Because humans, as a species, aren't meant to be peaceful. The mistake is thinking that we are special. We are merely overly intelligent animals, who are able to use tools and cultivate food. The primal instincts, however, remain much the same and are impossible to supress all the time.
Therefore we act much like any other living being, by asserting our dominance over others and working solely for our own interests, consciously or subconsciously, therefore largely ignoring others thus creating inequalities, which if sufficiently large lead to conflict (wars).
But it doesn't take hours of my time to tell you that every human action can in one way, shape or form be explained by selfishness alone. Heck, even if you help someone without getting anything material in return, it's still selfish... You are either expecting to go to heaven for being good (reward) and/or your body secretes endorphin (reward) to make you feel good.
Therefore any action you do will, unless it fails, bestow upon you a reward => Selfishness.
This is the sole driving mechanism behind human action and interaction.
True but self-interest (or selfishness) has also been the source of mankind's greatest achievements.
Unity, brotherhood, peace...division, hate, strife; all these things are expressed through self-interest.
Saying self-interest is the cause of all division is like saying "100% of all of death is caused by life". Life is an element in death and by trolling logic you could argue the source, but by no means the cause. I think the pseudo-intellectuals call it a "correlation".
But it's not the cause of division by me. It's just a neutral thing as I told taciturn. It's been used for great things and terrible things.
But it does bring up a good question: Left totally alone in a sterile environment, what would man's nature be? Towards destruction or towards life?
^Useless to this discussion but something to think about
"Unity, brotherhood, peace...division, hate, strife; all these things are expressed through self-interest."
Self-interest is the cause of everything (Love and Peace, Hatred and War, Strife and Advancement), not an expression of it.
The basic purpose for all life forms is reproduction, as such our bodies are programmed to reward us for actions that maximise our chances to do just that. Nature therefore programmed us to act only in our own best interest, meaning that every single thing we feel, every chemical reaction in our brains is geared towards our own selfish goal of reproduction.
This is where personalities come into play. On the whole we have to different phenotypes of personality, those who co-operate with others and those who seek to supress others. The better you are at either of them, the more successful you are (more chances for reproduction). And because personality is largely genetic the more successful personality tends to survive.
=> Division is caused by differences in interests between groups of people who have the same interests.
If for example group A is starving and group B has enough food to last them through the winter, then group A has an interest in acquiring that food. Group B, however, has no interest in sharing the food with group lest they starve themselves. Group A is therefore left with no other choice but to try and take the food they need by force. "Better them, than us."
=> Division/Conflict caused by Self-Interest of Groups right there.
As for the sterile environment... For him to be of any use to an experiment he'd also need language, because language is what allows us to formulate complex thoughts and an individual who cannot think is of no use to an experiment regarding human nature.
And even if we do manage to get an ideal 'specimen', there is still the problem that his/her personality will largely be predetermined by their genetic make-up.
If the two groups found some way to compromise that would have been accomplished through self-interest but both of these groups -believe- in an idea of "better them than us".
Believing the same and harmony of action doesn't guarantee peace. Look at the USSR. They understood the wavelength, but not the frequency.
"but still, self-interest motivated them"
Self-interest is the root of all of man's motivations. Good and bad. "selfish" and selfless. It motivated me to write this comment, motivated you to read it, and possibly will motivate you to respond.
Blaming self-interest on man's division is like blaming a sword for murdering a man when it was the assailant behind him who bent it's purpose to his ends.
The sword, like self-interest, is a neutral thing. It's used for defending or for murdering. For accomplishing greet deeds or extraordinary destruction.
The true root is ideas. A sword, like self-interest, has no internal value.
Group B could have risked starving if they had helped Group A. The chance of total anihilation of both groups would therefore be higher if B had helped A than had they not helped. => not helping is the rational choice.
The sword is like an idea, it can either be used or not. It can be used to protect or destroy. What it is used for is determined by the person-who-wields-it's self-interest.
The Division of Mankind
← View full post
Because humans, as a species, aren't meant to be peaceful. The mistake is thinking that we are special. We are merely overly intelligent animals, who are able to use tools and cultivate food. The primal instincts, however, remain much the same and are impossible to supress all the time.
Therefore we act much like any other living being, by asserting our dominance over others and working solely for our own interests, consciously or subconsciously, therefore largely ignoring others thus creating inequalities, which if sufficiently large lead to conflict (wars).
--
Anonymous Post Author
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
It would take hours of my time to explore the reasons for why you're wrong.
Out of laziness I say this: You see the leaves, but not the branch.
--
malkiot
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
Corleone
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
But it doesn't take hours of my time to tell you that every human action can in one way, shape or form be explained by selfishness alone. Heck, even if you help someone without getting anything material in return, it's still selfish... You are either expecting to go to heaven for being good (reward) and/or your body secretes endorphin (reward) to make you feel good.
Therefore any action you do will, unless it fails, bestow upon you a reward => Selfishness.
This is the sole driving mechanism behind human action and interaction.
--
Anonymous Post Author
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
True but self-interest (or selfishness) has also been the source of mankind's greatest achievements.
Unity, brotherhood, peace...division, hate, strife; all these things are expressed through self-interest.
Saying self-interest is the cause of all division is like saying "100% of all of death is caused by life". Life is an element in death and by trolling logic you could argue the source, but by no means the cause. I think the pseudo-intellectuals call it a "correlation".
But it's not the cause of division by me. It's just a neutral thing as I told taciturn. It's been used for great things and terrible things.
But it does bring up a good question: Left totally alone in a sterile environment, what would man's nature be? Towards destruction or towards life?
^Useless to this discussion but something to think about
--
malkiot
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
"Unity, brotherhood, peace...division, hate, strife; all these things are expressed through self-interest."
Self-interest is the cause of everything (Love and Peace, Hatred and War, Strife and Advancement), not an expression of it.
The basic purpose for all life forms is reproduction, as such our bodies are programmed to reward us for actions that maximise our chances to do just that. Nature therefore programmed us to act only in our own best interest, meaning that every single thing we feel, every chemical reaction in our brains is geared towards our own selfish goal of reproduction.
This is where personalities come into play. On the whole we have to different phenotypes of personality, those who co-operate with others and those who seek to supress others. The better you are at either of them, the more successful you are (more chances for reproduction). And because personality is largely genetic the more successful personality tends to survive.
=> Division is caused by differences in interests between groups of people who have the same interests.
If for example group A is starving and group B has enough food to last them through the winter, then group A has an interest in acquiring that food. Group B, however, has no interest in sharing the food with group lest they starve themselves. Group A is therefore left with no other choice but to try and take the food they need by force. "Better them, than us."
=> Division/Conflict caused by Self-Interest of Groups right there.
As for the sterile environment... For him to be of any use to an experiment he'd also need language, because language is what allows us to formulate complex thoughts and an individual who cannot think is of no use to an experiment regarding human nature.
And even if we do manage to get an ideal 'specimen', there is still the problem that his/her personality will largely be predetermined by their genetic make-up.
--
Anonymous Post Author
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
If the two groups found some way to compromise that would have been accomplished through self-interest but both of these groups -believe- in an idea of "better them than us".
Believing the same and harmony of action doesn't guarantee peace. Look at the USSR. They understood the wavelength, but not the frequency.
"but still, self-interest motivated them"
Self-interest is the root of all of man's motivations. Good and bad. "selfish" and selfless. It motivated me to write this comment, motivated you to read it, and possibly will motivate you to respond.
Blaming self-interest on man's division is like blaming a sword for murdering a man when it was the assailant behind him who bent it's purpose to his ends.
The sword, like self-interest, is a neutral thing. It's used for defending or for murdering. For accomplishing greet deeds or extraordinary destruction.
The true root is ideas. A sword, like self-interest, has no internal value.
--
malkiot
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
-
Anonymous Post Author
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Group B could have risked starving if they had helped Group A. The chance of total anihilation of both groups would therefore be higher if B had helped A than had they not helped. => not helping is the rational choice.
The sword is like an idea, it can either be used or not. It can be used to protect or destroy. What it is used for is determined by the person-who-wields-it's self-interest.
And again, if you deny that Ideas are the source of man's division you'd divide yourself from me by virtue of an idea.
It is unavoidable, my young apprentice. It is...your destiny.
No, I'd like you to take the time to explain why he's wrong. It's only respectful. If you don't enlighten us, we won't learn from our mistakes.
--
Anonymous Post Author
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Well ok, but why should I explain it to you when you're not even real?
You're just a figment of my imagination.
--
Corleone
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I think you're schizophrenic. Well no, you're a reverse schizophrenic, since you think you're hallucinating stuff that's real.
Why do you avoid my question? Just answer it. It doesn't matter if I'm real or not.
--
Anonymous Post Author
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Well if you won't answer my question then I won't answer yours!
--
Corleone
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
Okay, so you were asking why you should explain it to me when I'm not even real?
This question is based on a false statement, since I'm as real as you are. And even if I weren't a real person, you should still answer the question.
Other (real) people can learn a lot from this, which is why I want you to answer it. It's only polite to do so.