Comments on: Religion? No, thank you. Marx? Yes, please.

By: Loki

Loki — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 19:47:27 +0000

That didn’t make sense, and even if it had, I’m suspecting we’re not getting anywhere, I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make, you never seem to quite contradict me and yet you seem sure we’re disagreeing about something, so we’ll finish this on MSN.

By: Ole

Ole — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 19:27:52 +0000

“Without good and evil, selflessness and loss is inherently stupid, because there is no positive in them in and of themselves, as they can no longer do “good” - there is no “good” ’cause there’s no-one to define it but the individual, and to the individual, “good” is “what’s good for ME”.”

How do you manage to completely ignore the fact that doing something for other people from which they would benefit would have created “Something that’s good for ME”, only that the person who benefited from it would be “ME”, and not yourself? Because for me, that’s the very definition of selflessness.

By: Loki

Loki — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 19:18:22 +0000

Depends on how you define “the ego”. Yes, it’s possible to convince yourself other stuff than yourself is the most important in your life, and if you get something back from this, it’s viable for being called rational, or at least you can make a case for it being so. But what can you possibly get back from doing something for someone who will never meet you, never repay you, and never know you did something for him or her, and how can you possibly call doing something like that a rational action if there’s no higher moral code imposed on you which defines the action as good? Without good and evil, there becomes, as you say, selfishness and selflessness, gain and loss. Without good and evil, selflessness and loss is inherently stupid, because there is no positive in them in and of themselves, as they can no longer do “good” - there is no “good” ’cause there’s no-one to define it but the individual, and to the individual, “good” is “what’s good for ME”. You can’t get around that rationally, or at least, I can’t see how you can. Explain it to me?

By: Ole

Ole — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 19:06:19 +0000

And trying to overcome the ego is hopeless no matter what, so there is no reason in even trying?

By: Loki

Loki — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 17:31:39 +0000

Not if there’s an higher order imposing values on us, no. If there’s not, then yes. Obviously. There is no rational reason for anything else. Absolutely everything you do is selfishly motivated, even stuff that hurts you, like sacrificing your life for something - that’s YOUR wish, so it’s a selfish act, your priority being something other than your life doesn’t change it from being YOUR priority.

So yes. In the most basic sense, egoism is the only form of rational thought in a world without an higher moral order.

By: Ole

Ole — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 16:34:35 +0000

Loki: … Is only egoism rational for you?

By: sauegjeteren

sauegjeteren — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 23:16:05 +0000

Obiously.

By: Loki

Loki — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 23:13:09 +0000

I’m not sure how it’s relevant if they are or aren’t, the point is to see what they claim to rationally base their choices on when asked. I’m interested in subconscious and conscious motives (sp?), not objective reasons. Psychology bores me.

By: sauegjeteren

sauegjeteren — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 22:05:19 +0000

Lets try again, and be friends. Well, at least try again.

“Is” people ever rational?

By: Loki

Loki — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 22:05:16 +0000

I mean, believing they think of the world as you do doesn’t place you in a position where you’re of equal value to them, just in a position where you know they probably think they’re as valuable - or more so - than you are, and that you can understand why. This is no rationale for basing your actions on them having the same value as you do, that is selflessness/compassion with someone who has not done nor seems to ever will do anything for you for no concrete productive reason on your account, and it’s not constructive unless you accept some kind of higher moral rewards which you’ve still not managed to produce without involving some form of religious convictino.