3 ms·

It's certainly an opportunity for selflessness but I'd argue that that's quite a generous take since I can't rightly see it being truly 'selfless' as it's still

It's certainly an opportunity for selflessness but I'd argue that that's quite a generous take since I can't rightly see it being truly 'selfless' as it's still _your_ genetic scion. People often do the worst things to the better part of humanity in the name of "family". I think, among other texts, this heuristic of not being overly attached to family is still relevant if we don't want to sublimate and becomes completely isolated as a species. "Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;" (Matthew 10:37) Yes I know the above isn't an article from Gwern or some sort of neuvo-techo-traditionalist diatribe, or even a peer reviewed paper. My point being that this civic feeling was enough of a point of contention that the authors of the Bible thought to include it. Anyways, this wasn't meant to be an attack, more like a, what do you think?

jhanschoo 4y ago
I've had the opportunity to be that completely selfless person for someone else who's very young. Perhaps being of one's own blood can factor into making that commitment to acting selfless, but once such a commitment is made, those factors can't have any bearing on continuing to act in a selfless way without contradicting that initial commitment. Once you make that commitment you make decisions based on their needs, wants, goals, and their and your limitations, with no interest to whatever idea is tied up to being of one's blood, beyond being just another asset or limitation just like everything else that define your social place.
- parthianshotgun 4y ago
  The impetus for that feeling or set of decisions being familial bonds, I believe, is a different kind of selflessness. I'm not sure how you could detach the consequences from the antecedent. I guess you're making a deontological claim (but don't take my word for it, I'm a philosophy novice). I'd go further in the case for selflessness and say that _if_ the happenstance of the decision to be selfless is based on some unthoughtout biological drive, then can it really be selfless? Thinking is the thing here, and why should this necessarily lead to broader self effacement. That's like saying I'd donate my liver to my brother (cuz he's my brother) and after that the consequences and ritual and beauty of the donation are enough to warrant the possible future where I might donate another organ to a complete stranger, because I did the dance.
tomrod 4y ago
To be fair, a zealot's missionary tract attempting to convince local religious adherents under the heel of a regional crackdown from an authoritarian regime isn't a great source to encourage familial relationships, despite almost two millenia of veneration. Let alone the implication that family relationships are valued below internal devotion, which I've seen from my parents and siblings as well as across several religious and political communities, causes much unnecessary harm. I don't think the principle you've pointed to is very strong to build communities and societies, though it's great to build a fad/brand and a new schism community among the disowning. I argue that selflessness can only occur from people who can help those thar have no capacity to help themselves. The old, children, the infirmed, the powerless.
- parthianshotgun 4y ago
  I'm not an adherent and used it for what it was trying to express. In fairness this was through the lens of reading Tolstoy that prompted me to reference the Bible as a piece of text that tried to synthesize the feeling of para-familial bonds, asking: why should I help my neighbor? The bit I quoted in hindsight does read like fanatical dribble. I'll lean on Tolstoy here and say that from his angle, he posited that only a larger, universally conscious philosophical system (one that many people can understand, not just scientists or philosophers) would elevate our social systems to consider more than just our immediate family. I think there is definitely choice wisdom in these kinds of collected works, the fact that corrupt churches etc leverage these things is another matter, I think you could read it tabula rasa. Anyways back to the point, imo you probably don't need a large binding locus like God in smaller groups. I suppose even in larger societies bonds could be maintained along cultural/economic/etc lines. I could in fact just worship science (as DFW says, we all worship). Having a philosophical system that encourages self-effacement seems to me to be what could undergird the impetus to be selfless. If it happens to be religion or science based doesn't matter, but it's atleast something that has thought put into it and has been QA'd so to speak. Also I agree with you on your last point, but I think for it to occur it needs to have a why, and the why (to me) can't just be 'cuz family' because it doesn't scale (literally).

jhanschoo 4y ago

I've had the opportunity to be that completely selfless person for someone else who's very young. Perhaps being of one's own blood can factor into making that commitment to acting selfless, but once such a commitment is made, those factors can't have any bearing on continuing to act in a selfless way without contradicting that initial commitment. Once you make that commitment you make decisions based on their needs, wants, goals, and their and your limitations, with no interest to whatever idea is tied up to being of one's blood, beyond being just another asset or limitation just like everything else that define your social place.

parthianshotgun 4y ago
The impetus for that feeling or set of decisions being familial bonds, I believe, is a different kind of selflessness. I'm not sure how you could detach the consequences from the antecedent. I guess you're making a deontological claim (but don't take my word for it, I'm a philosophy novice). I'd go further in the case for selflessness and say that _if_ the happenstance of the decision to be selfless is based on some unthoughtout biological drive, then can it really be selfless? Thinking is the thing here, and why should this necessarily lead to broader self effacement. That's like saying I'd donate my liver to my brother (cuz he's my brother) and after that the consequences and ritual and beauty of the donation are enough to warrant the possible future where I might donate another organ to a complete stranger, because I did the dance.

tomrod 4y ago

To be fair, a zealot's missionary tract attempting to convince local religious adherents under the heel of a regional crackdown from an authoritarian regime isn't a great source to encourage familial relationships, despite almost two millenia of veneration. Let alone the implication that family relationships are valued below internal devotion, which I've seen from my parents and siblings as well as across several religious and political communities, causes much unnecessary harm. I don't think the principle you've pointed to is very strong to build communities and societies, though it's great to build a fad/brand and a new schism community among the disowning. I argue that selflessness can only occur from people who can help those thar have no capacity to help themselves. The old, children, the infirmed, the powerless.

parthianshotgun 4y ago
I'm not an adherent and used it for what it was trying to express. In fairness this was through the lens of reading Tolstoy that prompted me to reference the Bible as a piece of text that tried to synthesize the feeling of para-familial bonds, asking: why should I help my neighbor? The bit I quoted in hindsight does read like fanatical dribble. I'll lean on Tolstoy here and say that from his angle, he posited that only a larger, universally conscious philosophical system (one that many people can understand, not just scientists or philosophers) would elevate our social systems to consider more than just our immediate family. I think there is definitely choice wisdom in these kinds of collected works, the fact that corrupt churches etc leverage these things is another matter, I think you could read it tabula rasa. Anyways back to the point, imo you probably don't need a large binding locus like God in smaller groups. I suppose even in larger societies bonds could be maintained along cultural/economic/etc lines. I could in fact just worship science (as DFW says, we all worship). Having a philosophical system that encourages self-effacement seems to me to be what could undergird the impetus to be selfless. If it happens to be religion or science based doesn't matter, but it's atleast something that has thought put into it and has been QA'd so to speak. Also I agree with you on your last point, but I think for it to occur it needs to have a why, and the why (to me) can't just be 'cuz family' because it doesn't scale (literally).