waytogoal OP t1_jatsyko wrote on March 4, 2023 at 12:39 AM

Reply to comment by Fishermans_Worf in Glorifying the "self" is detrimental to both the individual and the larger world. It neither helps you find your true nature, nor your role in the larger world. by waytogoal

Fair point, might have been a vocabulary issue, also it is not easy to reply to so many people so I probably have some hasty typing mistakes.

But now I am curious, do you think the individuals inside Nazi Germany are "selfless" then? (According to some other comments, they are). I think this is where the vocab issue arises, where some commenters described group/collectives as equating "selfless". (And what is not a group?)

Also, you might have designed too many categorical buckets about what things have self-awareness/ are conscious and what things aren't. I think it is way more contentious than you think it is (heck, you don't even know whether I am actually conscious the same way as you), plus I don't think any serious biologist would claim cells have no "goal". Now a bit of rephrasing, would you agree an entity having a coherent goal/desire is the requirement to form a "self"?

Moreover, it is not about an all-or-nothing full denial or acceptance, this article is never about arguing the "self" doesn't exist at all. It is full of statements like "you ARE probably more versatile and adaptive than you think."; "The minimal useful concept of “self” is simply recognizing that one is an amazing, versatile being capable of doing great things"

To address your last part, many things are "natural", do we have the mental resources to give equal importance to all things natural? Is the current level of glorification of self "natural" (a matter of degree and extent rather than all-or-nothing)? At what level is considered not natural? e.g., Human procreation can be either natural or unnatural, it is the level of it that defines it. These are some questions worth thinking about.

Fishermans_Worf t1_jau9tv2 wrote on March 4, 2023 at 2:55 AM

>But now I am curious, do you think the individuals inside Nazi Germany are "selfless" then?

Fascism is an ideology that does not respect the individual self in favour of the group. It's brutally selfish towards outsiders, and brutally selfless within.

A biologist will say a cell has a goal—but they don't mean it in the same way that a person has a goal nor do they mean it in the way an organization has a goal.

If this is applicable, translating concepts from one culture to another is incredibly difficult because so much of the context is lost. if you're putting an argument forwards, it's valuable to try and define every important term you use. Doubly so if you're translating ideas across cultures. The more central a concept is to your essay, the more of the essay I'd spend defining exactly what you're talking about.

waytogoal OP t1_jazyj03 wrote on March 5, 2023 at 10:51 AM

I think I start to see where the problem might have arisen. Let's focus back into the "individuals" inside Nazis and forget about whether "Fascism" as an ideology is respecting selfs.

Hitler is a self-conscious individual who did a lot of thinkings himself and thus cannot be described as "selfless", agree? The next guy, let's name him Joe, confidently believes in Nazi ideology or the bollock from Hitler and had thought about it thoroughly. Is he selfless?...

I think the problem is that you implicitly assumed an ideology (e.g., fascism, communism) not respecting "individual rights" would eliminate the "self" in its part. (I know sociology texts made a lot subtle statements that groupist equate no self and might have subtly influenced in how we communicate)

Now, read your own statement again "It's brutally selfish towards outsiders, and brutally selfless within." and apply it to you. Your cells are brutally selfless within (the requirement of developing you, the yourself), but it might or might not be selfless towards the outside, agree?