Memes.

A while ago I was challenged by a certain amateur philosopher to respond to one of these "meme" things - a challenge which I have, thus far, failed to undertake. This changes tonight.

Three out of the four options, while intriguing, didn't interest me enough to make a post about. Sorry bro. The one I'd like to respond to is the following one:

2) You are a selfish, bad person. Odd, I know. We don't think of ourselves this way, but can you honestly tell me one good thing you have ever done? Something which was good in and of its self but didn't do ANYTHING for you personally? Not even make you feel good? This one gives me the heebie jeebies.

What I find interesting about this is that this is the exact conclusion I came to about human behavior a couple years ago. I think, actually, that I did a post about this once; the idea that seemingly altruistic behavior is not actually altruistic, but in fact a selfish act designed to either make you feel good or prevent you from feeling bad. I believe the discussion on that post turned to the topic of the martyr, and how in order to be a martyr, you must either be religious or confused.

It seems to me, from looking at all of these ideas, that the only way to be absolutely certain that you are a selfless person is to become a martyr, while not believing in a life after death. People who believe in a life after death can't be certain they're good people because that act could simply have been selfishly intended to get them into Heaven. Only by actually becoming a martyr and giving up your life can you be absolutely certain that the act wasn't intended to get a good feeling or to avoid guilt.

Of course, the trouble with this is, up until the very point where you die, you can't be certain that you're good, and after that point, well...it doesn't really matter anymore, because you're dead, and there is no afterlife. I suppose there might be an infinitesimal instant between before death and after death, when you'd know you were a truly selfless person, but...man, that sucks.

To take this further, people who die for a cause aren't really selfless, because they are simply dying for something that they know they want even more than life itself. It's still something they care about, and something they want, so they are achieving their own goal in death. So really, the only way to know that you are truly selfless is to die for a cause that you know you hate.

I think I'd rather accept the possibility that I'm selfish...hopefully that in and of itself isn't selfish...shit!

On Inquiries.

I have a bad habit of talking to people about philosophical issues. Strictly speaking, it's not the talking that's the problem; it's how worked up I get over the question. I tend, especially after a round or six of Beirut, to get extremely excited about whatever deep question might be brought up. I have gotten into lengthy discussions on several occasions, which invariably last several hours and involve me speaking loudly and at great length, explaining to some poor, unsuspecting soul why their beliefs are wrong.

Now I, of course, think that I am perfectly in the right to pursue these discussions. I find it infinitely fascinating to discover truth by means of conversation and reason. I don't think I'm hypocritical about it - I think, actually, that I have modified my own ideas with every discussion, occasionally in a fairly important way. For instance, this weekend saw a discussion in which I came to the conclusion that the universe will have an end, while trying to discuss the beginning of the universe with someone else. I find it somewhat ironic that at the end of this discussion in which I probably spoke 75% of the time, my worldview was probably the one, out of 5 in the room, that was most modified. In any case, that is not the point...

I find it very interesting - and occasionally frustrating - how uninterested people are in ascertaining truth in this fashion. After my presentation of a logical argument, the rebuttal, more often than not, consists either of an emotional appeal or a simple "no, I don't think you're right." It is strange to me that anyone could be content to continue believing in a worldview that the light of reason very handily defeats, even when this is shown to them. If someone were to come up with a reason why my own worldview is incorrect, I think I would want to know... how could I be content believing something that wasn't true? The rejection of reason especially shocks me in today's world, when people often pride themselves on having a "scientific" worldview, and not blindly believing in false deities or what have you. These are discussions that I have with university students, who one would think would have some interest in the pursuit of knowledge, who have not the slightest interest in discovering some of the most fundamental truths of reality. Often, they get offended if you even attempt to discuss such things with them, as if it's a personal insult to suggest that they might be wrong.

Is it not the most important quality of the scientific method that theories must be able to withstand a barrage of tests under all possible conditions? In an age of science, I would expect this kind of attitude to extend to the more fundamental searches for truth, as well.