I think it would be worse to be the kind of person who didn't feel any discomfort at others misfortune. Probably part of the whole point of getting pleasure out of helping people is so that people will help people. If that was NEVER there for human nature then the world would have totally gone to shit by now. I think it is instinct for some people, not ego.
Birds that land on other animals to eat the ticks off them aren't doing it to help that animal, they are doing it for easy food and the pleasure of filling their belly. The animal getting hte ticks taken off him just happens to benefit from that and allows the bird to do so because it knows something feels good when that occurs.
I know I was trying to make a point with that. I think basically some people have to be helpful and giving in order for this world to survive. The best way to make sure that happens is to make the experience of helping someone pleasurable.
You are ignoring the influence of collectivist philosophy with this discussion. The weak will follow the strong, so as to be better protected. By extension, the strongest leaders will have the most followers. However, the more followers one has, the more difficult they are to feed. Thus, it pays for strong leadership to foster the idea that it is everyone's DUTY to aid their fellows. Doing so reduces the workload on that strong leader, leaving him more time to protect and defend his tribe rather than feeding them
( ... )
i am not ignoring the collectivist, but merely stating hobbes' analogy. there are several philosophies which could be slated here.
btu if you use the collectivist theory where the weak do follow the strong for whatever reason they are doing so, not because they are completely mindless drones, but because they were taught to do so by society and they get comfort in avoiding change therefore their best interest or most comfortable course of action is to follow. this may very well be that they lack the intellect to come up with a better plan, but of those that they have, this is the most comfortable
and the weak don't always follow the strong. the truly strong will sometimes follow the weak, because they like to watch them mess up and this creates entertainment for them.
If the strong are enjoying watching the weak goof up, then the best thing that can be said for them is that they are sadistic. The worst is that they are intentionally abandoning their birthright as human beings out of either laziness or fear.
"Taught by society" is sematically null. There is no such entity as "society", there is only a large collection of individuals who are all singing the same song for fear of being out of tune. If you lack the drive to sing your own song, then you can't very well bitch that you don't like the words.
Comments 4
Birds that land on other animals to eat the ticks off them aren't doing it to help that animal, they are doing it for easy food and the pleasure of filling their belly. The animal getting hte ticks taken off him just happens to benefit from that and allows the bird to do so because it knows something feels good when that occurs.
I know I was trying to make a point with that. I think basically some people have to be helpful and giving in order for this world to survive. The best way to make sure that happens is to make the experience of helping someone pleasurable.
Reply
Reply
there are several philosophies which could be slated here.
btu if you use the collectivist theory where the weak do follow the strong for whatever reason they are doing so, not because they are completely mindless drones, but because they were taught to do so by society and they get comfort in avoiding change therefore their best interest or most comfortable course of action is to follow. this may very well be that they lack the intellect to come up with a better plan, but of those that they have, this is the most comfortable
and the weak don't always follow the strong. the truly strong will sometimes follow the weak, because they like to watch them mess up and this creates entertainment for them.
Reply
"Taught by society" is sematically null. There is no such entity as "society", there is only a large collection of individuals who are all singing the same song for fear of being out of tune. If you lack the drive to sing your own song, then you can't very well bitch that you don't like the words.
Reply
Leave a comment