What is a human being, or specifically thought?

[dan020350]

I just read the forum rules about poetry posting, and they say you cannot post more than 1 poem a day, because everyone wants their poem be read.

I think that is true, I have that feeling that I want my poems be read, yet I do not want to read other people poems.
Does that mean I am a self-fish person? IS all human beings self-fish, or just thought?

This will probably remind you of Hobbes, that the nature of human beings are selfish, evil, and brutal.

[simon]

I am of the mind that "selfish" is the human created word applied to the idea of self preservation and the upholding of individuality. Each person can only think of themselves and know what they as a person are thinking beucase they have no way of ever knowing exactly what anyone else is thinking, in that respect a person can only trust themselves. As such it seems that if you can only trust yourself then you are the only one to look out for your needs, which doesn't mean you cannot think of the needs of others, but you can never be sure of the needs of others, only of yours. Perhaps it is yet again an instance where moderation is applicable, putting yourself first to the ultimate injury of others would be selfish, putting others first to the ultimate injury of yourself would be selfless, and a relatively liveable mean would be use your judgement and adaptability to equate the needs of everything around you.

[dan020350]

Isn't one nature is the same as the other's nature?

If in nature I am selfsih, isn't that all human beings are selfish?
To know oneself , knows the other self.

[billyjack]

thought is putting our observable world into words or symbols. when thought tackles unobservable issues--like ideals, such as pure altruism--it is just thinking about words. selfishness and selflessness are never in and of themselves. every act has a little bit of both involved. the desire to find pure selflessness is a product of our overactive consciouness--ie..thought. this desire does not imply that pure selflessness exist, it just means that "pure selflessness" is yet another ideal or symbol we enjoy attempting to attain, but it just doesnt exist in reality.

[Bii]

I just read the forum rules about poetry posting, and they say you cannot post more than 1 poem a day, because everyone wants their poem be read.

I think that is true, I have that feeling that I want my poems be read, yet I do not want to read other people poems.
Does that mean I am a self-fish person? IS all human beings self-fish, or just thought?

This will probably remind you of Hobbes, that the nature of human beings are selfish, evil, and brutal.


Yes, people are selfish but not necessarily in the common usage sense of the word. People will ultimately make choices that satisfy either their 1) survival or 2) happiness. Sometimes the fact that people do things to secure their happiness is lost as their actions appear altruistic, however, even altruism has selfish motivations, either because it makes you feel good about yourself for doing a 'good deed', the doing of the good deed staves off some guilt, you do a good deed because you 'owe' someone, you do the good deed because the alternative would be more difficult to live with. That doesn't necessarily mean that people are "selfish, evil and brutal", accepting that everything you do is selfishly motivated means that you can acknowledge that you get something from doing something good, and that may motivate you to do it more often. The overall theory (that humans will act according to their happiness) is called hedonism, in case you want a more clearly stated explanation.

Taking your example, perhaps if you read and review some other people's poems, then those people will read and review yours. So you get what you want whilst giving something that the other person wants. If everyone does this then everyone's poems are read. It's called compromise.

[kandaurov]

Regarding the broader scope of the selfish human nature, and even your example in particular, Bii's comment is flawless. I can't delude myself into thinking that I can actually add something up to the debate. Unless I speak by personal experience, that is.

When I first came here I also did that. I hadn't patience to read other people's stuff, and just kept making threads. Then, I figured that the lack of feedback could be solved by commenting one or two poems. Since I've done that, I've been commenting on other's works much more than I've been posting my own. You, as I do, will find it interesting to see how clever and lyrical some LitNet members are, and it is also rewarding to give your personal insight and thus help others to grow artistically.

Also, by reading others you also develop your own sensibility. And by exchanging thoughts you might engage on an interesting debate. It's actually better than compromising, it's a win-win situation.

[dan020350]

I felt this is a matter of risk. But this risks is good, if your intent is love and not ambition.

Today I told my classmate that I have no more ambition and no more passion, because I can't find anything I would want to do. ( I have no image of myself anymore) I don't have that love no more, I think that is one of the reason I don't comment and look at other people's thread.- they talk about the same thing over and over again!

[Bii]

I felt this is a matter of risk. But this risks is good, if your intent is love and not ambition.

Today I told my classmate that I have no more ambition and no more passion, because I can't find anything I would want to do. ( I have no image of myself anymore) I don't have that love no more, I think that is one of the reason I don't comment and look at other people's thread.- they talk about the same thing over and over again!

I,m sorry to hear you're feeling so low. Perhaps you need to look outside yourself in order to find your inspiration. In truth there's nothing more interesting than people, and if you're not reading other people's threads then how do you know they talk about the same things over and over?

You might want to have a read of The Conquest of Happiness by Bertrand Russell - it's a fantastic book which gives great advice on how to achieve 'happiness' by looking outwards, rather than inwards and seeking contentment with what you have, rather than worrying about the things you don't. In terms of finding something you 'want to do', most people honestly never find that, or if they do they do so at the cost of something else, or realise when they get there that it isn't quite what it was cracked up to be. Maybe you should stop looking what what you want, and let something find you?

I hope you work it out.

kandaurov - thank you for your kind comments :)

[dan020350]

That is the thing Bill.

The reason I believe they all talk about the same thing is because they talk things that has no relationship to life. It is a talk of wasting time, a cocktail conversation. Theres nothing there to know about except techincal knowledge.

About the book Conquest of Happiness. That is absurd, no book that you can follow will actually give you what you want, except a recipe a technical information. Books , all they talk about is just a subject, and the readers believe one day that knowing this particular knowledge it will actualize itself.

They are fooling themselves, just as they are fooling me. Since you have read the book, that means you must be completely happy, and I congradulate you. What ever happiness mean.

[Bii]

It appears that your mind is very closed off to possibilities.

Perhaps if you read the book you would understand. It is not a recipe to happiness, in fact Bertrand Russell suffered from depression on and off throughout his life. It is more about understanding the things that make you happy and don't, what happiness means (so answers your question) - Bertrand Russell is, at heart, a philosopher - this is no 'self help' book.

As long as you keep your mind closed you will struggle to find meaning. And yes, a lot of the time people talk about 'stuff' but intermixed within that are moments of truth and incitefulness. Unless you listen, you won't hear.

And I am happy, thank you, but not because of the book. More because I try to enjoy the simple things, not think I already know everything there is worth knowing, and keep my eyes open to the wonders the world has to offer.