Do you find the idea that every voluntary action can be attributed to pure self interest to be either depressing or...

Do you find the idea that every voluntary action can be attributed to pure self interest to be either depressing or uplifting?

Why?

I find it a cretinous idea that no one considers after the age of 25 unless he's a psychopath.

Uplifting of course. For this is freedom, and no one can set you in ideological chains but yourself.

I find the fact that self interest is merely an illusion attributed to an organism with no real self that is just an amalgamation of several biological progresses with really no one there at the core, no one at the wheel, a puppet held together by chain reactions as indifferent as a bunch of rocks tumbling downhill, literally zombies, to be much more depressing to be honest.

Why do you think the idea is not worth considering?

>Dude we"re just like chemicals and shit

These "several biological processes" are by definition "you". Despite "self" being an emergent phenomenon, it's undeniably real. Or would "self" be real to you only if it possessed no internal structure?

It's neither nor, it just is.

>unless he's a psychopath
???

just say "depressing" next time it saves you the time

How is it undeniably real? It's more like animism.

It's ok

Neither. It's just reality. People can't possibly do anything that isn't in their self-interest.

stirner said that?

Demonstrate how the self is real.

He did

well, i need to read stirner now.

kinda silly desu, maybe it makes sense to some people but I cant see it as un-retarded

describe one action that is not based on pure self interest.

I can hardly think of any that are.

All acts are in the interests of the genes. The 'self' is merely an illusion, a side product of a brain that exists to establish the continued existence of the genes.

lol what the fuck are you talking about

Call me crazy, but maybe the self people are referring to is the expression of those genes.

It seems like a logic game to look at things that way. An illusion. Even the most altruistic, collectivist, even wildly random action can be argued as self-interested.

So I have no thoughts or feelings about it.

An expression of something is not the thing. When I tell you to fuck off I'm expressing myself but the expression serves me. The expression itself has no interests.

The same goes for the self in relation to the genes. A tool.

If the reality WAS the idea then how would you react

I can make myself happy by nagging other people happy. That's nice. I can spite myself, hate myself, want to kill myself and no one will ever feel as negative about me as I do.

Now those are freeing thoughts.

What is this? An image for ants?

This, there is no "self". Join the Buddha, manipulate your own body and mind, view it as if it you were made up of several different mechanisms constantly conflicting and running simultaneously, then maybe you can become "free" in a sense.

It's just as much a thing as the genes themselves. You can keep going back trying to explain things by their causes, but because something has a cause doesn't mean it's not a thing.

The self is real in the same way that free will is real in the same way that causality is real, which is the same way that love is real or home runs are real.

The genes don't want anything. You do.

All acts are in the interests of the soul. The 'flesh' is merely an illusion, a side product of a body that exists to establish the continued existence of the soul.

So not at all?

The genes 'want' to multiply in the gene pool.

A human organism is a thing. The self is not a thing. Unless you want to call all ideas things.

'Want' is an anthropomorphism of course concerning the genes, but ultimately ascribing 'want' to ourselves is also anthropomorphism. It refers to an old idea of what a human is which involved literal magic. Today we know a human 'wants' to do a thing no more than a planet 'wants' to orbit the sun or a rock 'wants' to roll downhill.

I find it trivial, since the only way this assertion works is if self-interest is so broadly defined that it becomes meaningless.

Everything you do will be to fulfil your own desires

If it's voluntary, I choose uplifting.

>Everything you do has it's motivation in your mind

wow, what a meaningful statement. unless you have something to conclude from it, I don't know what the point is meant to be.

It means that when you give money to a homeless person it's not to help the plight of the homeless and that's worth reflection