Are personalities a bad thing to have?

I recognise this... my roomie used to talk a lot about Eastern mysticism when he was completely off his head. Your two points are interesting, but I'd like to counter them with a simple, but effective riposte.

Assume that you're right. All our actions are at least partly ego-dependant, and completely selfless acts are impossible. Now, explain to me why this is a bad thing. I'm not saying I accept your two assumptions as valid, but lets start from there.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

So I get that, and I got that from your starting post. I'm asking you to explain to me why that would be a bad thing. You've gone right ahead and assumed that it's a bad thing, but what is your basis?

I'm sure that society at large would agree with you, but personally, I can't see the problem myself. Selfless acts are essentially selfish acts in disguise. When I help someone out, it's because it pleases me to help, it's not selfless at all. My question for you is this: Does it make any difference if my acts are selfless or not, considering that the end result is the same?

Of course there are also people that I wouldn't help. There's a category of favour that I would be willing to do for complete strangers, and it's pretty restricted. It does not, for example, run to substantial cash loans, or assistance with moving house. There's also a much less restricted category of favour that I would be willing to do for a friend or family member. Personally, I like that. I don't see any reason at all why it should be any different.

Pursuade me otherwise.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Avalokiteshvara

Eh, because there tends to be a threshold with these things right? A point beyond which differences become irreconcilable. Even less severe, a point beyond which you can not empathize.

Soluzar, where are we beginning here? It was assumed that true compassion is an ideal, the question being whether personality inhibits your progress toward it. If you wish to challenge that, it's not a discussion I'm prepared to have without sources.

Then I'll take my leave of you, sir. My interest in this debate is limited to challenging that assumption. I find myself baffled by your mention of sources, though. We're not discussing a matter of science, with reproducible results, but instead a topic of the most abstract nature. Anything that anyone has written on this subject down the ages is only what they happened to think or believe at the time.

Given the assumptions present in this debate, I don't feel that it would be unwarranted of me to ask you to declare your bias. What particular axe do you have to grind in this topic? Don't declare yourself free of bias, I beg of you. None of us can make that claim.

Quote:

Off-hand I remember that some guy with the last name Proudfoot, wrote in the conclusion of a book on religious experience that the historical narrative of the modern age lumped together with a general shift away from spirituality has led to a decay in the quality of life. Again though, I don't have those books handy.

The quality of life is a subjective thing, and your Mr. Proudfoot was only capable of assessing his own. It is quite one thing to cite a source, and quite another to prove that the source in question is valid. Did Mr. Proudfoot offer proof of this assertion, or was he merely another one of the moral majority, bleating on in a tiresome fashion about how things aren't as good as they used to be?

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Anyway, you seemed to be making the argument that we are inherently selfish creatures with self-interest being the prime motivator. I'm sure you have observations to back that up.

Biology and anthropology teach us that so-called selfless behaviour is actually in our own best interests, and the interests of our society. Therefore, I argue that what some call "selfless" is actually a more refined form of enlightened self-interest.

I have never failed to benefits by casting my bread upon the waters. I simply take great care to choose the right waters upon which to cast. The benefit reaped by such apparently "selfless" acts is an increased willingness on the part of others to do likewise when I find myself in need. Everybody wins. For a given value of "everybody".

Originally Posted by Skexis

The understanding is that with enough time, anyone could become close enough to be your friend, and therefore deserves the benefit of the doubt. Which doesn't include giving cash loans to complete strangers, but neither does it mean you shouldn't help them fix a flat tire on the side of the road because you "don't know them."

First: Fixing a tire falls into the category of favours I'd do for anyone that I don't utterly despise. It doesn't cost me anything but time, and doesn't carry any element of risk that I can see. Time being a commodity of which I have a little to spare, I'm willing to expend it.

Second: It's really not the case that anyone could become close enough to become my friend, and in the event that you were using the general "you" rather than the specific, I challenge that assumption.

Originally Posted by Crowdmaker

It's impossible to get rid of personality.

Not according to Hinduism, and Buddhism.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by SMX

Care to elaborate.

In as far as I am able, sir. The Hindu teachings refer to a state which they call "Moksha", which is the state achieved by the dissolution of the sense of self as an egoistic personality. By achieving Moksha, and by becoming conscious not of the sense of self, but instead of Atman, the all-pervading soul of the universe, one might hope to achieve a state of Nirvana. These are some of the steps on the path to achieving enlightenment.

These concepts also exist, with some differences, in Buddhist teachings, since Hinduism and Buddhism are related almost as closely as Judaism, Christianity and Islam. I don't claim to have anything but the most bare comprehension of the notion myself. I suppose that in order to truly understand it, a person must place his feet upon the path.

Personally, I find Buddhism to be by far the most appealing of the major "religions" (it's not a deistic religion) of the world, but I could not claim to be a practicing Buddhist, by any means.

Since this topic almost always comes up when Buddhism is mentioned, please would any visiting trolls/fundies take into account that Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha Śākyamuni) is not the "god" of Buddhism, he was merely the teacher, and one who achieved enlightenment. He taught us that each of us may become a Buddha (achieve enlightentment) by leading a virtuous life and purifying our minds.

The original teachings of Buddhism contain little mention of the concept of "god" and Siddhartha Gautauma usually refused to answer any questions on the subject. Some varieties of Buddhism have linked the teachings directly to a god or god of their choice, but that has nothing to do with the original teachings.

How ya doing, buddy?