Genuine Human Happiness

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
May I respectfully suggest that instead of posting other people's arguments and then patronisingly insisting that I haven't understood them, you try to rephrase them in simple terms that an idiot such as myself might grasp even allowing for my puny, ill-exercised and no doubt diminutive mind?

Now you're being ridiculously defensive. You've already had it explained to you at least three different ways. I have no reason to believe that a fourth is going to be of more help to you than you going back over it with the attitude that there are things that you don't sufficiently understand. It really shouldn't be that big a deal. Just set your pride aside for a few minutes and adopt that attitude.

BTW, I had added the following to my previous post while you were writing your response: "Pay particular attention to the text in bold in the second post coupled with the concept of 'psychological altruism' brought up in the first." It should help point you in the right direction.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Now you're getting ridiculously defensive. You've already had it explained to you at least three different ways. I have no reason to believe that a fourth is going to be of more help to you than you going back over it with the attitude that maybe you don't really understand it. It really shouldn't be that big a deal. Just set your pride aside for a few mi ...[text shortened]... cond post coupled with the concept of 'psychological altruism' brought up in the first."

Look, I'm not an idiot, I can read and understand what I'm reading. It is, however, entirely unclear to me why it is that if psychological egoism is true it is "trivial" and "meaningless". This is not explained in the texts you have posted.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
But why do you want to do the right thing? (I felt that motivation too)

I believe it is instinctual. Human nature includes empathy as well as the desire to do the 'right thing'. Of course it is not that simple and there is a complex balance between those and selfishness and often we try to convince ourselves that we are achieving both even when they are in conflict.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Look, I'm not an idiot, I can read and understand what I'm reading. It is, however, entirely unclear to me why it is that if psychological egoism is true it is "trivial" and "meaningless". This is not explained in the texts you have posted.

From what I can tell, you believe that they are saying that "if psychological egoism is true it is 'trivial' and 'meaningless'". They are not. It's one of the reasons that I don't think that you really understand what they are saying.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
From what I can tell, you believe that they are saying that "if psychological egoism is true it is 'trivial' and 'meaningless'". They are not. It's one of the reasons that I don't think that you really understand what they are saying.

Well thanks for telling me what they're not saying, now how about telling me what they are saying? Please explain in layman's terms. I'm interested in but not particularly educated in philosophy.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I believe it is instinctual. Human nature includes empathy as well as the desire to do the 'right thing'. Of course it is not that simple and there is a complex balance between those and selfishness and often we try to convince ourselves that we are achieving both even when they are in conflict.

So you don't feel a selfish motive for wanting to 'do the right thing', generally? I have found this to be preferable in many ways to not doing so. The simple knowledge of ills committed or inflicted causes considerable disquiet, I have found. Worthy of significant effort to avoid.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Well thanks for telling me what they're not saying, now how about telling me what they are saying? Please explain in layman's terms. I'm interested in but not particularly educated in philosophy.

Listen, I've already told you what I think you should do, have given you guidance as to how to approach it and explained why giving you yet another explanation would probably prove fruitless. You don't need to be "educated in philosophy" to be able to understand it. You just need to approach it with an open mind and the attitude that there are things you didn't understand the first go round. If you're truly interested, you'll do this. If not, you won't.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
So you don't feel a selfish motive for wanting to 'do the right thing', generally? I have found this to be preferable in many ways to not doing so. The simple knowledge of ills committed or inflicted causes considerable disquiet, I have found. Worthy of significant effort to avoid.

I would not characterize 'avoidance of personal disquiet' as a 'selfish motive', but rather as a part of our internal decision making process. But even so, I do not think that all my decisions are based on a fear of 'personal disquiet'.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I would not characterize 'avoidance of personal disquiet' as a 'selfish motive', but rather as a part of our internal decision making process. But even so, I do not think that all my decisions are based on a fear of 'personal disquiet'.

I don't consider it a 'fear' of personal disquiet, more of a desire for personal peace. I take you can then find conscious decisions in your life which do not seem to you to be based in selfishness?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Listen, I've already told you what I think you should do, have given you guidance as to how to approach it and explained why giving you yet another explanation would probably prove fruitless. You don't need to be "educated in philosophy" to be able to understand it. You just need to approach it with an open mind and the attitude that there are things you stand the first go round. If you're truly interested, you'll do this. If not, you won't.

I get that you think that you have, but from my point of view you've simply posted some stuff cut & pasted from other websites which I'd already read and, if you'll forgive me for saying so, rather pompously opined that I've not understood what I've read and should try again until I agree with your point of view. Unfortunately I'm not quite grasping what your point of view is, and you seem stubbornly reluctant to explain it.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
I get that you think that you have, but from my point of view you've simply posted some stuff cut & pasted from other websites which I'd already read and, if you'll forgive me for saying so, rather pompously opined that I've not understood what I've read and should try again until I agree with your point of view. Unfortunately I'm not quite grasping what your point of view is, and you seem stubbornly reluctant to explain it.

Like I previously explained:

From what I can tell, you believe that they are saying that "if psychological egoism is true it is 'trivial' and 'meaningless'". They are not. It's one of the reasons that I don't think that you really understand what they are saying.

Which was in response to the following:

Look, I'm not an idiot, I can read and understand what I'm reading. It is, however, entirely unclear to me why it is that if psychological egoism is true it is "trivial" and "meaningless". This is not explained in the texts you have posted.

How you managed to twist that into "[you] should try again until [you] agree with [my] point of view" is beyond me.

You can insist that you "understand" what they are saying all you want, but the evidence shows otherwise.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Like I previously explained:

From what I can tell, you believe that they are saying that "if psychological egoism is true it is 'trivial' and 'meaningless'". They are not. It's one of the reasons that I don't think that you really understand what they are saying.

How you managed to twist that into "[you] should try again until [you] ag ...[text shortened]... ou "understand" what they are saying all you want, but the evidence shows otherwise.

Yes, I saw your previous post. If you recall, I thanked you for telling me what they weren't saying and asked you if you would tell me what it was you thought they were saying. That was the point where you told me to go back and read it again. Is this some sort of elaborate troll? I told you I didn't get it, and I asked you, at least twice now, to explain it to me. Now you can keep patronising me if you like and amusing yourself by telling me how much I don't understand, or, if you like, you can try to explain it.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Yes, I saw your previous post. If you recall, I thanked you for telling me what they weren't saying and asked you if you would tell me what it was you thought they were saying. That was the point where you told me to go back and read it again. Is this some sort of elaborate troll? I told you I didn't get it, and I asked you, at least tw ...[text shortened]... urself by telling me how much I don't understand, or, if you like, you can try to explain it.

Like I explained earlier:

Now you're being ridiculously defensive. You've already had it explained to you at least three different ways. I have no reason to believe that a fourth is going to be of more help to you than you going back over it with the attitude that there are things that you don't sufficiently understand.

Don't know what you don't understand about the above.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Like I explained earlier:

Now you're being ridiculously defensive. You've already had it explained to you at least three different ways. I have no reason to believe that a fourth is going to be of more help to you than you going back over it with the attitude that there are things that you don't sufficiently understand.

Don't know what you don't understand about the above.

You're a funny guy, you know that?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]Few Easy Questions:

Does buying new clothes make you happy?

Does wining a demanding chess game make you happy?

Does an excellent meal at a five star restaurant make you happy?

Does vacationing with your family make you happy?

Does the unparalled enjoyment of intimacy with your wife make you happy?

Of Course They Do!

[hidden]Do these variations of human happiness l a s t ? Hell, No.[/hidden][/b]

You make so many assumptions about how you think people live, that I doubt you are even aware that: half of the world lives in poverty (defined as less than US$1.25 a day), a child dies every 3.66 seconds from starvation.... and my list could go on, but it would end on deaf ears.

Some of don't buy new clothes, and buy second hand to help the agencies that offer support to wage war on the above.

Chess is a hobby for most, and winning or losing is not as important as participating - no matter the game.

Don't eat at 5* hotels...... they're for the greedy rich.

What's a vacation? Many of us work all year round - GIVING!

You would take away from love?

Pity you.... you must be going blind!!

-m. 😠