In accordance with nature or against nature?

By nature, real men just go ahead and buy a Chevy😎
If they are the type of men who greatly prefer working on a vehicle to actually driving it somewhere, and have lots of money to spend on parts. I know, I've owned several in the days before I realized I was stupid for buying them. :)
 

Israel

Senior Member
Altruism is a lie. I'm not saying you can't do nice things for people, though. I'm saying that the little pleasure tickle you get out of doing it is why you keep doing it. Take that away and people stop doing it.

Selfishness absolutely exists, however. What I was referring to was tempering that selfishness, i.e. not raiding your neighbor's victory garden in the wee hours of the morning for your own benefit, into something that's at least mutually beneficial, trading some of your excess venison for some of his squash, is the optimal state.

We were able to evolve how we did because early humans were able to do just that and separate the labor one family unit would have to endure to survive and instead focus on one aspect so that others would have mutual benefit. In that same vein, the quote he used is absolutely spot on and not just from a philosophical standpoint. Mastering yourself is what allows you to synchronize into that mutually beneficial system in totality. Every cog that betrays the whole in blind support of their endeavors damages us and themselves. Not to say that you can't pursue your desires, you just have to master them so they don't control you and become unhealthy.

I like Ambush's construct without denying your observations.

I don't think it's an unworthy place to start.


One man.
2 men. (Wilson!!!! WILSON!!!!)
Three men...etc...

And I appreciate the OP.
 

WaltL1

Senior Member
Altruism is a lie. I'm not saying you can't do nice things for people, though. I'm saying that the little pleasure tickle you get out of doing it is why you keep doing it. Take that away and people stop doing it.

Selfishness absolutely exists, however. What I was referring to was tempering that selfishness, i.e. not raiding your neighbor's victory garden in the wee hours of the morning for your own benefit, into something that's at least mutually beneficial, trading some of your excess venison for some of his squash, is the optimal state.

We were able to evolve how we did because early humans were able to do just that and separate the labor one family unit would have to endure to survive and instead focus on one aspect so that others would have mutual benefit. In that same vein, the quote he used is absolutely spot on and not just from a philosophical standpoint. Mastering yourself is what allows you to synchronize into that mutually beneficial system in totality. Every cog that betrays the whole in blind support of their endeavors damages us and themselves. Not to say that you can't pursue your desires, you just have to master them so they don't control you and become unhealthy.
Altruism is a lie. I'm not saying you can't do nice things for people, though. I'm saying that the little pleasure tickle you get out of doing it is why you keep doing it. Take that away and people stop doing it.
I completely agree with that ^.
However I disagree that it somehow makes altruism a "lie".
As I read this -

Altruism is the principle and moral practice of concern for happiness of other human beings or animals, resulting in a quality of life both material and spiritual.
It seems to me the definition of Altruism wouldnt exclude the "pleasure tickle".
Every single action a human makes comes from something in their brain getting tickled so its an ingredient in every single thing a human is involved in.
If we use a "tickle" as the disqualifier then we just proved just about everything a "lie".
 

Israel

Senior Member
I completely agree with that ^.
However I disagree that it somehow makes altruism a "lie".
As I read this -

It seems to me the definition of Altruism wouldnt exclude the "pleasure tickle".
Every single action a human makes comes from something in their brain getting tickled so its an ingredient in every single thing a human is involved in.
If we use a "tickle" as the disqualifier then we just proved just about everything a "lie".
Do you think the "tickle" may have something to do with empathy...or ability to identify with another's pleasure? And what then are the limits, if there are? (that question is found in regards to what follows)

I know Ambush likes thought experiments...do you? Seems sometimes they are useful.

You give a car to a dear friend. Do you feel the "tickle"? (Maybe even a stranger...it may not matter.)
Now, your friend comes to you in a week and says he has given that car away...to one (unbeknownst to him) who is taking you to court for your dog pooping on his lawn.
Tickle/no tickle...? anti-tickle? Cancel previous tickle, make it go away? More than cancel previous tickle? Anger? Are you "worse off" now for having given it to your friend? (Cynics generally believe they have enough experience to not call themselves cynics...but realists.)

The "act" may not take place in a vacuum and therefore be very hard to evaluate as though "on its own".

I think it could be taken one step ****her even. The friend knew this other guy was suing you. Knows that guy didn't like you at all. Now...what?

Ya ever read the book of Jonah?
 

gordon 2

Senior Member
For a long time I thought that men sacrificed their personal lives for family. Men had a brief period in their lives when they were number one to someone and then the babies came and dad gets to be numbered down on the list of favor.

Add to this my view that women especially those craving pregnancy and wanting babies sacrificed their selves less and were still expecting to be number one in their relationship with dad. I now realize that women do the same as men in sacrificing their "selves" for their family.

When a baby comes into the world, it is natural to sacrifice. The challenge in the conquer the self is to conquer the selfish view that men make extreme personal sacrifices for their families, while women don't and that personal sacrifice and altruism is not natural to the human condition in general. However, extreme selfishness is not natural. It took a bit of conquering of the self to see past my selfish views on altruism. It is natural to sacrifice the self for others. Ayn Rand was just not here yet.
 
Last edited:

ambush80

Senior Member
Me and my neighbors played the grim game of "Would you give me your kidney?" the other night. With the exception of one friend, who has bad kidneys, all of us agreed that we would. I looked for the self interest but found it took a back seat to the love I have for my friends. Love is a weird thing. Sometimes it makes people do strange things.

Not everybody is a "Jump on the grenade" type. And some of those guys might do it because of allegiance to their team. They might see something bigger than themselves as being more important than themselves. It doesn't seem that important to me to call that self interest. I'm not sure what "work" it does to frame it that way.

Why do we save children before ourselves? Seems like a bad strategy considering how helpless human babies are. No other female animal of mating age will risk her life to save a baby. At some point they cut their losses.
 

Spotlite

Senior Member
Me and my neighbors played the grim game of "Would you give me your kidney?" the other night. With the exception of one friend, who has bad kidneys, all of us agreed that we would. I looked for the self interest but found it took a back seat to the love I have for my friends. Love is a weird thing. Sometimes it makes people do strange things.

Not everybody is a "Jump on the grenade" type. And some of those guys might do it because of allegiance to their team. They might see something bigger than themselves as being more important than themselves. It doesn't seem that important to me to call that self interest. I'm not sure what "work" it does to frame it that way.

Why do we save children before ourselves? Seems like a bad strategy considering how helpless human babies are. No other female animal of mating age will risk her life to save a baby. At some point they cut their losses.
Love and instinct ultimately separates animal and human.
 

gordon 2

Senior Member
It is interesting to note when studying white supremacy ideology in Europe from the 1870 to the 1930 that for white supremacists what distinguished the "Nordic race" from others was that naturally the Nordic race was not selfish and materialistic while most others were said to be... I don't think Ayn Rand would have done well with them although she strikes a match here with conservatives.
 
Last edited:
Para-Nordic Lives Matter
 
Top