Genuine Human Happiness

Originally posted by LemonJello

The Integrity of God's Character; and the Person and Work (Substitutionary Spiritual Death of Christ on Our Behalf) Define the Basis and Means of Genuine Human Happiness.

WTF? Vacuous gibberish.

First, 'happiness' is consistent with merely some transitory state; so perhaps 'eudaimonia' is more to the point as some prolonged state of flourishi ...[text shortened]... ot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.[/quote]

"WTF? Vacuous gibberish."

Nice Mouth, LemonJello.

Imagine your children have a field day in school;

and at home.
.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Much as I long to agree with you, I would have to beg to differ. Self-interest is not the same as self-centred.

Then I would be interested to hear your specific construal of 'self-centred' along with your account of human motivations/desires wherein all of them count as "self-centred". I can tell you, however, that if your construal has much of anything to do with 'self-centered' as ToO is using it in the current context, then your account will fail, since there is a mountain of empirical data against psychological egoism (and if you are interested in references, etc, to such studies, I can provide some).

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
So you're saying that happiness is not the goal of the thing we call human?
That is perposterous!
You wouldn't argue without that goal in mind!

So you're saying that happiness is not the goal of the thing we call human?

Huh? I don't even know what it means to say "happiness is the not the goal of the thing we call human".

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Just do yourself a favor and get educated on this topic rather than being content in wallowing in your ignorance.

I have to say that the dismissal of "psychological egotism" may be questionable.It is possible to justify any behaviour through this process ,and you could argue that this is it's strength. I understand that many will find this objectionable ,but when you think about it even that could be "psychological egotism".

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]"WTF? Vacuous gibberish."

Nice Mouth, LemonJello.

Imagine your children have a field day in school;

and at home.
.[/b]

I don't have any children. So it seems God is not the only nonexistent you imagine on about.

I see you didn't address any of the substance of what I wrote. That seems to be your typical MO.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Is this your favourite method of discussion? It makes you look a bit of a dick you know, which I'm sure isn't the case. Perhaps, given your superior education, you could just indulge my childish desire to demonstrate my ignorance?

Like I said, "...it would seem that LJ might be interested in educating you on this topic...I have no interest in indulging your childishness."

Originally posted by LemonJello
Then I would be interested to hear your specific construal of 'self-centred' along with your account of human motivations/desires wherein all of them count as "self-centred". I can tell you, however, that if your construal has much of anything to do with 'self-centered' as ToO is using it in the current context, then your account will fail, since there i ...[text shortened]... m (and if you are interested in references, etc, to the such studies, I can provide some).

I have read a certain amount on the subject. My understanding of the term Psychological Egoism is that it is the view that people are always motivated by self-interest. It seems apparent to me that this is not the case. Considering only my own motivations, I can readily find some which are not motivated by self-interest. Taking, for example, that espoused earlier by ToO - I echo his sentiment. I echo his sentiment. How is that not self-centred?

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
I have read a certain amount on the subject. My understanding of the term Psychological Egoism is that it is the view that people are always motivated by self-interest. It seems apparent to me that this is not the case. Considering only my own motivations, I can readily find some which are not motivated by self-interest. Taking, for example, that esp ...[text shortened]... arlier by ToO - I echo his sentiment. [b]I echo his sentiment. How is that not self-centred?[/b]

You didn't provide your construal of 'self-centred', so I literally don't know what you mean when you ask "How is that not self-centred?"

If all you mean by 'self-centred' is that it originates from, or bears some other basic etiological relation, to the self, then of course all desires are "self-centred" in that sense. That, of course, would have nothing to do with how ToO was using the term. And that would be a totally trivial observation.

The way 'self-centered' or 'selfish' or 'self-interested' are used in the context of psychological egoism to qualify human motivation/desire is roughly the following. A motivation/desire is self-centered in this sense if it takes one's self or one's own welfare, in some materially relevant way, as its object. Psychological egoism is an empirical claim that says that all human motivations are as such. This is what I am claiming is emphatically false, based on the empirical evidence against it.

EDIT: Based on your post, it seems we would agree that psychological egoism is false. Then I guess the only confusion I would have here is why you thought your construal of 'self-centred' applied in context to ToO earlier comments. I think it is obvious that he was taking 'self-centered' to be in the same vein as you're taking 'self-interest' here.

Originally posted by OdBod
I have to say that the dismissal of "psychological egotism" may be questionable.It is possible to justify any behaviour through this process ,and you could argue that this is it's strength. I understand that many will find this objectionable ,but when you think about it even that could be "psychological egotism".

Were you posting this as a response to LJ? Seems like you might have inadvertently clicked on the wrong link.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Were you posting this as a response to LJ? Seems like you might have inadvertently clicked on the wrong link.

No, I think the point the cat was making regarding the root of motivation was valid,I was hoping to get past the verbal assaults.

Originally posted by OdBod
No, I think the point the cat was making regarding the root of motivation was valid,I was hoping to get past the verbal assaults.

What do you take to be the content of his point regarding the root of motivation? I don't understand what he means by 'self-centred'. It seems that he is just claiming that all motivations are self-centred in that they are sourced, or some such, from the self. That's a valid point, but that has nothing to do with psychological egoism, which holds that all motivations take the self as an object, which is quite a different claim.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
So you're saying that happiness is not the goal of the thing we call human?
That is perposterous!
You wouldn't argue without that goal in mind!

Let me see if this helps clarify for you.

It's perfectly natural for one to have the overarching goal of happiness. But, what I said basically is that I think it will do little or no good for him to have happiness per se as his chief or proximate objective. What I mean by that is, I think happiness endogenously grows best as an attendant byproduct of reasonable activity aimed at other ends, which include the things I mentioned (the cultivation of the virtues, the reasonable and successful pursuit of things we value, the understanding of things beyond our control).

Originally posted by OdBod
No, I think the point the cat was making regarding the root of motivation was valid,I was hoping to get past the verbal assaults.

Curious as I did not use the term "psychological egotism", yet you responded as if I did.

Are you of the mind that everyone should indulge all whims of all others?

Originally posted by LemonJello
I don't have any children. So it seems God is not the only nonexistent you imagine on about.

I see you didn't address any of the substance of what I wrote. That seems to be your typical MO.

[empty words, sad]

Originally posted by LemonJello
What do you take to be the content of his point regarding the root of motivation? I don't understand what he means by 'self-centred'. It seems that he is just claiming that all motivations are self-centred in that they are sourced, or some such, from the self. That's a valid point, but that has nothing to do with psychological egoism, which holds that all motivations take the self as an object, which is quite a different claim.

I think that being "self centred" is just a very obvious manifestation of psychological egoism. A less obvious manifestation may be helping others, but this satisfies a need inside yourself . What our deeper needs are, can be very different from each other,and almost never understood fully by their owners . The need for the individual to express itself is egotism ,so maybe you could argue a form of "self contentedness" at a subconscious level, which does look like psychological egoism.