"Self-ish-ness" is not a dirty word?

"Self-ish-ness" is not a dirty word? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

CallaFirestormBW -> "Self-ish-ness" is not a dirty word? (8/9/2008 6:41:05 AM)
This came to mind after reading and re-reading a thread title on the boards here that starts "In it for what they can get out of it..." [With recognition to Prin, as the thread in question is one she started]. Some years ago, in the midst of my last progression on my spiritual path, the issue of 'self-ish-ness' came up. After considerable reflection on writings from a number of sources, and examination of myself and others, it seemed to me that we are all, as human beings, self-ish, and that that is a perfectly -normal- way to be. Each of us does the things that we do because it makes us feel good about ourselves and gives us pleasure, in the long-run if not the short. Even our decisions about things that delay our gratification are about whether we claim our pleasure -now-, or act in a way that will give us the potential of even -more- pleasure, but only in the future. As I thought about it, I realized that even our most "selfless" acts are done out of a place where the end result is that it makes -us- feel good to self-sacrifice. If it didn't feel good...or provide some 'reward'... at least on some level... or provide us with some benefit over the short or long term, there would be no viable reason to participate. (To me, this is also relevant to why some people seem to consistently choose situations that end in crises -- because somehow, they get some response or obtain some sense of 'reward' from repeating the same apparently ineffective behaviors, but that is something for another topic, perhaps.) With the idea that we are all inherently self-oriented and seek pleasure and feeling 'good' within ourselves as the premise, what would you see as the dividing line between productive 'self-ish-ness' and non-productive 'self-ish-ness', in particular in relationships or in general? Calla Firestorm

UR2Badored -> RE: "Self-ish-ness" is not a dirty word? (8/9/2008 7:10:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW With the idea that we are all inherently self-oriented and seek pleasure and feeling 'good' within ourselves as the premise, what would you see as the dividing line between productive 'self-ish-ness' and non-productive 'self-ish-ness', in particular in relationships or in general? Calla Firestorm Wow great thread and thought-provoking question! Who is to say that any of us exactly has it right? For every person who has a selfish need there is someone out there willing to fill it and vice versa. It seems to be reciprical in nature. I do see that people are seeking self-fullfilling even when it appears themselves or others as being self-less. (if that makes any sense--shugs) In regards to the dividing line between productive and non-productive selfishness.. I suppose when you are so self-obsessed that you lose the ability to make good choices for you own welfare. Example--People who cut themselves for satisfaction, starve themselves for satisfaction to the point that they are harm themselves fatally on beyond repair. I understand this is a disease, but it starts somewhere. Also, I think vanity plays a part in selfishness as well. When every response coming out of someone's mouths is a brag or self-promotion, it appears too needy for acceptance and eventually is ignored by others. Not that this is always a bad thing, but when you lose the ability to see there is a generalized perception about you that becomes a negative.....that need to boast becomes unproductive. It is important to feel good about accomplishments and acknowledge one's own attributes.....but not excessively. I've heard this a long time. If you take care of yourself first, it will make it easier to care for others (like the common airbag on plane rule). In this respect, selfishness is not a dirty word. I think most things in life is a matter of a balancing act. For reference sake: selfishness The quality or state of being selfish; exclusive regard to one's own interest or happiness; that supreme self-love or self-preference which leads a person to direct his purposes to the advancement of his own interest, power, or happiness, without regarding those of others. Selfishness, -- a vice utterly at variance with the happiness of him who harbors it, and, as such, condemned by self-love. Just my 2 cents worth; with inflation I still owe the OP at least a buck in cash.

Jeffff -> RE: "Self-ish-ness" is not a dirty word? (8/9/2008 7:36:36 AM)
I believe there is no such thing as genuine altruism, People do whatever it is they do because, ultimately t makes them happy. Whether that is good or bad is a subjective judgment. Jeff

DarkSteven -> RE: "Self-ish-ness" is not a dirty word? (8/9/2008 7:40:09 AM)
I'm defining three different situations: 1. The supply of what I want is unlimited, and I can take as much as I want. For example, if I see the mountains before me, or an eagle flying, it takes my breath away. But my "taking" this view does not diminsih others' abilities to enjoy the same thing. 2. The supply is limited and finite. Easy to understand. If there's $500 on the table and we split it, every dollar I take is one less dollar for you. 3. The supply is limited but can be grown. This is difficult to understand conceptually but is the basis upon which capitalism is formed. If you and I pool our abilities, it is possible that we will be able to achieve more than both of us could individually. I am always in awe at the genius behind fusing self-interest with accomplishments for society. IMHO, #3 is always healthy and #2 is not but is highly rewarded. For example, ex athletes are sought for salespeople because of their competitive drive.

UncleNasty -> RE: "Self-ish-ness" is not a dirty word? (8/9/2008 10:07:13 AM)
This is not directly on point, but neither is it a hijack. Self-less and self-ish. Too much of either is not what I consider to be healthy. A balance between the two is important. I would no sooner want to be with with someone that is completely self-ish than I would someone completely self-less. Being able to seemlessly transition between them is also important. There also arises a question as to whether someone that is too self-less is capable of genuinely loving another. If they aren't self interested enough, or self loving enough, how is it possible to love another? I'm not sure what kind of issues or questions arise that might correspond on the other side of the coin. Too much selfisness comes with its own obvious down sides. Uncle Nasty

candystripper -> RE: "Self-ish-ness" is not a dirty word? (8/9/2008 10:20:06 AM)
I'd draw it where most health care professionals, pyschologists, religious and spiritual leaders, and my own moral code would lead me to: to that place where a person's self-gratification lacks empathy, or derives pleasure from the suffering of others, or seeks power in a damaging way, etc. candystripper

pahunkboy -> RE: "Self-ish-ness" is not a dirty word? (8/9/2008 11:16:34 AM)
I might be too nice. I dont want to be a pushover- and yet- ....hmm, if a $10 bill sits on the roadway, I pick it up- so then it is mine. Most people would. Someone would think that they seen it first. This happened to me in real life the past winter. On the toll way- I was stopped in line to pay the toll. This is hard to picture- but a $10 bill was dancing in the wind- then was close enuff that I could grab it from the moving car. Had I known who lost it right then I would have returned it. But the traffic moved along and gone in a quick manner. Selfless would be to give it to the toll collector ....extra- sometimes neighbors consider being friendly as willing to give up property. So Ild agree it is a blend. No one likes a jerk all the time- and yet to be selfless 24-7 is....well- shortchanging.

Daddystouch -> RE: "Self-ish-ness" is not a dirty word? (8/9/2008 11:44:42 AM)
All humans (indeed all living things) are self-interested. A 'selfless' person is just one whose self-interest happens to lead them to make decisions which involve apparent self-sacrifice e.g. giving to charity, donating organs, volunteering. What they are actually doing is trading these things for their own benefit. 'Selfish' people just happen to be lead by their self-interest to do things which do not appear to be sacrificial e.g. earning vast profits from some company. Instead of trading an hour of their time for the happiness reaped from feeding the homeless, they trade an hour of their time for the happiness derived from the spending power the accrue (or rather, from what they spend this on). In reality of course, it is often the people we call selfish who do the most good in this world. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self interest. It is often said that 'selfless' people or even politicians are morally superior to 'selfish' people because they give up so much to pursue charitable work or politics... Is political self-interest nobler somehow than economic self-interest?

pixidustpet -> RE: "Self-ish-ness" is not a dirty word? (8/10/2008 10:09:56 AM)
sometimes what may be percieved as selfishness is actually healthier than selflessness. my mama was the sole caregiver for my grandmother. oh, she got repite care 3 days a week, for 4 hours. that isnt much, about enough time to run to the grocery store, you know? but not enough time for much more than that. she took one day a week to take a 2 hour writing class. that helped fill her soul, and renew her spirit to go back and take care of an elderly woman who was cranky and irritable about no longer having control of her body. (parkinsons disease and alzhiemers). she did it for about 3 years with no real help other than a few vacation hours here and there when someone would visit and help out. that writing class, although it could be considered "selfish" saved her sanity. if you cant take care of yourself first, how can you care for someone else? kitten, contemplatively

meatcleaver -> RE: "Self-ish-ness" is not a dirty word? (8/10/2008 10:37:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven 3. The supply is limited but can be grown. This is difficult to understand conceptually but is the basis upon which capitalism is formed. If you and I pool our abilities, it is possible that we will be able to achieve more than both of us could individually. I am always in awe at the genius behind fusing self-interest with accomplishments for society. This is the biggest flaw in capitalism, that the supply is limited but can be grown. Capitalism has worked so far because it treats the environment as a free and unlimited resource but it isn't. Capitalism is effectively killing our planet through over harvesting it, much on unnecessary luxuries and excess for the rich developed world. Resources are finite but there is enough to go round if people could control their greed. That doesn't seem to be possible for most people. The OP asks the question "Self-ish-ness" is not a dirty word? Only someone from the rich developed world could come out with that one, only someone who wants to justify their selfishness could have thought that up. If they were dirt poor and living in a hovel with bearly enough to eat, no education and no chance of escape, they would look at us in the rich developed world and wonder how we could justify our greed, our selfishness and our willingness to condemn others to poverty. If that does not make 'selfishness' a dirty word, I don't know what does.

Lockit -> RE: "Self-ish-ness" is not a dirty word? (8/10/2008 11:27:02 AM)
We all have our self interest and to deny it would be a lie, but there are those that are so self consumed that they are simply hard to deal with. I agree with Uncle Nasty... going self-less too far or self-ish too far... is a huge problem.

Owner59 -> RE: "Self-ish-ness" is not a dirty word? (8/10/2008 11:59:37 AM)
Nope.If you don`t take care of your'self' 1st,you`re pretty much useless as a friend,family member or lover. Charity starts at home.Selfishness is taking care of you own needs 1st.But if you`re selfish to a fault,you`re not going to find joy,IMO. Greed,gluttony,etc aren`t good attributes and won`t get you good friends or associates. Generosity and selflessness can be taken to far also and won`t bring you much joy,in the end.

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: "Self-ish-ness" is not a dirty word? (8/10/2008 12:07:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: candystripper I'd draw it where most health care professionals, pyschologists, religious and spiritual leaders, and my own moral code would lead me to: to that place where a person's self-gratification lacks empathy, or derives pleasure from the suffering of others, or seeks power in a damaging way, etc. candystripper Ok, this is a "common-world" generic for me that is open to -so- much subjective interpretation that it just doesn't mean anything. There are so many assumptions that a person may not know what to -do- to not appear 'unproductively selfish'. It's not so much candystripper's definition that I have problems with -- her response really is a reflection of society, which is why it's so hard to get a "knuckles down" answer to the question. Religious and spiritual leaders, psychologists, and 'health-care professionals' don't necessarily understand the issues either, and are traditionally vague, so how are they supposed to be able to explain this any better to someone else? 1. "Self-gratification lacks empathy" -- How does someone determine whether another person's self-gratification is lacking 'empathy' -- when they disagree with the person's reasoning? What if the person is -very- empathetic, but just believes that what xhe is doing or how xhe is doing it will be a more effective way of getting to the same result that the person judging is looking for, though it may be more immediately difficult? 2. "Derives pleasure from the suffering of others" -- Again, what if it is a misperception on the part of the observer, that the individual is doing something for no other reason than because xhe gets pleasure from others' suffering? What about in our off-beat dynamics, where one person -may- derive pleasure from the suffering of others, but it is a consensual dynamic where the suffering party is getting something out of hir suffering and the other person's pleasure in it as well? 3. "Seeks power in a damaging way" -- Damaging to whom, and who gets to decide what damage, whose damage, and whether or not the perceived "damage" is actually serving some useful purpose over the long run? Ok... I'm welcoming discussion on this part, because this is how my mind wraps around the whole issue of "selfishness" or "self-interest". I hope this makes sense. I think that all of this is completely subjective. I can decide for me, and I can enter into consensual agreements where others accept that this is how I see things, and believe that their own perceptions are compatible -- but I believe that, in the end, there is no way to consider the "other", aside from the information that is voluntarily shared by that individual. If something changes, where the communion of self- interests no longer is compatible, then there are going to be issues. In the end, though, there is -nothing- that we do that is, in any way, separated from our own ego and our own interest in self-pleasure and self-satisfaction. To me, the difference between what I call "ignorant self-interest" and "enlightened self-interest" is at that point where one individual chooses to no longer communicate about whether or not the individuals who are involved still have, or are still able to negotiate, companionable self-interests. If I am in a relationship, and I go off on my own "thing", and the other person or persons I am with start "falling away" and, after they tell me or show me that they are no longer "on track", I still try to push my agenda instead of either discussing and negotiating common ground that still serves all of our self-interests OR choosing to follow my own path separate from them where my choices do not interfere with their path to their own self-interests, then, at that point, my 'self-ish-ness' is no longer productive. I am dragging the other(s) along on "my" ride without considering how far it is taking them from what we have agreed was our -shared- ride because our self-interests coincided. In being aware and productive, if I step away from our agreed path, I ask the question -- will this work for you? From there, everyone gets to have hir say, and either a productive shared path is re-negotiated where everyone's self-interests are compatible again, OR we go our own way with the knowledge that we caught things before there was resentment or mistrust between us. Calla Firestorm

Vendaval -> RE: "Self-ish-ness" is not a dirty word? (8/10/2008 2:08:38 PM)
I have to maintain my own stability, health and spirit before being able to help others. That requires a large amount of juggling and balancing tricks. Some of my personal priorities might not be in line with others. A cool shower on a hot day or a warm bath when muscles ache from exercise may seem indulgent, but are essential to my peace of mind.

Roselaure -> RE: "Self-ish-ness" is not a dirty word? (8/10/2008 7:08:26 PM)
"Selfishness" is one of those words that have been used so frequently, relatively and self servingly as to have completely lost its value. Any time in my life I have been accused of being selfish, it's been because I wouldn't do or believe what another person wanted me to. Does that make me selfish? Depends who you ask.

Leatherist -> RE: "Self-ish-ness" is not a dirty word? (8/10/2008 7:11:04 PM)
Selfishness can be a driving force for positive things. For someone intelligent enough to look at the big picture-and who realizes that the moment is not all we have to deal with in life.

Alumbrado -> RE: "Self-ish-ness" is not a dirty word? (8/10/2008 7:20:39 PM)
Self regard, as in appreciating where one stands in regard to reality, and wanting to improve that position when possible, can be a good thing. Having little to no regard for others is 'self esteem', or selfishness, which is sometimes a neccessary thing for self preservation, but if it is an overriding trait, usually not a good thing.

Leatherist -> RE: "Self-ish-ness" is not a dirty word? (8/10/2008 7:24:54 PM)
Or one can simply take the view of "How can being of benefit to deserving and useful others benefit me in return?" And having the ability to discern who they are.

popeye1250 -> RE: "Self-ish-ness" is not a dirty word? (8/10/2008 11:23:54 PM)
Boy, that new Lincoln MKS sure looks good! I wonder what the poor people will be driving?

DarkSteven -> RE: "Self-ish-ness" is not a dirty word? (8/11/2008 6:09:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven 3. The supply is limited but can be grown. This is difficult to understand conceptually but is the basis upon which capitalism is formed. If you and I pool our abilities, it is possible that we will be able to achieve more than both of us could individually. I am always in awe at the genius behind fusing self-interest with accomplishments for society. This is the biggest flaw in capitalism, that the supply is limited but can be grown. Capitalism has worked so far because it treats the environment as a free and unlimited resource but it isn't. Capitalism is effectively killing our planet through over harvesting it, much on unnecessary luxuries and excess for the rich developed world. Resources are finite but there is enough to go round if people could control their greed. That doesn't seem to be possible for most people. The OP asks the question "Self-ish-ness" is not a dirty word? Only someone from the rich developed world could come out with that one, only someone who wants to justify their selfishness could have thought that up. If they were dirt poor and living in a hovel with bearly enough to eat, no education and no chance of escape, they would look at us in the rich developed world and wonder how we could justify our greed, our selfishness and our willingness to condemn others to poverty. If that does not make 'selfishness' a dirty word, I don't know what does. meatcleaver, your post follows the thinking of Garrett Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons which was the driver for much of our current environmental law. Back on subject, I hope you're wrong regarding the poor family in your example. If they rely on their government for their existence, then they might well think that they deserve someone to hand them a better lifestyle. But if they have the MEANS within their hands to change their own life for the better, they'll be motivated as hell to do so. The US citizens do not condemn anyone to poverty - other governments do so. For example, note what happens whenever a country nationalizes an industry. Capitalizing on individual initative is how the US built itself to its present state. If you look at the Homestead Act, the Mining Act, and Western water law, it all follows the same idea - the government will give you a home tract, mining land, or use of water IF you can use it to benefit the economy. The fact that the government allows private individuals to own the means of production was a radical idea when first implemented.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875