@texunnyc: forgive me if i ignore the part about metal gods. with a discussion about selfishness/altruism and one about rob halford hanging in the balance, i can't really say i need to think a lot before choosing.
ok, let's define the problem the way i see it. this is not really about sex anymore, but we'll get back to sex at some point in my rant (worst pick-up line ever?
).
broadly speaking i tend to accept a large part of the positivists dogma: ethics are nothing more than strategies for the species to preserve itself; emotions are means to express urges in an elaborate, socially acceptable way, which in turn is again based on the need to structure our survival as individuals through the survival of a community. in this light, i am aware that i reject homicide, rape, and running naked around the iraqi embassy because these behaviours spell "failure" for my self-preservation through that of others. at least in the long run.
in much the same way i am aware that my desire to compliment someone's looks, to be kind and gentle when kissing a partner, to help others find their way through a band's complex discography, represents an attempt to find satisfaction for myself: the ultimate goal is feeling happy.
now, i could never be called a "spiritual" person, unless this is something related to alcohol, but i'm not completely materialistic either. i do think there is something more than a mechanical relationship between fulfilling one's own needs and any spark of feelings in the brain. that is to say, i have a personal approach to metaphysics as some realm of very complex, not necessarily logical relations among concepts. this is however a fully anthropic view since i am not a believer in any supernatural entity on the receiving end of my metaphysic. but enough of this: we weren't discussing my musings on life.
back to the ultimate selfishness described by positivism: i'd say the model
can be applied to almost all facts in life, yet at a certain point i find this to be more of a core rule that becomes almost irrelevant in the light of structured thinking.
saying that everything boils down to selfishness, or claiming that altruism as negation of the self might exist is an
ontological argument. it defines the very quality of the truth in existance in a binary way: selfishness exists / altruism exists.
the
relevance of such an existance in the way every single event turns out, on the other hand, is more of an
epistemological issue, thus one that i expected positivism to be more interested in.
what difference does it make whether - for instance - my efforts to please my parents are deeply genuine or subconsciously born of a need to see myself as a worthy human being in their eyes, and if
that in turn comes from a generalized strategy implying the young people replacing the elders by learning and mastering their skills? the fact remains that this is a
more structured, more evolved form of selfishness than slitting their throat to inherit their money.
making love to someone and caring for their multi-faceted personality might hide the desire to appease one's own feelings of safety - and don't even get me started on what this means on a social level - sure, but still it represents a moral evolution of an individual thinking from the state when doing someone then going away was the norm.
we can call it an evolution in the refinement of our core values, or we can call it a fine-tuning of our selfishness so that it better fits needs that did not arose in the earlier stages of mankind's history. in any case, it fosters people's happiness, and i don't think it achieves this through deceit or dishonesty. being aware of the motives behind our action does not damn them to hell, imo, at least if they fit in every individual's system of choice.
as a side note concerning sex, i'd like to mention my personal experience (am i hearing a series of
's here?
). what does the trick for me is satisfying my partner. it makes me way happier than being the object of endless attention myself. i think i can see through my (apparently) altruistic behaviour: it's just a different kind of selfishness that stems from different psychological urges in my brain. but so what? as long as
the effects are (usually seen as) altruistic, i'm happy i feel this way.
this also suggests to me that, due to the variety of people's characters there are maybe countless different desires and needs - besides the basic ones - that twist and shape our "selfishness" in completely different direction, thus implying also different results. it is looking at those results that i think altruism can finally be measured.
rahvin.
