Thatcher and Socialist Sentiment

[TheRedBaron]

What if the concept of Altruism can be used like a Visualization technique. To train our minds and build our characters. And as long as we are aware that of what it is (just an illusory idea), then we can use it, instead of it we.

In that sense it is a much more practical thing, and not such a deep matter after all. Just a guiding principle of social responsibility, exchange & interaction.

Why does it need to be totally true or authentic in some mystical sense? It doesn't!

 

[TheRedBaron]

I could point out examples of how it's manifested in the real world, but you'd simply chalk that up to some evolutionary mechanism in order to cheapen it.

Why does that cheapen it? If anything it makes it even more fascinating. Why does the fact that we are products of evolutionary mechanisms cheapen things for you?

 

[hehejo]

What if the concept of Altruism can be used like a Visualization technique. To train our minds and build our characters. And as long as we are aware that of what it is (just an illusory idea), then we can use it, instead of it we.

In that sense it is a much more practical thing, and not such a deep matter after all. Just a guiding principle of social responsibility, exchange & interaction.

Why does it need to be totally true or authentic in some mystical sense? It doesn't!

The problem with people who subscribe to altruism is that they often use altruism as the reason to force other people to act in some way. Sometimes the force is directly or indirectly violent (see the state, welfare etc) or it can be just through making people feel guilty about something. The two can of course also be intertwined.

On a basic level, we help other people because it helps us in return. Game theory shows that individuals and groups who cooperate do better in an environment with multiple participants compared to groups who don't.

On a biological level all our genes care about is replicating and surviving. This also means helping similar genes (relatives) to a certain degree. To some degree it also means helping friends and your "tribe", because those genes have shown that they support your genes too so it is a symbiotic relationship and you profit from them surviving in the gene pool.

But broken down it comes all back to your genes who want to survive and replicate and all those things have their roots in selfish reasons.

 

[TheRedBaron]

The problem with people who subscribe to altruism is that they often use altruism as the reason to force other people to act in some way. Sometimes the force is directly or indirectly violent (see the state, welfare etc) or it can be just through making people feel guilty about something. The two can of course also be intertwined.

Agreed.

On a basic level, we help other people because it helps us in return. Game theory shows that individuals and groups who cooperate do better in an environment with multiple participants compared to groups who don't.

On a biological level all our genes care about is replicating and surviving. This also means helping similar genes (relatives) to a certain degree. To some degree it also means helping friends and your "tribe", because those genes have shown that they support your genes too so it is a symbiotic relationship and you profit from them surviving in the gene pool.

But broken down it comes all back to your genes who want to survive and replicate and all those things have their roots in selfish reasons.

That's definitely one way to see it (life, being human) - I agree with everything you have said. It's definitely the truth on one level...

What I mean by that is... take a symphony. One one level it is just a bunch of patterns of air compression reverberating through the air and stimulating your inner ear which then activates sound perception in your brain and triggers the recognition of pre-conditioned intervals and sound frequencies which are then perceived by your brain in familiar melodic and harmonic tonal patterns and rhythmic combinations, etc.etc...

On another level it is also something else. Reality or not, we do experience the world through a kaleidoscopic of emotions, culture, meaning, and just being human in general... I don't think you can simply break things down to their base truths and say "that is reality".

I think reality can have multiple levels of "truth".

 

[TheRedBaron]

Never mind I misread what you said... I see you were just saying those are different levels of the reality of the situation, the base and very real fact of the matter levels. Not that they are the only way to look at things.

Cool brah. Didn't mean to go on a defensive rant sorry!

 

[GimpSpack]

1)HeHejo: It seems to me you object to altruism as an ETHICAL DOCTRINE - that is, it's our DUTY to always put others before ourselves. If that's the case, I agree with you. It makes no sense that we're obligated to love others more than ourselves. I mean, if you want to do that, that's cool - but it should NEVER be an obligation. I would say that it's more practical (and reasonable) to love others as much as we do ourselves.

2.The RedBaren: I'm glad Guerilla was able to win you over, despite never explaining how it's impossible to practice unselfish concern for the well-being of others. In other words, acting towards the benefit of others WITHOUT self-interest.

You all have stated rather elegantly how the drive to help others comes from a survival standpoint...

On a biological level all our genes care about is replicating and surviving. This also means helping similar genes (relatives) to a certain degree. To some degree it also means helping friends and your "tribe", because those genes have shown that they support your genes too so it is a symbiotic relationship and you profit from them surviving in the gene pool.

...And yet this STILL doesn't explain the soldier who throws himself over a grenade to protect his comrades. If it's all about genetic survival, where does this one come into play? It couldn't be ego-gratification considering total self-sacrifice entails complete destruction of the ego (self). There is NO ego reward if you're dead.

On a basic level, we help other people because it helps us in return. Game theory shows that individuals and groups who cooperate do better in an environment with multiple participants compared to groups who don't.

What you're describing is collectivism. It's not the same as the empathetic model of altruism Guerrilla and I were discussing.

But broken down it comes all back to your genes who want to survive and replicate and all those things have their roots in selfish reasons.

I would argue that our base drive towards genetic propagation ISN'T necessarily selfish (as it's perpetuating the species as a whole), and if it is (for the sake of argument), it's certainly not the type of selfishness we experience when consciously weighing out the benefits of helping out another party. Egoism vs unselfish concern for others is what we're talking about here.

I think a HUGE mistake everyone's making is to assume that all human survival instincts stem from selfishness (or egoism), and that altruism is some twisted offspring of that.

It makes more sense that altruism and egoism are both their own separate instincts, and they each have played their own part in driving us forward as a species...


..Now can someone PLEASE explain how it's IMPOSSIBLE for me to act without self-interest in mind? :eek7:

 

[hehejo]

1)
..Now can someone PLEASE explain how it's IMPOSSIBLE for me to act without self-interest in mind? :eek7:

Please reread my posts carefully, I answered all your concerns there.

The soldiers throws himself on the grenade to save his friends, see my explanation for that (if you save enough friends it might benefit the replication of your genes better than if you don't do it. Especially if you would die anyways from the grenade).

And yes that description was not meant to be for altruism, I just wanted to explain how it can benefit a individual to help the collective. I agree with guerilla on the altruism stance.

I think there is a misunderstanding here because you are looking at it from a purely conscious perspective while I (and maybe guerilla, he will speak for himself) look at it from an action perspective. You might think consciously that you are acting altruistically, but that doesn't mean it wasn't an egoistic action if broken down to the basics.

We are arguing on self interest on a basic level, not just purely what a person thinks. A person might think he is god, but that doesn't make it true. Same with altruism, a person might think he is acting altruistic, but he isn't (from an outsiders perspective with all things taken into consideration).

 

[amateursurgeon]

First time I've created a thread so I fully expect to have a bleeding anus within a few posts, but in the meantime I wonder who else here has noticed the socialist bleating coming out of the UK. I'm from there originally and it scares the hell out of me. The kind of comments I see on Facebook and in newspapers reminds me why I left. Europe in general is even worse, but the UK seems to be heading down the same path.

Many people in the UK have some variation on the following beliefs:

If you're successful you were lucky (i.e. I could have done it if I'd been lucky like you)
If you're successful you owe society because you couldn't have done it without it (i.e. the obese mother of 10 who had the exact same society - chances - and who does nothing but suck the life out of it is somehow owed money by the woman who took risks and made something out of her life)
If you're successful and weren't lucky you must have stolen it, and therefore you don't deserve it.

And you feel it, in the street, in a cafe, wherever. 'Look at that guy, let's bring him down a bit the bastard... I wish I had that, I wish I had tried harder and not been a fucking loser my whole life.'

Thatcher wasn't perfect, but she had more balls, and sense, than any of these pussies we have now in all the goddamn 'political' parties in the UK.

I know I know, cool starry brah

But at least here there are plenty of people who aren't a bunch of bleating whinos draining whatever they can from everyone else in a race to the bottom. Main reason I signed up.

The whining was the precise reason I stopped reading the Guardian. Right-wing papers like the Torygraph don't whine, they do fits of blustering moral outrage, which is far more amusing to read.

As for social media - well, I'd suggest there are a higher proportion of

a. liberal journalist types, and
b. broke socialist peasants there.

There are still plenty of people around who are anti-state handouts, but they're generally too busy to go posting whinges about Thatcher.

Also, 99% of the people complaining about her on Social Media aren't old enough to remember her time in power.

 

[GimpSpack]

I think there is a misunderstanding here because you are looking at it from a purely conscious perspective while I (and maybe guerilla, he will speak for himself) look at it from an action perspective. You might think consciously that you are acting altruistically, but that doesn't mean it wasn't an egoistic action if broken down to the basics.

Boom. NOW we're getting somewhere... :1bluewinky:

Thank you for that clarification. I addressed this point in my last post.

I would argue that our base drive towards genetic propagation ISN'T necessarily selfish (as it's perpetuating the species as a whole), and if it is (for the sake of argument), it's certainly not the type of selfishness we experience when consciously weighing out the benefits of helping out another party. Egoism vs unselfish concern for others is what we're talking about here.

I think a HUGE mistake everyone's making is to assume that all human survival instincts stem from selfishness (or egoism), and that altruism is some twisted offspring of that.

It makes more sense that altruism and egoism are both their own separate instincts, and they each have played their own part in driving us forward as a species...

You are assuming the reward for fulfilling survival instincts is rooted in egoism.

I could just as easily argue it's rooted in altruism. Take for instance, your twist on my example:

The soldiers throws himself on the grenade to save his friends, see my explanation for that (if you save enough friends it might benefit the replication of your genes better than if you don't do it. Especially if you would die anyways from the grenade).

How could killing yourself benefit the replication of your genes? That doesn't make any sense.

Logically, by saving your comrades lives through sacrifice, you've actually saved THEIR genes. This benefits the entire human race because now THEY have a better chance of surviving and perpetuating the species as a WHOLE. Had you not protected the "tribe," as you would put it, you ALL might have died. So in this scenario, you could say altruism is the FOUNDATION of survival (although I personally believe altruism and egoism are both rooted in separate instincts).

If survival instincts are there to perpetuate the entire species (as you stated in your twist of my "selfless solider" example), wouldn't that fall more in line with altruism then egoism? I almost feel like you proved my point for me.

Don't think that just because there's some kind of reward in satisfying an instinct that all instincts are automatically rooted in selfishness.

Perhaps the ego-gratification we experience after helping someone is nature's way of rewarding us for BEING altruistic... Ever think of that?

 

[hehejo]

Boom. NOW we're getting somewhere... :1bluewinky:
How could killing yourself benefit the replication of your genes? That doesn't make any sense.

Logically, by saving your comrades lives through sacrifice, you've actually saved THEIR genes. This benefits the entire human race because now THEY have a better chance of surviving and perpetuating the species as a WHOLE. Had you not protected the "tribe," as you would put it, you ALL might have died. So in this scenario, you could say altruism is the FOUNDATION of survival (although I personally believe altruism and egoism are both rooted in separate instincts).

It doesn't make any sense because you are misrepresenting your own argument. The grenade scenario only occurs because otherwise everyone dies. The soldier would not jump on the grenade if he would survive the grenade. And keep in mind even then it's not like people would jump on a grenade...

If you save the others it will benefit your own genes (which are spread through your relatives not just in yourself). So by saving your friends you indirectly help your genes (but that is only worth it if you are going to die anyways).

As the rest of your argument was based on that please rethink it.

Survival is all about egoism. This has nothing to do with ethics, morals or anything like it. It is just that the genes who are better at acting egoistic (as in everything that helps their survival even if that means helping others) will do better and thus soon make up the majority if not all of the gene pool.

 

[hehejo]

I'll try to rephrase it better:

Say you have different genes (or game theory programs), one of the mutations is altruistic (it will sacrifice its own survival for others) while another one is egoistic (put its survival and its relatives survival before others).

After a few generations, which one will be dominant? Keep in mind that the egoistic gene can also do seemingly altruistic things, but they are rooted in egoism.

 

[maybenot]

The whining was the precise reason I stopped reading the Guardian. Right-wing papers like the Torygraph don't whine, they do fits of blustering moral outrage, which is far more amusing to read.

As for social media - well, I'd suggest there are a higher proportion of

a. liberal journalist types, and
b. broke socialist peasants there.

There are still plenty of people around who are anti-state handouts, but they're generally too busy to go posting whinges about Thatcher.

Also, 99% of the people complaining about her on Social Media aren't old enough to remember her time in power.

I've given up on all newspapers except the Financial Times. It's the only one which seems to treat things sensibly. I don't use social media much, but when I do that's where I most often see those types of comments, from young and old alike.

Oh and the BBC, my god the website news is shit. It's a constant stream of rape, murder, bombings, fires, and the occasional tax avoidance (i.e. legal) outrage article. The world service and radio 4 are still good but the rest makes me depressed or angry. It's not like they even have the excuse that they need to sell people what they want (e.g. cnn and fox) since the BBC is tax funded anyway.

I used to think it made me a worldly intellectual to know how many women were mutilated in Congo last week, or how many people were blown to bits in Syria, but then I realized I was just being a pretentious fucktard - it's not even like I was doing anything to help. What good was it doing me or them? So I gave that up and now try to read positive news instead.

 

[jimmyn]

I guess some of the "socialists" you come across forget that one of the key aspects of socialism is work.

Seems to me like you're just experiencing the growing number of people who pass the time by being aggrieved at one thing or another, but doing nothing about it beyond whining on the internet.

Makes me laugh when you hear people calling a political party socialist too. Tony Blair was probably more of a Thatcherite than many Conservatives are/were.

Problem with Thatcher (and partly the unions too) was she destroyed many people's way of life and they weren't able to adapt afterwards.

They were probably happy in their work, not caring much for those better off and certainly not begrudging them their wealth. They worshipped queen and country and were probably pleased when one of the lads from the island did well for himself.

Thatcher took their work away.

 

[cpauser]

FT & econoimst are pro-bailout, pro-austerity papers though

the problem is socialism is such a broad term . some support socialism only on the highest of income earners (wealth redistribution), to others it it government taking full or partial ownership of a few powerful companies such as bank bailouts, to others it is dissolution of most private property. Socialism, and capitalism can coexist, and maybe soft socialism may be a way to promote greater equality of opportunity. There is much more diminishing returns past a certain amount >100million, yet a greater potential to turn 100k into 1-10 million. it is optimal use of capital to put $ in the hands of the middle/upper middle class from those who have so much wealth that the returns are diminishing.

 

[guerilla]

Your arrogance is... premature. Gotta earn it first, buddy.

I'd like to think that if I was arrogant, then I have earned the right to be arrogant at WF. Me and Jon. Jewbros for life.

1) I think the biggest mistake you've made thus far (other then asking for three-dimensional proof of an intangible state of being) is to assume I care if you believe altruism exists or not.

If you don't, then please stop posting.

Honestly, I'm arguing with you HOPING you'll bring a truly challenging case against altruism. I was curious how in the hell you were going to prove it's impossible to act without self-interest when helping other people...

The burden of proof is on you. You are asserting that such a thing as altruism is possible.

I can't prove something doesn't exist. I can only ask the person claiming it does exist to make their case. Which you have now repeatedly failed to do.

I say you can.

Then prove it or stop posting. While it will be somewhat foreign on this forum, demonstrate the basics of intellectual honesty, and stop hammering at something you cannot prove.

And I swear to God, if I discover that what I thought was originally altruism is actually a subtle form of self-interest , I will admit it to you. I'm here to learn!

Thank you!

I am not here to teach you. For petty entertainment, I like to pick apart posts and bad ideas. Your self development is your problem, I have given you heaps to think about here.

My suggestion is to spend less time posting and more time thinking this stuff through.

 

[guerilla]

Guerilla pretty much wins though, sorry GimpSpack you're defending the hard reality of Altruism is pretty funny and ridiculous. When you realize that, just have a laugh mate, it's funny.

This isn't a game of win or lose for me. I have an interest in seeking out and understanding the truth. I want to better understand reality so I can live a purposeful life. That's it.

If someone can demonstrate to me that altruism is a useful concept, I'll embrace it. But as a rule, I try not to buy into ideas which I do not understand and cannot define clearly.

ymmv

 

[tomaszjot]

Socialism, and capitalism can coexist

Oh yes they co-exist already.

People live sad lives in socialist countries blaming capitalism for failure of socialist system.

 

[guerilla]

Socialism, and capitalism can coexist, and maybe soft socialism may be a way to promote greater equality of opportunity.

I've asked you to stop posting.

 

[cpauser]

Oh yes they co-exist already.

People live sad lives in socialist countries blaming capitalism for failure of socialist system.

bank bailouts

since we're already going down the slippery slope how about socialism that benefits the 99%?

 

[cpauser]

I've asked you to stop posting.

go fuck yourself with a hello kitty vibrator

I've come to realize at this point nothing I will write will ever change the general sentiment directed against me, so I have nothing to lose by posting.