The Drive of Weakness

[PierreGringoire]

I think a lot of what motivates us is based on weakness. And I think its inescapable. Whether its sex drive, self-gratification, or just outright hedonism/materialism.

Even when we do something good, we do so because we think we're doing good for ourselves (self gratification). And deep inside we care more about the self gratification side more than the actual recipient of the good deed. (I could be wrong-- I'd like to be wrong)

And because we are never ending consumers and sort of like a bunch of hungry dogs-- it is both sad, but also forgivable (because it is an inescapable condition).

All I think is that you (and me) should be wary about doing things that will make us feel self righteous.
I believe its good to be charitable just as long as you realize you are unworthy to take credit for the charitable act...IN EVERY SENSE OF THAT PHRASE. I really think its benefecial to be charitable because it will make you a better stress-free individual-- It will improve social life and ease tension so it is in your best interest to be charitable.

But at our core-- we are inescapably vampires with a never ending thirst. But instead of being inclined to be "evil" we are inclined to be "needy." This is kind of a negative theory about humanity's state of mind. I'm very skeptical if it really "holds" in the way I put it out there.

[blazeofglory]

Your ideas give me something of the fact that even if we have a weakness of some kind it helps us and the rest for that matter. This remind me the idea of the invisible hand by Adam Smith, the father of economics whose ideas were that capitalists invest more and more in an enterprise out of greed and not out of moral persuasion. While his projects may be totally out of his abysmal greed but the point is it kind of helps the needy indirectly, for he may produce or engage in creating wealth for the further investment and finally the poor too will benefit.

[PierreGringoire]

Your ideas give me something of the fact that even if we have a weakness of some kind it helps us and the rest for that matter. This remind me the idea of the invisible hand by Adam Smith, the father of economics whose ideas were that capitalists invest more and more in an enterprise out of greed and not out of moral persuasion. While his projects may be totally out of his abysmal greed but the point is it kind of helps the needy indirectly, for he may produce or engage in creating wealth for the further investment and finally the poor too will benefit.

Even though its greed-- it improves per capita income. (everyone is better off) ie. The poor in the United States are rich compared to third world countries. Maybe its not necessarily wrong to act out from an inescapable "weak" drive. The reason why I'm so confident we almost ALWAYS act from a weak drive is because of a child named FEAR. It is so encompassing and maleable. Since there are so many unknowns we always are instigated by some kind of outside threat. For example I'd rather work so that I don't become homeless and subject myself to that kind of pain.

For all those who want me to connect this idea with the "Power of Confidence" I made I will do my best to do so. At our core we are a needy beast and let's assume "human insinct" (which I referred to as power) is altruisitc in nature but seperate from the "animal beastly instinct" in us. Therefore we are capabable of being beasts who strive to be altruistic.

[billl]

I think a lot of what motivates us is based on weakness. And I think its inescapable. Whether its sex drive, self-gratification, or just outright hedonism/materialism.

Even when we do something good, we do so because we think we're doing good for ourselves (self gratification). And deep inside we care more about the self gratification side more than the actual recipient of the good deed. (I could be wrong-- I'd like to be wrong)

DOING SOMETHING GOOD
I am probably as apt to NOT do something good if doing so will make me "look good" in a way that would raise eyebrows--probably because of the sort of ideas expressed in the beginning of the OP. Especially when things are basically OK to begin with, the potential for non-altruistic motives (real or perceived) can make me cautious about lending a hand, etc.

To a certain extent, these choices are colored by our culture. In some societies, it might be natural to help entertain and comfort a stranger's baby, if it starts crying. In another culture, a person who has dropped their documents all over the train would be much more comfortable without any offers for help adding to their embarrassment.

I think Blaze makes a great point, though, maybe the most important one:

Your ideas give me something of the fact that even if we have a weakness of some kind it helps us and the rest for that matter.

Coming out of all of that, I have learned that being "good" is often rewarding simply for the results themselves--and when I can witness them, especially. If people think of their interactions with children and pets, I think that this sort of motivation makes more sense than any "selfish" spin on those activities. Also, I think my good manners and good samaritan tendencies (when they exhibit) are usually non-selfish as well. I have to point out my discomfort at even mentioning this, since it might itself smack of goodness feeding vanity! And how is someone to be sure I'm not kidding myself. But, when I do a good deed during the day, I really believe that I am typically thinking about helping our mish-mash of society "get it right," and maybe contributing to some sort of beneficial norms. I am especially thrilled when I can do something good in such a way that my role in it remains unknown to others. (It PAINS me to type that, but I want to make the point--and the suggestion.)

It might be, in a way, selfish to want the world I am in to be a good one, but that's kind of a stretch, or at least not in the same league as the "karma-hoarding" type of selfishness that we sometimes might be committing when we do something good. I think doing good is at its most honest when I leave karma, God, etc. out of the equation.

BEING CHARITABLE
Charity is just a type of "being good," of course, and I think it would generally be in bad taste to take credit for it. However, I think it is reasonable for us to consider philanthropists worthy of some credit, certainly, at least in so far as they are doing something that other similarly-wealthy people might not. Heck, even if the philathropists themselves recognize as much, it might be useful for them to receive "credit" in the sense that they might be able to assuage some of their discomfort with society's inequities, and past actions. I'm not talking about "Aren't I a great and good rich guy!" credit here, more like "Well, at least I'm not totally focussed on me anymore. It might not be enough, but I am helping those people." Contemplation of it would be an example of helping with the "tension" mentioned in the OP.

SOME focus on oneself is, I think, just fine. Pride is nothing to vilifiy with fundamentalist fervor, in my opinion, just something that can be difficult to manage. But, if there are slippery slopes to deal with, well, that's the challenge of the dignified life.

I really like this:

At our core we are a needy beast and let's assume "human insinct" (which I referred to as power) is altruisitc in nature but seperate from the "animal beastly instinct" in us. Therefore we are capabable of being beasts who strive to be altruistic.