Your Philosophy on Life: Living for yourself or Other People.

[A-Unit]

Is living for yourself, selfish?

Isn't anything that comes from you SELFISH? Isn't the demands or requests of another SELFISH on their part, to expect to do something for them or with them?

What does it mean to live for someone else?
Should you live for someone else?

If you do something for someone, and don't want to, should you have done it to begin with? What could be the ramifications of a society or a city, where people did what they WANTED, rather than what they were expected to do?

This, to me, appears to be never-ending battle with friends, family, girls, and the like, to which, at least I, battle never-ending philosophical conversations.

If a woman asks you to go somewhere (assuming she's your gf, or a date), and you don't want to go whether, you have plans or not, is there something morally wrong? Ethically wrong? Why is she upset? How is this viewed? Should we even care how it's viewed?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I have a few friends who are quite lax about life. They plan things, such as golf, parties, hanging out, etc, and if we can't make concrete plans or haven't seen each other months, they're ok. We pick up right where we left off. Both of us understand life, and also that we have things we want to do or accomplish. We impose no expectations on one another as to how to act or to what degree of friend we expect each other to be. We simply act as we act and let the other person choose based on those actions, what level of friendship we want.

And I have friends who, because we are friends, expect to be out every weekend, getting drunk, hanging out, banging around after works done, and so on. If a football game is watched with someone other than the small clique, it's seen as an insult. To them, it's BRO's before HOE's, and BRO's before all else.

I am one of the few people of either side who ascribes to ME above all else. That means, if I choose to do something, it isn't because it's my friend over a girl, or because I owe my gf anything, but because I CHOSE it. I won't get into emotional debt payments, or special allegiances. Some friends want to wear your coat of arms, and let you burn with their reputations as well. If you hitch yourself to friends like that, without considering who they are, I feel you're doomed to follow them down, even if you're "Not like them," as so many teens and 20-somethings will vehemently defend.

Where do you stand, dear posters? What are your confrontations with personal autonomy and personal expected duty?

If you're given a LIFE, outside the context of religion (though religious people will suggest you live for someone else), who should you live it for, your own desires or someone else's? Do you live it 100% for your own desires and if you don't, would the world collapse?

I know many of the things I've done that required work or effort or time away from pleasing activities, I STILL did because I wanted to. I helped friends move because I like the friend and because I enjoy the physical activity. I helped friends bust cheating X-gfs at 4am because I liked the friend and the activity sounded fun. I've done free work for clients who couldn't pay because I felt bad about their situation and they seemed nice. I've done work with family members several times a week, neglecting my own home chores and work, because I wanted to, for no pay. I've helped aunts who are divorced build fences, without pay, when no one else would else except her kids. So where does DOING WHAT YOU WANT GO WRONG?

Does doing what we want reveal our inner power, skill, and energy? Or is it a manifestation of the EGO, doomed only to fail?

Perhaps if we were at the bottom of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and SURVIVAL was of the utmost importance now, and you came to me stating that if we don't band together as a group and work out our social needs and protection, I would die, I MIGHT consider that that is what I WANT most. Are we at that point? No. If I knew that basic survival needs weren't covered, then I would be considering that first. Since I'm not, I'm considering WANTS above all else. And yet, SURVIVAL WOULD be a WANT, if it wasn't considered yet.

If you're a newly graduated college student, looking for work, out on the streets, living in poverty, getting laid is likely LAST on your mind. One, is food. Two, is a roof. Three, would be...Etc. And even then, FOOD would be a want. Survival Would be a Want. And if I didn't want to, could you force me to hunt? Or work for food? Or exchange my time for food and a roof over my head? No. Most likely it would be a slow death if I never WANTED to.

Granted, WANTS can be fickle. Many people WANT/DESIRE to lose weight or gain muscle, but only COMMITT to for a few weeks. Our definition of WANT might even be flawed, maybe we should use the phrase PASSION, or LIFE. If you have a drive to get in fantastic shape, and buy every book on nutrition and lifting, and research it, and read about it, and eat proper, and transform your physique in record time, what is that? Passion. Drive. Egotism. What?

We will ALWAYS want, so one can take the buddhist way, and try to cut back on wants, or you can take the egotists way and do what it takes to get all the wants you can handle. Or maybe there's a midway point, where you can have whatever you WORK for. And in realising this, you may also realize that to get what you want, you have to align your goals with other's too.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In this day and age of Unions, Collective Barganing, Socialism, Monopolies (but not of the people), the *I* or *self* seems to be lost. And its a great war one wages. Are we waging it as a spiritual battle, or is it merely egos contesting one another? Are the expectations we feel hidden, or the emotional obligations, on someone else's wants anyways?




A-Unit

 

[piranha45]

The universe revolves around me, and the greatest perplexity it can offer is why mankind and the laws of physics don't throw themselves at my feet and proclaim me God.

thats the whole focal point of my personal ideology.

my big real-life fantasy is that my dad brother and mother all die in a car wreck so i can claim the 1.2 million in life insurance. No luck so far :\

 

[Desdinova]

Nice Post, A-unit.

The way I see things, and will continue to see things is: I'm the most important person in my life. If I don't exist, everything and everyone else is irrelevant. When you're dead, your hobbies and other people don't mean anything. Living for other people can cause you to die. If you let people take all your money and eat all your food, and leave you nohing to eat or provide for yourself, you won't live.

Another way to look at this; a parent needs to provide for themselves in order to provide for their children. If the parent starves to death, then the child no longer has a parent.

It all boils down to YOU. If you don't take care of yourself, your gf won't have you as a bf. That's why providing for yourself FIRST isn't selfish at all. Hobbies bring a sense of joy, accomplishment, and happiness. If you don't have those, your mental and emotional health suffers. Just like eating - if you don't eat, your physical health suffers.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

The philosophy of Objectivism is what I follow. It states that every man is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; that the pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.

 

[diplomatic_lies]

I think the whole idea of "selfishness" is just one of those things society uses to make sure everyone conforms.

I think this world would be a much better place if everyone stopped telling each other how to live their life.


I think the great irony is, more damage has been caused by people forcing their ideals into others, than selfishness. Just look at the Crusades, the Inquisition, communism, etc.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

...
I think the great irony is, more damage has been caused by people forcing their ideals into others, than selfishness. Just look at the Crusades, the Inquisition, communism, etc.

Not to mention some of the things posted in this forum. Think about it, it's not much different than politics and religion. At least posts about politics and religion aren't allowed in the forum.

 

[insanity]

awesome post. this is why i still come to sosuave. just recently i mentioned to my woman that i am no longer visiting her aunts and uncles and it has nothing to do with not liking them. the way i seen it was, we always go out of our way to visit them. but heres where the problem was. i have been with her for 5 years and out of those 5 years, we visted them like 40 times and they visited us 3 times. i told her why should i waste my time visiting them, when they don't take the time to visit us. but the funny thing is, it is expected.

anyways this has started to become problematic for them. they are always shooting mean comments that i am not visiting them and i could care less. but anyways i was at the mall last week and looking for a gift for my girls birthday and who did i bang into. the aunts and uncles. did they take the time to tell us they were in town. nope. did they stop in to visit. nada.they didn't even leave a message on our phone that they were in town. they would rather go shopping then visit us.

sometimes us men can smell rats and for once my beliefs paid off. my woman is furious at them and christmas is just around the corner. are we going to waste our time visiting them. nope. i am sure i will be blamed by the family for this. do i care. hell no. thanks a-unit for reaffirming me that i don't look to please other people but myself.

 

[A-Unit]

Re:

It's a perplexing situation. Most people seek the external world for "clues" as to how they should live, and it only leads to a more lost population. Each person will tell you HOW to live, but underneath that, it's only their OWN pain for not living and dying as they want.

In the "FountainHead," there was a Character, Peter Keating, the opposite of Howard Roark. Keating lived as people told him to live. He made sure all his architecture projects were well accepted by the public, although they had no experience in architecture. Whenever he went to acquire business, he did so by schmoozing, and not on his talent. He had a huge passion for painting and art, as is revealed later on in the book, but his mother felt that "art was boring, not logical, and would lead to poverty and no social standing." Keating went through life unhappy beneath his facade. He drank. He partied. He had not real social connections that were true bonds built on reality. Everybody wore mask because they sought some END beyond who they were or what they had. If they disliked someone, they'd still associate with them regardless of their dislike because that person might provide them with something they wanted. If they had a passion, but it wasn't felt to be prudent or accepted by the unintelligent masses, one would drop it. People LIVED and WORKED for other people.

Although RAND gets banged on for some of her work (why I don't know), this book is wonderful in its layout of such human scenarios. I read through it quite fast because the characters were inspiring, and it's not crammed with cranium-based philosophy that draws away from the story. Obviously she lines the story up to show a certain outcome, but the hero struggles mightily, or so it APPEARS. I brought this up because it's one of the clearest books on the topic of this post, though there are others.

Are there many Peter Keatings in life? Absolutely.

I wouldn't think there'd be anything wrong with going to your in-laws alot, IF you wanted to. Obviously you'd appreciate the balance, and they don't respect that, so I would drop that. It appears they are family out of convenience, rather than out of bonds. Girls do the same thing, when they complain things change, or you don't go out enough, or spend enough on them, etc. Are you a gf/bf/marriage out of convenience and lifestyle, or because of something more and deeper? For me it's always been extracting the BEST moments and emotions out of SIMPLE situations. If you can do that, then the BIG ones take care of themselves.

This tied into a post I made on the Mature forum relating to marriage and that I don't think relationships take work; that's a perception women have because they have conflicting and often difficult emotions. If they're pissed, it's like a NO answer, where they want to throw it away, the baby with the bath water, like food they don't like. And if they're fulfilled and happy by a relationship, they require more of it. It's as if their body has invisible tentacles that suck in all the emotions, good or bad. Women MIGHT think relationships are work because I've seen too few women adopt any philosophy prior to their emotional control snapping in either direction. Not that all women do it...but a good % does.

And that idea of Relationships being Work is something pandered by WOMEN, to suggest men RE-prioritize AWAY from their hobbies, friends, work, finances, business, sports, etc, and RE-focus on THEM. THE only relationship that requires work is the one you have with yourself by staying on the path, not straying from who you are and what you want.

I agree with taking care of yourself first. There's many girls in their mid-20's whom I knew/know who cry about being aimless, and some guys will choose to entertain that drama, figuring they're the KNIGHT in shining armour to save her. Until these men realize that SHE is the end she seeks, she we'll forever be UNHAPPY. We are the garden we need to water and grow and fertilize. Cultivate the passions you have and you'll be happy. Persue the ideas, thoughts, feelings you have and you'll find happiness.

This is why i never the idea of school. I get it that we have to learn basics, for instance of reading and writing, but once you learn that, even basic MATH manuals can teach you mathematics, and you could basically teach yourself ANYTHING and perhaps faster. This isn't to say ALL school is bad, but kids go, and they succumb to adults, and perhaps cops placed in schools due to gang shootings and the like, and they're constantly LOOKING beyond themselves for the information they need, when it's IN them. They learn to look outside themselves, instead of inside themselves. I enjoyed the subject I learned, such as Calculus, Biology, Physics, and Languages, but if someone is to tell me..."This is what the world needs, go forth and make it great." I would say, "NO, the world needs more people who know what THEY want to make themselves happy and great. These people need to STUDY what they want, and not be given information because they think it matters." It's ME first, the WORLD second. Because If i'm broken, like so many people, I'm apt to be a consumer, burning through debt, or a druggie who needs help at facilities, or a drunk @ AA, or an abusive husband, or a half assed worker, etc, if I"m not into it for me, I'll see something ELSE to fill me up.

Hence why a site like this exists...because men are seeking 1 of the most powerful aphrodisiacs, women, and if they get good, if they get THIS, they feel it solves everything else. Does it?



A-Unit

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

...
Although RAND gets banged on for some of her work (why I don't know), this book is wonderful in its layout of such human scenarios. I read through it quite fast because the characters were inspiring, and it's not crammed with cranium-based philosophy that draws away from the story. Obviously she lines the story up to show a certain outcome, but the hero struggles mightily, or so it APPEARS. I brought this up because it's one of the clearest books on the topic of this post, though there are others...

The Fountainhead along with Anthem were good books by Rand, however Atlas Shrugged goes into far more detail about the types of people whose existence is based on the contribution of others. What makes it a bit more interesting than The Fountainhead is that there are several protagonist depicted in the story who through gaining enlightenment about their immoral actions allowing these "leaches" to survive, eventually exacts retribution on them on a global scale.

 

[insanity]

fountainhead sounds like my kind of book. it's true people do wear masks. we hate our supervisors yet we work side by side for the greater good. women hate other women yet they act like they are bestfriends around each other. i find respect isn't earned by faking friendship and agreeing with what people have to say. there is this guy at my workplace who constantly sings at the top of his lungs to entertain himself. some people get annoyed with it but they never say anything to him. i tease him all the time and say here comes pavirotti and we get along great because he knows i am not taking him seriously.

i am glad i failed at many things because there isn't high expectations on me. but i at least i go out and try things and i am not afraid to fail. but when i do succeed, it is shocking to people. they didn't expect it. it's not what people see in me that makes me operate. it's what i see in myself that makes me happy. i would rather live life on my terms, then what defines me by what other people see as success.

 

[[R]eality]

Andrew, and others:
I base a lot of my life on the books and philosophy of Ayn Rand, which says that selfishness is virtuous, and selfishness + capitalism + a restraint on violence is the best way to build society and manage your own affairs. You wondering this isn't an alien concept; it has many followers.