The Way to Be Happy is to Make Others Happy - "discuss"

What do you think? 

Views: 1211

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Truly altruistic acts are hard to find. The stranger who bounds into the surf to save a drowning child. Even more to the point, the soldier who throws himself on a live grenade. One may argue that such things have a payoff in terms of improving how one is seen in the eyes of others, but it's hard to appreciate that payoff if one is dead.

RE: "but it's hard to appreciate that payoff if one is dead"

Not really, the imagination  is am amazing thing. I'd be willing to bet - but for obvious reasons, confirmation is a bit difficult to come by - that a high percentage of suicides are based on imagining how a significant other will suffer once the suicidee is gone.

Back in the '80's, there was an eminent psychologist, Eric Berne, responsible for the concept of Transactional Analysis, and presented to the public in the form of Harris' book, I'm OK, You're OK. Berne also wrote a book, in which he tried to bring psychology to the masses by simplifying it, the book was Games People Play. In this book were such games as "Now I've Got You, You Sonuvabitch!" in which one person waits for another to commit an offense, then holds it against him/her indefinitely. Another game was called, "Ain't it Awful," in which two people sit around and commiserate about how terrible things are today, compared to how they used to be.

This prompted me to envision a game, based on the nursery rhyme, Little Jack Horner, that I call, "What A Good Boy Am I," in which a person, normally with low self esteem, performs good acts for the sake of proving to himself that contrary to what he may have been told as a child, he really IS a good person. The person who throws himself onto a grenade could well fall into that category.

I remember reading that book. The game that stayed with me is one you see played all the time. It's called "How about? Yeah, but." You'll have one person pose a problem, seemingly wanting help, but what they really want is engagement, not a solution, so the game wastes time.

"I have a problem."

"What is it?"

"(problem stated)."

"How about (proposed solution)."

"Yeah but, that won't work because (reason)."

Because no solution is actually wanted, it becomes a dead end fencing match where one party proposes solutions and the other person does his best to fend them off.

BTW, one thing men need to learn about women is that they will often lament something and their male interlocutor will try to solve their problem for them when what women usually really want is sympathy or empathy.

Close, but no stogie - it was called, "Why Don't You...? Yes, But...."

The good thing about Berne's book, was that he also gave an antithesis to the various games. In the case of the above, when the problem is stated, the listener can end the game by responding, "That IS a problem, how do you intend solving it?"

Worth a read, despite it's age.

Yes, men are traditionally "fixers," but sometimes women really don't want anything fixed, they just want to vent.

I've never yet known a girl to come home from a date, complaining that all she did was talk about herself.

You're right. The "victim" has a way out. More than one, actually. He can just say "Screw this. I'm going to rearrange my sock drawer."

archaeopteryx -

I don't know where this is going to end up because it's a very poor browser.

"why not an ugly, 300-pound man who wipes his nose on his shirt-sleeve?"

If he was in distress, of course I would be moved to help him. It's just that it's less likely he would need it. As for damsels in distress, I've had experience of women getting abused and these experiences stick in our brains. Also, I believe it's a natural function of men to protect women. A truly strong person wants to protect the vulnerable, almost by definition.

"the motivating factor would be your desire not to feel terrible."

Quite possibly - however, that's probably the best reason there is.

"It really doesn't matter why you do them."

But this is the entire point of the present exercise. We want to uncover some good reasons for people to do good things - as good as those of Christians or other religious people. The whole point is that Christians (for example) are able to say to atheists "what stops you from committing X, Y, Z terrible crimes?" and then, delighted, watch us squirm as we are unable to say anything concrete. We need something pretty concrete. We know that we have concrete reasons - but so far we have been unable to put our finger on them. They're all right there waiting to be uncovered.

All my comments are intended to do Simon, are to generate thought, to play devil's advocate to the idea that all of our altruism comes from noble sources.

Yes, I have more than four times, been cross examined by some self serving theist, pretending to be all morally superior, because I did not have some pat answer that would validate their sacred script. Then they pondificate with this colorful judgement, that I am 'their moral inferior'. This is one reason that I refuse to play by their 'let's get the atheist' game. I figure that anyone with just a few brain cells, more or less, can also play this game. Watching Michael over the course of a weeks made it very clear to me that he plays this game, but when he screws up, back peddles or changes the subject. When the tables are turned, they just replay their script, with different material, the more esoteric the better!  

archaeopteryx - I know, don't worry. That's the problem with talking on the internet, things can get misunderstood. I truly value the thought you put into your replies. I never get offended when people disagree with me, or appear to. I welcome it. ;-}
What I meant was, I was unable to reply directly in the right place because this browser isn't working very well.
Actually, I think you're a perfect gentleman, and I'm not kissing your arse when I say that.


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service