is there such a thing as a completely selfless act?

[stevie]

ive thought about it, and deep down, i dont think there is.

people give, and are kind to people, not only to be nice, but to get something in return.
that something they get in return can be as simple as gratitude, or a sense of pride...so everything we do is primarily for ourselves.

lets take the top posting member here 'bernhard' as an example.

he gives so much to everyone on this forum, providing advice, humourous anecdotes, and generally is a smarty-pants

what does he get in return?

he gets no money, he doesnt ever get to meet those people he helps, but he enjoys his advice being appreciated, he enjoys the gratitude, it will naturally make him feel good.
he is looked up to as a sort of 'god' of the forum, and im sure he enjoys this!

i dont mean to deride bernhard at all for this, im just using him as an example, that even the kindest acts arent completely selfless.

[xvimbi]

I am not quite sure if I completely agree with that. I'm sure everybody enjoys gratitude. The question whether one expect it or not. If one doesn't expect it then one is willing to give free advice with nothing in return. This is selfless. It does not preclude getting something back (chocolate, for example). It would still be selfless, unless one expects to get chocolate.

(Bernhard likes chocolate )

[stevie]

but he knows his advice is useful, all im saying is he probably gets a good feeling in himself when he posts and gives helpful advice.

he may not expect anything back from the people he gives to, but he feels good about himself when he does it.

thats all i mean, and i think that qualifies his acts to be not completely selfless.
im not picking on him, its the same way with everyone, i believe.

[prometheus]

Depends on the definition of selfless. People do things getting nothing in return. But they still do it for themselves. Even if they believe they just have to help someone that needs needs help they do it for themselves, because they can't bear not helping.

You have to look out with the reasoning that all people are equally selfish and that even the most compassionate things people do are done because of themselves. The difference is that the compassionate people's selfishness helps other people, while compassionless selfish people gain at the expense of someone else.

So look out for the reasoning claiming that there is no moral superiority of any kind in being selfless/compassionate. Or worse, that it's perfectly ok to be selfish at expense of others, because everyone is selfish.

[leahcim]

Yep, I agree with Xvimbi.

You can't look at what someone actually gets or doesn't get and use that to state what they wanted or didn't want.

He might want money and not get it or chocolate or someone to say "Nah, you're talking baloney pal", the fact he gets gratitude only suggests that is what the people giving the gratitude believe him to want [or believe they should give in return]

If you go around giving gratitude, kudos, chocolate etc, you're pretty much fulfilling your own theory - "Here you go Bernhard, have a fiver ....ah! QED you weren't being selfless you wanted money...so he kicks you in the nuts 'Haha, you didn't give me that money selflessly you wanted sore gonads" etc etc.

[bernhard]

There are two interesting subjects here.

1.   If one has the concept of selfless act, then it must exist, otherwise, how could we possibly have imagined it? (By the way, people are still debating if this makes sense or not). Of course the implication is that your concept of what constitutes a selfless act will determine its ultimate reality.

2.   Then we have the concept itself, or more appropriately the range of concepts covering “selfless acts”. Christians usually think of selfless acts as doing something for others (= charity).

However there is a more intriguing concept (which I find highly attractive), which is free currency in certain Buddhist sects. In Buddhist doctrine there is a central concept called “Karma” (“Your Karma ran over my Dogma, said the pope to the Dalai Lama" ), which is a theory of causality. Karma is really consequences. According to the doctrine of Karma everything we do, every action has consequences which expand to cover the whole universe.

A selfless act in the light of this doctrine would be an act without consequences. “A truly enlightened being walks on the beach and leaves no footprints on the sand”.

In certain Buddhist sects, the whole behaviour of the adepts is guided by this idea of not creating/accumulating karma. The idea is not exclusive to these sects either. Hindu philosophy talks at length about it in the Bhagahvad Gita, where the warrior Arjuna must go and wage war, even though he is of a pacifist disposition. How can he reconcile his horror of war with the acts and ensuing consequences of what he must do as a member of the warrior chast?

So, there seems to be more to the concept of selflessness than meets the eye.

As for me, I have my (private) reasons. But reasons belong to the realm of cause, not of consequence.

Now for the really important question: How will all the chocolate reach me?

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[yamagal]

Yes I think there is, it depends on one's worldview.

Mother Theresa IMO was a good example of one who lived about as selflessly as it is possible to live.

[gorbee natcase]

then how do you possibly have any fun, as I have said you are here for a good time not a long time, and playing the piano is well fun, is it selfish to spend your time practicing the piano when you could be out doing charity work who knows?
( there are plenty of old ladies that need help crossing the street)if you feel bad just make your way to the nearest  T junktion

[yamagal]

then how do you possibly have any fun, as I have said you are here for a good time not a long time, and playing the piano is well fun, is it selfish to spend your time practicing the piano when you could be out doing charity work who knows?
( there are plenty of old ladies that need help crossing the street)if you feel bad just make your way to the nearest  T junktion

There is nothing wrong with having fun, especially if it rejuvenates you so you can go do more selfless acts.

Seriously, IMO having fun is just as important as serving others.  "All things in moderation" works best for most folks.  People like Mother Theresa are unusual.  Most people need to have some fun in order to recharge, and that's fine.  A few seem to thrive on serving, seemingly without a break (time for themselves), but they would be the exception.

[klavierkonzerte]

once one of my friends asked me to drop somthing at his place at 3 am and i did it
how is that not selfless i wasn't looking for gratitude or anything  i was actually cursing him on my way there 

and last semester i prayed that my friend pass money and banking course how's is that not selfless if he doesn't even know i prayed?

[da jake]

Yes.

In war, people have been known to give their lives to save their mates.

[pianistimo]

the only truly completely selfless act was Christ dying for our sins.  since we are all sinners, we can't top it.  but, as Bernhard says, there are no (bad) consequences for doing good.  so, imo, if someone (like the lepers who were healed and only one comes back) if you are thankful tos omeone for helping you - you are at least letting them know that the effort they went to was worth it to you.  of course, on the other hand (equally valid) is that you don't expect to be thanked, you just help out no matter what.  and, don't expect that same person to give to you in the same way - perhaps it will be a complete stranger that helps you! (there's been a lot of selfless acts by strangers in my life).

my bike once broke down and i didn't have tire patch with me, and someone patched my tire (i should have been prepared, but wasn't).  they didn't laugh, since i've been riding a long time and should have been prepared...which i greatly appreciated.  they just said, after all the work, "you should check into those tire patches at the bike shop.  it would be safer if you carried one with you."

now, bernhard is golden...sends a box of chocolate for all the good advice and jokes.

ps agree with da jake about people dying for others.  this has to be the fullness of what Christ's example was about.  you have to be pretty selfless to actually put yourself in harms way for someone else.
  you can also defend someone's character - might save them from suicide or major depression - or stand with people during times of difficulty (divorce, sickness, death).  people sometimes get stuck in their own problems and can't see others problems as important.

[da jake]

Just because humans are weak by nature doesn't mean they cannot transcend that weakness by acting selflessly. Someone who dies taking a bullet for a comrade or covers a grenade is acting completely independent of their personal benefit (or well-being)...i.e., selflessly.

I don't believe Jesus died for our sins. Then again, his dying wasn't really a selfless act if Jesus was indeed a manifestation of G-d. Can't have it both ways.

[pianistimo]

He died so that we may live (not just today) tommorrow (after death).

*not discounting what you said, because i think there must be a huge reward for people who get blown up by grenades and such to save their mates/friends and help their cause.  but, if you consider that both sides of a war are often fought for country (and not always for God), people are killing one another for nothing.  peaceful living is a sacrifice because you try to get along and not be greedy.  (abraham did this when he let lot choose where he wanted to live first)

[leahcim]

1.   If one has the concept of selfless act, then it must exist, otherwise, how could we possibly have imagined it? (By the way, people are still debating if this makes sense or not).

Are these people the same ones who have been [failing] to learn the piano for 20 years?

I don't believe Jesus died for our sins.

The 3 day sentence he got doesn't suggest they could have been that bad

Even less so since if he was real then he would know, without requiring faith, that Daddy existed It's hardly a great sacrifice to die if you know heaven is real - in fact quite the reverse, if I knew heaven existed and I had my own key, it would be more selfless of me to stick around in 30-oddBC - "Look Dad, I know you've got a plan n'all, but they've not got any decent music for 1700 years"

That said, I think anyone who thinks about it long enough would probably consider someone getting eternal life for our[his / her / anyone else's] sins to be a significantly worse punishment - heaven is probably full of people who buy things that sound "too good to be true" - and no doubt a never ending stream of Nigerians with recently deceased relatives that have left $40M keeps them entertained

[prometheus]

One dead to save all humans and he gets all the credit too.

You don't need a very selfish person to do that. Anyone would love to do it.

Especially with afterlife. Really, christianity is such a bizarre religion, its one big compelx multi-paradox.

[jeremyjchilds]

Especially with afterlife. Really, christianity is such a bizarre religion, its one big compelx multi-paradox.

I would agree with your statement regarding paradox of Christianity...The faith is founded upon paradox.

Christ taught:

1) the last shall be first
2) to gain your life you must lose it first
3) it is better to give than to recieve
4) to love your worst enemies

I would disagree with your assesment of Christianity as a religion, I consider it a relationship.

[pianistimo]

what's probably the biggest paradox is the friendliest and kindest people are sometimes not always Christian, but the Christian admits that he is a sinner...therefore receiving forgiveness when asking for it. 

in response to leahcim, i don't think the bible says anything about eternal life for sinners.  I believe there is a scripture that says "the wages of sin is death."  eternal death.  the book of revelations mentions a 'second death' after judgement.  people who believe in Christ now (Christians) are being judged now.  we are told to have no fear for the second death or judgement because we judge ourselves now according to God's word.  when we sin, we ask forgiveness.  it's probably why some of us live so long, because we are more sinful than the majority of people around, but we are given extra time to change and become righteous.  God calls who He wills at this time, but whenever the majority of people's eyes are opened to God - they will probably learn faster than the majority of the weak which God says he is calling now.  "the weak will confound the mighty"  that's another paradox.  why is God so merciful to weak people?  he never calls us stupid - but he knows our weaknesses and gives us extra opportunity to 'behave.'

this is just my take, because i've had a very different life with twists and turns that were often unexpected, and deliverance from certain situations that could have ended my life quickly.  car accidents, strange situations (where i felt that someone was sent at that particular time to protect me and help me despite foolishness of going out late), health difficulties, etc.  we aren't called to remain immature, though, and today i learned in church that maturity really rests on being able to 'hear.'  often people hear the word of God but don't do it.  that goes for Christians as well.  we become 'dull' of hearing.

[jeremyjchilds]

what's probably the biggest paradox is the friendliest and kindest people are sometimes not always Christian, but the Christian admits that he is a sinner...therefore receiving forgiveness when asking for it. 

Who'se suprised about that...there are arrogant and selfish people everywhere...it's only natural that some of them would settle into the church.

THe same is for friendly and kind people.

Anyone who says that Christians are all perfect is lying. 

[Tash]

one thing that annoys me is the whole charity thing, you 'donate' money, but most of the time it's because it's daffodil day or something and you get a badge or a pen or something in return- why can't we just give the money out of our free will instead of it being coaxed out of us with things? and i'm most definately not taking myself out of that group of people- i generally only donate money when i'm getting a cool badge or a raffle ticket to win $80 000 worth of stuff. maybe when i have money i'll donate more money. and another thing that annoys me- the charitys telling people to give them money cos it'll make them feel good- personally i don't think the feeling good aspect should have anything to do with it, cos it's not about the person, it doesn't make me feel good that i have given like $3 to some sick child, but i hope it'll help them in some way and the charity doesn't go off stealing the money for themselves.

christians- some of the nicest people i know are christians, and they're the 'genuine' christians- there are others who go to church purely cos they see it to be 'cool', and that annoys me too. however they do tend to look down on things people do they don't see to be 'christian', and then some are just narky as. 

hmmm that was just some fat rant on things that annoy me...guess who's not selfless!!

[brewtality]

one thing that annoys me is the whole charity thing, you 'donate' money, but most of the time it's because it's daffodil day or something and you get a badge or a pen or something in return- why can't we just give the money out of our free will instead of it being coaxed out of us with things?

Wishful thinking. People don't even want to donate money in exchange for a pen, poppy etc (I lose track of how many people close their door in my face when I door-knock for RSL.)

christians- some of the nicest people i know are christians, and they're the 'genuine' christians- there are others who go to church purely cos they see it to be 'cool', and that annoys me too.

Its cool to be christian? haven't heard that one before.

Hilariously, I'm 99% sure Stevie started the same topic ages ago on another board.

[leahcim]

in response to leahcim, i don't think the bible says anything about eternal life for sinners.

I was talking about eternal life for not sinning [or repenting or whatever it is you do] being a punishment not a prize.

I'm certainly happy to be reassured commiting a few sins means I won't have to suffer.

[prometheus]

Well, christianity is also idiologically the most tolerant. Note, in idiology, this doesn't have anything to do with how people actually act.

I though sinning didn't matter in chistianity, as long as you accept Christ as your personal savior.

Also, the old testament doesn't talk about hell as a place for humans. It also claims that no human will have ethernal life.

[pianistimo]

eternal life isn't inherent in ourselves.  it has to do with the Holy Spirit.  when adam and eve took from the tree of good and evil instead of the tree of life, they effectively limited themselves to a human lifespan (and accepted sin/evil/death).  so it is all the way until now, in my understanding.  and how do we know eternal life would be frustrating (as life is today) since we live in an imperfect world and cannot right now compare it to a perfect world (where there is no sin).  if we at least attempt to keep as many of God's commandments as possible, there is reward now, and reward later.  it is because every action has a consequence (good or bad) and that was set into motion at creation.  when adam and eve were kicked out of the garden, that was a consequence.

what is really hard, is being a parent.  because you start seeing that God's way is perfect.  if you try to be friends with your children, you shoot yourself in the foot.  they grow up disobedient, disrespectful, lazy, etc.  much better to be a little harder (as God was int he OT very many times ) and then relax parenting as they grow older.  then they have self-discipline which lets them get farther in life (by listening well, and not just talking and tuning out).  respect furthers respect.  so, imo, God is like a parent.  He tells us what He expects, and we choose if we will do it or not.  He also tells us the consequences (many explained int eh OT) and if we choose evil - there are certain results, and good - have good results.

i've tested some things out - and found that with my son i was extremely liberal.  if he woke up and started crying, i immediately picked him up (always checked on all my children to see why they were crying, but if no dirty diaper, and no problem, the rest would fall asleep again within a couple of minutes)  more liberal than my parents could take when he was very young.  he IS free thinking, but he is SO free thinking that he doesn't always take me seriously and i sometimes have to say - STOP LISTEN DO.   with my daughter, i took a different approach.  i ordered her life from the day she was born.  i determined when her naptimes would be, when feeding times, when play times, and stuck to it, (very small increments of time to start - 2 hours at 2 month, 3 at 3 and so on, until she was pretty much sleeping through the night at 5 or 6 months).  i was MUCH less tired, and she was happy to entertain herself even awake sometimes because she knew what to expect. 

God must be like this to his children.  you know, he gradually weans us off of things like "don't shoot your neighbor"  "don't take someone else's wife or husband"  "take a day of rest and refresh"  "don't take God's name in vain"  -  and moves on to more difficult tasks .  not always reacting but being proactive.  planning, like he does, the future of our lives.  just like retirement, if you don't really think it will come and then it suddenly does - you may not have the same 'reward' as if you plan for it.  God's kingdom is spoken of as Christ returning as a 'thief in the night.'  if we aren't planning for it, it will be an unwelcome surprise.  thus, people hiding out in caves and such, thinking the end of the world is a dirty trick instead of the beginning of a new world of peace and tranquility.

[jeremyjchilds]

Well, christianity is also idiologically the most tolerant. Note, in idiology, this doesn't have anything to do with how people actually act.

I though sinning didn't matter in chistianity, as long as you accept Christ as your personal savior.

THere are tolerant and intolerant people everywhere, some of them end up in christian circles, and use the bible as a tool for thier intolorance. Some of them end up in Classical music circles...

As for sinning, To say that it doesent matter may be a simplification of the christian faith...
A righteous life is not a pre-requisite (or co-requisite) to "qualify" as a christian. The bible is clear that faith alone is what defines a christian.

That said, sin grieves the lord's heart, causes others to stumble, and generally gets us all into some trouble or another, so we as christians make it a point to steer clear of sin. Diong righteosu works is also a sustainer of our faith, James wrote taht faith without works (good works) is dead.

[rob47]

ive thought about it, and deep down, i dont think there is.

I've given to homeless people, then tried to forget about it so I don't get high on myself.  I think it's a psychological disorder.

[pianistimo]

there's a difference between high on yourself and high on God.  it is a good feeling when you help someone else, but as you did (you don't have to tell people).  i talk a lot, so maybe it sounds like i'm trying to toot my own horn.  in actuality, all of us have needs at one time or other, and God promises that if we do His will, he'll make sure there are people around to help us in times of need, too.  learning to accept help is really a good learning skill too (learned this while unemployed) to graciously accept gifts that people give you.

 

[leahcim]

how do we know eternal life would be frustrating (as life is today) since we live in an imperfect world and cannot right now compare it to a perfect world (where there is no sin).

You need to think what "eternal" means.

Try this, fly to the moon once every million years or so, when you get there, rub it once with your finger. When the moon has eroded away to nothing, you won't have even begun your eternal life. Now do every planet in the solar system. Now every one in the Universe. You're only a few billion years into it now.....anything on TV you haven't seen 50 billion times?

Frustrating? Doesn't even being to describe it.
If you believe this stuff you preach, I'd ask what the 2nd prize is - caveat emptor.

what is really hard, is being a parent.

Not really. If you have kids then you're a parent

If you try to be friends with your children, you shoot yourself in the foot.

Eh? I think you've been taking the "them and us" advice in the "Teaching" board too seriously

[pianistimo]

on the 'friends' bit, i agree.  you can't be a meanie either.  but, there's no respect for a parent who is wishy-washy.  you have to be firm about what you mean (consequences) or your children just think they can do anything they please.

as far as eternity, i haven't experienced it.  life as we see it now is based on time-space.  what if time became something different.  what if there were worlds to create and endless possibilities.  i am for LIFE and not DEATH.  death is not something i look forward to, even though it may be a few seconds, hours or days. 

when each of my children was born, the biggest thing on my mind was that they were a living being, and it was very hard for me at that point to think that they also someday will die.  but, death must have a purpose.  maybe at the end of our lives it helps us to realize the difference between living in a world of sin - and be able to compare it to no threats of death in the future.  no one will be able to terrorize, or take away our peace and joy.  we will not be put into situations where we fear for our lives, or hear stories like lacy peterson's. 

eternal death means you will never know, but as in lazarus and the rich man - there may be a space of time that the reward of eternal life will be seen by those who are headed for the second death.  they are like the rich man who wishes that someone would have told him.  he didn't realize what an opportunity he was passing up on this earth at the time he was 'living it up.'  because of good things God has done in my life now, i completely trust Him. ps and for those who haven't experienced a lot of joy and have had a lot of pain and sufferring - they should trust that it will be GONE.  the sorrow and tears.  blind people will see, the lame will walk, the mentally ill healed.  i would like to witness this since i know several people who are handicapped.  i want to see them have the joy that i do in seeing, feeling, etc.

[leahcim]

That said, sin grieves the lord's heart, causes others to stumble, and generally gets us all into some trouble or another, so we as christians make it a point to steer clear of sin.

You manage that by deciding what sinning is? I note nothing at all about pianos in the bible, so how do you know that playing the piano isn't sinful?

There are plenty of other examples - and "harming others" and similar loose interpretations etc won't cover it, since there are plenty of so-called sins and no-nos in there that are perfectly fine things to do that harm no one.

[pianistimo]

how about the other angle.  how do you determine evil?  what is evil?  we know cain slew abel because he was jealous.  are there other tendencies towards evil that are in our mind.  i think yes.  if you play the piano with a dirty mind, it's evil. 

so, we have to, as christians EVERY DAY...to say something like the Lord's prayer.  deliver me from evil.  it's in all of us to do evil because #1 it's easy #2 everyone's doing it #3 satan likes it and makes it look good (and we are tempted by our own natures). 

if you judge yourself and no one else, you can't say that you're being hypocritical.  even if someone else is playing the piano for self-aggrandizement, or whatever, you just laugh, because in the end - we all die.  we all get the same.  but, in the resurrection of the dead there will be distinction.  those that took the time to acknowledge righteousness from God (via his Words) will be aware of their huge  potential to be 'sons of God'  or 'sons and daughters of righteousness' and not penalized for worshipping angels instead of God. 

music is a powerful medium.  it can be used to manipulate audiences (for good or bad).  the best use of music, to me, is praising God.  that is what it was originally meant for int he purest sense.  and, then for loving others (in the purest sense).  i mean, love songs are beautiful.  classical music and many modern pieces are beautiful.  they bring glory to God and beauty into a place that was previously without.  it is like a light being turned on in a dark room.

[arensky]

Bringing this to the front so I can find it...been thinking about this since I saw the post. This is a truly profound question; still thinking about it, I will post soon...

[zheer]

Yes jumping into a burning building to save someone is a selfless act. Killing 50 people in the name of god thinking that you are going to paradise forever is a completly selfish act. No thought to family friends or society.

[rc]

I was thinking about this earlier today... I don't see too much wrong with being a bit selfish, so long as you're insightful enough to know that you aren't doing yourself any favors in being a prick. Read enough into it and you see that one of the best things you can do for yourself is to be good to others.

...Bit of a paradox. I'm not worried about it. Getting more curious about buddhism though, might have to hit up the library tomorrow.

Enjoying the debate too

[stevie]

the whole point of this is to take a look at the way we, as humans, act towards eachother, specifically regarding kindness and just generally being nice to people.

just generally being nice to people, saving peoples lifes, etc. i believe... isnt selfless, because as humans we are preprogrammed to enjoy certain things, we enjoy the feeling of gratitude, and we enjoy the feeling we get when we are nice to someone.

we are preprogrammed to enjoy these things because of the same reasons we are preprogrammed to enjoy a good sex session, for the survival and development of our race and culture.

perhaps.

so its not bad at all, but all im explaining is that we never do something if we arent going to get something out of it, no matter how obscure , silly, or little a thing.

[arensky]

No. There is a payoff for evrything we do. Once I was leaving the Conservatory and walking down a busy Boston street at rush hour. A kitten dashed across my path and ran into Boylston St. then under a parked car, followed by a little girl, crying, trying to follow under the car. Her mother was screaming at her to stop it, and the situation was a mess. I got down in the gutter, crawled under the car, and scooped the poor thing up. It's heart was beating like a little washing machine. I gave the kitten to the little girl, who smiled but couldn't say anything, she was still crying. The mother just mumbled "thank you", put the kitten in it's box and they walked out of my life.

It would appear that I am very selfless. No one else stopped to help them, in fact they were getting dirty looks from some people. So why did I do this? What was my payoff? I did not want to see the kitten killed, it would have upset me; seeing the little girl unhappy and her mother freaking out was already upsetting me, as was the plight of the kitten. So to make myself feel better, I stepped in to fix the situation. So this seemingly selfless act was in fact very selfish; I wanted to stop what was upsetting me.

Some time later, I was at a musical theatre rehearsal, and on a break the "star", your typical shallow lunkhead pop actor was telling a story to a group of the actors about how he had rushed into a burning house to save his niece's cat, painting himself as a cross between Albert Schweitzer and Steven Segal. This made me reflect on my own cat saving, and I became very irritated; I did this first, how come I'm not getting any credit for my action? Well, because, I wasn't blowing my own horn, and there is the difference. BTW I'm not trying to paint myself as better than this actor, but what do you all think? This happened about 15 years ago, and it still bothers me; where's my godamm cat saving medal? In my heart I know my reward was the little girl smiling, and the kitten back in it's box, and that is enough. I guess what bothers me is the way the actor was flaunting his good deed, so we would think better of him. This sort of behavior has always annoyed me, I don't like Braggarts or stuck up people.

So if from now on I blow my own horn a little more, is that bad? If there is no selfless act, why shouldn't I just go with that, and be the King S**t of everything that I know I am?

I was thinking about this earlier today... I don't see too much wrong with being a bit selfish, so long as you're insightful enough to know that you aren't doing yourself any favors in being a prick. Read enough into it and you see that one of the best things you can do for yourself is to be good to others.

...Bit of a paradox. I'm not worried about it. Getting more curious about buddhism though, might have to hit up the library tomorrow.

Enjoying the debate too

I don't want to be a prick. Some people already think I am, and that's OK, because I don't think I am, or I am certainly less of a prick than other people I know. Yes it is quite a paradox. I am kind of worried though, I think this is a core topic or our existence, and it's important. I've been getting curious about Buddhism too; a lot of people have, it's been in my town and in the news alot, but I got interested before that; curious. Not exactly enjoying this debate, but it's important IMO...

[arensky]

yo

[Floristan]

Do you guys know the O'Henry story, "The Gift of the Maji"?  It's pretty corny, but very much to the point of this thread.  In this story a husband and wife, poor as churchmice, want to give each other something very special for Christmas.  He has a pocket watch he inherited; she has beautiful, long hair.  He decides to buy her expensive combs for her hair, but has to sell his watch to do it.  She decides to buy him an expensive watch fob, but has to sell her hair to do it.  Christmas comes and they give each other gifts that neither of them can now use.  Of course this doesn't sadden them but makes them happy to see how much they love each other.  

No, there are no truly selfless acts among us mere mortals. 

[I Love Xenakis]

you've been talking to jeff, havent you comme?

I believe fully selfless acts can easily manifest from true love.  Would anyone here take a bullet for their husband or wife?  Of course.  Tell me, if you took a bullet to the head what do you have to gain, assuming you're not a religious person?


nothin =)  You people need to have more faith in human goodness.  Machiavelli can suck it.

[pianistimo]

true love, in itself, is selfish.  i mean - who goes about getting married without wanting *** , and good *** at that.  then, you don't want to lose it, right?  so you take a bullet for all those good times - thinking that if you survive - you'll get more.  but, i suppose after being married for awhile - you do just love the person for who they are and not what you can get. 

[I Love Xenakis]

I suppose you're right, but your little theory only applies to people who don't have hearts.

[rc]

So if from now on I blow my own horn a little more, is that bad? If there is no selfless act, why shouldn't I just go with that, and be the King S**t of everything that I know I am?

I don't want to be a prick. Some people already think I am, and that's OK, because I don't think I am, or I am certainly less of a prick than other people I know. Yes it is quite a paradox. I am kind of worried though, I think this is a core topic or our existence, and it's important. I've been getting curious about Buddhism too; a lot of people have, it's been in my town and in the news alot, but I got interested before that; curious. Not exactly enjoying this debate, but it's important IMO...

I don't take this debate too seriously because any selfish act can be construed as selfless and any selfless act can be seen as selfish. Check out how selfless tooting your own horn can be, if you look at it as providing an entertaining story for your listeners , perhaps even inspiring them to be better people.

Braggarts annoy me too. Typically I'll have to walk away, they're such bad company. I've got a friend who has a tendancy to brag, but only around people he doesn't know so well (which for a while meant nearly everybody), and what it seemed to me was a need for attention, not just any attention, but to be admired. I remember once when he started bragging to me about something, I tried not giving him the admiration, just treated his story with nonchalance, and wow, from there he just tried harder and harder to impress me. I felt sorry for the guy.

Being that we're friends, I was often present at the situations he would later brag about. Those were the most irritating. It's not that he would tell any blatant lies, but the story was so misleading that a very average event would become another of his moments of glory... Now my immediate reaction to when someone tells a story where they come off as some kind of hero is to doubt it, notch the story down to something that sounds more regular in my head.

Another aspect of the braggart that comes to mind is that they don't want to share any of the spotlight. When someone tells a story, the braggart will one-up them, nobody can have a better story than the braggart. Everything you've done they've done better, everything you know they know better. This kind of company becomes very tiresome. I take comfort in the fact that a braggart is never up to par with his own stories, he can only talk, and often winds up weaving nooses around his neck to hang himself by.

Then I think of the difference between a brag, and a story. The old guy who always has a story. Only his stories are more believable, they don't serve the purpose of making the storyteller sound like a hero, are relevant to the conversation and actually have a point. So I figure there's nothing wrong with tootin' your own horn once in a while, you can get props for your actions without being a braggart.

[pianistimo]

which little theory are you referring to?  the one where the people get all teary eyed on the day of their wedding, or the one where they've gone through some tough times together?  i think maturity is what it's about.  you don't start out having unfathomless love.  you learn to love and it's probably reached fully at the end of your life.