4.17.2006

humour me again

so, in regards to the post about the inevitability of cynicism... let me first clarify that i imply nothing more than a straightforward interpretation of the word and would like to eschew other concepts, for example pessimism, that though abstractly connected to cynicism, is not part of its definition. that is, a cynic believes [most] people are motivated by selfishness and that "virtue" is achieved through self-control.

i used to be idealistic, up until very recently, figuring altruism to be a significant human trait. if this were true however, capitalism would not have evolved to be the dominant economic phenomenon, or rather, socialist systems wouldn't be so unstable. furthermore, a capitalist system necessarily makes it so that altruistic behaviour is more likely to incur penalties when it comes to survival advantage. with such cause and effect at play, and with an exploding human population competing for finite resources, i can't see how altruism can survive. concordantly (*snap* i've finally used that word) proactive self-interest will predominate.

in that light i see selfishness evident empirically and the cynical position as not invalid. from a personal standpoint, even though i hold that self-control is "virtuous", i have not met a single person, including myself, who exercises it out of principle as opposed to necessity for avoiding disadvantage. (clearly i have never met a buddhist.)

2 comments:

Dominikimchee said...

You can boil anything down to selfishness. Sure, you have a primal instinct to try to "altruistically" protect your daughter who is about to get eaten by some wooly-mammoth (or big corporation, or whatever) -- and the cynics say that it's not altruism at all, but rather you're trying to give your genes (half of which your daughter has) a better chance for survival. But it's just your genes that are selfish. That doesn't change the fact that those genes produced this feeling in your stomach that told you to act like an altruist and save your daughter.

It's not "idealistic" to think that altruism is a real human trait -- it is. The cynic just boils it down to too low of a level of abstraction. The cynic can poop on anything in this way. A beautiful rose is just a collection of cells "acting" beautiful to attract bees to spread its seeds. Dag, just appreciate the beautiful rose for what it is, a wonder of nature, just like the altruism you sometimes feel.

As for capitalism, I don't think it's inconsistent with some level of altruism. Humans aren't *totally* altruistic -- like you said, we're by nature competitive. But even in a capitalist society you see some altruism. There are some charitable acts that can't be explained by self-gain. And flawed as our systems of welfare and such are, they wouldn't exist if not for some basic recognition that we should (occasionally) help one another.

I don't see these things disappearing as we become more competitive for resources. If nothing else, the genes for altruism will not evolve quickly enough to keep up with the change in resource conditions. We will all be dead for lack of resources before altruism dies.

AK said...

Sounds like what I would have said, but for the sake of argument: what if a rose *is just* a bunch of cells, and it is WE who decide it is beautiful. This allows for different people to see beauty in different things. Not everyone likes Bach, and that's ok.

Reminds of anthropomorphism, attributing human traits to animals. Like imposing our ideas on a bunch of sounds or a plant.

Are we just imposing ideas on reality in order to make sense of the human condition? In order to feel better about the human condition? Or maybe it is the making sense that makes us feel better? The sense (whether false or not) that we understand something about ourselves? (like the comfort people derive from believing in God -- ie at least life isn't meaningless, I'm working towards a higher purpose, so I don't feel like a complete worthless insignificant bunch of cells destined to wander the earth meaninglessly until I die.)

But to me, the key difference between a realist and cynic is this:

A realist knows that a rose is a bunch of cells, that its appearance is just a consequence of genetic data, that its appearance is merely so because the rose must attract bees, and its appearance has nothing to do with humans or how we see it. But the realist also knows that a lot of people think roses are beautiful -- a realist allows for the possibility of beauty, but does not insist on it.

A cynic knows that a rose is a bunch of cells, and stops his analysis there -- a cynic does not allow for the idea that the rose is beautiful. The cynic insists that there is nothing more than is actually there, actually visible.