»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
True or False?
| Philosophy 101 |
|
True or False? |
|
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738
|
Desire is the impetus for all action. (With sub-questions--is inaction considered an action? And does that mean that there is no altruistic motivation for a good deed?) And yep, I have my reasons for asking, so if you have references, I'd appreciate it, although I accept and respect the individual human experience as such. Thanks in advance.  |
||
| © Copyright 2006 serenity blaze - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I would say true But only if the word desire includes the meanings of its origin: Desire < desiderare < de "down from" + sidus/sider- "constellation, star" And the modern meaning: a wish or yearning for something. Then you have a word that refers both to the wide and universal influence influencing on a body, while still acknowledging the specific force that the body has within and over itself as well. Attributing action to only a force from within the body though or to only a force outside the body, I think would be a mistake. I believe it is a conjunction between the two. A "marriage" if you will |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
how can one desire to be desireless....? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
True, yes and yes. Every possible act is measured and the choice with the most preferred (desired)outcome is selected. Not acting at all is a choice among possible actions, so I believe as such it should be considered an action in this case. I don’t believe that there has ever been a truly unselfish act. [This message has been edited by Grinch (07-23-2006 08:46 PM).] |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
"Desire is the impetus for all action. (With sub-questions--is inaction considered an action? And does that mean that there is no altruistic motivation for a good deed?)" !) No....2) I think so.....and, 3) is it really a good deed if there was altruistic motivation?...depends, I guess. Came back to add: 1) False...not always, but that would be rare, a situation purely motivated by automatic pilot (higher self); 2) still True I think; and 3) can't answer with a true or false.....pretty deep question here.... Nite, nite Lady.........jojo |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
yes desire is the impulse for all action yes, inaction is considered a choice, an action to do nothing and no..and unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others may be offset by inaction...? Just my thoughts... Hugs lady |
||
|
XOx Uriah xOX Senior Member
since 2006-02-11
Posts 1403Virginia |
From the " I " concept... Desire as the impetus for all action is true. Also... If it is "you" deciding to act or not act then it is still an action rooted in the "I" concept. So, neither the action nor the non-action is a self-less act. The wu-wei or non-action of Taoism is simply... Spontaneous action. There is the absence of "doing" and of "not doing". No thought is given to either. Actions are uncontrived, unconditioned and purposeless. Wu-wei is simply doing whatever presents itself to be done, without hesitation. Without stopping to "choose". It is not based on "desire" or "purpose" or the thought of a "doer". In this....it is self-less. In the absence of a "doer" ....all actions are non actions. Without the "you"... there can be no... "he" "she" "them" "it" No.... "other". Who is the "good" deed directed toward ? Who is an "evil" deed performed on? Both actions arise from the "I" concept that sees itself in seperation. Many actions are seen upon the blank screen. What action does the screen perform? It stands in stillness and with no-thought... allows all to appear. There is the SEEING of happiness and suffering. The SEEING of fires and floods. Yet... the screen is not dampened or charred. It is unaffected. "you" are simply another "object" appearing upon the screen. But.... Your true essence is the screen itself. Now....take away the concept of the "object" of a screen.....and there YOU are. LOL The answer to all your questions is.....True and False. Yes and No. Depending on whether or not "you" are the "seer" or an "object" that is "seen".... or if there is only the SEEING. ::smiles:: " In the absence of a "you" there is no longer any judgment, so if helping "others" is to take place, it's not in "your" hands." --- Karl Renz |
||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Karen: quote: Before we can answer that question, we should ask about the nature of desire itself. Is it always a form of selfishness, simply because it can't operate apart from the self? The way I see it, altruism would only be impossible if desire could never be other-directed and outwardly oriented, despite it's native ownership. I may own any number of things, which are nonetheless centered around the welfare of someone else. Desire, despite it's nativity, may still be a "foreigner" at heart. Can you desire the good of another, for another's sake, for a true desire to see them better off? If so, then the fact that the desire resides in you (where else could it reside?) is incidental. An author can write a book about a character other than himself. And we can't say that he is limited to writing autobiography, just because every word comes through his own mind. I think what you are really asking is whether egoism is philosophically true. I think we've already had a couple of threads on that subject haven't we? I personally think egoism doesn't match some of our most basic assumptions about life. And I don't doubt those assumptions, as much as I doubt the philosophical pedantry of egoism, which seems to make some sense on the surface, but after some reflection shows itself to be another over-simplification. Stephen. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Thanks all for some very thoughtful answers to one of my annoyingly faceted questions. And for the record, this wasn't an attack on charities, FEMA, or the good hearted souls who perform anonymous random acts of kindness daily. I've just obviously been inundated with Katrina stories, and I have read some horrific tales of selfish acts (just check out today's front page of USA today and you'll see the dilemna of what I speak) and some very seemingly selfless moments of heroism. It's given me much to think about--as I wondered as I witnessed many changes in people as well as myself when the instinct for self preservation kicked in, I had to wonder if I had ever committed a completely selfless act in my life. Broke my heart and my head hurt.  And Uriah? I'm not sure if I "got" ya on that--could you run that by me one more time? Itty bitty words, lotsa conjunctions, please.  |
||
|
XOx Uriah xOX Senior Member
since 2006-02-11
Posts 1403Virginia |
hahaha Matchbox tiddly-wink blah blah blah etcetera :: bows :: |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I love tiddlywinks.  I was a pro at age three, which foreshadowed my major at UNO in "quarterbounce". (unless the grog was really bad, I always chose myself to drink it too--just increased my focus--  )sheesh  |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Karen, After re-reading this thread, I think maybe you could settle on this conclusion: True Altruism is difficult, but not impossible. Such a statement would explain both the few shining examples you have seen or heard of, AND the all too many examples of selfishness. It would explain its rarity, as well as its reality. Katrina is just one of those extreme life events that may bring such a truth to light, and reveal to many what they're made of, and just how costly being "good" can really be? Food for thought. Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
If you don't do something for a yourselfish reason, then you do it for a myselfish, or an ourselfish, theirselfish, hisselfish, herselfish, or even an itselfish reason. It looks like there is no way out of being selfish! |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant, The word selfish does not refer to all "selves" but the self who is doing the narcissistic action. You're stretching the word to breaking point. And though it's okay to stretch a definition, you can't arbitrarily try to force a word to mean its very opposite. Well you can ... but not effectively. Stephen. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
