Does Altruism Exist

[mamachick]

I have much more difficulty articulating what I am trying to say, particularly when its something somewhat unfamiliar or that I dont think about or discuss often. A bad fall stole a few brain cells but I manage, and thank you.

 

[goingonhope]

My understanding of altruism is the love of another at the exclusion to love of oneself. Perhaps challenging to imagine or to understand through a psychological point of view.

The love of another at the exclusion of love of oneself was meant to infer self-less love, not state egotistical love. The self-less love I'm speaking of is of a spiritual nature. Not one of a religious nature and I have always understood there to be a difference between these two. Egotism and self-satisfying love to the best of my knowledge is from a psychological point of view, but whether so or not, is not what I refer to. I was not writing about this.

In fact, what freakofnurture shared below even better describes what I was intending to mean. Due to it being self-less and without self. Just in my opinion the ability to be altruistic is a gift and one having not generated from self, rather something spiritual. Please make no assumption as to me suggesting where that gift can be found, because as I understand it it's found deep down within (spiritual), however each one only if interested will look and find it where they find it.

Beautiful find fon:

This last one is actually kind of what Kant defined as Altruism, and when I first read it I was quite appalled. Kant says, for a deed to be altruistic, you have to do it without any feeling, without even looking at the person you are helping, without acknowledging that anything even happened. Wow, did there ever lack humanity?

Altruism if not best defined as I shared above, well then simply defined as truly self-less acts (loving choices made with no prior thought to or benefits of any value to oneself).

Above I wrote self-less acts; This is without self and egotism. The word loving follows self-less acts and is intended to mean self-less loving choices, not anything other. When this was quoted half the sentence was left out.

So my alert alerted me to this and I am here to clarify.

I meant no harm, and yet I did think that when I first responded I was simply answering to this:

I am just wondering what others think about this and how it effects your beliefs in general.

I probably got myself into this all on my own, through me understanding words too literally and thinking that another member was just wondering what others thought. I simply didn't know that what I thought would be immediately challenged and later disected and open to analysis. Had I known, as much I might like to have responded, I know my limitations and have been practicing not allowing myself to do so, as it is too much for me to discuss anything in great lengths, as well as, to provide full or detailed explanations and or my part in a lengthy discussion.

Brat17 the discussion is well thought out and responded to. You did say you were very interested in the topic and the thread is booming, so keep up your efforts and please take care.

And, I apoligize brat17 for my earlier frustration and was glad that it made you laugh.

 

[Meadowsweet]

This last one is actually kind of what Kant defined as Altruism, and when I first read it I was quite appalled. Kant says, for a deed to be altruistic, you have to do it without any feeling, without even looking at the person you are helping, without acknowledging that anything even happened. Wow, did there ever lack humanity?

Philosophically, this is a point that I would connect with instinctual actions. I think to continue down that route, we would have to define what the 'self' is, in order to define what self-less actually means.

The dictionary definition of ego (not egoism), is the sense of self. Literally, the recognition that I am a seperate self to him/her. If there is any thought or emotion then it creates the sense of self "I am thinking - I am feeling".

With that definition, to be self-less is to be without thought or emotion and be completely absorbed in the external moment. In this definition, as soon as somebody thinks that they are altruistic, they have associated altruism to their sense of self, so its no longer 'self-less' and is theoretically something other than altruism.

In my experience of life, I can only relate that loss of self to the intense stress response of survival situations or to the instinctual 'autopilot' responses of maternal instinct.

A lot of those acts do immense good for others, and afterwards the heroics of a person in full stress response are often noted as being altruistic. But the person as they come back to themselves will not recognise the goodness in what they did.

Can I just say, I enjoy this thread, but I'm only speaking intellectually, its a distraction at the moment. I understand and appreciate altrusim as people being kind to others too.

 

[mamachick]

goingonhope-its quite alright, no offense taken. You were right (is what made me laugh) because in attempting to explain my conclusion, Im sure it came across as a bit to persuasive.

The thing for me is this-in 2006 I had a fall and was 50 yrs old and was unconscious for a few minutes. I came to with store manager and paramedics standing over me and telling me not to move and asking me questions like if I knew where I was. I describe the event as a 50 yr old fell down, and a 12 yr old got up. The first thought that I remember having is that (oh my Gosh my mother is going to kill me-I have to get home) before I reaized that she died several years before. So it evidently took me back to a vry powerless place in my life. Emotions or emotional flashbacks continued and I had bouts of similiar panic-still do a little. I continued on with my life trying to hide what I could not remember. I started taking many shortcuts and cutting things our of my life because I couldnt remember how to do them. I was extremely frustrated with life in general and displayed it too clearly. So now I am in that re-learning state for a large part. I have beliefs but forget parts of how I came to them.

I have found that there are many intellegent people here on this sight with so much to offer. For the most part, I see the theme of "agree to disagree"

As time passes, when a topic comes up, I began to recall what I call my "grown up" beliefs. In day to day life, I never consider the actual material of why I think something is the way it is, and then I find myself just wanting to discuss and get feedback. Sometimes I do it here because I isolate so much, particularly if there is the slightest correlation to do with ptsd or any effects related to ptsd.

Freakofnurture was so familiar with the topic that she was able to read thru the content. For me, its like I know what I want to say but it does not always come out right. I take no offense. Its something that I am working on. I do appreciate your clarifying though. Hate to admit that the deeper it gets, the more times I have to read to comprehend lol

 

[freakofnurture]

Gah, stupid browser shortcuts! I typed a whole post and then blew it to data nirvana by accidentally navigating backwards -.- So, this is a short version.

I think to continue down that route, we would have to define what the 'self' is, in order to define what self-less actually means.

I agree with the definition you posted; the 'self' is a feeling that we sometimes have. But not currently having a feeling of self doesn't make the action in which we are lost self-less. It could be a self-serving action or initiated because of selfish interest.

What I think Kant meant is that self-less means not to connect what happens with anything 'self'. We are doing something, but that's all the part we take in it; we don't have emotion, we don't acknowledge its happening etc. The actual sense of self doesn't play a role, only the connectedness of the altruistic act to the various expressions of the 'self' (in a broad definition that includes emotions, motivations etc.).

I understand and appreciate altrusim as people being kind to others too.

It's the fate of most of philosophy to be essentially useless and inconsequential. Like a peacock's colorful tail it only serves to adorn the human mind :D

 

[mamachick]

Back in the day when I was in the depth of recovering from co dependency, I had a relatively new friend, who is now a very old and very close friend. By many standards, she was a bit self centered. She was definately not co dependent. I remember telling her things such as -my sister is coming from out of town to visit for a week. She would look at me like I was nuts, and say-what for? why are you having her for a whole week? what do you get out of this?etc. I remember busting out laughing at her blatent honesty.

She was aware of how this house guest disrupted my routine during her visit. We had nothing in common. I had two little girls who wanted to go to the pool or the park. My sister did not tolerate the sun or the heat. She would want me to take her to garage sales, auctions, and bingo everyday. She would get insulted if I went on my 4-5 mile daily walk and left her, but she had no interest in any exercise. She would try to tell my children they could not leave the table until they ate everything and then debate my parenting. (even though she left her children with their alcoholic husband when they were 2,4, and 6 to be with her next husband.

I must admit that having this good friend (that seemed cold about things that were unrewarding and even uncomfortable), did make me think and even had some influence that I appreciate today. She was not uncaring, did volunteer work, etc. But she certainly did call me on some of my sacrifices.

I am not equating co-d and altruism, yet somehow, I think for those of us with co- d issues (at least us serious ones), or better said, at least for myself, I needed to learn that when I did something that was not really good for myself, it generally was not good for the majority (good for that one individual only). Within my family, I did things to avoid negative feelings-that is also the furthest from being altruistic. That is very self serving. In the end, it wasnt good for her either. She had a way of getting her way with everyone, but mostly her husband. He was a hostage to her demands, and without warning, he dropped dead from a heart attack. This has left her struggling with lifes demands in the worst of ways.

 

[ericaboo]

I used to think I was the greatest, most altruistic person in the world - bull. I did things for people because I feared confrontation, felt inadequate, and felt that if I didn't do things for them, they would have no other reason to bother with me because I didn't have any intrinsic worth other than to do favors and work and be agreeable to others. Inside I resented it, and didn't like people or trust them.

 

[mamachick]

ericaboo-I know thats a hard thing to admit. I use to be that way a lot, mostly to keep peace and avoid hurting others feelings, particularly family. When I finally began to stand up for myself, it was met with strong resistance. There were years where I was stronger, but I have found with ptsd that I feel very vulnerable during conflicts and have chose to sever some relationships because of this.

When we want to do something-that is wonderful, but at some point I could look at what the other was asking, or expecting, and realize that yes, the terms would be a huge imposition and sacrifice. I did a lot of stuffing of feelings and didnt even know it. I do think as women though-there is an expectation to be nurturing and caretaker at our own expense too often. Its wonderful to give freely. Much different when you do not feel a choice in the matter.