Altruism and helping others: what are your thoughts?

ironmarlin1 said:When you consider these modern-day, almost inquisitorial missions aimed at liberating our emotions, our passions, those buried feelings, and ultimately trying to forge this supposed "new man," I find myself taking a purely subversive approach. I aim to dismantle this dominant ideology through a sort of emotional castration, a deliberate act designed to expose just how utterly helpless such an ideology truly is. In my view, we are witnessing a godless kind of Dark Age—a new philosophy that cherry-picks all the worst elements of the medieval era and integrates them into the construction of a new, hollowed-out version of humanity.

Come on now, stop hiding behind the sarcasm and actually say what you mean....

A truly free individual refuses to let anything—absolutely nothing—take precedence over their own existence. Not even civilization itself. They can digest the structures of society and harness them for their own ends, certainly, but the moment this supposed "civilization" attempts to consume the individual, they will dismantle it. Take the pervasive ideologies of humanitarianism and altruism, for instance. These are often just hollow concepts positioned above the person; if an individual wants to remain authentically themselves, they must conquer such ideals for their own sake rather than allowing those ideas to exist solely for the benefit of some greater social collective. As for the rest of us, the supposedly "civilized" masses, we might actually find ourselves accepting this brand of egoism as the next logical evolution of our culture—a genuine leap toward true liberty.

The concept of a truly "free individual" is nothing more than a myth—because at best, such a person is merely a prisoner of their own psyche and their rigid, unyielding perspectives. And frankly, there is even less clarity regarding the underlying forces that shape such an attitude in the first place... all of which ultimately stifles any real capacity for learning.

Jonathan Brooks8 said:The concept of a truly "free individual" is nothing more than a myth—because at best, such a person is merely a prisoner of their own psyche and their rigid, unyielding perspectives. And frankly, there is even less clarity regarding the underlying forces that shape such an attitude in the first place... all of which ultimately stifles any real capacity for learning.

I don't buy the idea that a person can be a prisoner of themselves. At most, you can be held captive by something external to your own being. If that influence is truly yours, then you're the one pulling the strings. To me, your whole premise just doesn't hold water.

If someone’s own rigid mindset prevents them from ever truly learning—and since growth through learning is the only way to actually find freedom—then they are effectively a prisoner of their own supposed "liberty." Real freedom and genuine knowledge arrive "from the outside," much like the way a sudden breeze enters when you finally crack open a window.

What kind of pedantic, narrow-minded philosophy is that? The whole "we just need to study harder and produce more engineers" mantra?

If I may be so bold as to indulge in a bit of intellectual grandstanding: "a return to the self, a leap toward freedom acting as the self-creation—the self-making of the Only One and His All within their own unity. While philosophy, in its essence as 'the love of knowledge,' transcends itself and finds satisfaction in itself through absolute science—which is just another way of saying absolute truth—it does so through a freedom that has been rendered lifeless by its own nature. In this very rebellion, this uprising, love—once liberated from freedom as that singular, absolute thing—returns to its own essence, becoming the love of that which alone is worthy of love: the love of power, of true Selfhood, of that creative Nothingness of freedom, or perhaps, quite simply, pure self-love."

ironmarlin1 said:If I may be so bold as to indulge in a bit of intellectual grandstanding: "a return to the self, a leap toward freedom acting as the self-creation—the self-making of the Only One and His All within their own unity. While philosophy, in its essence as 'the love of knowledge,' transcends itself and finds satisfaction in itself through absolute science—which is just another way of saying absolute truth—it does so through a freedom that has been rendered lifeless by its own nature. In this very rebellion, this uprising, love—once liberated from freedom as that singular, absolute thing—returns to its own essence, becoming the love of that which alone is worthy of love: the love of power, of true Selfhood, of that creative Nothingness of freedom, or perhaps, quite simply, pure self-love."

Truth isn't some fixed, absolute thing—it's only as absolute as the person holding it... Freedom is really just an open road toward learning.
Altruism is actually exactly that "pure self-love"—the idea that by loving others, you're ultimately loving yourself.

ironmarlin1 said:When you consider these modern-day, almost inquisitorial missions aimed at liberating our emotions, our passions, those buried feelings, and ultimately trying to forge this supposed "new man," I find myself taking a purely subversive approach. I aim to dismantle this dominant ideology through a sort of emotional castration, a deliberate act designed to expose just how utterly helpless such an ideology truly is. In my view, we are witnessing a godless kind of Dark Age—a new philosophy that cherry-picks all the worst elements of the medieval era and integrates them into the construction of a new, hollowed-out version of humanity.

Sigmund Freud wrote something else entirely.

ironmarlin1 said:When you consider these modern-day, almost inquisitorial missions aimed at liberating our emotions, our passions, those buried feelings, and ultimately trying to forge this supposed "new man," I find myself taking a purely subversive approach. I aim to dismantle this dominant ideology through a sort of emotional castration, a deliberate act designed to expose just how utterly helpless such an ideology truly is. In my view, we are witnessing a godless kind of Dark Age—a new philosophy that cherry-picks all the worst elements of the medieval era and integrates them into the construction of a new, hollowed-out version of humanity.

This whole new "freedom from inhibition" ideology being shoved down our throats? It’s just another passing fad. It’s coming straight out of some swampy, backwater corner of the country, served up on a silver platter to a naive, gullible crowd that doesn't know any better. Honestly, it’s pathetic. But mark my words: this trend will fizzle out once the masses finally wake up and realize just how fundamentally broken this mindset is—and more importantly, what kind of massive price tag is going to come attached to it.

Look, there have to be better ways to call out the flaws in that ideology than just absolutely wrecking your own mental health in the process. It’s exhausting. Honestly.

ironmarlin1 said:When you consider these modern-day, almost inquisitorial missions aimed at liberating our emotions, our passions, those buried feelings, and ultimately trying to forge this supposed "new man," I find myself taking a purely subversive approach. I aim to dismantle this dominant ideology through a sort of emotional castration, a deliberate act designed to expose just how utterly helpless such an ideology truly is. In my view, we are witnessing a godless kind of Dark Age—a new philosophy that cherry-picks all the worst elements of the medieval era and integrates them into the construction of a new, hollowed-out version of humanity.

Look, this has absolutely nothing to do with philosophy. It’s just a label being slapped onto a completely different kind of toxic ideology.

ironmarlin1 said:A truly free individual refuses to let anything—absolutely nothing—take precedence over their own existence. Not even civilization itself. They can digest the structures of society and harness them for their own ends, certainly, but the moment this supposed "civilization" attempts to consume the individual, they will dismantle it. Take the pervasive ideologies of humanitarianism and altruism, for instance. These are often just hollow concepts positioned above the person; if an individual wants to remain authentically themselves, they must conquer such ideals for their own sake rather than allowing those ideas to exist solely for the benefit of some greater social collective. As for the rest of us, the supposedly "civilized" masses, we might actually find ourselves accepting this brand of egoism as the next logical evolution of our culture—a genuine leap toward true liberty.

So, I’ve been sitting here thinking about that first point—basically, here’s how I’d rephrase it:

A free man is really just a slave to his own ego.

Look, at the end of the day, there are forces out there that just don't care about us. We can struggle all we want, but we’re always standing underneath the weight of the laws of nature and those fundamental principles that govern everything. It's all there. It's bigger than any one person.
Look, society is just one massive, messy web of layers. You’ve got individuals, then groups, all stacked on top of each other in this rigid hierarchy. It’s all determined by whatever sub-system you happen to be stuck in at the moment—whether it's your family, your job, the local government, or some faceless federal agency. It's a lot. But honestly? Without that hierarchical structure, there's no organization. And without organization... well, you just get pure, unadulterated chaos. Simple as that.

Look, if we’re actually talking about someone's headspace—their mental or spiritual state and that desperate itch to be independent within it—then the burden falls entirely on the individual. It’s all on you. You have to perceive, interpret, analyze, filter, and eventually digest everything coming at you. You have to decide which parts of your environment are actually worth adopting into your own way of life and which parts are just pure poison that need to be tossed out. It's a constant process of sorting through the noise to figure out what works and what’s just harmful. That's the job.

In this light, fighting for freedom isn't about tearing down your own abilities. It’s about finally using them properly—taking the reins so you stop being a slave to your own potential and actually become the master of it.

ironmarlin1 said:A truly free individual refuses to let anything—absolutely nothing—take precedence over their own existence. Not even civilization itself. They can digest the structures of society and harness them for their own ends, certainly, but the moment this supposed "civilization" attempts to consume the individual, they will dismantle it. Take the pervasive ideologies of humanitarianism and altruism, for instance. These are often just hollow concepts positioned above the person; if an individual wants to remain authentically themselves, they must conquer such ideals for their own sake rather than allowing those ideas to exist solely for the benefit of some greater social collective. As for the rest of us, the supposedly "civilized" masses, we might actually find ourselves accepting this brand of egoism as the next logical evolution of our culture—a genuine leap toward true liberty.

From the way you're talking, it sounds like you're viewing humanitarianism and altruism through a lens manufactured by the mainstream media.

Your interpretation is off base—it's just a byproduct of overgeneralizing. Sure, it's true that certain individuals and groups weaponize both sides as a way to clear their consciences, compensate for the damage they've done to society, or even just pull a PR stunt to score points with the naive. But that doesn't change the fact that selfishness and empathy are both completely natural. They provide the actual motivation for helping others or contributing to society in people who aren't just playing political games.

Real altruism is the direct opposite of egoism, and its core lives within the individual.
It exists in every era, every civilization, and every social structure. These virtues? They’re timeless.

Oh, absolutely, without a doubt, yes. I really ought to give this some more earnest thought instead of just drifting along with whatever the media cycle happens to be pushing this week. It feels like I should perhaps open my heart a bit wider and learn to embrace another human being with the same grace I’d extend to myself if I happened to catch my own reflection in some dark, lonely alleyway. This isn't exactly the kind of thing you can just joke around about.

ironmarlin1 said:Oh, absolutely, without a doubt, yes. I really ought to give this some more earnest thought instead of just drifting along with whatever the media cycle happens to be pushing this week. It feels like I should perhaps open my heart a bit wider and learn to embrace another human being with the same grace I’d extend to myself if I happened to catch my own reflection in some dark, lonely alleyway. This isn't exactly the kind of thing you can just joke around about.

Look, we all knew there was a massive shortage of actual human connection long before this, but this guy just went and put a fancy little bow on it—even with everyone trying so hard to suffocate any real emotion.

Honestly, instead of wasting all this energy being sarcastic, maybe it'd be more productive to actually look into the stuff that Plato and Pythagoras understood intuitively—you know, the fundamental truths they needed just to exist in the first place.

The current refugee crisis isn't just some news cycle headline—it’s a fundamental question of our civilization's soul. While the Red Cross is out there on the front lines, and we're seeing individual volunteers stepping up to become the faces of this movement, it feels like the political establishment is still treating the whole thing like an inconvenient surprise they'd rather ignore while sipping cocktails on vacation... (pardon my bluntness, I mean no offense). So, how can we actually provide meaningful support to these refugees while our leaders continue to act as if this entire situation is just a sudden, awkward glitch in their carefully curated reality?

Jonathan Brooks8 said:The current refugee crisis isn't just some news cycle headline—it’s a fundamental question of our civilization's soul. While the Red Cross is out there on the front lines, and we're seeing individual volunteers stepping up to become the faces of this movement, it feels like the political establishment is still treating the whole thing like an inconvenient surprise they'd rather ignore while sipping cocktails on vacation... (pardon my bluntness, I mean no offense). So, how can we actually provide meaningful support to these refugees while our leaders continue to act as if this entire situation is just a sudden, awkward glitch in their carefully curated reality?

Is this a serious question or just straight-up trolling? ... Sorry, but that’s how it’s coming across to me. 🙄

Lisa Jackson7 said:Is this a serious question or just straight-up trolling? ... Sorry, but that’s how it’s coming across to me. 🙄

I am being entirely serious; the countries that refugees pass through are facing this crisis in total isolation—no coordination, no mutual cooperation, everyone just doing their own thing without any political agreement or cohesive strategy. The destination countries aren't even working with the transit countries. The EC and Jean-Claude Juncker claim they haven't met specifically about the migration crisis because there's "no need" to, rather than the nations actually aiming to receive immigrants—think Germany, Sweden, Netherlands, France...—stepping up early on in Turkey to help manage the influx, using EU funds to prepare for this, and actually signing deals with the transit nations.

Instead of politicians and policy-driven solutions regarding migrants, you see only non-governmental agencies and volunteers providing actual human care; meanwhile, profiteers are making a killing off the migrants, all while xenophobic groups pop up to oppose the arrivals.

The Austrian Foreign Minister has noted that the EU shouldn't leave North American nations—countries that aren't even members—to struggle with this burden entirely on their own.

So, really, this is just one example of how volunteering becomes an absolute necessity when politics fails to react...

Jonathan Brooks8 said:I am being entirely serious; the countries that refugees pass through are facing this crisis in total isolation—no coordination, no mutual cooperation, everyone just doing their own thing without any political agreement or cohesive strategy. The destination countries aren't even working with the transit countries. The EC and Jean-Claude Juncker claim they haven't met specifically about the migration crisis because there's "no need" to, rather than the nations actually aiming to receive immigrants—think Germany, Sweden, Netherlands, France...—stepping up early on in Turkey to help manage the influx, using EU funds to prepare for this, and actually signing deals with the transit nations.

Instead of politicians and policy-driven solutions regarding migrants, you see only non-governmental agencies and volunteers providing actual human care; meanwhile, profiteers are making a killing off the migrants, all while xenophobic groups pop up to oppose the arrivals.

The Austrian Foreign Minister has noted that the EU shouldn't leave North American nations—countries that aren't even members—to struggle with this burden entirely on their own.

So, really, this is just one example of how volunteering becomes an absolute necessity when politics fails to react...

Keeping it brief, since I won't be posting for a bit...

I see this whole refugee crisis as a massive bill being handed to society by special interest groups. "Political will" is suddenly washing its hands of the whole thing, even though they had plenty of skin in the game back when certain countries were being torn apart by war. The burden falls on whoever has the most influence in the EU along the migration route, and let's face it—those Southeast European countries don't carry much weight there, do they?

What can volunteers even do at this point? I don't know...

Beg the government to set up regular ferry lines so people stop dying in overcrowded boats?
That would definitely hurt the profiteers' bottom line...
Live in asylum camps, learn the language, talk to them, try to figure out what they're actually looking for?

Pressure the host governments to actually follow their own laws and stop the asylum abuse?

Or maybe control arms trafficking and the actions of certain state agencies?
Even volunteers from across the Great Lakes could get involved.

Lisa Jackson7 said:Keeping it brief, since I won't be posting for a bit...

I see this whole refugee crisis as a massive bill being handed to society by special interest groups. "Political will" is suddenly washing its hands of the whole thing, even though they had plenty of skin in the game back when certain countries were being torn apart by war. The burden falls on whoever has the most influence in the EU along the migration route, and let's face it—those Southeast European countries don't carry much weight there, do they?

What can volunteers even do at this point? I don't know...

Beg the government to set up regular ferry lines so people stop dying in overcrowded boats?
That would definitely hurt the profiteers' bottom line...
Live in asylum camps, learn the language, talk to them, try to figure out what they're actually looking for?

Pressure the host governments to actually follow their own laws and stop the asylum abuse?

Or maybe control arms trafficking and the actions of certain state agencies?
Even volunteers from across the Great Lakes could get involved.

Exactly all of that.
But honestly, even just meeting them upon arrival—providing water, food, medicine, making sure they have access to a restroom or a place to sleep, or simply speaking to them in any language at all—that is already vastly more than what the political establishment or the federal bureaucracy ever manages to do. But that is precisely what the volunteers are doing; if you actually watch the news, pay attention for once....

Brenda Grant26 said:Hey everyone,
got a question for you.

Does anyone know of any literary works or authors that really dive into the importance of looking out for the poor, the vulnerable, and those marginalized groups in society—like the homeless?

I'm basically looking for significant books or writers who tackle the necessity of caring for those at the bottom of the ladder, specifically people facing homelessness.

Think stuff centered around humanitarianism, solidarity, altruism... anything that deals with our responsibility toward those groups.

Thanks

I don't think I fully grasp what you're after. I assume you're looking at the origins of altruism and humanity from a non-religious perspective.

In any case, Dockins covers this topic extensively in "secular gen".

Jonathan Brooks8 said:Exactly all of that.
But honestly, even just meeting them upon arrival—providing water, food, medicine, making sure they have access to a restroom or a place to sleep, or simply speaking to them in any language at all—that is already vastly more than what the political establishment or the federal bureaucracy ever manages to do. But that is precisely what the volunteers are doing; if you actually watch the news, pay attention for once....

Helping people once they've arrived is fine—it's basic human decency, sure—but...
I’m skeptical, honestly. My distrust just keeps growing every time I turn on the news. It's not about hate; I just want to understand what's *actually* going down.
Can you really put out a forest fire with a tiny little cup of water?

This article hits on a few things pretty well.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/...mediterranean/

An industrial zone right on the border acting as a refugee camp? Maybe there's logic there, though the real answer should be directed at our own leaders... stop the fires, end the wars... because they actually have the power to.
Until then, you've got one side trying to help with "drops of water" while the other side is shipping in weapons—basically pouring napalm on the flames of war.

Lisa Jackson7 said:Helping people once they've arrived is fine—it's basic human decency, sure—but...
I’m skeptical, honestly. My distrust just keeps growing every time I turn on the news. It's not about hate; I just want to understand what's *actually* going down.
Can you really put out a forest fire with a tiny little cup of water?

This article hits on a few things pretty well.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/...mediterranean/

An industrial zone right on the border acting as a refugee camp? Maybe there's logic there, though the real answer should be directed at our own leaders... stop the fires, end the wars... because they actually have the power to.
Until then, you've got one side trying to help with "drops of water" while the other side is shipping in weapons—basically pouring napalm on the flames of war.

At its core, this is a question of whether hope even exists anymore. If someone isn't responsible for a massive catastrophe and lacks the power to fix it, is that excuse sufficient to justify ignoring the smaller problems they *can* actually solve? If there is no prospect of resolving the grand conflict, should we still bother providing aid just to prove we are trying? That is how the "average American" might view it.

Politicians, however, aren't permitted to think like the average citizen—not with their "heavy responsibilities" or "grave seriousness." Since they operate as mere "pragmatists," the individual must step up and shoulder their own "small responsibility."

Which means the only real criticism we could level at volunteers and humanitarian workers is that they shouldn't allow hope itself to be extinguished—I realize how poetic that sounds, but frankly, I don't care.

Otherwise, the drivers behind this crisis aren't accidental; they are tectonic and political in nature—at least, that's how it appears to me...

Jonathan Brooks8 said:At its core, this is a question of whether hope even exists anymore. If someone isn't responsible for a massive catastrophe and lacks the power to fix it, is that excuse sufficient to justify ignoring the smaller problems they *can* actually solve? If there is no prospect of resolving the grand conflict, should we still bother providing aid just to prove we are trying? That is how the "average American" might view it.

Politicians, however, aren't permitted to think like the average citizen—not with their "heavy responsibilities" or "grave seriousness." Since they operate as mere "pragmatists," the individual must step up and shoulder their own "small responsibility."

Which means the only real criticism we could level at volunteers and humanitarian workers is that they shouldn't allow hope itself to be extinguished—I realize how poetic that sounds, but frankly, I don't care.

Otherwise, the drivers behind this crisis aren't accidental; they are tectonic and political in nature—at least, that's how it appears to me...

Spot on.
As long as there’s this lingering sense of "hope,"
nothing ever actually changes for the better,
and time just slips right through our fingers.

See, hope is a hell of a tool,
it's basically what keeps these crooked politicians in power,
along with all the shady institutions and the entire system.

I mean, why do you think the ultra-wealthy love playing the "humanitarian" card so much?
They keep the people they're ripping off feeling hopeful,
all while slashing their own taxes
and soaking up all the good press like they're saints.
It's pretty damn calculated.☕