Are personalities a bad thing to have?

On the surface the answer'd be no, but wouldn't having one mean that any action is at least partly ego-dependent? And wouldn't that mean completely selfless acts were impossible, implying that true compassion can only exist after the self has been eliminated?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

My first reaction would be to say that it puts you in a position where "sufficiently good" means something. That gets you in trouble with conflicting standards on where "sufficiently good" exists and what you have to do to get there. It also might mean that now there exists (where is my existential quantifier ;_; ) a set of people about whom you do not care, and would not help.

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

Originally Posted by Avalokiteshvara

It also might mean that now there exists (where is my existential quantifier ;_; ) a set of people about whom you do not care, and would not help.

Why do you say that?

Also, I don't think that caring for someone means, by necessity, that you must help them.

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

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

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. 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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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?

FELIPE NO

My bias? It was an idle thought. It occured to me the argument could be made. As for sources, in the book, Proudfoot mentioned a number of studies done regarding religious experience. It actually wasn't him, it was some french guy who did a study of primitive cultures and their religious beliefs as compared to ours. Started with an L, I think.

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. I'm also willing to grant that this is probably a common state of affairs for most people, so what we'd be arguing about really would be whether this was universal. To do that, I'd have to appeal to professionals in the matter, because I lack the empirical data myself.

Without any kind of back-up data though, we'd be reduced to arguing semantics, and I am certain that nothing worthwhile ever came of that.

edit: Whoever the guy was though, he did cite rising use of anti-depressants, increased number of suicides, and things of that nature, so you see, it wasn't just an off-the-cuff statement. It seems reasonable to draw that conclusion. Of course we could get into some sort of entrenched battle about the reliability of the data, but I was aiming for a casual discussion.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Soluzar

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?

Assuming that means complete moral subjectivity, it also means that effectiveness can be measured quantifiably. If something cannot be objectively or absolutely "good," then productivity, quality of life must be the means with which we measure "good."

Let's say you have a group of people that are complete egoists. They do pretty well for themselves, and most likely don't make very many friends. Contrast against a group of tightly-knit, but moreover, open-minded individuals, who are willing to compromise in terms of personal reservations, for a more common good. Your basic hunter-gatherer troupe, if you will. They encounter another group of hunter-gatherers, and become fast friends, recognizing the need for strength of numbers in an unforgiving wilderness.

There will always be those who refuse to take part in these social niceties, or perhaps have chosen to subvert them towards their own, egoistic ends. Manipulators of others for their own personal gain. Are they successful because they have secured their own, personal life expectancy and comfort? Or have they failed to see beyond their own mortality, and ensured that their legacy is minimal?

It's a complex question, I admit, because a manipulator who has a child raised to be a manipulator can arguably continue the success of the egoist ideal. And if I may be allowed to use a rather crude metaphor, the dark and light sides of the force as Star Wars knows it will suffice. The Dark side destroys itself, eventually. Whether or not a line of egoist people retains power & continues to flourish, it is practically an eventuality that they will be removed from any power they might have had, because people never enjoy being manipulated/used transparently to serve someone else's ends.

Let me sum up: Good needs some kind of measurability, regardless of moral position. Whether it is based on social expectations or personal ones, the results are the same, because selfless behavior (whether it is truly selfless or not) cements the bonds of an intensely social race of beings, and ensures their communal survival (or at least it would, in an unforgiving environment-- modern society allows for a greater deal of sway in moral ambiguity because our relative comfort is fairly well-established.)

Quote:

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.

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."

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Avalokiteshvara

edit: Whoever the guy was though, he did cite rising use of anti-depressants, increased number of suicides, and things of that nature, so you see, it wasn't just an off-the-cuff statement. It seems reasonable to draw that conclusion. Of course we could get into some sort of entrenched battle about the reliability of the data, but I was aiming for a casual discussion.

I don't think that information is as easily explained with "lower quality of life" as you might be lead to believe.
Not questioning the source of the data, another reason for an increase in depression and suicides could perhaps be due to unreasonable expectations in the quality of life, which are met with defeat(people wanting movie-star lives, or lives out of movies/tv shows/etc), or people having a quality of life which cannot be maintained.

The data could be solid, but the causes are far from clear.
Just my thought on that little thing.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Ummm, K. Simple (irresistible) counterpoint.

It's impossible to get rid of personality.

So you're kind of saying it'd be nice if we could all stop taking shits, cause they smell like death, don't they, so wouldn't it be nice if we didn't bother? We simply can't do anything about it.

Why? Um, I'll explain briefly, but take the spirit and not the letter of the arguments to question. Your personality is defined by the choices you make, and against the standard of everyone else, right? In order to get rid of personality, your system must have specific answers for every possible choice in order to eliminate personal interpretation. That's impossible, so your personal interpretation must come in. It is in those decisions that we begin to differ from each other, based on what we believe to be important facts to include, how clever we are, what we genetically predisposed to like and not like etc. And in the same way no two people are alike, no two people will consistently make the same choices in a situation where there is no heuristic to select. e.g. favorite color, word choice, ability-based choices in what professions to get interested in, hormonally-influenced mood-based choices, etc. And these sorts of random (and intentional, for that matter) choices, and the patterns and non-patterns that they fall into make up our personalities.

I'd even take up issue with the idea that personalities are bad things to have, but one need first have it that it is even a possibility to contemplate, which I don't believe to be the case.

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 Soluzar

Not according to Hinduism, and Buddhism.

Care to elaborate.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Avalokiteshvara

On the surface the answer'd be no, but wouldn't having one mean that any action is at least partly ego-dependent? And wouldn't that mean completely selfless acts were impossible, implying that true compassion can only exist after the self has been eliminated?

No.

A person can be altruistic while still having personal interest in philantrophy.

As compassion is a human trait, it's seen in the filter of human behavior, meaning compassion with selfishness. I guess you could say the highest form of compassion is when you elimiate the self, but that's not "true" compassion in the way that all other acts of compassion are somehow false. And if the end result is still the same, then they aren't inferior, either.

I guess someone like you could view ego as a challenge, something that takes great effort to overcome. If everyone was born without one, and didn't aquire one through the course of life, then that's too easy.

Furthermore, the weakest among us really could do with keeping their selfish traits, you ought to think. What point is a bunch of poor starving people refusing to eat because there are other starving people too?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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?

Originally Posted by Avalokiteshvara

On the surface the answer'd be no, but wouldn't having one mean that any action is at least partly ego-dependent? And wouldn't that mean completely selfless acts were impossible, implying that true compassion can only exist after the self has been eliminated?

If you are referring to personality = ego, then you are wrong. Ego = self, that is what I have read in books (although if pushed I will bring up college texts from Buddhism classes I've took), but personality doesn't equate negative selfishness. Personality, like all things, are impermanent and changing. What you're leaning towards is nihilism, which is not what Buddhism teaches.

One could reverse the tables and say since you're trying to deny one's "self" that even bad actions will not have any implications on you because you deny that your "self" has nothing to do with them.

A simple search on google yielded this one Tibetan explanation of ego and self (if you can ignore the terrible animations). I think what it is basically saying is that "ego" cannot be wholly defined; basically you get rid of negative feelings (could be termed ego) and practice the positive (such as compassion).

Double Post:

Originally Posted by Soluzar

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?

According to Buddhism, yes, the ends do not justify the "means". There are three stages to attaining positive karma. The first is the thought, is your thought compassionate, etc. Second, the action. Third, if the action has been received properly. If one of the three does not exist, then you have not attained positive karma. For example, you donated money, but the money is spent buying cigarettes. You did not complete #3 although you did complete the first two.

Truly selfless acts are few and far between, but they have been done, and I don't doubt the existence of them.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?