencing illusion...or Maya as the Hindus call it.
Conceptually speaking, and from my own perspective, if there were any "path" or "way" to enlightenment (which we all seek aware of it or not), existentialism (or any other ism, ist, ian, et al) would be nothing but a bar upon the side of the road into which we stumble...eventually one must amble on or just stay drinking mass quantities until they kick you out. That's what I mean by what's next. What's next?
Why do we study concepts? So that someday we won't need any.
Prefixes and suffixes have killed more people than all word roots combined.
Communism baffles me. How does a commune become and ism?
Cast away the illusions of time and you shall achieve perpetual continutiy. -Iceman
"mental slavery... you are your own master as well...not so easy...but it sure is pretty to think so. "
you're right, it sure is pretty to think so.
Post a Comment
<< Home