That Blue Sun
(?)Community Member
Offline
- Posted: Fri, 25 May 2007 23:43:37 +0000
Is it possible to commit a self-less act?
Premise:
People are predisposed to develop a concept of self. While the development/existence of mental incapacity via malfunction of the human brain may or may not rid one of a concept of self is not being discussed here, because it can not be proven or disproven currently.
At what age a concept of self is developed is not being discussed here because all attempts to classify such an answer are too theoritical to be responsibly argued at this date.
So, for this discussion, we will assume that all human beings have a concept of self.
Problem: If all people inherently operate on a plain of self, can one ever be self-less?
All people operate on a plain of conciousness. This is, as is traditionally philisophically and psychologically agreed upon, the "stage" upon which the human perception and digestion of the world occur, as well as the premise upon which all desicions are made.
But what constitutes conciousness? I am of the opinion that the conciousness is a tool of the self. Conciousness is a function of the self as it is recognized within the thought process of all people. Our conciousness is derived from a conciousness of the self. At least, on a developed human level, this can be seen to be the case. There is no way to prove or disprove this, and this assumption is yet another premise of my argument, but one that is more than welcomed to be debated; please, help me understand where I am wrong!
Under this assumption, we can see that the most integral element for human thought is the self. All of human thought is based on the premise of "self," and, thus, all human decisions/perceptions/actions are based on the concept of self. SELF MUST AT ALL TIMES, WITHIN THE HUMAN PSYCHE, BE ACCOUNTED FOR.
Now, if you have gotten to this part of my thesis without any disagreement, this should seem the most logical question: If human thought can never "release" the self, even temporarily, how is it possible to commit a selfless act? All acts of charity, even those which genuinely have no benefit to the benefactor, are still done with the knowledge of the performer that the self is doing the act!
If person "a" helps person "b," even without benefiting from the exchange, person "a" is fully aware, on some level, that person "a" did a nice thing. Person "a" did this, I did this.
Anytime that someone does anything under the guise of charity, the above shows us that it is completely logical to assume that, since the self can never be removed from the equation of the performer, that the action must, in order to be judged by the performer as desirable to perform, somehow help alleviate either an external, or internal issue.
If doing this "good deed" will not bring me the money I need, maybe it will help me feel better about my relationship with my father, or help me feel worse about my relationship with my father which will in turn help me feel better about my relationship with my lover or will help me pity my economic situation more and lower my expectation of comfort as an act of preperation et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
Conciousness of such a thought process is irrelevant, as all the sub-levels of conciousness are still, obviously operating on the premise of self.
Discuss.
Premise:
People are predisposed to develop a concept of self. While the development/existence of mental incapacity via malfunction of the human brain may or may not rid one of a concept of self is not being discussed here, because it can not be proven or disproven currently.
At what age a concept of self is developed is not being discussed here because all attempts to classify such an answer are too theoritical to be responsibly argued at this date.
So, for this discussion, we will assume that all human beings have a concept of self.
Problem: If all people inherently operate on a plain of self, can one ever be self-less?
All people operate on a plain of conciousness. This is, as is traditionally philisophically and psychologically agreed upon, the "stage" upon which the human perception and digestion of the world occur, as well as the premise upon which all desicions are made.
But what constitutes conciousness? I am of the opinion that the conciousness is a tool of the self. Conciousness is a function of the self as it is recognized within the thought process of all people. Our conciousness is derived from a conciousness of the self. At least, on a developed human level, this can be seen to be the case. There is no way to prove or disprove this, and this assumption is yet another premise of my argument, but one that is more than welcomed to be debated; please, help me understand where I am wrong!
Under this assumption, we can see that the most integral element for human thought is the self. All of human thought is based on the premise of "self," and, thus, all human decisions/perceptions/actions are based on the concept of self. SELF MUST AT ALL TIMES, WITHIN THE HUMAN PSYCHE, BE ACCOUNTED FOR.
Now, if you have gotten to this part of my thesis without any disagreement, this should seem the most logical question: If human thought can never "release" the self, even temporarily, how is it possible to commit a selfless act? All acts of charity, even those which genuinely have no benefit to the benefactor, are still done with the knowledge of the performer that the self is doing the act!
If person "a" helps person "b," even without benefiting from the exchange, person "a" is fully aware, on some level, that person "a" did a nice thing. Person "a" did this, I did this.
Anytime that someone does anything under the guise of charity, the above shows us that it is completely logical to assume that, since the self can never be removed from the equation of the performer, that the action must, in order to be judged by the performer as desirable to perform, somehow help alleviate either an external, or internal issue.
If doing this "good deed" will not bring me the money I need, maybe it will help me feel better about my relationship with my father, or help me feel worse about my relationship with my father which will in turn help me feel better about my relationship with my lover or will help me pity my economic situation more and lower my expectation of comfort as an act of preperation et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
Conciousness of such a thought process is irrelevant, as all the sub-levels of conciousness are still, obviously operating on the premise of self.
Discuss.
