01 Jul 08
Dover Beach, by Matthew Arnold
The sea is calm to-night.
The tide is full, the moon lies fair
Upon the straits; on the French coast the light
Gleams and is gone; the cliffs of England stand;
Glimmering and vast, out in the tranquil bay.
Come to the window, sweet is the night-air!
Only, from the long line of spray
Where the sea meets the moon-blanched land,
Listen! you hear the grating roar
Of pebbles which the waves draw back, and fling,
At their return, up the high strand,
Begin, and cease, and then again begin,
With tremulous cadence slow, and bring
The eternal note of sadness in.
Sophocles long ago
Heard it on the Agaean, and it brought
Into his mind the turbid ebb and flow
Of human misery; we
Find also in the sound a thought,
Hearing it by this distant northern sea.
The Sea of Faith
Was once, too, at the full, and round earth's shore
Lay like the folds of a bright girdle furled.
But now I only hear
Its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar,
Retreating, to the breath
Of the night-wind, down the vast edges drear
And naked shingles of the world.
Ah, love, let us be true
To one another! for the world, which seems
To lie before us like a land of dreams,
So various, so beautiful, so new,
Hath really neither joy, nor love, nor light,
Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain;
And we are here as on a darkling plain
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
Where ignorant armies clash by night.
01 Jul 08
The majority of people who kill themselves in my country do not come within the privaledged but those at the bottom of the heap. It may be different in China etc where high expectations are placed on them from an early age and do not perform up to expectations given of them.
Alcohol(binge drinking), drugs, women and a lack of any real achievement in life.
01 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasSo, it's fullfilling out of the fact of being genuinely altruistic? That means
A meaningful existence such as living for others doesn't necessarily make one "feel good" and may even put one at risk of harm or death, yet it may be meaningful work, and in fact would not be fulfilling were it not genuinely altruistic.
it's not genuinely altruistic, right?
Throwing yourself at a grenade; dying for someone else I would call
suicide in itself, and the reasons are unknown to us because, well, they
die doing that. We can guess though. We can ask ourselves if a person
throwing himself on a grenade would do the same for just anybody. If
(s)he would have done it for "the enemy" say, then yes, it's truly not a
selfish action. But if (s)he does it only for a handful of people, doesn't
that suggest it's a form of selfish reason for it? (S)he cannot imagine
living without having done something to save his/her friends, and maybe
even believes (s)he will survive to feel good about that, or get to some
divine eternal resting place with green and beauty as far as the mind can
reach. Who knows?
01 Jul 08
Originally posted by JigtieSo, it's fullfilling out of the fact of being genuinely altruistic? That means
So, it's fullfilling out of the fact of being genuinely altruistic? That means
it's not genuinely altruistic, right?
Throwing yourself at a grenade; dying for someone else I would call
suicide in itself, and the reasons are unknown to us because, well, they
die doing that. We can guess though. We can ask ourselves if a person
throwing himself on a ...[text shortened]... ne eternal resting place with green and beauty as far as the mind can
reach. Who knows?
it's not genuinely altruistic, right?
Wrong.
01 Jul 08
Originally posted by epiphinehasfulfilling altruistic goals is self pleasure for many. My point stands, your argument notwithstanding.
I disagree. Human beings are capable of making genuinely altruistic choices. Choices which contain no selfish benefits, but which benefit others, e.g., jumping on a grenade to save others, burning yourself alive for the sake of a cause, etc. How do these actions make a person "feel good"? They don't, judging all actions as selfish actions is therefor ...[text shortened]... eaningful work, and in fact would not be fulfilling were it not genuinely altruistic.
01 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasI'm not going to do semantics here, but no, you're wrong. Think about
[b]So, it's fullfilling out of the fact of being genuinely altruistic? That means
it's not genuinely altruistic, right?
Wrong.[/b]
it. If someone can get a satisfaction out of acting seemingly unselfish, then
that very satisfaction is probably the motivation for doing it. Would the
same person do the same thing, at the same cost if it didn't given him a
personal satisfaction doing something seemingly unselfish? I think not. 😏
01 Jul 08
Originally posted by JigtieLet's not do semantics. Especially, let's not call something we say semantics when it isn't a question of semantics.
I'm not going to do semantics here, but no, you're wrong. Think about
it. If someone can get a satisfaction out of acting seemingly unselfish, then
that very satisfaction is probably the motivation for doing it. Would the
same person do the same thing, at the same cost if it didn't given him a
personal satisfaction doing something seemingly unselfish? I think not. 😏
It's a question of logic. You stand accused of a logical fallacy -- that is, your conclusion is identical to its hypothesis (it assumes that people only perform acts that give them personal enjoyment, and concludes that people only perform acts that give them personal enjoyment).
This is called circular logic. And your point of view looks a lot like Psychological Egoism.
That ain't good ....
02 Jul 08
Originally posted by ScriabinWell, this is embarrassing if semantics doesn't mean what I thought it
Let's not do semantics. Especially, let's not call something we say semantics when it isn't a question of semantics.
It's a question of logic. You stand accused of a logical fallacy -- that is, your conclusion is identical to its hypothesis (it assumes that people only perform acts that give them personal enjoyment, and concludes that people only perform ...[text shortened]... ogic. And your point of view looks a lot like Psychological Egoism.
That ain't good ....
meant, which is the meaning of a given expression.
I'm not trying to prove some hypothesis I have, for I haven't even
thought about it that deeply. I'm questioning whether or not it's possible
to act "genuinely altruistic" or if the "feeling good about yourself for
doing it"-part isn't in fact the reason for doing it in the first place, and if
so it's not really unselfish anymore, is it? I ask, would a person really do it
if there was no "reward" of any kind (even the remote promise of a reward)
for doing it? I sincerely doubt it. But maybe I'm just very cynical.
02 Jul 08
Originally posted by JigtieIn this case, your cynicism is misplaced. There are far too many instances on record of altruistic acts that could not possibly be interpreted as coming from a desire for some selfish pleasure.
Well, this is embarrassing if semantics doesn't mean what I thought it
meant, which is the meaning of a given expression.
I'm not trying to prove some hypothesis I have, for I haven't even
thought about it that deeply. I'm questioning whether or not it's possible
to act "genuinely altruistic" or if the "feeling good about yourself for
doing it"-par ...[text shortened]... f a reward)
for doing it? I sincerely doubt it. But maybe I'm just very cynical.
Perhaps you ought to think more deeply. Your argument is completely circular -- it has the same thought as both premise and conclusion.
that's not semantics -- we all know what the word altruism refers to.
By trying to argue that the word must be meaningless or "questioning whether or not it's possible" that the word refers to that which we understand it to, you are chasing your own tail, as it were.
To use the word altruism correctly is to exclude the motivation to simply feel good about yourself. The word refers to an act that benefits another done with no thought of reward or benefit to you.
You might want to look up the concept of "in itself" and "for itself" in philosophy.
But do it with care -- don't read something huge and intimidating. I was forced, quite against my will, to absorb and try to understand Sartre's Being and Nothingness, which concerns a lot of discussion about these concepts. I do not recommend it.
In fact, if you want to understand altruism, get a book by Viktor Frankl entitled Man's Search for Meaning -- it's all in there and not a tough read at all.
03 Jul 08
2 edits
Originally posted by ScriabinPlease point me in the direction of some documented instances of truly
In this case, your cynicism is misplaced. There are far too many instances on record of altruistic acts that could not possibly be interpreted as coming from a desire for some selfish pleasure.
Perhaps you ought to think more deeply. Your argument is completely circular -- it has the same thought as both premise and conclusion.
that's not semantics - entitled Man's Search for Meaning -- it's all in there and not a tough read at all.
altruistic acts, because I can't find any that can't be questioned.
I'm not questioning what the word altruistic means. I'm questioning if it's at
all possible for a human to act without some form, even the remote
promise of some kind of personal reward.
Ah, but I just realised we've digressed quite a bit from the original topic
here. Sorry about that. 😕
03 Jul 08
Originally posted by ScriabinIt's refreshing to see someone else mention Viktor Frankl's name. Hat's off to you, sir.
In this case, your cynicism is misplaced. There are far too many instances on record of altruistic acts that could not possibly be interpreted as coming from a desire for some selfish pleasure.
Perhaps you ought to think more deeply. Your argument is completely circular -- it has the same thought as both premise and conclusion.
that's not semantics - ...[text shortened]... entitled Man's Search for Meaning -- it's all in there and not a tough read at all.
03 Jul 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadCouldn't find any stats so drew up my own.
Maybe it is because poor people cant afford shotguns.
Do you have any actual stats to back up your claim?
The suicides I have personally heard about were all related to mental illness to some degree. I have heard poor friends mention suicidal thoughts, but not to the extent of going through with it.
It would be interesting to know what the correla ...[text shortened]... ty of guns. The suicides I know of were mostly jumping off buildings or over the Victoria falls.
http://www.screenshots.cc/show.php/13115_bgraph.jpg.html
Graph is very approximate as it plots number of suicides
per 100,000 capita against GDP rank.
03 Jul 08
Originally posted by Thequ1ckAs someone who has seen six decades, I would say that it comes from the simple idea that some people are not able to be satisfied with the pursuit of happiness.
Why do a higher percentage of 'privileged' people commit suicide?
What is it about our society that drives people to commit such an act?
Depression is a horrible thing. It can come for short periods then leave or it can hover in the background for entire lifetimes.
The good news is that it is ALWAYS cured in the end. The bad news is that depression wastes so much happy time on earth. Life is a really, really fun arcade game. One might as well play it and laugh as to surrender early.