"What's the point of doing anything worthwhile if nobody's watching?"

[Buffy]

Not only is everyone narcisstic, but such has always been the case.

Honestly, it gets tiresome when people justify their worst traits by saying "everyone else is too". You haven't said anything in this thread that would show any proof that "everyone's narcisstic", and there seem to be plenty of counter examples (although I've seen some real whack jobs try to argue that Mother Teresa was an egoist until they were blue in the face).

 

"Why don't you tell me what you think of me." "But I don't think of you." B)

Buffy

[IDMclean]

Good point Buffy, However I would like to counter point that, by asking. Can you prove conclusively without a shadow of a doubt that anyone other than yourself, is or is not narcissistic?

 

If you can I will not only commend you but I will do my damnedest to get you some kind of fancy medal or something. As of to date the only thing I can prove is what goes on in myself and I can only prove it to one person, me. Everyone else chooses to believe, in the end, whatever they were going to believe in the first place, and what I say and do has very little over all bearing on them.

 

There is always, in my experience someone who believes they can prove one thing or the other about me.

 

To me it is self-evident that each and everyother person around me is looking out for numero-uno. That is what it seems like to me, and therefore I conclude that each person is narcissistic, which is in agreement with my own analysis of self, which shows that I am narcissistic.

 

If I am narcissistic, and I take action A which is narcissistic

Then if person X takes action A then they are exhibiting narcissistic Tendency

And group E takes action A then they are exhibiting Narcissistic Tendency

Then I, X, and E are all part of Set N, and is therefore narcissistic.

 

Hmmm... I'll bet there is a more elegant way to say that, but it should work for now.

[Buffy]

If I am narcissistic, and I take action A which is narcissistic...

...and there lies the problem: there is no absolute correlation between any action and the appellation (really epithet) "narcissism". It is a quality that one may have more or less of, and then only based on ones judgement. But Panjy is not even trying to qualify the term, and it is thus interpreted as simply "everyone's actions are based on their selfishness/self-absorption", which is pretty darn tough to justify given *most* people's experience in life. Do you seriously know of *no one* who acts selflessly? I know a bunch of them. I feel really sorry for people who don't--or worse, refuse to acknowledge them for selfish reasons! B)

 

Narcissisma is the Pride of Pomona, :phones:

Buffy

[IDMclean]

Well like wise I have the continuing issue. I act in accordance with my internal Moral system, which is influenced by external teachings. My moral system is as it is, because it is practical. I do not act simply because it is self-less, as that would (and has) crossed my personal boundries. Selflessness is not nessessarily Moral or virtueous.

 

I act as I do because I want others to act in similar accordance and to treat me the way I treat them. It is recipricative, and has socio-feedback mechanisms built in. As such I don't know if I can honestly qualify anything I do as "selfless" as it always has a basis in selfish cause. If a selfish cause leads to a selfless act is that act still selfless regardless of it's cause and motivation? Or is it tarnished by the fact that it arose from a selfish motivation?

[Buffy]

Selflessness is not nessessarily Moral or virtueous.

Yep, just like Ellsworth Toohey in The Fountainhead. Motivation to be moral, or "do the right thing" is not however evilly selfish like Ellsworth, or even necessarily just "to make you feel good" but rather because you think its a good thing to do for the sake of others. Even under Objectivism that sort of selfless action is justifiable as long as it is not motivated by a feeling of obligation (one of those things I think is evil about Objectivism by the way!).

I act as I do because I want others to act in similar accordance and to treat me the way I treat them.

...and to the people who would try to claim that's selfish, I say "stop projecting your problems on others." I think what you're describing is a great definition of selflessness. The next challenge is to see it in others. Not prove that it exists, just see *implications* of it.

It is recipricative, and has socio-feedback mechanisms built in.

...and *that's* why selflessness is so important! If there really is *none* society would have broken down long ago. Notice that to claim that "such selflessness is really selfish" you need to assume that everyone who acts out of moral urges is really going through the entire loop of seeing why such actions are self-serving, which is rarely obvious.

 

Selfish is as selfish does,

Buffy

[Kriminal99]

I believe morality to be a human version of the animal sense of power.

 

A certain animal might recognize a larger animal as something that it cannot overcome. So instead, it must alter its own behavior so as not to anger the larger animal. I call it sense of power rather than survival instinct because often times the smaller animal helps defend the larger animal so as not to be doubly humiliated by having the thing that beat it itself beaten. As do people defend ideas that they submit themselves to like morality for instance.

 

Anyways when dealing with intelligent beings, all people are potentially the same "size" in that they are all capable of ingenuity to overcome obstacles. Anyone can pull a trigger. In this case a person would USUALLY learn that any greater number of people than himself would be an obstacle he cannot overcome, and therefore one must alter one's own behavior to avoid any actions which benefit one's self at the expense of others. Also even if it appears that you are only hurting one other person for your own benefit, if you have chosen that person randomly then others may sympathize as it could just as easily have been them and act on behalf of the person you hurt.

 

But this system is not flawless of course. To begin with, as actions which benefit one's self at the expense of others may not be immediately punished. As a result some people would believe themselves capable of overcoming others and being able to get away with selfish acts. This would especially be the case in enviornments in which people are less likely to sympathize with randomly chosen victims out of fear for their own safety. You cannot really call these criminals evil in this model. They just think they can get away with it, and if you thought you could get away with it too you would be the same way because we are all just animals. Of course often times even when you put these people in jail as a consequence for their actions or submit them to any kind of punishment if they didn't learn early that selfish acts result in eventualy being stopped they may never believe it and/or act accordingly. In which case you might have to keep them perpetually locked up or put them down. On the other hand, understanding and accepting the nature of this model might allow criminals to be like other people more often and limit the production of criminals to begin with. After all many of them claim things like we are just animals and it is a dog eat dog world to justify their actions- this model admits such thigns are the case and yet still shows how criminal actions are fruitless.

 

Another major flaw with the system is moral decay. If it becomes obvious that noone could stop you from commiting a given selfish act you might be more likely to commit that selfish act. Examples include if you work at a bank and all the security controls depend on your cooperation. If there are no controls that monitor YOUR actions, you might be more likely to steal from the bank. If a political leader's orders are followed without question, then that leader might be more likely to commit selfish acts. If you trust someone such that you no longer monitor their behavior to make sure they are not commiting selfish acts at your expense, they may be more likely to commit such selfish acts. If an older person knows exactly what kinds of actions the world punishes and what kinds of actions go physically unrewarded he may be more likely to do no more than what he will not be stopped from doing and what benefits him. If a person believes he has nothing to lose he may do whatever the heck he wants because noone can really do anything to hurt him any more than he already is.

 

The difference between the moral and the immoral in this model is that the moral generalize that any time you commit a selfish act, a force greater than you will work to stop you and eventually will even if they do not right away.

 

An important aspect of this model is that even if there is a self serving organization of extreme power there would still be a force greater than this organization: This is because it is harder for a selfish organization to recruit than a police force which works for the benefit of all. Another important aspect is that if you are commiting selfish acts because noone has found a way to stop you yet (its not against the law, noone realizes what you are doing etc) because it is a selfish act people will find a way to stop you.

 

Anyways, with this model it is possible for people to be entirely motivated by selfish goals and still be moral.

[paigetheoracle]

Narcissism is often a deeply rooted, little recognized overcompensation for personal insecurities. Perhaps our culture, as a whole, is just becoming more and more insecure?

 

Well done! That is so smart. 'The empty headed boozo's need our help Batman, but what can we do for these sufferers of The Emperor's New Clothes Syndrome?' 'Well Robin, we can only try to alert them to the danger they are in. Now, I'm sure President Bush is a

peace loving man

/forums/images/smilies/devilsign.gif

at heart and doesn't want to push that button, which will wipe out all life on this planet as well as those he imagines to be his enemies, so we can only keep calm and encourage him to do the same or we're all dead ducks' (A sense of humour (openess) deflates fear as none at all i.e. taking life too seriously and turning it into death, leads to defensive violence).

[paigetheoracle]

“What's the point of doing anything worthwhile if nobody's watching?"

 

Do you eat for other peoples benefit or do you need an audience for that? Just a thoughtless thought