The pleasure of giving

[alaaelsheikh]

It has always occurred to me that pleasure driven from giving,is acutually the pleasure that i am seeking, and not its counterpart,that of taking .I do not mean this in a religious or idealistic manner or in a denial of pleasures of the flesh,but i mean it in practicality.The question is ;is this kind of overwhelming pleasure -that is sometimes being reached by an abrupt ,unconscious and uncontrollable urge- just my own disposition? or is it a more general trait,if we come to include the rest of human beings?.Why is this important to me to know? .It is important ,as i think it will help me know more about myself. your feedbacks ?

[cafolini]

It is unfortunate that many people do not realize that such is the basis of constructive morality independent of faith in any religion. All social progress is due to those who realize that pleasure, and the game through which it is done is politics, the highest art.

[cacian]

Yes I think when it comes to giving generosity must spill out from the heart or else it is just forceful pleasure.

[runsreads]

Sacrifice is part of giving. We must give up something to give (most of us do, anyway). I think giving needs to be thoughtful (not as in kindly, but as in carefully thought out) and compassionate. We must give and maybe not expect gratitude. Impulsive giving has its place too! Who doesn't like a surprise! Lyn

[alaaelsheikh]

runsreads ,what do you mean by "I think giving needs to be thoughtful (not as in kindly, but as in carefully thought out)" ,thoughtful giving! what do you mean?

[blazeofglory]

Giving in the main is idealized and in nature giving is the least preferred human reflex; that is to say, by nature we are not givers. Heaps of ideological nonsense simply condition us to think along the preponderances of giving but human history unfurls the fact that man is a ruthless animal, and the number of wars we had vindicate this notion. Save some of our religious conundrums humans always fight for space and the examples of some people being charitably are nothing but a temporal ideological manifestation of human impulses.

[alaaelsheikh]

blazeofglory, what has human history,as an assemblance of causes and effects,has to do with intrinsic human nature?; can we say that they are the same thing?.can the behaviour of "human" systems in history, be equated with the subjective disposition that can generally be attributed to people?.

[2X2E5]

There are many ideas that flood my mind when thinking about the pleasure of giving...first off if we look at human nature, it is concerned with its own happiness; a form of selfishness. However, selfishness has...degrees? You can indulge in immediate desires that benefit you; you're the subject. Eventually those forms of desires and happiness can weaken with wisdom and maturity. Then you can find yourself living vicariously, but in the end its you who derive pleasure. Without that pleasurable feeling of doing something honourable, noble, or for a purpose the pleasure of giving would dissipate. Doesn't this happen at times when giving to a person who has expectations from you? It feels nice if you can make the other person happy since they had no expectations. So, what I'm lately wondering is...if you continuously give to a person who doesn't rejoice from your gifts and expects them, then isn't that a true art of giving, which however I think requires delusion in order to justify the acts as noble and with virtue. The end result though is you stroking yourself. Although we may not be conscious of the transaction of emotions that occurs, and we can attribute the desire to an intuition of nature, I feel more convinced its our egotism that's trying to just feel better about itself.
What do y'all think about that?...I've been stuck on the pleasure of giving in the past month as well...

[alaaelsheikh]

"if you continuously give to a person who doesn't rejoice from your gifts and expects them, then isn't that a true art of giving, which however I think requires delusion in order to justify the acts as noble and with virtue" .
Of course ,it is a delusion;even more it is unnecessary pain incurred on oneself.Thus,this would totally negate the concept of pleasure attained through giving,as there will be no immediate gratification.it sounds you are speaking about individual relations,but it is also important to ponder the issue of giving in a more general manner, apart from the former;as in giving to help people or other similar endeavours aimed at bettering the lives of the unfortunate.Does not this provide immense pleasure?. And whether the joy of giving is attained only in its abstract,in the act of giving in itself; or there has to be a contiual reinforcer for the "giver" from the "receiver" .

[YesNo]

Here is another philosophical thread that I find interesting.

When we do good are we "selfish" or "altruistic"?

I think both concepts, selfishness and altruistism, are illusions. We are neither of these. We behave communally with groups we are members of. Doing good for these groups, or specific others in these groups, is doing good for ourselves as well. It is a win-win situation. It has nothing to do with either selfishness or altruism. Both selfishness and altruism assume we are isolated individuals rather than members of various groups.

So this problem is resolved if we focus on the groups we are members of rather than viewing ourselves outside of these groups as isolated individuals.

[kiz_paws]

I also find this thread very interesting.
However, I have not, as yet, come to a conclusion as to where I feel with either side... "selfish" or "altruistic"...
Got to think this over.
Good discussion thus far, though. :)

[YesNo]

I will have to get David Sloan Wilson's "Does altruism exist?" from the library again. He noted that the word "altruism" did not exist prior to Auguste Comte's use of the word in the 19th century. It is not a traditional religious perspective on morality, one where the self sacrifices for the good of others. (He thinks altruism does exist.)

He had this diagram in the book. If one makes a square with win for self, lose for self on the rows and win for group, lose for group on the columns, the four possibilities are win for self-win for group, win for self-lose for group, lose for self-win for group, and lose for self-lose for group. The traditional religious perspective emphasizes win-win and avoids lose-lose. It does not make sense out of lose for self-win for group which is how altruism is perceived.

Now I wonder where he got that idea.