GENIUS FORUMS

@cousinbasil and Luke, both of you failed to understand the point I am making, because you are stuck with your own ideas on the issue.

I consider rationality to be of the highest value(and I do not believe there can be anything of value except rationality/consciousness). Therefore, the only help I can imagine giving to people is to make them more rational.

As for Luke's point about idolizing reason - no, I don't idolize reason. I identify myself with it. It is most reasonable to place the highest value on reason - the value that we place on ourselves.

The ring shape of the benzene molecule still had to be *deduced* from the dream image of the snake eating its own tail. So reason still played the essential role there, as it must in all genuine scientific discoveries.

jupiviv wrote:@cousinbasil and Luke, both of you failed to understand the point I am making, because you are stuck with your own ideas on the issue.

If I can perfectly represent your idea, whose idea is it? Perhaps you could be more accurate and say that I have not demonstrated the ability to properly manipulate your ideas. There are two very good ways to rectify this situation:

1. state your axioms
2. state some theorems that can be proven true, by some system of logic (which you specify), such that I can start inferring your axioms

Does this sound… reasonable?

As for Luke's point about idolizing reason - no, I don't idolize reason. I identify myself with it. It is most reasonable to place the highest value on reason - the value that we place on ourselves.

Do you realize that you are begging the question by saying “It is most reasonable to place the highest value on reason”? That statement doesn’t really demonstrate anything, other than that there is some consistency in “reason”—in other words, “reason” may not be self-contradictory. What you seem to fail to recognize is that there can still be Gödel sentences—statements (theorems) you want to say are true, but which you cannot prove with your axioms.

The ring shape of the benzene molecule still had to be *deduced* from the dream image of the snake eating its own tail. So reason still played the essential role there, as it must in all genuine scientific discoveries.

What is your definition of “essential”? It could be that reason was not a sufficient condition for the discovery. I am happy with saying that it was necessary, but we all know that this is a far cry from making it sufficient. In a system where two conditions are necessary and together, they are sufficient, I am always wary of elevating one over the other. I am concerned that you do not show this caution.

Luke Breuer wrote:Do you realize that you are begging the question by saying “It is most reasonable to place the highest value on reason”? That statement doesn’t really demonstrate anything, other than that there is some consistency in “reason”—in other words, “reason” may not be self-contradictory.

You show no consistency in your understanding of the definition of "reason." You seem to assume that reason in itself can somehow contain some sort of aspect of it's opposite, a sort of false reasoning.

What you seem to fail to recognize is that there can still be Gödel sentences—statements (theorems) you want to say are true, but which you cannot prove with your axioms.

Either you are reasoning correctly, or you're not. Try not to mix the two.

bluerap wrote:You show no consistency in your understanding of the definition of "reason." You seem to assume that reason in itself can somehow contain some sort of aspect of it's opposite, a sort of false reasoning.

Please demonstrate this inconsistency. It may be helpful to use formal argumentation.

Either you are reasoning correctly, or you're not. Try not to mix the two.

Do you understand Gödel’s incompleteness theorems? They are quite important for any formal system of logic. Unless you claim to argue outside of any formal system?

So far it appears safe to assume you do not see the truth in the statement “It is most reasonable to place the highest value on reason.”

The only way to not see this obvious truth is you do not have a clear understanding of what "reasoning" is.

However, I suspect that the issue is not specifically that you lack an understanding in what it means to "reason," but that you have clouded this simple understanding with an attachment to the complexities of theorizing the empirical. You display a tendency to say things to the affect of "something's not just this, it can also be that" when someone makes a point. This disables you from taking a word like "reason" simply for what it means, and ultimately confusing yourself out of a straight-forward discussion.

To answer your question, yes I am aware that we can "state things we want to say is true, but cannot prove." We can just call this "being delusional", no need to dress it up with name-drops and established scientific theorems.

bluerap wrote:So far it appears safe to assume you do not see the truth in the statement “It is most reasonable to place the highest value on reason.”

Your idea of truth seems wrapped up exclusively in the language of reason. I pray that you never experience emotions so power as to dash this idea in a damaging way. I pray that you are never put in a situation of consoling someone suicidal, someone who will perhaps respond only negatively to your “reason”. I place the highest value on love, love that is both impartial and wise. I think this is a very different statement than placing the highest value on reason.

The only way to not see this obvious truth is you do not have a clear understanding of what "reasoning" is.

You have perhaps isolated a necessary condition, but you have not demonstrated that it is sufficient.

However, I suspect that the issue is not specifically that you lack an understanding in what it means to "reason," but that you have clouded this simple understanding with an attachment to the complexities of theorizing the empirical. You display a tendency to say things to the affect of "something's not just this, it can also be that" when someone makes a point. This disables you from taking a word like "reason" simply for what it means, and ultimately confusing yourself out of a straight-forward discussion.

Some statements merely describe a consistent possible world; there is value in this consistency. However, I prefer to choose statements that describe the actual world and when there are multiple options, to choose those which place a higher value on love. If, and as long as you cannot understand the difference between “possible world” and “this actual world”, then there will be major aspects of what I say, which you do not understand.

To answer your question, yes I am aware that we can "state things we want to say is true, but cannot prove." We can just call this "being delusional", no need to dress it up with name-drops and established scientific theorems.

Can you prove that everything you believe, is true? I “name-drop” because mathematical theorems are often associated with one person; this is standard practice in much of life. I mentioned the theorems I did because you seem to be arguing for ideas that have been proven wrong, at least within a given formal system of logic. Tell me, do you employ any formal system of logic? If so, which? If not, how detailed and precise a definition can you give me of “reason”? If it is not sufficiently detailed, I will suspect that you let passion in the door and simply refuse to acknowledge it. If I suspect that, I will probably be called a heathen by someone who is essentially arguing for Gnosticism. But I digress.

Luke Breuer wrote:Do you realize that you are begging the question by saying “It is most reasonable to place the highest value on reason”?

That is not petitio principii. Petitio principii is only applicable when the premise is falsely said to lead to the conclusion. In my statement the conclusion follows perfectly logically from the premise. It's the same as saying - "it is reasonable to be reasonable."

If I said that it is most reasonable to place the highest value on chocolate, that would be a begging the question scenario.

I won't respond to your other points, because if I do this will become a semantic discussion.

cousinbasil:

I gave a counterexample to that earlier in this thread which still stands for an entire class of one person helping another. I'll give another since you summarily ignored the first one. If I see a motorist who has run out of gas and I have a five gallon spare can in my vehicle, I will give that person enough to get to the next gas station. I do not inquire into his character.

Carmel:

Right, it's not as though you would make them fill out a questionnaire, then review their responses to see if they're "worthy" of your help. Human empathy and compassion doesn't work on a merit system.

cousinbasil:

To understand why this does not follow just consider the large picture. Most people are deluded to some degree and in some respects. You are saying this vast portion of humanity cannot help another person, almost by definition. Yet society consists of uncountable instances of ordinary people helping others or performing service for others just in the course of daily living. For example, a nurse helps people. Are you saying no nurse is deluded to any extent? Rationality itself is not even required for assistance to be offered, since most seeing eye dogs help people all the time, and not many can be called rational. Jup - you make these sweeping pronouncements and they often do not hold much water.

Carmel:

No, they don't hold water, though those who are cut off from any feelings of empathy may have trouble understanding how others can and do help each other unconditionally, without considering any benefit to themselves.

Compassion has nothing to do with helping people - it only creates that illusion. I may not be compassionate, but I'm still infinitely more helpful than all the compassionate people put together.

And it's easy to talk of compassion and unconditional help when living in the lap of luxury, which is precisely why well off people or people living in well off places show it so readily and often. It's easier to have the illusion of helping people in need when you aren't in direct contact with them.

It's not so easy when you see rows of beggars dying of hunger and starvation on the streets and know that all your money can't "help" even ten of them in any meaningful manner, or when blind children tug at your feet begging for alms and you know that the money you give them would go to the hands of the ones who wrenched their eyes out.

jupiviv wrote:Compassion has nothing to do with helping people - it only creates that illusion. I may not be compassionate, but I'm still infinitely more helpful than all the compassionate people put together.

I believe it when you say you are not compassionate, but that you are helpful even to the slightest degree is dubious. In what way are you helpful?

And it's easy to talk of compassion and unconditional help when living in the lap of luxury, which is precisely why well off people or people living in well off places show it so readily and often.

You probably watch too much American TV if you think the Western world is one big "lap of luxury." I cannot help it if Calcutta is a cesspool. You live there. Why don't you do something about it? You can smell its stench all the way over here.

But the problem, of course, is not Calcutta. It is you. You are resentful beyond words. You loathe the Western world and yet I will wager you have not spent much time here, if any. It wouldn't matter, you would likely find a way to be as bilious over here as you are there.

It's easier to have the illusion of helping people in need when you aren't in direct contact with them.

What on earth are you talking about? We were discussing precisely the situation of helping a person by direct contact, such as a stranded motorist. That way you know it is not an illusion, Einstein. BTW, I quite agree that the well-to-do would rather put on a benefit concert to raise funds for Bangladesh than give a quarter to a bum in Times Square. So let them. It's the least they can do.

But I was speaking of assisting a stranger in need. What is delusional about that?

And why are you so worried about other people's illusions? If I were you, I would be concerned instead about why my philosophy permits envy or anything else to fester like a sac of pus in the soul.

cousinbasil wrote:I believe it when you say you are not compassionate, but that you are helpful even to the slightest degree is dubious. In what way are you helpful?

If you cared to look at the definition of "helpful" I repeatedly mentioned here, you would understand.

You probably watch too much American TV if you think the Western world is one big "lap of luxury."

I was talking about any rich people, actually. Even in India, the people who are reasonably well off don't know or pretend not to know about the situation right in front of their eyes. I'm from quite a well off family myself, so I experience this behaviour almost daily.

It's funny how you deduced my hatred of the west from my mentioning of "lap of luxury", though....But I admit that the western people who come here and pretend to be doing good by distributing pencils and notebooks to starving children do get on my nerves. Western people are even more oblivious to the situation, because of the kind of environment they live in.

One westerner who particularly pisses me off is Mother Teresa. Being a resident of Calcutta, I always heard how she was this great saint who helped many people, especially because I studied at a Christian school, but I knew that was bullshit because the people she helped basically couldn't be "helped" in the way she was helping them. I recommend watching Christopher Hithcens' documentary about her:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WQ0i3nCx60

I like it because he says and confirms almost the same things I thought about her as a boy when I had to read her biography as part of my syllabus.

I cannot help it if Calcutta is a cesspool. You live there.

We both share the same planet.

It's easier to have the illusion of helping people in need when you aren't in direct contact with them.

What on earth are you talking about? We were discussing precisely the situation of helping a person by direct contact, such as a stranded motorist.

Actually, I don't understand how you can "help" such a person, because I don't understand how you can have "direct contact" with him. What are you, Patch Adams? All you would be doing is giving him some gas to run his motorcycle. You call that help? He may be suffering from leukaemia - what about helping him on that count? He may be broke, which is why he couldn't buy enough gas in the first place - what about that? I'm glad I'm not compassionate if being compassionate means giving a stranded motorist some gas and calling it "help."

The help that people commonly talk about is *material* help, and even what is called "spiritual" help falls into that category. But since the material world, or rather the attachment to it, is an illusion, such help is an illusion. No matter how much you help a person, there would be infinitely more you can do to help him, and not doing it means you are immoral. The only real help you can give people is to try to help them overcome their delusions, because then the illusion of suffering itself would disappear for them, as that illusion comes from an attachment to the material world. But since the people who help other people are themselves deluded, they can't give this sort of help to them. Instead, what they give is temporary and of no real value. If a blind man leads another, both shall fall into a pit.

I believe the Buddha was using my definition of "help" when he talked about helping people. But obviously, most Buddhists and interpreters of Buddhism would disagree with me about that.

Dear Jupiviv....

I can't imagine the pain you feel living in India and seeing daily the sufferring...unspeakable sufferring. I think if you could truely end all sufferring you would instantly do it. Don't you think by simply having love in your heart, as you witness this sufferring, that the energy of this love will have a possitive effect ?

I'm sorry... as I do not KNOW what it is like to acually live in your country. But I know that even wishing or thinking for others happiness has a certain energy that can heal in ways we don't comprehend. Our intensions...our thoughts...are powerful...don't you think ? Just communicating to you now has an energy. This energy has power. Love has power. Hate has power. Don't you think wisdom is nothing without compassion? Being smart is not as powerful as being kind.

Namaste

Love and hatred dissipate when you begin to think about the things you love and hate. The same for compassion and cruelty. It is impossible to be cruel to someone when you understand them completely, and for that very reason, it is also impossible to have compassion for them. I don't wish for anybody's happiness, but I do want people to overcome their attachment to both happiness and suffering.

I'm sorry... as I do not KNOW what it is like to acually live in your country.

It's like living in your country, with a lot more people around you.

jupiviv wrote:I don't wish for anybody's happiness, but I do want people to overcome their attachment to both happiness and suffering.

And how exactly can people on the street(or anywhere) that are sufferring, begin to comprehend overcomming the attachments to happiness and sufferring ?
If you have absolutely no compassion...you will never be able to reach them. You can't expect everyone to be on the same level as you are....most are like children.

jupiviv wrote:I was talking about any rich people, actually.

But you are not having a discussion with rich people. You were implying that it is easy for me to talk about helping others because I do not live among blind beggars. I am not rich - you are probably wealthier than I am.

It's funny how you deduced my hatred of the west from my mentioning of "lap of luxury", though

Actually, I deduced it from your general tone. I noticed that you don't deny it. Look, we both speak English because of British imperialism, but that doesn't mean I hate England. Usually.

But I admit that the western people who come here and pretend to be doing good by distributing pencils and notebooks to starving children do get on my nerves.

That I can understand. Can you understand this has nothing to do with what I am talking about? Do not object by saying that it is what you are talking about. I know that! It is why you made this thread! I am purposely introducing different kinds of instances in which helping people does not fit your generalization as something to be declaimed.

One westerner who particularly pisses me off is Mother Teresa.

She is dead. You can let it go now. I observe that she might not have pissed you off so royally if she weren't western.

We both share the same planet.

Indeed. But then, you were the one who brought up that where one lives is sufficient reason to view helping other people in a different light. I might also remark that Mother Theresa pisses you off partly because she is a westerner - you make a point of this, in fact - yet one of her motivations could have been that she felt India's poor were everybody's poor. That we share the same planet is why I can smell Calcutta from the US.

Actually, I don't understand how you can "help" such a person, because I don't understand how you can have "direct contact" with him. What are you, Patch Adams? All you would be doing is giving him some gas to run his motorcycle. You call that help? He may be suffering from leukaemia - what about helping him on that count? He may be broke, which is why he couldn't buy enough gas in the first place - what about that? I'm glad I'm not compassionate if being compassionate means giving a stranded motorist some gas and calling it "help."

This is the crux of the cancer in your thinking. You cannot cure this man's leukemia - which in all probability he does not have - therefore you leave him stranded on the road. How do you know he was not on his way to pick up life saving medicine? If everybody thought as you do, he would not get to the pharmacist in time and die. If just one thinks as I do, he survives. Your insistence that you solve all his ills - such as that he may be broke - is the height of hubris or laziness. I will leave it to you to decide which shoe fits better.

The help that people commonly talk about is *material* help, and even what is called "spiritual" help falls into that category. But since the material world, or rather the attachment to it, is an illusion, such help is an illusion. No matter how much you help a person, there would be infinitely more you can do to help him, and not doing it means you are immoral.

This is unmitigated nonsense at its finest.

The only real help you can give people is to try to help them overcome their delusions, because then the illusion of suffering itself would disappear for them, as that illusion comes from an attachment to the material world. But since the people who help other people are themselves deluded, they can't give this sort of help to them. Instead, what they give is temporary and of no real value. If a blind man leads another, both shall fall into a pit.

Which is why I am taking the trouble to try to open up your eyes to the fallacy of your thinking, lest anyone one else read it and be led into the pit.

If a blind man leads another, both shall fall into a pit.

Let me take a moment to relate a brief incident that happened to me a few years back. I may have described it earlier in another thread, so I apologize if anyone has read it before.

I was arriving at New York City's teeming Port Authority in an upper-story bus ramp. As the driver was opening the doors to let his passengers debark, he halted the line and announced, "This gentleman here is blind and has to get down to the subway and would be grateful if anyone would be so kind as to assist him to make it there." I was near the front of the bus and I could see the blind man was old and frail. I figured, well I am going down to the subways anyway, what can it hurt, so I quickly said I would do it. I took the man by the elbow and guided him inside the terminal and immediately regretted my decision. I had not been there in several years, and it was completely unrecognizable. There was massive internal renovation going on, with temporary interior walls and corridors, conflicting signs, arrows pointing every which way, stairways roped off, it was a nightmare. It would take me an hour to figure it out, and here I now had this blind guy to worry about. So I said to him, "Listen, I'm sorry but I think I may be lost." He answered, "I know, this place is a mess. They have been working on it forever. But don't worry, I go through here at least once a week. We head for the stairway second from the left." And so it went. He knew the exact route to wind our way down to the subway platforms, he just need help navigating the many physical pitfalls along the way. Together, we made it to the underground in less than ten minutes and parted for our respective lines.

So, jup, you tell me. It was the blind leading the blind and we ended up in the [subway] pit. Can you see what I am trying to open your eyes to? This is not a parable or some philosophical allegory. It is an actual brief experience I had, one of many similar ones, and it is these and what I have behind them which I am trying to share. It is not so complicated as all that, can you not see that?

First of all this is only my second post here and I doubt if I'd even get involved in this if it were'nt for the fact that Jupiviv was from India(like me).

Anyways,Jupiviv please I'm telling you this from my personal experiences:


SYMPATHY IS LETHAL.


Too damn lethal as far as "helping people" goes.....don't bother.Please don't waste your time doing so.If you're in India you must have a clear thesis of what 'karma' is unlike the deluded view many hippie foreigners have which is more like-you get what you deserve or something like you reap what you sow.If you are a Hindu like me and ever cared to read the Bhagavad Gita you must know the topic of concern like the back of your palm..........poor people,orphans,handicaps or whatever are all part of lets say for simplicity's sake "The Great God Plan."Its just like the way its supposed to be and trust me you'd better not tinker.
and even you aren't Hindu You'd more or less what I've already said.

After all,God isn't someone who gives candy to everyone JUST because you are his child.........

nitinnsk wrote:SYMPATHY IS LETHAL

Lethal to ignorance.

The topic of this thread is "Helping people," not "Sympathy." One need not be sympathetic in the slightest in order to help another person. Apparently, in India it is quite a horror to have any sympathy. I imagine this is because of the caste system, and quite naturally it would be more horrifying to a member of the upper wealthier strata.

'karma' is unlike the deluded view many hippie foreigners have which is more like-you get what you deserve or something like you reap what you sow

You are quite right. Cause and effect is the essence of karma, as it is the essence of everything. Your present day India is the effect, and the cause is countless centuries of Hindus believing "sympathy is lethal" and "you'd better not tinker." Of course one does not get what one deserves - this is undoubtedly nowhere more clearly seen than in India. Jupiviv no more deserves his relative wealth than the blind beggar deserved to have his eyes ripped out. Yet India has no monopoly on karmic "inequities." America is, after all, the land where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, and I would bet some of my own heard-earned money that there are places in New York City that rival Calcutta in squalor and hopelessness, lying side-by-side with unmotivated opulence.

After all,God isn't someone who gives candy to everyone JUST because you are his child.........

I was not aware we were talking about God. He's not the one with the candy. You are.

cousinbasil wrote:You were implying that it is easy for me to talk about helping others because I do not live among blind beggars. I am not rich - you are probably wealthier than I am.

I was making a point using extreme examples - that helping people in the sense most people talk about it is an illusion sustained by ignorance.

And no, I don't hate the west any more than I hate the east - you're putting words in my mouth. And "disapprove" would be a more appropriate term than "hate", actually.

jupiviv wrote:We both share the same planet.

Indeed. But then, you were the one who brought up that where one lives is sufficient reason to view helping other people in a different light.

When I said "lap of luxury", I was obviously speaking metaphorically. I think you knew this, but interpreted my statement differently anyway, to suit your point.

I might also remark that Mother Theresa pisses you off partly because she is a westerner - you make a point of this

Can you provide the quote where I "make a point of this"?

Actually, I don't understand how you can "help" such a person, because I don't understand how you can have "direct contact" with him. What are you, Patch Adams? All you would be doing is giving him some gas to run his motorcycle. You call that help? He may be suffering from leukaemia - what about helping him on that count? He may be broke, which is why he couldn't buy enough gas in the first place - what about that? I'm glad I'm not compassionate if being compassionate means giving a stranded motorist some gas and calling it "help."

This is the crux of the cancer in your thinking. You cannot cure this man's leukemia - which in all probability he does not have - therefore you leave him stranded on the road. How do you know he was not on his way to pick up life saving medicine? If everybody thought as you do, he would not get to the pharmacist in time and die. If just one thinks as I do, he survives. Your insistence that you solve all his ills - such as that he may be broke - is the height of hubris or laziness. I will leave it to you to decide which shoe fits better.

You missed the point entirely, and the basic argument is a non sequitur. I never said it was imperative to have denied him gas. I'm just saying, don't call the action of giving him some gas "help", because in an of itself, it is not help. It only becomes help if it is done with the aim of him becoming rational.

jupiviv wrote:The help that people commonly talk about is *material* help, and even what is called "spiritual" help falls into that category. But since the material world, or rather the attachment to it, is an illusion, such help is an illusion. No matter how much you help a person, there would be infinitely more you can do to help him, and not doing it means you are immoral.

This is unmitigated nonsense at its finest.

I'm sure you shall succeed in your aim of pointing out the fallacy in my thinking...

jupiviv wrote:jupiviv wrote:
The help that people commonly talk about is *material* help, and even what is called "spiritual" help falls into that category. But since the material world, or rather the attachment to it, is an illusion, such help is an illusion. No matter how much you help a person, there would be infinitely more you can do to help him, and not doing it means you are immoral.
This is unmitigated nonsense at its finest.


That's uncalled for.

No, cousinbasil is right. Your notion that one can't help everyone *materially*, therefore, should help no one is utterly absurd.

Also, Your claim that you are helping more people than all of the compassionate in the world combined is beyond ridiculous as well as a rather disgusting display of grandiosity and self delusion.

Carmel wrote:

jupiviv wrote:jupiviv wrote:
The help that people commonly talk about is *material* help, and even what is called "spiritual" help falls into that category. But since the material world, or rather the attachment to it, is an illusion, such help is an illusion. No matter how much you help a person, there would be infinitely more you can do to help him, and not doing it means you are immoral.
This is unmitigated nonsense at its finest.


That's uncalled for.

No, your notion that one can't help everyone *materially*, therefore, should help no one is utterly absurd.

Also, Your claim that you are helping more people than all of the compassionate in the world combined is beyond ridiculous as well as a rather disgusting display of grandiosity and self delusion.

As usual, no reason, just an au contraire response.

EDIT - now I've deleted that part of the post because I realised that Cousinbasil's whole post was uncalled for.

You don't provide enough solid reasoning for any of your "unmitigated nonsense" jup. ...you say you value rationality, yet provide little to no reasoning to counter any of cousinbasil's responses to you. All you're doing here is putting your hands over your eyes and ears.

Providing material help to someone in need is indeed helping them, but hey if you want to toss a brochure about A=A, Ultimate Reality or enlightenment into their back seat after you give them gas, that'd be groovy, too. :)

Carmel wrote:All you're doing here is putting your hands over your eyes and ears.

You saying that I don't provide enough solid reasoning for what I say demonstrates that perfectly.

Providing material help to someone in need is indeed helping them

It is not helping them in the sense I'm defining the word. Why don't you read what I say before responding to it?

If one helps a person overcome their delusions even for a second, then one would have helped the person eternally. But only a person who has overcome their delusions can understand this fact, and only he can see the value of such help.

but hey if you want to toss a brochure about A=A, Ultimate Reality or enlightenment into their back seat after you give them gas, that'd be groovy, too. :)

Uh huh. And your point relative to mine is?

jupiviv:

It is not helping them in the sense I'm defining the word. Why don't you read what I say before responding to it?

Carmel:

I read your posts. There is no little to no wisdom or discernable content in them. You're a bean counter, an accountant. You have no vision, little to no capacity to help anyone, most especially yourself. You seem to be under the delusion that you are the sole authority on the definition of the word "help", "delusion" and "wisdom". You aren't. The sooner you free yourself of these narcissistic fantasies, the better off you'll be.

jupiviv:

If one helps a person overcome their delusions even for a second, then one would have helped the person eternally. But only a person who has overcome their delusions can understand this fact, and only he can see the value of such help.

Carmel:

That's exactly why you are blind to the reality that cousinbasil is trying to open you up to.
In this case, he is the sighted trying to lead the blind. You are deluded beyond redemption if you actually believe your own bizarre fantasies that you are helping more people than all of the compassionate people in the world and the fact that you are completely oblivious as to how thoroughly irrational this grandiose claim is, is utterly astounding.

Your definition of help is arbitrary, jupiviv. It is like insisting something cannot have a color unless that thing is red.

By no means is it my intent to minimalize the kind of help to which you keep referring. If it were, I would not be taking the trouble to keep responding in this thread.

For instance, take the example of the blind man at the bus terminal which I related. I had no intention of reducing either his delusions or my own. Indeed, it could very well have been the furthest thing from my mind. If I had to reconstruct what I was thinking at the moment, it was probably something along the lines that the queue to get off the bus was being detained and by volunteering to help the man I could get it moving again. What would you have done? Nothing, I suspect - you would have waited until someone else "took the bull by the horns" because your philosophy would demand you to ignore the request for assistance.

But because I am not afraid of lending a hand as you are - which is really what it comes down to, not your philosophy - both he and I were able to achieve our goals more efficiently, in my case, quite by accident. And at least one of us - I can only speak for myself - learned something quite beyond priceless. For you it would have been quite ordinary and unmemorable, just one more annoying blind person you managed to walk by.

I trust it is clear to you I am not suggesting you try to give the world a lollipop. But the world is simply teeming with little situations where you can make a difference if you are paying attention and not always thinking what a gesture from you is going to cost you. A starving person doesn't give a shit about his delusions - he probably has far fewer of them than you do anyway. He cannot worry about his soul if he cannot get his mind off his stomach. As I have mentioned, I spent many years in New York, and have lived in other major US cities. I know that is is a necessary skill to be able to step over people drowning in their own e-coli. But that simply does not translate into a philosophical position by which one is convinced that "sympathy is lethal."

cousinbasil wrote:Your definition of help is arbitrary, jupiviv.

Being an arbiter of values is a good thing, if one values rationality. Jupta's definition of helping people has never intrinsically defined "helping" as egotistical. What he has criticised is egotistical helping, which is by far the most common type. He's well within his rights to take that approach. Making an argument against his approach must go along the lines of: egoless help is not the standard of rational help.


.