^have you never meditated, ridden a motorcycle, written a story or danced/played sport "in the zone"? a complete loss of self-consciousness is very much indeed possible and achieveable. it is a place in which you act without thought or doubt. there you work only with your predisposition and intuition.
-
P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat
there is no such thing as a selfless act
- Thread starter alasdairm
- Start date
^ None of that is relevant to a 'selfless act' though is it, which was the original question. None of what you listed, except maybe meditation, fits with being selfless anyway.. driving, writing, sport.. all trance states, increased/intense focus, etc.. the self is still there and doing what it always does, your just cease to notice it for that brief interval. Like with hypnosis.. you're still there and functioning.
tmdoca
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2011
- Messages
- 69
Action requires ego. What I mean is that acknowledging good and evil requires perspective, which requires self. This is not to say, like it could mistakenly be taken, that the phrase "there is no such thing as a selfless act" means that all acts are selfish, and therefore there is no good in the world or some shit. In fact, to put value to the implications of that phrase, there must a clear cut definition of good and evil. The thing about perspective is, unless there is only one of them, there is not just one final understanding of what is being interpreted.
^morality can be an automated response. judgement does not essentially require ego.
actually those other tasks are exactly like meditation in full application. it is relevant to your assertion that any selflessness is impossible. this is simply untrue.
actually those other tasks are exactly like meditation in full application. it is relevant to your assertion that any selflessness is impossible. this is simply untrue.
rickolasnice
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2007
- Messages
- 6,810
I agree. Most of the time "selfless" acts are not selfless at all.. I'd go out of my way to help someone because I cared.. If I managed to help them.. It'd make me feel good. Of course I don't help people SO that I'd feel good.. But if it didn't make me feel good it would be because I didn't care.. and if i didn't care i wouldn't have helped in the first place.
TheAppleCore
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2007
- Messages
- 5,510
Well, I'm not sure about whether or not truly "selfless" acts occur, but I stand firmly by my principle that all human behavior is pleasure-seeking and/or pain-averting.
Egzoset
Bluelighter
Salutations everyone,
Indeed!! By the way, my own statement reads as follows and it means only that:
...
In other words even good people get burned when continuously exposed to challenging situations which are left to last for too long. Teachers get about 2 months of vacancy during the summer, after all, otherwise they wouldn't be able to stand it for another scholar year!... Perhaps being a resource-person on BlueLight may prove to be as demanding, etc, etc.
Indeed!! By the way, my own statement reads as follows and it means only that:
...
In other words even good people get burned when continuously exposed to challenging situations which are left to last for too long. Teachers get about 2 months of vacancy during the summer, after all, otherwise they wouldn't be able to stand it for another scholar year!... Perhaps being a resource-person on BlueLight may prove to be as demanding, etc, etc.
Last edited:
CoffeeDrinker
Bluelighter
Jesus Christ dying for our sins was a truly selfless act.
Egzoset
Bluelighter
Salutations CoffeeDrinker,
M'yeah. No vacancies for the poor dude!... Most probably not even compensated once back up, on top of that!!
8)
M'yeah. No vacancies for the poor dude!... Most probably not even compensated once back up, on top of that!!
8)
rickolasnice
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2007
- Messages
- 6,810
Jesus didn't die for our sins.
Jesus died because the Romans didn't like him.. he had no choice in the matter.
Jesus died because the Romans didn't like him.. he had no choice in the matter.
TheAppleCore
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2007
- Messages
- 5,510
^ I think the argument is more than God killed Jesus for our sins, not that Jesus committed suicide for our sins. Either way, never made much sense to me.
Then this undermines the whole concept of free will. How can we be held accountable for our actions is a supposed God is planning and orchestrating every move?
Furthermore, if this is then accepted to be the case, one has to consider the permeations. For example, if there is no Free Will, and God is planning every move, then how can this fit in with the Christian concepts of Heaven and Hell? How can a person be deemed good if it is just God planning their lives, and how can serial killers be deemed bad, if it is just God planning their lives?
i've actually thought about this recently. the bible tells me that jesus sacrificed himself (his earthly self) to atone for the sins of man. now crucifixion is likely a pretty nasty way to die but he got a fastpass to heaven to sit at his father's side for all eternity. i'll be frank - that doesn't seem like much of a sacrifice (or selfless act) to me...
alasdair
Then add to the equation that us humans are then held accountable to the burden, and commanded to grovel and worship him for it, and it seems as if it's a pretty harsh deal for everyone apart from him. Especially considering we didn't even ask him to do it, but yet are eternally in his debt according to the mainstream Christian doctrines.
Also I would just like to leave this here in this thread -
Throughout the insect kingdom, we witness group serving, and communal, social behaviours.
These same insects neural networks are not complex enough to be home to an ego, and it is debatable whether or not most insects can even experience conciousness.
The general opinion is that small insects including the Woodlouse, for example, do not have concious awareness.
Factor in that these same insects are making decisions for the community, or take in to account the bee sacrificing it's self when it stings.
They are not doing this to fulfil a need within themselves. They are not doing it because they are selfish. It is something innate, and not necessarily anything to do with the 'ego' that many posters have referenced in this thread.
Throughout the insect kingdom, we witness group serving, and communal, social behaviours.
These same insects neural networks are not complex enough to be home to an ego, and it is debatable whether or not most insects can even experience conciousness.
The general opinion is that small insects including the Woodlouse, for example, do not have concious awareness.
Factor in that these same insects are making decisions for the community, or take in to account the bee sacrificing it's self when it stings.
They are not doing this to fulfil a need within themselves. They are not doing it because they are selfish. It is something innate, and not necessarily anything to do with the 'ego' that many posters have referenced in this thread.
an act can't be selfless if there is no self?
alasdair
alasdair
rickolasnice
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2007
- Messages
- 6,810
I think you mean:
?
?
We had this discussion in my philosophy class a few weeks ago. I haven't read the thread, but I think the only way for an act to be selfless is if you are doing it strictly because it is the right thing to do, not because it makes you feel good or whatever.