»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Give and Take
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Give and Take |
|
|
Susan Caldwell Member Rara Avis
since 2002-12-27
Posts 8348Florida 
|
Is it basic human nature to give only to receive? This has nothing to do with holidays. "too bad ignorance isn't painful" |
||
| © Copyright 2007 Susan Caldwell - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Giving, based on the expectation of reciprocal action, is an evolutionary stable strategy that humans share with many members of the animal kingdom, based on the evidence it could be argued that the act of giving wouldn’t even exist if the expectation of receiving in kind wasn’t present. Or in short - YES  |
||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Asking whether it is human nature to give always in order to recieve, is different than asking whether giving invariably involves receiving. One is a question of motives, the other a question about the nature of giving. I'm not so cynical to think every decision to give, is born out of self interest. We've had this discussion before. |
||
|
Susan Caldwell Member Rara Avis
since 2002-12-27
Posts 8348Florida |
does having the discussion before mean we can't have it again and/or nothing new can be related? I am talking about people that give with the intent of receiving. It seems like it is human nature to expect something in return. I suppose what I am really looking for is hope. "too bad ignorance isn't painful" |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Susan: quote: Oh no. I didn't mean it that way. There are some threads about egoism you might want to explore. But repitition of several basic themes is not only the hallmark of this forum, but of philosophy in general. quote: I think people who give for that purpose alone will be disappointed. Not everyone even appreciates another's giving, much less giving something back. It's more about being pleased with the rightness of giving. Of course, one could argue that the satisfaction afforded by giving is itself "something to expect". But to me, this kind of argument involves a semantic mistake. And by "hope" do you mean hope to receive something back for something you've given, or hope that you might be able to give "without strings"? Just trying to understand specifically what you're asking. Stephen |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
Human nature is to take, and to take more and expect to be given and to be given more. why do we need to give something? does human need to give something to live or live better? To give for receiving?...the purpose of give is to receiving? no. The driving force of giving is not receiving. Such as I give my mother(or friends) a gift because I love her(them). |
||
|
Susan Caldwell Member Rara Avis
since 2002-12-27
Posts 8348Florida |
Hope that there are people out there that give because they want to, because they want to help someone or give to someone. I want hope that the majority of humanity is not selfish and self indulgent. Do you not, when you give your love, expect love in return? I suppose with that said it isn't always a bad thing but I seem to see, more and more each day, selfish motivation for most of what people do. It's a bit depressing to say the least. "too bad ignorance isn't painful" |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Everyone gives because they want to, it’s a conscious choice but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a calculated choice and that calculation involves what’s possibly going to be gained from the giving. If what you get out of the deal is at least equal to what you’re giving you give, if not you don’t. quote: Unfortunately you’re going to be disappointed, every decision to give is based upon calculations based on self-interest which isn’t the same as selfishness but could be classed as self-indulgent. quote: Definitely not, but the possibility of gaining love in return is worth the cost of giving. quote: Ah, now I understand what you’re talking about, you mean there seems to be more selfish people around. In game theory they’d be called cheats, the good news is they can only exist in a society where the majority of people aren’t selfish. For what it’s worth selfishness is not an evolutionary stable strategy eventually the selfish people get their comeuppance once the tit for tat rule kicks in. |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
==='Do you not, when you give your love, expect love in return?' We don't give love. We love then we want own what we love. If we can't, then a big disappointment. what is "when you give your love" ? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Susan: quote: That giving invariably involves receiving, does not mean that we invariably give in order to receive. So your hope remains hopeful. quote: It is natural to do so. But that still doesn't mean that our motive for love springs from self interest alone. Some forms of love take us closer to the ability to love something or someone for its own sake. The kind of love that receives, C.S. Lewis called "need-love", and it is not always a bad thing, since need is a part of our human nature. But the kind of love that is a higher form, he called gift-love, which is more detached from self reception. quote: I agree. Grinch: quote: I disagree. There are exceptions to this rule. quote: "Every" is a pretty ambitious word. The simplest definition of "self interest" is interest in oneself. Why wouldn't it be possible to make a decision based upon interest in another, and to be somewhat self forgetful? Must interest in someone else, always be interest in self, in disquise? quote: So the motivation not to be selfish is itself based upon nothing more than consequences to oneself? I think you're ignoring the possibility of higher motives for morality than just fear of personal pain. I'm not even saying that you should imagine that self interest isn't always present ... just that it may be concurrent with something else. And about the interjection of evolutionary ideas ... To say that something is evolutionarily stable, simply because it exists, is nothing more than a truism. It is certainly not scientific. Though, this is a philosophy forum. And I welcome those kinds of statements as philosophy. But if the usual method of suggesting what is evolutionarily fit (sheer existence in numbers) is used, then neither selfishness nor its opposite can be said to be superior. To discommend selfishness (not just self interest) one must move beyond an inconclusive scheme based upon survival alone. As long as the selfish do survive (and they have and do), one must make a kind of moral argument against it. The older and more traditional moral arguments against being selfish, are not superceded by evolutionary argument, since they are more in line with our language and emotions surrounding the issue, and since evolutionary survival is simply a head count, never prescriptive or didactic. Stephen |
||
Mysteria
since 2001-03-07
Posts 18328British Columbia, Canada |
Susan, I would hate to think that in the act of giving, anything was expected in return or it could never be a gift. Your question was Is it basic human nature to give only to receive, and considering I am human, and consider myself a giving individual, I would have to therefore offer you that hope you are looking for, as I expect nada thing in return, ever! I have found that giving in this way causes a ripple effect, and that always gives me that hope. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: That’s good to know Mysteria, would you give me your house, your car and everything you own? I’ve a pocketful of nada if that helps. Something tells me the answer is no, that you choose carefully what you give, to whom and when, if I’m right that choice is a conscious decision based on the possible consequences of your choice. I maintain that the main consideration when making that choice is what you get in return - that may be as little as a feeling of inner warmth through doing a good thing but it’s never ever nada. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
It's more about being pleased with the rightness of giving. It can't be said better than that and anyone who says they don't feel that way is a masochist. Susan, you speak of love and return expectations. Let me ask you this. Why do you love a specific person? Is it because you love his qualities, for example, or his outlook on life, or his spirituality, or his etc, etc, etc? What would you feel if you went up to that person and said, "I love you" and he replied, "That's nice but I don't think much of you at all." would that not make a little difference? It shouldn't....but I think it would. Unconditional love is a rare commodity indeed. She said I was handsome And charming and then some And I was the one to adore So how did I come To be such a bum Because I don't love her no more? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Stephen, quote: Have you an example? quote: I’m ambitious, give me an example that disproves my claim and I’ll concede the point. quote: Every action has a reaction, the simple act of choosing to give proves that the possible benefits they get from that reaction have been weighed against the possible consequences, that’s what people do when they choose to give or not to give. quote: Yes. quote: Are we talking pixies or witches?  quote: Actually it’s very scientific. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_stable_strategy quote: I think you’re confused about what an ESS is: Lets take a simple example, vampire bats need to feed fairly regularly or they die, they don’t always manage to but they’ve developed a strategy whereby if they do find food they tend to share it by regurgitation with a bat that hasn’t. You could call it an altruistic act but it isn’t because the payback is that when they don’t feed there’s a good chance that another bat will reciprocate. However in these colonies of bats some cheats (selfish bats) exist who don’t give but always beg for a handout when they’re hungry, sounds like a good strategy but it isn‘t. If evolution favoured the cheats they’d dominate the colony and, because none of them are sharing, they’d all die the first time they failed to find a meal. If that wasn’t enough to keep the numbers down the honest bats have another trick up their sleeve, they use a strategy called tit for tat. If a cheating bat refuses to cough up a meal (pun intended) to them they reciprocate and don’t cough up to the cheat the next time he comes begging. Which is why cheating isn't a stable strategy that can ever dominate a colony. Cheating in bat colonies to some extent always exists of course, the sheer numbers of honest bats that will cough up at least one meal ensures that it can sustain a number of cheats but the ESS is tit for tat. No moral arguments were needed in the creation of this example just basic self-interest. [This message has been edited by Grinch (12-02-2007 04:22 AM).] |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
Dear Sir balladeer==="What would you feel if you went up to that person and said, "I love you" and he replied, "That's nice but I don't think much of you at all." would that not make a little difference? It shouldn't....but I think it would. Unconditional love is a rare commodity indeed." What you said is exactly what happened between man and God. Tom |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I think we give or receive for the good of giving or receiving. Read that carefully |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Is there anything man might gain from giving love to his god (or anyone else for that matter)? Anything that might persuade him that it’s a good choice? If the answer is yes the choice of giving isn’t unconditional, it’s dependent on the possibility of something in return. Let’s turn that around, what about gods love for man, is that unconditional? If it is she isn’t expecting anything in return, she’ll love you regardless of your religion or actions. That doesn’t sound like any god I’ve heard of, I seem to recall wrath and a fair bit of smiting when gods don’t get what they want. So given that god seems to only give based on the possibility of getting something in return why is it so strange that man, supposedly made in her image, works in exactly the same way? |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
Grinch ======="Is there anything man might gain from giving love to his god (or anyone else for that matter)?" The conscience is the driving power. But the expectation of gain is self-motivated. ===="Anything that might persuade him that it’s a good choice?" Will you please define "good" here. By what standard? ===="If the answer is yes the choice of giving isn’t unconditional, it’s dependent on the possibility of something in return." "Thinking about something in return" when you give out is one type of Greediness. ====="Let’s turn that around, what about gods love for man, is that unconditional? If it is she isn’t expecting anything in return, she’ll love you regardless of your religion or actions. That doesn’t sound like any god I’ve heard of, I seem to recall wrath and a fair bit of smiting when gods don’t get what they want." You must have met all the little wrong gods. She never been God. looking around yourself and the world, see how every one is living? "So given that god seems to only give based on the possibility of getting something in return" It is your perception. What does God ask one to do? is it the "returns"? or is it for the best for oneself? [This message has been edited by TomMark (12-02-2007 12:55 PM).] |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Yes, Susan, there is a Santa Claus. Believe, lovie. I promise you there are people who give with no thought of return. I have a list. It is one of my very favorite daydreams to be able, some day, to do something lovely for all of the silent Santas I have known. I often said I wished I were Oprah, and it's not because of the things she has, but the things she can give--she, and others, have the ability to change peoples lives, and that's got to feel amazing. (And I know you said it has nothing to do with the holidays, too. But I couldn't help but go there.) |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Susan: I think it is basic human nature to expect a consequence (positive or negative) to any given action if the consequence is consistent. If I work, I expect to get paid on pay day. If I receive gifts regularly on my birthday, I expect to receive gifts on my birthday. If I purchase a gift for someone, and routinely get a gift from them in return, I would probably come to expect that gift in the future. I don't think giving in anticipation of receiving is human nature, but I think the mechanisms that lead us to expect it are. Whether our anticipation of a gift becomes the reason for our continued giving depends, I suppose, on the individual. Jim |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch: quote: Do I have an example of someone who gave something, for much less of a return? Many such examples where pain and loss are endured to give or do something good. I could name some, but you could probably think of a few yourself if you tried. Giving ones physical life in a rescue situation, is probably an outstanding example. But there are many less dramatic examples too. No doubt you'll say that the exquisite "feeling" gained from giving was itself the gain. But that's sophistry if you ask me, since in order to believe it, I have to doubt human psycology to the point of believing that such feelings have nothing substantial (no virtue) behind them. Do such feelings hold no real insight? Are they just evolutionary "bait"? There would be a real deception involved, since most people think there is real virtue in giving, hence the feelings. We also admire others for giving. But if we know that they are really just out for themselves, why such admiration? Sure you can logically connect your argument, as you can connect a few dots on a page. I'm just trying to suggest that there are more dots to consider, which might change the picture dramatically. The reductionism of evolutionary ethics makes it too easy to miss the depth of such moral questions as this. quote: I'm not denying that science is applied to such theories. I'm denying that the science is conclusive as to whether the theories best explain reality. I've read about ESS. But I'm still wanting to talk about the sheer existence of "selfishness" in the world. If natural selection is so geared toward giving then why are there so many live alternatives? quote: The conscious acceptance of such things would be Nash Equilibrium. But another evolutionary strategy might be to develop a taste for a totally different food (in addition to the already available food) and kill those who don't have this ability. I'm afraid the actual history of evolution (if it is to be believed) or the struggle for life on planet Earth, is not so neat and tidy as that. Many leading evolutionary biologists have remarked on the sheer unpredictability of evolution. So, in spite of these theories, I don't think that biological evolution is necessarily a guarantor of moral behavior. quote: That stands to reason, since you speak of bats. Its also pretty obvious that human ethics (a major branch of philosophy) and psychology represents something far different and more complex that that of bats. Stephen |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Jim: quote: Jim, What would you say to the argument which states that the most "virtuous" acts are done soley for the return of neurotransmitters yielding pleasure in the brain? Do you find this argument problematic? Stephen |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Stephen: I think if all I got under the Christmas tree was a box of neurotransmitters, I'd be pretty unhappy. I also don't think that behaviorism is necessarily as mechanistic as your question implies. And I don't think I ever said "soley." Since you seem to have a problems with the deterministic overtones of behaviorism, what would you say to the argument which states that the most "virtuous" acts are tainted by the stain of sin? If our souls always bend their knees to self-interest, why would we be surprised that our neurotransmitters do as well? And I'm sure you realize that the urge you're feeling to answer the questions I just asked is conditioned as well. Jim |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Jim quote: I'm not surprised. I have no problem admitting that our most "virtuous" acts are tainted with sin. I suppose what I'm speaking of is not behaviorism, per se, but any theory which explains morality in terms of sheer biology. One can believe in the possibility of virtue (or the moral framework), without presuming we are able to be perfectly virtuous. Since you directly bring up Theology, I would say that it is possible to speak of virtue while being careful not to mistake this framework for the righteousness of justification. But it is also impossible to speak of justification, without first recognizing the moral framework (or in terms of Christian Theology, The Law). I'm speaking of the kind of argument that would take perhaps even the actions of Jesus (like feeding 5000) and interpret them purely in terms of self-interest. It was a political move. I understand that you never said "soley". But there are those whose philosophy says just that. Stephen |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
Jim, (JBouder) ===="I think it is basic human nature to expect a consequence (positive or negative) to any given action if the consequence is consistent" Since this is philosophy forum 1. If the consequence is not consistent,do people still expect a consequence? 2. Is the expectation a nature or a trained behavior? (by you given examples). 3. Is it true that human naturally EXPECT a consequences to any given action? (Sir Ron, do you have good examples to support this statement?) Tom |
||
|
Susan Caldwell Member Rara Avis
since 2002-12-27
Posts 8348Florida |
Although I thought I wanted an answer like so many that were given (thank you)...Karen's answer is what I needed and didn't know I needed.  I just needed reassurance that there were people that truly cared enough to think of others first and foremost. Without reward. "too bad ignorance isn't painful" |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
please delete. [This message has been edited by TomMark (12-04-2007 10:05 PM).] |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
TomMark quote: If the desired consequence is inconsistent, then I would expect to see less frequent behavior (since the behavior isn't being reinforced). Depending on the reinforcement history, a certain consequence might be expected. As you know, sometimes we experience a consequence that doesn't comport with our expectations. In the context of this post, if one expects more gifts if he/she gives more gifts - and then subsequently receive no gifts - one would expect their giving to be curtailed. At any rate, as the impetus for giving (whatever that might be) decreases in strength, then the giving will probably decrease in frequency. quote: It can be either. At a very basic level, I think it is part of our nature. We seem to be wired at a very young age to learn by operant conditioning. The capacity is certainly there, even in infants. As we get older, much or our behavior becomes more complex and our reinforcement more abstract, but the basic mechanism (antecedant, behavior, reinforcement) remains pretty much intact. quote: If, by "naturally," you mean whether it is connected with our biology, I'd say it certainly is. If nothing else, our ability to connect our behavioral responses to rewards or punishers seems to be part of our biological make-up. Without the biological capability to make such connections, we wouldn't be able to learn anything. More complex organisms come to expect reinforcement for behavior (as babies, food or a changed diaper for crying or, as adults, a paycheck for working). Culture also influences behavior (e.g., giving gifts on December 25). Jim |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
Thank you Jim for the answer. Your Expectation probably means perception because human senses and percepts. But to expect is like to predict which needs experience (data collecting, analysis and lay the results out to see the trend) and logic thinking. sense and perception are human natures but expectation I think, is a learned behave. The first gift that human gave out was the gifts to God by Abel and Cain...what do they expect? Tom [This message has been edited by TomMark (12-05-2007 11:46 PM).] |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
TomMark: Would you have any problems with this statement: "The capacity to expect is engrained in our nature (i.e., biological make-up)"? Jim |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
Will you please show me the phenotype in earliest stage? Tom |
||
|
Susan Caldwell Member Rara Avis
since 2002-12-27
Posts 8348Florida |
"The first gift that human gave out was the gifts to God by Abel and Cain...what do they expect?" Assuming this is a true story, I would say that they expected to earn the approval of their god. "too bad ignorance isn't painful" |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
Then Susan, can we say that we give our gifts is for winning other's approving? Tom |
||
|
Susan Caldwell Member Rara Avis
since 2002-12-27
Posts 8348Florida |
Yes, sometimes. I think the answer is yes we get something from giving, but no, we don't always expect it. Human behavior is that we usually always get something from behaving/acting/reacting a certain way on a consistant basis. If we repeat a behavior, good or bad, we are getting something from it. Therefore, we usually get something from giving even if it's just the satisfaction that we are that much more of what society sees as a good person. Or even just how we view what makes a person a good person. So, giving in order to receive isn't always a bad thing. right? But what bothers me are the people that give or do something for you and then act as if you must spend some serious amount of time or whatever else doing for them because they did for you. The kind of person that plans it out and sucks you in. You get to a point where you refuse to let them do even the smallest thing for you. Lunch time! I need a sammich.. "too bad ignorance isn't painful" ~Unknown~ |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
TomMark: No, but I can certainly show you how its absence or delay manifests behaviorally. Jim |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
Dear Susan, i just knew that your question started from here "But what bothers me are the people that give or do something for you and then act as if you must spend some serious amount of time or whatever else doing for them because they did for you". Do you think that this is their problem? Someone helped you and after that they have to behave in certain way to make your heart at ease. why do you wish that every one has to be super nice? Tom |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
Then Jim, do please tell me more about "biological make-up" of expectation. What makes you think that it is a gene-or instinct (innate)related behave. Tom |
||
|
Susan Caldwell Member Rara Avis
since 2002-12-27
Posts 8348Florida |
"why do you wish that every one has to be super nice?" That is a rather large assumption...and if I hinted in any way that was my wish..then I beg forgiveness...for it surely is not. Not that wouldn't be nice, but rather I am a fairly logical minded person and that just boggles..it would never happen. What I want is to be treated how I treat others. Period. Treat me how I treat you. "too bad ignorance isn't painful" ~Unknown~ |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
You see, Susan, you dare not to acknowledge that you indeed wish every one was super nice. I do wish this. And many people around me are indeed super nice. When they found that I was sick(merely coughing), they send over chicken soups and other goodies and many phone calls. Have I done the same to them? yes or no. But they all sure know that I will be always there for them when they are in difficult time. I always make sure that I make friend with super nice people so I can take advantage of them without guilt. (they did it because they are nice, so I owe nothing to them such as to enjoy greatly myself in PIP) oh, How bad can I get?! Tom |
||
|
Susan Caldwell Member Rara Avis
since 2002-12-27
Posts 8348Florida |
"You see, Susan, you dare not to acknowledge that you indeed wish every one was super nice" *cough* Lets try this again and since I know me better than you know me, here is what you should listen to: I do not wish this. Nor am I kidding myself about not wishing this. Since you have no clue what a strong personality I am nor do you understand that I am exceedingly honest, I will give you the benefit of doubt in regards to suggesting I don't know what I want. Rest assured, I do. I want to be treated as I treat others. If I give I do not do it in hopes of getting something back from those that I have given to. I hope I was more clear on my stance this time. "too bad ignorance isn't painful" |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
Dear Susan, This is this thread about? right? Tom |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
TomMark: The evidence is emerging, but no less compelling. In these cases, there is very little question in the research community that genetics play a part in the onset of autism in children. One of the disorder's hallmarks involves how the child acquires skills. That is, there is often a delay in the child's ability to associate abstract "rewards" with appropriate behavior. In short, children severely affected by autism must be painstakingly taught how to expect (which is, when you get down to it, a social behavior). Establishing this very basic skill is the beginning of remediating deficits with which these children were born. Wiki provides a pretty good summary of the heritability of autism. I've also linked to abstracts of recent research findings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_autism http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/75342/new_genetic_marker_related_to_autism.html http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1188990 I think there is, at least, a genetic component to one's capacity to "expect." The weight of evidence is surely in favor of this. Jim |
||
|
Susan Caldwell Member Rara Avis
since 2002-12-27
Posts 8348Florida |
Tom, Ya lost me. Not a hard thing to do... however, are you suggesting that you and I are somehow now engaged in give and take? or that you are enlightening me on your beliefs and trying to pass them off as mine and/or fact? Tell me what you think but don't tell me what I think...I already know. Here is something I believe that should raise a few hairs of the inherently optimistic: I believe that people (not all, but a large number), when given the belief that they have some sort of anonymity, will engage (act/behave) in aggressive, self-serving, narcissistic behavior. I believe this because I drive. discuss? (This does tie into my give and take issue, at least to me).  "too bad ignorance isn't painful" |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
quote: Susan: We seem to be very much on the same page here (except you are probably much warmer than I am here in Central PA). Getting something out of giving isn't a bad thing - in fact, I think it is inevitable. Jim |
||
|
Susan Caldwell Member Rara Avis
since 2002-12-27
Posts 8348Florida |
Jim, Yes, and I think I should have been more clear from the beginning..no I don't think it's always a bad thing but when it is, that is just disheartening. It is nice here today! Susan "too bad ignorance isn't painful" |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
Dear Susan, your original question "Is it basic human nature to give only to receive?" If it is human nature, will you accept it as truth? will you still expect people giving with heart? will you still expect pay back will you still think that others want you to pay back? will you still receive other's kindness will you pay pack their kindness? If it is not human nature but learned behave. is it good or bad? Can human unlearn about it? Can people give with heart and receive in peace? If expect is not genetic, then its personal problem If it is biological, then it is a social problem. then don't give, don't receive. Human being's selfishness is biological. But not spiritual which make us human but not animals. we have conscience. Here is a very good example in announcement Forum Larri C's Thank-You note was very touching and I believe that was truly from his heart "You and many others know how important a role Pippsters have played in my life. I am truly grateful for each and every friend in this place. I am forever indebted to Ron for building and maintaining it. It has changed my life immensely, thank you, thank you" After many gave him best birthday wishes, he mentioned that he was forever indebted to Ron. why? Did Ron expect this? Did we expect this? (shall we expect that he would be indebted more to all the good wishers? rather than to Ron) If we do not have a heart of appreciation, we would make anything ill willed of course including those real ill-willed. I want to say that expect retuning is not human nature because giving is not a human nature at all. But love changes everything. Tom |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
Jim, http://www.neurologychannel.com/autism/symptoms.shtml Show me the symptoms of losing of Expectation. The reason of Autism is not known yet and if you try to tell me that to teach a Autism child is very hard...obviously if his has defect on sense and then perception. You may only draw conclusion that certain genes are necessary for sense and perception or if for learning and memory. expectation is high level activity based on a normal base. I shall leave Autism. which make me cry because I have met one or two of them. I want say that don't try to teach them yet. watch them, observer them first and love them. Tom |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Tom: I'm obviously not going to persuade you that the capacity to expect is genetically determined. And I don't have to go far to see or interact with people with autism (in fact, I have a 12-year-old with a severe form of the disorder waiting for me at home). The initial challenge of teaching those severely affected lies in enabling them to connect a behavior with a consequence. A communicative adult once explained his childhood obsession with turning the light switch on and off repetitively by saying, "I could control it." He found comfort in the expectation that flipping the switch would turn on the light that he couldn't find in other people and things in his environment. Would you describe this sort of expectation to be a high level activity? And waiting to teach them is a very, very bad idea. It can mean the difference between independence in adulthood or a lifetime of dependence on others for support. Loving them now is okay. You can continue to doubt, but you haven't given me reason to believe otherwise. Show me the evidence that there is no biological component to the phenomena of expectation and maybe I'll come around to seeing things your way. People who give expect to get something from it. If they didn't get anything from giving, the giving would become much less frequent. For some, the motivation is the gift they might receive in return for giving (quid pro quo). For others, it is self-satisfaction arising from the feelings of affection represented by the gift. In my view, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the latter. Jim |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Jim, is this "self-satisfaction" to be thought of as a goal or motive, or as a kind of corresponding result of seeking something else? It just seems to me that any "good deed" done merely to procure a self-satisfied feeling, somehow loses its authenticity. In 1 Corinthians 13, Paul wrote that without love, the best of deeds are as 'clanging cymbals'. Is love itself defined by what fine feelings we seek for ourselves? Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Seems to me that the basic human nature here is not on the side of giving or even that of receiving, but on the side of taking. Life in the state of nature is nasty, brutish and short, or thereabouts, according to Hobbes; and I've probably omitted a delectable adjective or two. But in the absense of other factors, power does seem to govern. (Absent other factors, again.) The wonder of the basic question, "Is it basic nature to give only to receive?" is that the notion of giving has made it there at all. Thank you, Susan. The true basic situation of early childhood is more like, What are you going to give me now? Also, Why is there a gap between me knowing that I need something and your supply of it? Certainly there are good answers for both questions. But an infant can't understand them. I think that's where things start out. This being the basic nature of things, at least the place they start, the question becomes, Why would a person do something like giving in the first place? It's crazy! I can understand why, for example, I might want my significant other to supply my every need without my even thinking about formulating what such things might be. What the puzzle is, is that I want to love her and cherish her and listen to what she has to say at 3:00 in the morning about my father's behavior last weekend. This seems beyond belief. There is something about the nature of giving and receiving that changes with the nature of the relationship between the people involved. If the relationship is predicated on fairness, then your question is indeed a valid one. There may, however, be other ways of formulating the question that would change things. Given that you want to do no harm, what is the most healing thing for the relationship? might offer one example. Thoughts? With interest, BobK |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Stephen: I think the feelings of satisfaction are more-or-less inevitable, even for gifts given out of love. A gift may very well involve self-sacrifice and, to a detached onlooker, might appear irrational. Motivation is another factor. Gifts given with a self-satisfying motive usually involve the giver drawing attention to their act of giving. A gift given to better the life of another without the giver drawing attention to the act still results in the giver's satisfaction. I'm not sure why, but some seem to think feeling good about giving is somehow less noble than indifference or even regret, as if this somehow pollutes the end. I don't think it does. Jim |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Neither do I. Then again, I don't think that feeling good (something about oneself) is the only motivation for right action. If that were true, then I would wonder why the doer should feel good at all. Far from thinking that "feeling good" pollutes the end of action, some think that it defines the whole. I think we're arguing two different ideas. If you say that the presence of self-satisfaction does not tarnish a good action, I am in complete agreement. Just trying to clarify. Stephen |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
I think everyone wants to be appreciated in any kind of a relationship. I'm sure there are some that give give give to masterful takers who know exactly how to get what they want out of the giver. Sometimes one gets a thank you, or the best of all...a hug, but sometimes one gets nothing but a list of more things needed or wanted. well, that describes just about every parent/child situation in the world. and...I don't think I know anyone who's involved in a couple type relationship where there isn't some tiny amount of scheming going on to get something they want out of the other person. Romance?? Football night with the boys?? Another puppy? Another pair of pretty shoes? A collectible? The seat down on the toilet? reciprocation can be very interesting. so I won't lie and say I always give without ever having any hope of receiving anything. First and foremost, I give thanks. Because time is short, and I don't want to lose the chance to let people know how much I appreciate who they are or what they've done for me. Maybe it's for self-approval? Personal enrichment? Or just because. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Jim, is this "self-satisfaction" to be thought of as a goal or motive, or as a kind of corresponding result of seeking something else? Stephanos, please save me from the man who does not have self-satisfaction as a motive. True, there may be many motives for one's actions but, if that is not one, the others make little sense. Even somewhere in the Bible, if I remember right, it refers to going out and doing goods deed secretly as a pathway to heaven. The opposite of doing things and receiving self-satisfaction is either doing deeds with no feelings at all or doing things you personally hate. and I know, if I'll only be true to this glorious quest That my heart will lie peaceful and calm as I'm laid to my rest Even Don Quixote knew it....and it's NOT an impossible dream We all seek that peacefulness, calmness and feeling of self-satisfaction at the end of the road. |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
"We all seek that peacefulness, calmness and feeling of self-satisfaction at the end of the road." not at the end of the road but along the road of life. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Balladeer: quote: While I would point out that Jesus taught doing good deeds as a way to "lay up treasure in heaven", rather than a way to get there (an important distinction), I'm in agreement with you otherwise. You're saying that the strand of self consideration is always more or less present, somewhere. I'm only knocking the philosophy which insists that the other strands are really only the same thing in facade. You might call it mutualism as an alternative to egoism. This leaves room for the traditional understanding of "selfishness", and the moral framework, to remain intact ... not to go about nailing others with the slur, but to turn it upon ourselves, checking, as in a mirror, whether or not it is gaining ground. Wow, Mike, I'm in amazement at the concord here. I'm liking the "ballad" you're singing. Usually its dueling banjos between the two of us. Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
What if a man saved your life because he cared more about feeling good about it than he actually cared about your life! Could you accept him as a hero for saving your life, even though he cared more about feeling good about it? |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
"saved your life" and "he cared more about feeling good" are conflict characters. Can they co-exit at the same time point? If my life needs to be saved than it means that my life in in danger. The situation which makes my life dangerous will make his life in dangerous as well so He would not feel good about the situation. my thought |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant: quote: One thing about selfishness, Essorant, is that it might make a show of giving and common respectability here and there, but not real heroism. The risk calculated would generally be too high. Though 1 Corinthians does pose it as a possibility ... stating that if a man could give his body to the flames, without love, it would amount to nothing. I think Paul was being hypothetical however, refuting lovelessness with its best foot forward. Successfully arguing against the best case for a counter-argument, tends to end the argument. Does a man who accidentally drops 50 dollars on the sidewalk on the poor side of town, amount to a philanthropist? Is he giving alms? An extreme pragmatism might say it doesn't matter. Human psychology and behavior says it does. Stephen |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Essorant, that's an interesting question, reminding me of somethat that happened in my life. Years ago, I was the factory manager of the largest t-shirt manufacturer in the world. I had eight department heads under me. One was a production manager, an old Cuban fellow, who was one of the nicest people I had ever known, a man who really cared about his employees. To make a long story short, upper management decided to let him go, without even consulting with me first. When I came to work that day, he was gone. I walked into the president's office and resigned. That night Joe (the fired manager) called me. He was in tears. He told me that no one had ever done anything like that for him in his entire life and I had a friend in him for life. I then explained to him that I hadn't done it for him. My job was basically being a buffer between upper management and lower management. I basically protected them from the big guys and they in turn produced for me. The fact that they did an end-run around me and fired one of my people meant I didn't do my job and that's why I left. Bottom line is that it made a difference to him. I could feel the difference. He was still appreciative but the fact that my actions were not motivated by personally taking up for him changed things. So, yes,we do appreciate another's actions which benefit us, but most would prefer that it be personal, something to make one feel special. sorry for the ramble but you struck an old memory chord. Stephanos, even dueling banjos can create good music at times  |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
My dear Sir Balladeer, if you had resigned on you won, since you were not happy any way, you might have felt lonely because the world was such a unfair place. But to take good chance, you not only had felt yourself a hero but cheated out a good friendship too. You gave nothing but took in a pure friendship. (quite self-interested) You always tell the truth. |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
I do not sent out present often and do not do it without significant reason I sent out one this year to honor one friend's aging In this special season But She forgot all of this She is probably too old to remember who is who so I have to pretend that I did not give. [This message has been edited by TomMark (12-29-2007 10:41 PM).] |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
