"Selfless means not taking yourself into the equation. Technically, yes, it is selfless."
"Not taking yourself into the equation" I'd argue is ignoring yourself. Even ignored the self is still a factor. If not doing so would hurt the charitable one in some way, then they're doing it to feel better alongside the helpful motivation. It's closer to cooperation than selflessness by my understanding anyway from paying attention to what not doing it would cause, or why they'd not do it.
"I would say my emotional attachment to them."
And not doing it would make you feel bad, right?
Well, haha, that's what selfless is! Lack of self. Devoid of self. Ignoring self. Less of self. And that is how the extreme selfless end up: they do not exist in their own mind.
And not doing it would make you feel bad, right?
I felt bad for them before that. But the choice is always there. If they continued spiraling down in depression, they might have lost themselves forever. My motivation is far beyond just material, it is about potentials, their futures, what they could do.
But, all in all, if they hadn't taken up the time and help gotten, and used them for betterment of their own, I really wouldn't have felt bad. It would sting-like a slap on the face- for some time, but after all, I wasn't really doing it for myself. I would sigh and move on. And hope for the best.
Selfless means not taking yourself into the equation. Technically, yes, it is selfless.
But why did you do it? What stopped you fron not helping them? What was initially the factor that lead to you doing that so called "selfless" act?
I would say my emotional attachment to them. I guess my motivation for helping is always regarding how better they could be in comparison to their current state, as crude as it sounds. They were feeling blue, so I helped them feel another color that they wished. The connection we had drove me to do it to the level of checking up on them until I felt they could fly, and not because it is socially acceptable.
Love? Perhaps.
The difference would be in whether you're doing it for them or yourself. It's just that. You (selfish), them (selfless).
Edit: Ah, there we go. It could be measured in a balance.
They still fall under self serving purposes, and the closest compromising term I can see is "cooperation" since both stand to gain something. The underlying factor between a charitable person and a blatantly greedy person is what pleases themselves.
I will agree it's pointless, the actions speak far louder than the motivations, but in terms of raw semantics and motivation I don't see someone charitable not gaining something from the act.
If I give something to someone and ask for nothing in return, I am still gaining something from it even beyond the realm of "influence". If it makes me feel good to help someone, then the fact it feels good is a motivation if not avoiding feeling bad. Not recognizing that it feeling good to that person motivates them doesn't stop them from doing what feels good.
"I think if they have the need to help themselves not feel bad, is already selfish, which would mean they have themselves in mind when doing that "selfless" act. In that case, it's more or less what happens usually when people give charity under pressure. I would assume."
So in that sense would falling into believing that a selfless act is impossible then make a selfless act impossible? Does the "awareness" (from lack of a better word), even accidental or against their own wishes, take away from it being selfless?
Is it really a matter of a pure intent that risks becoming corrupted if they notice themselves? That can't be right, I must be misconstruing your words somewhere.
What if the need were there without them recognizing it's there?
"And I feel bad because the bond would be severed, not necessarily by me."
What makes that severing bad for you though, beyond the obvious selfish answer of losing a potential resource?
Doesn't the self become existent in their minds when something would stop them from doing it? Does their own ignorance of themselves really make it selfless if it still roots from a need to help themselves not feel worse than they already do?
I would assume they become conscientious when their selfless act is rejected. It is selfless if that person has someone else in mind while giving something, doing something, helping, etc. So, the selfless helped for the sake of the helped.
I think if they have the need to help themselves not feel bad, is already selfish, which would mean they have themselves in mind when doing that "selfless" act. In that case, it's more or less what happens usually when people give charity under pressure. I would assume.
And how does that make your life worse?
Well, my life is intact, physically and mentally. Now, those who are bonded to me, say friends, family, guildmates, will have a weight on me. I think it's like being tied, right? When one falls, you start falling with them. Most have the tendency to just cut the rope and get rid of the weight. And I feel bad because the bond would be severed, not necessarily by me.
My inertia is to help them climb back up with us.
That sting is undesirable, and arguably pushed you towards the good deed. Good deeds are good, and I see no problem with them rooting from selfishness since it's still helping others, but to call it "selfless" strikes me as a stretch from my current understanding. It helps both the one giving and the one recieving, even if the one giving gains something less material than the other.
Well, all harmful things are undesirable, it is a risk. One of my flaws it that I hardly ever consider the "bad thing" to happen when I throw myself into something. These obstacles I generally just jump over them. However, I know getting my help turned down by a friend is stingy--because I have had that experience before. Yet, I haven't stopped trying to help for fear of it.
That is what I meant before by "balance" of selfish and selfless.
"So if you fuck a stripper and get the clam, the clam was your motivation?"
Arguably, but from being left that vague there's room for other motivations as well. If there was no motivation for "the clam" at all, then nothing related to it would transpire unless against that one's will or as the means towards pursuing a different motivation where that's the obstacle.
"Consequence is not motivation."
But the perception of future consequence is.
I think it's natural for people to find reasons and connections around them, and seek explanations. Doesn't make them right all the time.
I think the people that feel good about helping others are obviosuly different from those who don't. There is something different about their brains, so lumping everyone together under the "selfish" label is pointless. There is something that separates the categories, and there are practical reasons to make the difference too.
by TurncoatIf it makes me feel good to help someone, then the fact it feels good is a motivation.
So if you fuck a stripper and get the clam, the clam was your motivation? Same logic here. Consequence is not motivation. Unless you have more than a gut feeling that the "feel good" is motivation and not consequence, and that the real motivation was NOT the other person's welfare but yours, you should stop being so certain of your theory.