Philosophy Now Forum

in that case henery it aint love.love is sacrafice

"Sacrifice" is altruism which is a lie (told to others or one's self), or an insanity.

Henry,

Do you know why charity is a gift beyond faith ? Charity is the greatest gift, because:

• the one who is properly charitable - as he don't show his charity - he precisely doesn't wait for any feed-back;
• charity being communicating, it expands itself by transitivity.

I think the way Jackles tell you is about this kind, otherwise were we only animals.

If the charitable didn't benefit (by way of a nice, warm, feeling) not a one would do jack.

And: we 'are' only animals (of particular and peculiar complexity).

The one who 'sacrifices' benefits just as much as the fellow who sells me a cup of coffee.

The 'currency' differs, is all.

I can also find this ease of writing (let me a few seconds) as you in your message (2 messages before) :

• "sacrifice = altruism, altruism = lost of time, lost of time = less life, less life = more death, more death = imply more murders"
• Mère Theresa was altruist.

Obviously, this imply that "Mère Theresa was rather a murder than a well-intentionned woman". What is obviously a sophism, and a bad one.

A question: Altruism is a lie... from who to who ?

If you did altruism, it would consist a lie from you to your object, or from you to you?

The supposed altruist lies.

If he truly believes he does what he does selflessly, then he is willfully ignoring the *warm fuzzies (the pursuit of) that drive him to sacrifice in the first place, and is -- in effect -- lying to himself and therefore is (probably) more than a little loony.

If he knows he gets the warm fuzzies but let's others believe he does what he does out of selflessness, then he lies to them and is more than a little mercenary.

And: any one (who actually knows him- or her-self) who eats up the shit of charity or altruism, who believes such things are real, deserves every crappy thing that comes their way (and there'll be plenty of crappy things in the future of such a Pollyanna).

Don't get me wrong: doin' 'good' for folks is nice and fine, let's just be honest about why any one does 'good' (self-interest, not selflessness).

Again: 'If the charitable (or, altruistic) didn't benefit (by way of a nice, warm, feeling [satisfaction]) not a one would do jack.'








*can be the good feeling for doing what he thinks is right, or, the crazy (but still a beneficial) notion that he is 'bad' and deserves to sacrifice (therefore getting a feeling of satisfaction for self-submission to a kind of self-torture)

NielsBohr wrote:Henry,

Do you know why charity is a gift beyond faith ? Charity is the greatest gift, because:

• the one who is properly charitable - as he don't show his charity - he precisely doesn't wait for any feed-back;
• charity being communicating, it expands itself by transitivity.

I think the way Jackles tell you is about this kind, otherwise were we only animals.

Strange, we in Denmark have send billions down to Africa's corrupt regimes supporting dictators and their appaling wars.

Seems you don't really know what you are saying.

I don't understand the question. What's atheism to do with it?

Melchior wrote:I don't understand the question. What's atheism to do with it?

Dude, try look beyond the question and see that the person asking is completely barking mad.

Skip wrote: And you expect the full explanation from faith in some invisible entity or rejection of that faith? Might more usefully look for it in the sciences. Even there, you'll only find partial explanations, plus theories, observations, hypotheses, experiments, debates, conjectures, and mountains of data in the process of being investigated and evaluated. You may have a long wait.

No. I don't expect humans' brains to comprehend god fully.

Just because it's invisible, it doesn't mean it's not there, does it? Brain waves are invisible, but we know they exist. BTW, when I say "god", I don't mean the bearded man in the sky. I define god, not as any tangible figure, but as a force (Mind) of supreme goodness that governs the universe, and it emanates its will like telepathic radio waves, and we all have an ability to catch them. I'm picturing god as the supreme Mind of the universe, a Mind that sends signals and influences our minds.

But one doesn't have to believe in this Mind of the universe to be guided by the signals it sends out (that's what some would refer to as an inner voice), in the same way homing pigeons follow the earth's magnetic field without knowing that's what they're doing.

Science can't explain many things, and I'm not waiting for it to give me answers to my most important inquiries, for I'll probably die before, and it'll be too late then

Skip wrote: Biological needs encompass more than species preservation. Complex organisms have many and varied needs, many and varied means of expressing, interpreting and prioritizing those needs, many and varied options of method. As organisms evolve and become increasingly complex, so do their motivations, relationships and activities.

Because no organism is motivated by preservation of the species. Biologically, organisms are driven to 1. preserve their own life and 2. perpetuate their own genes, in competition - and very often in direct conflict (see feuds, war, conquest, ethnic cleansing, genocide, etc.) - with, all other members of their own species. In a complex organism, many impulses are in play at once, and in a complex environment, many factors affect the individual organism at any given moment.

So, in essence, you're saying the question is too complicated for science to answer ... I agree. And it's a personal choice if one wants to believe that the answer is somewhere in the scientific field (like you do), or it's in a totally different dimension (like I do). Either way, both are a belief. It's entirely an individual's decision as to what each one of us wants to believe.

Skip wrote: Plus, complexity is prone to malfunction: rarely is any single biological requirement being serviced in the most effective and efficient manner.

The aggregate outcome is a species that grows too numerous, exhausts its resources and fouls its habitat. That aggregate contains a huge variety of individual outcomes.

This is why I became a theist. The atheistic view would see a most beautiful human behavior "unconditional love" as a biological malfunction. If that's the case, we shouldn't admire parents who pour their love onto a child with severe disabilities or terminal illness, because they're misfiring their love for something that's negative biologically. I don't want to live with a worldview like that.

uwot wrote: I think more sophisticated atheists might argue that certain behaviours have evolved that are beneficial to reproduction and caring for offspring.

Doesn't "sustaining the species" include "reproduction and caring for offspring" ???

uwot wrote: Many creatures mate for life, including earwigs apparently. I doubt it has much advantage to insects, but the most obvious outcome is that parents can share the feeding and care of infants that have a long term dependency. This is particularly true of humans which have an unusually long childhood.

I wasn't addressing the issue of "long-term commitment" and I don't think (sadly) it's true to humans anymore ... just look at the divorce rate.

uwot wrote: Many animals will attempt to nurture even stillborn offspring and display behaviour that looks very like mourning.

I wasn't aware of that (though I knew animals can mourn). Isn't it simply because those animals don't realize that their babies are not alive? Could you give me some actual examples, articles from a legitimate source?

But even if so, those cases are rather rare, no? Isn't it more normal for animals to give up the defective (the majority of them would)? And I think that makes sense, biologically. I'm wondering why the difference, if humans are just animals too, why the majority of us engage in the 'love' behavior that doesn't make biological sense ... aren't we supposed be the more evolved smarter species?

uwot wrote: That is probably the strongest evidence for your thesis, if you are arguing that human love is more than just gene splicing.

So, how do you explain the fact that parents would feel even-more-so strong love for a child with terminal illness. (I'd say the vast majority of parents are like that.) They know that the child is not going to help pass their genes, or take care of them when they're old. This type of love is not based on one's biological needs. It's unconditional. How does this happen if love was no more than just gene splicing? So, in your view, unconditional love is a biological malfunction too?

uwot wrote: In a species that is seriously outgunned in terms of teeth, claws, muscle and venom, we have to make the most of experience. In evolutionary terms, it makes sense that we should protect our experienced members.

But the experience is invalid in the seniors who suffer severe mental problems, since they can no longer give us the useful knowledge they may have accumulated, if their cognitive function is compromised, no? But we still protect and care for them, not because they're useful, but only because they are humans.

uwot wrote: God of the gaps again.

I get a tickle every time I hear this phrase. Because many atheists don't realize they're doing the same thing. In their case, it's " Scientism of the gaps". Whenever they don't have an answer, they'll say "Oh, science will find the answer in the future..." Isn't that a blind faith in science? To me, it's "the pot calling the kettle black".

uwot wrote: Tell me; why do some theists believe that a god who hides his methods more beautiful than an animal that can explore the world in the exquisite detail we are doing?

Because I realized how the things that I embrace as valuable, such as love, selflessness, morality, heroism, altruism, quickly become meaningless if I employed a purely naturalistic worldview, and I decided I don't want to live that way.

henry quirk wrote: Don't get me wrong: doin' 'good' for folks is nice and fine, let's just be honest about why any one does 'good' (self-interest, not selflessness).
Again: 'If the charitable (or, altruistic) didn't benefit (by way of a nice, warm, feeling [satisfaction]) not a one would do jack.'

Then, why would anyone sacrifice one's life for others? How can dying be a self-interest? How does that benefit him?

henry quirk wrote: *can be the good feeling for doing what he thinks is right,

I agree with this part. But I think the good feeling comes from Above. When we're defending the sanctity and well-being of the lives of others, the Divine Mind (some would call god) will reward us by giving us an incredibly elated feeling or a sense of great fulfillment (this is what drives people to heroic acts), imho.

henry quirk wrote: or, the crazy (but still a beneficial) notion that he is 'bad' and deserves to sacrifice (therefore getting a feeling of satisfaction for self-submission to a kind of self-torture)

There have been people who had thrown themselves on others in a shooting rampage, trying to protect his/her friend. In your eyes, such acts of heroism is a crazy notion, getting a satisfaction for submitting oneself to self-torture?

HexHammer wrote:Yuujin
Have you been shelterd as a kid? ..or bumped your head? ..or just born this way?

Ah, none of the above. I used be an agnostic. But thank god! (and my parents), I wasn't rude, at least.

Yuujin wrote:

HexHammer wrote:Yuujin
Have you been shelterd as a kid? ..or bumped your head? ..or just born this way?

Ah, none of the above. I used be an agnostic. But thank god! (and my parents), I wasn't rude, at least.

Considering the nature of OP, logic demands my questions. If you had made sound reasoning I wouldn't ask these rude questions.

This is a question for philosophy as science has no hard and fast answers. That said neither does philosophy. Love is like an illness, love is making yourself a slave and a master. Can anyone really explain it is a more interesting question, than can atheism explain love. If it's basic needs, we have not the understanding in psychology to explain it, ie not the understanding of enough species, or the understanding of the mind. If it's just can atheists understand it no, but then neither can theists, they certainly if history is any indication don't understand love, even when it is laid out in pain staking terms by someone, who says what it is, they cannot grasp it. So long story short no one can understand love.

Let me sum up by asking, have you ever really truly and sincerely loved? In which way would you define it and what sort of love was it, eros, caritas or other?