Political Crossfire Forums

[anatman]

Good Day,

My user name is an acknowledgement of a basic tenet of Buddhism: there is no self -which does not mean, as is often thought- that you don't really exist, or that you are an illusion, or that your "soul" is non-existent or an illusion. Anatman means rather that while there is an individual self and you have a soul/spirit in the sense that there is a 'ghost in the machine' and that you perform karmic actions to be answered for - there is in fact nothing in particular about your individual body-mind to hold on to. After you pass away, only your karma - the results and subsequent responsibility for your actions remains.

Siddhartha Gautama said:

The senses meet the object and from their contact sensation is born. Thence results recollection. Thus, as the sun's power through a burning-glass causes fire to appear, so through the cognizance born of sense and object, the mind originates and with it the ego, the thought of self, whom some Brahman teachers call the lord.

The shoot springs from the seed; the seed is not the shoot, both are not one and the same, but successive phases in a continuous growth. Such is the birth of animated life.

Ye that are slaves of the self and toil in its service from morn until night, ye that live in constant fear of birth, old age, sickness, and death,
receive the good tidings that your cruel master exists not.


You can accept this as the truth or not, I only mention anatman because selflessness has everything to do with the quotation I would like you to comment on below. I think you guess my opinion. :)

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
-John Kenneth Galbraith (1908-2006)

[LostSoul3412]

Beyond the scope of conservatism, to be selfish is the natural state of humanity.

[anatman]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Beyond the scope of conservatism, to be selfish is the natural state of humanity.
Ah! But that's just it. It's no good shrugging it off and chalking it up to human nature. Our whole journey here on this vale of sin is to overcome our humanity. We must cease to be human beings and strive to become humane beings.

[mojo]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Beyond the scope of conservatism, to be selfish is the natural state of humanity.

Indeed it is, but that does not make it right.

[Towie]

anatman wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: Beyond the scope of conservatism, to be selfish is the natural state of humanity.
Ah! But that's just it. It's no good shrugging it off and chalking it up to human nature. Our whole journey here on this vale of sin is to overcome our humanity. We must cease to be human beings and strive to become humane beings.

Nicely put. I must agree with you on that one. Many humans have themselves in the habit of putting themselves after others. Many people force themselves into altruistic manners even if it's not in their instinctual nature.

[LostSoul3412]

anatman wrote: Ah! But that's just it. It's no good shrugging it off and chalking it up to human nature. Our whole journey here on this vale of sin is to overcome our humanity. We must cease to be human beings and strive to become humane beings.

I am only a conservative on economic matters (free market Capitalist), but I would argue that it is impossible to change the state of humanity. While it is possible to turn one man away from his natural state, it is impossible to convert a mass of men to do the same.

[mojo]

LostSoul3412 wrote: anatman wrote: Ah! But that's just it. It's no good shrugging it off and chalking it up to human nature. Our whole journey here on this vale of sin is to overcome our humanity. We must cease to be human beings and strive to become humane beings.

I am only a conservative on economic matters (free market Capitalist), but I would argue that it is impossible to change the state of humanity. While it is possible to turn one man away from his natural state, it is impossible to convert a mass of men to do the same.

Since the collective is made up of the individual why is it not possbile. You are arguing against your own economic theory.

[Free Thinkr]

anatman wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: Beyond the scope of conservatism, to be selfish is the natural state of humanity.
Ah! But that's just it. It's no good shrugging it off and chalking it up to human nature. Our whole journey here on this vale of sin is to overcome our humanity. We must cease to be human beings and strive to become humane beings.
Why is that? Because you said so?

Why should others concern themselves with me, when I'm not concerned for myself? How is it we are to be responsible for billions of others, when we refuse responsibility of ourselves (selflessness)?

[Anarko-Kapitalizt]

As an egoist, I see altruism as irrational.

[LostSoul3412]

politicalmojo wrote: Since the collective is made up of the individual why is it not possbile. You are arguing against your own economic theory.

That is different. I meant the term "individual" as one person. Meaning that you can convince one person to change their personal natural state, it is impossible to change the way society thinks or acts as a whole.

[jawsome]

Selflessness is impossible and does not exist.

[mojo]

LostSoul3412 wrote: politicalmojo wrote: Since the collective is made up of the individual why is it not possbile. You are arguing against your own economic theory.

That is different. I meant the term "individual" as one person. Meaning that you can convince one person to change their personal natural state, it is impossible to change the way society thinks or acts as a whole.

I would disagree. In the 50 years since the government passed the civil rights act racism has dramatically decreased. This decrease is at least partly due to legislation of the government.

Movies, TV, natural disasters, and major national events all help to swing the sentiment of a nation. No it is not impossible to change the minds of the collective.

[anatman]

Towie wrote: anatman wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: Beyond the scope of conservatism, to be selfish is the natural state of humanity.
Ah! But that's just it. It's no good shrugging it off and chalking it up to human nature. Our whole journey here on this vale of sin is to overcome our humanity. We must cease to be human beings and strive to become humane beings.

Nicely put. I must agree with you on that one. Many humans have themselves in the habit of putting themselves after others. Many people force themselves into altruistic manners even if it's not in their instinctual nature.

:? Sounds like you don't agree with me, friend. What's up?
Quote: anatman wrote:
LostSoul3412 wrote:
Beyond the scope of conservatism, to be selfish is the natural state of humanity.

Ah! But that's just it. It's no good shrugging it off and chalking it up to human nature. Our whole journey here on this vale of sin is to overcome our humanity. We must cease to be human beings and strive to become humane beings.
Free Thinkr wrote:
Why is that? Because you said so?
Why should others concern themselves with me, when I'm not concerned for myself? How is it we are to be responsible for billions of others, when we refuse responsibility of ourselves (selflessness)? You're not concerned with/for yourself? Than why do you eat? Why do you jump when you hear a loud noise or catch yourself if you stumble? Of course you're concerned for yourself. I am (nearly) sure you are responsible for yourself and perhaps some family members and friends. Others certainly are concerned for you. The nuns who pray for everyone, the activists who try to improve your nation, and other nations, me :) -lot's of people. What are you talkin' about, dude Quote: ?LostSoul3412 wrote: Iwould argue that it is impossible to change the state of humanity. Pay attention now, it's not often someone will quote Captain Nemo -usually he's 20,000 leagues under the sea and rarely available for sound bytes anyway.
Captain Nemo: Quote: Impossible is only a word in a dictionary for fools. :shock: I'm not calling you a fool, LostSoul, I'm just quoting the captain. :)

politicalmojo makes an excellent point, and jawsome: selflessness is quite possible and does exist. There is the Buddha, there is Jesus Christ, there is Mother Theresa and there is your mom on cold winter mornings getting you up for school. :wink:

Anyway, I'm afraid all of this is off the topic. Please consider the topic question and respond to it. Thanks. :)

[anatman]

Towie wrote: anatman wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: Beyond the scope of conservatism, to be selfish is the natural state of humanity.
Ah! But that's just it. It's no good shrugging it off and chalking it up to human nature. Our whole journey here on this vale of sin is to overcome our humanity. We must cease to be human beings and strive to become humane beings.

Nicely put. I must agree with you on that one. Many humans have themselves in the habit of putting themselves after others. Many people force themselves into altruistic manners even if it's not in their instinctual nature.

:? Sounds like you don't agree with me, friend. What's up?

LostSoul3412 wrote:
Beyond the scope of conservatism, to be selfish is the natural state of humanity.
Anatman wrote:
Ah! But that's just it. It's no good shrugging it off and chalking it up to human nature. Our whole journey here on this vale of sin is to overcome our humanity. We must cease to be human beings and strive to become humane beings.
Free Thinkr wrote:
Why is that? Because you said so?
Why should others concern themselves with me, when I'm not concerned for myself? How is it we are to be responsible for billions of others, when we refuse responsibility of ourselves (selflessness)?[/quote]You're not concerned with/for yourself? Than why do you eat? Why do you jump when you hear a loud noise or catch yourself if you stumble? Of course you're concerned for yourself. I am (nearly) sure you are responsible for yourself and perhaps some family members and friends. Others certainly are concerned for you. The nuns who pray for everyone, the activists who try to improve your nation, and other nations, me :) -lot's of people. What are you talkin' about, dude
Quote: ?LostSoul3412 wrote: I would argue that it is impossible to change the state of humanity. Pay attention now, it's not often someone will quote Captain Nemo -usually he's 20,000 leagues under the sea and rarely available for sound bytes anyway.
Captain Nemo: Quote: Impossible is only a word in a dictionary for fools. :shock: I'm not calling you a fool, LostSoul, I'm just quoting the captain. :)

politicalmojo makes an excellent point, and jawsome: selflessness is quite possible and does exist. There is the Buddha, there is Jesus Christ, there is Mother Theresa and there is your mom on cold winter mornings getting you up for school. :wink:

Anyway, I'm afraid all of this is off the topic. Please consider the topic question and respond to it. Thanks. :)

[LostSoul3412]

politicalmojo wrote: I would disagree. In the 50 years since the government passed the civil rights act racism has dramatically decreased. This decrease is at least partly due to legislation of the government.

Movies, TV, natural disasters, and major national events all help to swing the sentiment of a nation. No it is not impossible to change the minds of the collective.

It is one thing to change public opinion, it is another to change the public's humanity.

The Soviet Union attempted to do this for over 70 years, and I think we all know how that ended... :td:

[Free Thinkr]

anatman wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Quote: Ah! But that's just it. It's no good shrugging it off and chalking it up to human nature. Our whole journey here on this vale of sin is to overcome our humanity. We must cease to be human beings and strive to become humane beings.
Why is that? Because you said so?
Why should others concern themselves with me, when I'm not concerned for myself? How is it we are to be responsible for billions of others, when we refuse responsibility of ourselves (selflessness)?
You're not concerned with/for yourself? Than why do you eat? Why do you jump when you hear a loud noise or catch yourself if you stumble? Of course you're concerned for yourself.
Yes, that's my point. I am very much concerned with myself. I very much should be. Not selfless, but selfish. I can only help others through myself. Were I selfless, I'd probably end up one of those with whom you are so concerned.

Quote: I am (nearly) sure you are responsible for yourself and perhaps some family members and friends. Others certainly are concerned for you.
Others are surely concerned for me, but only I am responsible for myself. Only I have the power of affecting the outer world by mastering control of my own life and setting and accomplishing goals. Others can "help" me insomuch as they can provide me with sustenance, but only I have the power to really live.

When people speak of being selfless, they believe we should ignore our desires, or sacrifice them for some "greater good." But just what greater good is there in a society of people who deny their very ego as a matter of course?

Quote: The nuns who pray for everyone, the activists who try to improve your nation, and other nations, me :) -lot's of people. What are you talkin' about, dude
I'm talking about responsibility. No one can get anything done unless they set goals and accomplish them; in order to do this they must accept responsibility of their own life. They must focus on bettering themselves, because without that, they're of little help. Talk of being selfless is counterproductive. If you wish to help the poor, accept that that is your wish, and that it is incumbent upon you to realize that wish through your actions. Selflessness is hollow; individuality has substance.

[mojo]

LostSoul3412 wrote: politicalmojo wrote: I would disagree. In the 50 years since the government passed the civil rights act racism has dramatically decreased. This decrease is at least partly due to legislation of the government.

Movies, TV, natural disasters, and major national events all help to swing the sentiment of a nation. No it is not impossible to change the minds of the collective.

It is one thing to change public opinion, it is another to change the public's humanity.

The Soviet Union attempted to do this for over 70 years, and I think we all know how that ended... :td:

What ae you talking about? The issue of race on this country was never about public opinion it was about changing humanity.

Im not arguing for communism. But Im not making some kind of ridiculous anarchist statement either.

[LostSoul3412]

politicalmojo wrote: What ae you talking about? The issue of race on this country was never about public opinion it was about changing humanity.

I wasn't talking about the physical humanities of the individual, but rather about the natural state of humanity.

politicalmojo wrote: Im not arguing for communism. But Im not making some kind of ridiculous anarchist statement either.

I didn't say that, nor am I arguing Anarchy here, I am simply stating that, as humans, humanity is selfish and always self-serving.

[anatman]

Free Thinkr wrote: Quote: When people speak of being selfless, they believe we should ignore our desires, or sacrifice them for some "greater good." But just what greater good is there in a society of people who deny their very ego as a matter of course? An excellent question! The greater good would be to convince everyone that the ego is an illusion. This is no easy thing. That's why Buddhists monks and nuns have to meditate and perform so many routine, daily rituals. It's all to easy to fall back into the illusion of selfhood. And it's not that "they believe we should ignore our desires" as you write, but that there is no you to have desires. See, we're eliminating the root cause of desire. Also note that desirein itself is not wrong. The Buddha taught that we should treat our physical bodies, as we would care for a wound. Administer the medicine; see to its proper nourishment and hygiene, and then ignore it. It is evil desires that Buddhism attempts to curb. Oh! And this isn't because I say so, this is the wisdom and teaching of Siddhartha Gautama, and the fact that it still thrives after 2500 years is testament to its value, I think. :-D

[FinnMacCool]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Beyond the scope of conservatism, to be selfish is the natural state of humanity.

Not really.