What can Change the Nature of a Man?

For discussing Torment's story, setting, and characters. Ninth World discussions encouraged. Spoilers allowed.

Moderator: Memovira Goons

User avatar
anonymous6059
Adventurer
Posts: 786
Joined: January 5th, 2016, 6:45 pm

What can Change the Nature of a Man?

Post by anonymous6059 » February 28th, 2016, 2:01 pm

When I first heard about this famous line from Planescape Torment I was just confused. At first I thought that whoever wrote this meant the behavior of a man since human nature is something that can't be changed. However, once I got into Planescape for the first time things started coming together. In this game a man's mortality has been stolen. A part of his nature was taken away by Ravel Puzzlewell.

What can Change the Nature of a Man?
Truth: You, Ravel. As you changed my nature forever.


I don't see how any other answer makes any sense here. I'd love to hear what everyone thinks about this question and what it really means. Now I'll admit I still haven't finished the game yet. So perhaps I will have a better understanding soon enough, but I wanted to see what everyone else thinks anyway.

This is what I've come to undestand as the moral of the game.
What makes life worth living is death.

Part of what led me to believe this is some of the other points ravel makes.
1. With the separation, your life has shed all meaning.
2. force something into a shape it wasn't meant to be, and it breaks!
3. Life is a preparation for the ultimate goal: Death
4. Our life is a means by which we learn *how* to die.

I'd never really thought about it from that point of view exactly. So I'd also like to know if anyone else thinks that this is in fact the point of the game. If you can't die can you ever really live? Is death in fact what makes life worth living?

Lightzy
Acolyte
Posts: 52
Joined: September 26th, 2014, 11:18 pm

Re: What can Change the Nature of a Man?

Post by Lightzy » February 29th, 2016, 1:15 am

Perhaps this can be of interest to some. The answer according to the Wisdom of Kabbalah:


Only an upper force can change the nature of a man.

Man's nature is to receive, to take. Even if he gives, it's calculated giving, with the intention to receive something greater in return.
Noone does anything altruistic, ever, because it is not in man's nature.
A man can give money so long as he receives fame, respect, or even an inner "im good" feeling in return. Only then.
A man can even give his life in return for that feeling of "I did the right thing, the best thing. My body may die, but *I* am forever".
And so on and so forth. If you look at it realistically, you will never find an altruistic deed, ever.

Man cannot change that nature, but only an upper force can change it for him, if the man finds and hates his own egoistic nature enough and yearns for this change like an injured man yearning for a surgeon to cut him open and fix him. If the man wants to just stop being like that, an egoist who always looks for personal satisfaction. If that very nature disgusts him enough that he would do anything to be rid of it.
Then, just the very action of revealing and hating one's own egoistic nature is enough to receive the force which corrects it :)

kilobug
Adventurer
Posts: 922
Joined: September 21st, 2014, 1:07 am
Location: Paris, France

Re: What can Change the Nature of a Man?

Post by kilobug » February 29th, 2016, 1:27 am

anonymous6059 wrote:When I first heard about this famous line from Planescape Torment I was just confused. At first I thought that whoever wrote this meant the behavior of a man since human nature is something that can't be changed.
Well, the word "nature" have several meanings. In that context, I think it means what makes a person's identity and core personality - don't we say that someone is "good natured" for example ? So "what can change the nature of man" is what can turn a person into a different person, so answers like "love" or "regret" do qualify, they can make someone behave and feel and think so differently from what he used to that he becomes a different person, changing his nature.
anonymous6059 wrote: This is what I've come to undestand as the moral of the game.
What makes life worth living is death.
I personally disagree strongly with that point (I'm more of an anti-deathist transhumanist) and I don't really think that's the moral of the game. The way TNO reached immortality is a pretty bogus way, between the memory loss and the other negative consequences it comes with. The moral of the game, if any (I don't think the game really has a moral, more that it makes you think about questions/issues, but not giving any answer, leaving it up to you), is more than you've to ponder all consequences of your choices, that something apparently nice ("be immortal") may not be so nice if it comes with many nasty side-effects.
anonymous6059 wrote:Part of what led me to believe this is some of the other points ravel makes.
Well, Ravel is pretty evil and half-crazy, she makes points, but that doesn't mean she is right ;)

User avatar
Lord of Riva
Adventurer
Posts: 956
Joined: October 14th, 2014, 10:18 am

Re: What can Change the Nature of a Man?

Post by Lord of Riva » February 29th, 2016, 3:41 am

Lightzy wrote: And so on and so forth. If you look at it realistically, you will never find an altruistic deed, ever.
That sounds so awfully nihilistic that it makes me sad. It overrationalised (which is strange for a religious source).

User avatar
Firkraag
Adventurer
Posts: 671
Joined: October 28th, 2014, 8:49 am
Location: Ukraine, Kharkiv
Contact:

Re: What can Change the Nature of a Man?

Post by Firkraag » February 29th, 2016, 4:22 am

kilobug wrote:(I don't think the game really has a moral, more that it makes you think about questions/issues, but not giving any answer, leaving it up to you)
This.

By the way, many works of fiction turn immortality into a some sort of boogeyman as a mean of therapy of our fear of death to prevent depression by inability to reach inaccessible ideal on a contrary to optimistic, utopianic works, that may present immortality as some sort of ultimate good.

And immortality may be seen as such, sometimes. As some other fictional concepts we touch in works of entertainment, like superpowers, magic or ability to hack into anything.

Truth always tends to be more complex than that.

We don't know what immortality or something similar to it is in reality. And we wouldn't know until we have to live really, really long lives, that will be very hard to end unless doing it intentionally (there's hardly any 'true immortality' possible, only degrees of mortality).

So, does death have a meaning? Does death gives a meaning to our lives, our existence?

A disclaimer first, though: it's only my opinion and I don't have science degree regarding that.

In a strict sense, yes, death gives a meaning to our existence. But not only death, because it only represents our limitations, our lack of freedom. We can't walk on ceiling, breath in space, play with fire and live as long, as we want. Actually, we can't do a lot of things, that we want from the moment of our birth and our ability to shape ourselves into better and more conpetent individuals comes comes from us, adapting to the limitations and learning playing by the rules instead of just waiting world to serve us what we demand on a platter.

Death in this case is a limitation, that makes us to find the meaning of existence despite of it (on a contrary to popular belief, that living is just a preparation to death, which in itself is just gate way into higher reality). It shapes what we value and what we prioritize, but it's not the only one limitation, that challenges us to find meaning in life and set our goals accordingly.

Would life without imminent demise feel differently?
Would our journey to find the meaning of existence be different?

I think, yes, though I can't say I know how. Or anyone.

As for this question:
anonymous6059 wrote:If you can't die can you ever really live?
It doesn't matter. If you are sentient mind, capable of realizing your existence it doesn't matter, do you live 'really' or otherwise. It's you're living and you determine the 'realness' of your life.

User avatar
Firkraag
Adventurer
Posts: 671
Joined: October 28th, 2014, 8:49 am
Location: Ukraine, Kharkiv
Contact:

Re: What can Change the Nature of a Man?

Post by Firkraag » February 29th, 2016, 4:51 am

Lord of Riva wrote:
Lightzy wrote: And so on and so forth. If you look at it realistically, you will never find an altruistic deed, ever.
That sounds so awfully nihilistic that it makes me sad. It overrationalised (which is strange for a religious source).
Actually it doesn't matter. We still value people doing good to us. Sometimes, even if we know the other person has ulterior motives, the words and actions counts.

By the way, we can also say, that it's a part of social adaptation dynamics. Feeling good over altruistic acts usually doesn't go completely unnoticed. First, that's an internal reward for cooperational social behavior, and humans are social animal. Secondly, it's signal to other people, that we can prioritize others' needs over our own, which deems us as good potential partners for cooperation: we can work together with others towards greater goal, thus for common good, which is one of our main survival strategies, as specie.

I have very crude understanding of this, so sorry if I had mistaken somewhere, but my point still stands. It doesn't matter, that you cannot be 'trully' altruistic.

You may feel lonely and defend/befriend ostracized person not for altruistic reason of abstract altruistic 'goodness', but it won't change much for you or much for him. You will be a someone to be there for that person, when it counts. And this person will be there for you.

I think, people often tend to overrestimate the meaning of both selfishness and altruism and divide everything in only these two categories and torture ourselves for being selfish or not altruistic enough, forgetting it's not always that simple.

P.S. I really like you nickname, Lord of Riva. There's some story behind it?
"I am a warhead of weaponized Truth." The Last Castoff (non-canon).

"Colin's period as Jesus was an interesting time." © Brother_None

kilobug
Adventurer
Posts: 922
Joined: September 21st, 2014, 1:07 am
Location: Paris, France

Re: What can Change the Nature of a Man?

Post by kilobug » February 29th, 2016, 5:36 am

Lord of Riva wrote:
Lightzy wrote: And so on and so forth. If you look at it realistically, you will never find an altruistic deed, ever.
That sounds so awfully nihilistic that it makes me sad. It overrationalised (which is strange for a religious source).
Completely agree with that. If you twist things and split hairs enough, you can attempt to frame everything as "not truly altruistic" but it's just the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

Human values and motivations are complicated, sometimes contradicting, and attempting to fit them all in one simple box will necessarily be so far-fetched it becomes pointless.

fygment
Initiate
Posts: 10
Joined: February 21st, 2016, 9:41 am

Re: What can Change the Nature of a Man?

Post by fygment » February 29th, 2016, 5:51 am

This is what I've come to undestand as the moral of the game.
What makes life worth living is death.
For me, the moral of Planescape, in so much as there was one, is that belief defines reality.

kilobug
Adventurer
Posts: 922
Joined: September 21st, 2014, 1:07 am
Location: Paris, France

Re: What can Change the Nature of a Man?

Post by kilobug » February 29th, 2016, 5:52 am

Firkraag wrote:By the way, we can also say, that it's a part of social adaptation dynamics. Feeling good over altruistic acts usually doesn't go completely unnoticed. First, that's an internal reward for cooperational social behavior, and humans are social animal. Secondly, it's signal to other people, that we can prioritize others' needs over our own, which deems us as good potential partners for cooperation: we can work together with others towards greater goal, thus for common good, which is one of our main survival strategies, as specie.
Even from a purely evolutionary point of view, there is another aspect : evolution works through genes, not individuals. For the survival of your genes, making sacrifices on the individual level to help your relatives (siblings, children, and even in some cases parents and nephews/nieces) makes sense. A parent protecting his/her children may be "selfish" from the pov of the genes but is not from the pov of the individual, which is where most morality takes place.

But then, yes, even not considering genetically related persons, cooperation is often more efficient than competition to stay alive - in many cases, having more friends is better, for survival, than being smarter or stronger. So that's how altruism outside of close family started.

But evolution isn't a perfect designer, and we do not consciously try to maximize genetic fitness. Or we wouldn't have invented contraception and porn ;)
Evolution works through hacks and quirks, that complement and build upon each other. And the most efficient way to actually convince someone that you truly are their friend and would perform altruistic acts for them is actually to feel that way.
Firkraag wrote:I have very crude understanding of this, so sorry if I had mistaken somewhere, but my point still stands.
I'm not an expert in the field, but from the books and websites I've read on the topic, you don't seem mistaken to me.
Firkraag wrote:It doesn't matter, that you cannot be 'trully' altruistic.
Well, usually debates on "but is it _truly_ X ?" are a bit pointless.
Firkraag wrote:You may feel lonely and defend/befriend ostracized person not for altruistic reason of abstract altruistic 'goodness', but it won't change much for you or much for him. You will be a someone to be there for that person, when it counts. And this person will be there for you.
Indeed. It doesn't matter much as long as the consequences are here - even if you perform altruistic acts because it gives you warm fuzzies, or because you feel guilty if you don't, the point remains that you help people around you, and that's what matters.

fygment
Initiate
Posts: 10
Joined: February 21st, 2016, 9:41 am

Re: What can Change the Nature of a Man?

Post by fygment » February 29th, 2016, 6:00 am

And so on and so forth. If you look at it realistically, you will never find an altruistic deed, ever.
I don't think an act has to be completely selfless and altruistic to be "good". Is an act diminished because it benefits two people instead of just one? I believe in looking for mutually beneficial solutions when ever possible.

Lightzy
Acolyte
Posts: 52
Joined: September 26th, 2014, 11:18 pm

Re: What can Change the Nature of a Man?

Post by Lightzy » February 29th, 2016, 11:55 am

fygment wrote:
And so on and so forth. If you look at it realistically, you will never find an altruistic deed, ever.
I don't think an act has to be completely selfless and altruistic to be "good". Is an act diminished because it benefits two people instead of just one? I believe in looking for mutually beneficial solutions when ever possible.

You are absolutely right. That's why the wisdom of Kabbalah isn't religion. It's simply a method to change the nature of man.
For most people it'll be just pointless theory. But for those who discover their selfish nature and understand that it's controlling them, well... Then they need a way out.

The only people who find it and are drawn to it are those for whom it doesn't matter how "good" or "bad" what they do is, it's the intention inside them which eats at them. They don't care about the society's fashions of what "good/bad" is. nThey can give a million dollars to charity, which is "good" in the terms of modern polite society, but when they find, within their hearts, that their primal motivation was selfish, THAT'S what bothers them, eats at them.
They replace their notion of "good/bad" to "altruistic/selfish", and want to escape the prison of selfishness.
For them, this method has been created.

Everyone else can just safely ignore it or discuss it as philosophy or mysticism. It's not for them yet. Though it will be, that's for sure :)

User avatar
Drool
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9388
Joined: March 17th, 2012, 9:58 pm
Location: Under Tenebrosia, doing shots with Sceadu.

Re: What can Change the Nature of a Man?

Post by Drool » February 29th, 2016, 12:37 pm

Lord of Riva wrote:
Lightzy wrote:And so on and so forth. If you look at it realistically, you will never find an altruistic deed, ever.
That sounds so awfully nihilistic that it makes me sad. It overrationalised (which is strange for a religious source).
It's pretty standard in a lot of secular humanist schools and plenty of philosophers. The most recent person to bang on about the fallacy of altruism was actually Richard Dawkins.

Personally, I find a lot of the arguments against altruism to be little more than preening sophistry.
Alwa nasci korliri das.

fygment
Initiate
Posts: 10
Joined: February 21st, 2016, 9:41 am

Re: What can Change the Nature of a Man?

Post by fygment » March 1st, 2016, 5:37 am

Lightzy wrote:
fygment wrote:
And so on and so forth. If you look at it realistically, you will never find an altruistic deed, ever.
I don't think an act has to be completely selfless and altruistic to be "good". Is an act diminished because it benefits two people instead of just one? I believe in looking for mutually beneficial solutions when ever possible.
but when they find, within their hearts, that their primal motivation was selfish, THAT'S what bothers them, eats at them.
They replace their notion of "good/bad" to "altruistic/selfish", and want to escape the prison of selfishness
.

I reject the idea that altruistic is inherently better then selfishness. I think they are both sides of the the same illusion - that you have to choose between self sacrifice and sacrificing someone else. The goal should be for everyone to benefit including yourself, and that is usually possible with a little creativity. It's simple logic- the more people who benefit the better, and that includes yourself. It's about finding balance, not obsessing over extremes. Subscribing to pure altruism makes you as much a slave as pure selfishness.

kilobug
Adventurer
Posts: 922
Joined: September 21st, 2014, 1:07 am
Location: Paris, France

Re: What can Change the Nature of a Man?

Post by kilobug » March 1st, 2016, 6:23 am

fygment wrote:I reject the idea that altruistic is inherently better then selfishness. I think they are both sides of the the same illusion - that you have to choose between self sacrifice and sacrificing someone else. The goal should be for everyone to benefit including yourself, and that is usually possible with a little creativity. It's simple logic- the more people who benefit the better, and that includes yourself. It's about finding balance, not obsessing over extremes. Subscribing to pure altruism makes you as much a slave as pure selfishness.
Well, there are several points at stake here.

The first issue is that while we definitely should try to find solutions that are positive for everyone, it's not always possible. Especially when you start considering opportunity costs and not just looking at "does it benefit or harm" but start looking at "how much", then you nearly always have some trade-off. What is the most positive for you is unlikely to always be what's most positive for others. And people will tend to consider their own interest more than the interest of others, which is sane to a point, but only to a point.

That's we get to the second issue is that very few people, if any, are doing "pure altruism". And very few people get anywhere near to it. It's much easier to be very selfish, to not only care about yourself (and perhaps a few close friends/relative) and not pay attention to the suffering you create. So presenting altruism as "better" than selfishness is a way we society use to undo that imbalance, to push people a bit towards the altruistic side. The problem of people being too altruist for their own good is very minor and exceptional compared to the harm done by people lacking consideration for others. In engineering we have an adage "if it ain't broken, don't fix it", the same applies here. People behaving too selfishly do a huge amount of harm, people behaving too altruistically are so rare they don't do much harm, so we portray altruism as positive to fix the first issue, and don't care much about the second, virtually non-existing issue.

The same goes with "sacrifice". It's of course better if you can find a way to save the child trapped in a burning building without getting heavily burnt yourself. But we'll praise more the guy who did get heavily burn rescuing the child. That sounds illogical, but if you dig it's not that irrational - few people will let a child burn alive if they can easily save the kid. And the happy smile of the child and his parents will be enough reward for most. But in the case where there is no magical solution, the social construct of heroes taking personal risks to save others can make the difference. It's not perfect, it may back fire, it's "hackish", but do we have any better ?

fygment
Initiate
Posts: 10
Joined: February 21st, 2016, 9:41 am

Re: What can Change the Nature of a Man?

Post by fygment » March 1st, 2016, 6:33 am

kilobug wrote:
fygment wrote:I reject the idea that altruistic is inherently better then selfishness. I think they are both sides of the the same illusion - that you have to choose between self sacrifice and sacrificing someone else. The goal should be for everyone to benefit including yourself, and that is usually possible with a little creativity. It's simple logic- the more people who benefit the better, and that includes yourself. It's about finding balance, not obsessing over extremes. Subscribing to pure altruism makes you as much a slave as pure selfishness.
Well, there are several points at stake here.

The first issue is that while we definitely should try to find solutions that are positive for everyone, it's not always possible. Especially when you start considering opportunity costs and not just looking at "does it benefit or harm" but start looking at "how much", then you nearly always have some trade-off. What is the most positive for you is unlikely to always be what's most positive for others. And people will tend to consider their own interest more than the interest of others, which is sane to a point, but only to a point.

That's we get to the second issue is that very few people, if any, are doing "pure altruism". And very few people get anywhere near to it. It's much easier to be very selfish, to not only care about yourself (and perhaps a few close friends/relative) and not pay attention to the suffering you create. So presenting altruism as "better" than selfishness is a way we society use to undo that imbalance, to push people a bit towards the altruistic side. The problem of people being too altruist for their own good is very minor and exceptional compared to the harm done by people lacking consideration for others. In engineering we have an adage "if it ain't broken, don't fix it", the same applies here. People behaving too selfishly do a huge amount of harm, people behaving too altruistically are so rare they don't do much harm, so we portray altruism as positive to fix the first issue, and don't care much about the second, virtually non-existing issue.

The same goes with "sacrifice". It's of course better if you can find a way to save the child trapped in a burning building without getting heavily burnt yourself. But we'll praise more the guy who did get heavily burn rescuing the child. That sounds illogical, but if you dig it's not that irrational - few people will let a child burn alive if they can easily save the kid. And the happy smile of the child and his parents will be enough reward for most. But in the case where there is no magical solution, the social construct of heroes taking personal risks to save others can make the difference. It's not perfect, it may back fire, it's "hackish", but do we have any better ?

The system of Capitalism is fundamentally based on self interest. The system of communism is based much more on altruism, giving freely of your abilities. Personally I would much rather live in a capitalist country than communist, but that's just a matter of opinion.

kilobug
Adventurer
Posts: 922
Joined: September 21st, 2014, 1:07 am
Location: Paris, France

Re: What can Change the Nature of a Man?

Post by kilobug » March 1st, 2016, 6:48 am

fygment wrote:The system of Capitalism is fundamentally based on self interest. The system of communism is based much more on altruism, giving freely of your abilities. Personally I would much rather live in a capitalist country than communist, but that's just a matter of opinion.
Well, I don't want to enter a political debate, that's the purpose of this forum - but I'll just note that the most destructive and harmful aspects of capitalism (especially as it was done in late 19th/early 20th century, or how it is done in many third-world countries) are those that rely the most on self-interest, while the most positive and beneficial aspects of capitalism as it's done in post-WW2 western world are those that rely the less on it.

User avatar
Lord of Riva
Adventurer
Posts: 956
Joined: October 14th, 2014, 10:18 am

Re: What can Change the Nature of a Man?

Post by Lord of Riva » March 1st, 2016, 8:39 am

kilobug wrote:
fygment wrote:The system of Capitalism is fundamentally based on self interest. The system of communism is based much more on altruism, giving freely of your abilities. Personally I would much rather live in a capitalist country than communist, but that's just a matter of opinion.
Well, I don't want to enter a political debate, that's the purpose of this forum - but I'll just note that the most destructive and harmful aspects of capitalism (especially as it was done in late 19th/early 20th century, or how it is done in many third-world countries) are those that rely the most on self-interest, while the most positive and beneficial aspects of capitalism as it's done in post-WW2 western world are those that rely the less on it.
Nobody has ever lived in a real communist society, it defies human nature and has never been established correctly. So its kinda hard to justify a anti-communist stance, apart from the rational that it would just not work.

that said, Capitalism has a lot of problems including a tendency of self destruction . Or to be more accurate the destruction of parts of the own society for ones own gain. The ridiculous Propaganda of the Cold war should stop, although i see this ingrained a lot in my American Peers all around.

What we had in the past, the things we called communists was certainly nothing good, but capitalism is a Snake that eats its own tail and we will see how long all this endures. We will probably survive it, but in two generation this may look differently.

Thats all i have to say on this matter, while i think this is not OT when it comes to a question like the OP intended, i still feel its kinda out of place.

Lightzy
Acolyte
Posts: 52
Joined: September 26th, 2014, 11:18 pm

Re: What can Change the Nature of a Man?

Post by Lightzy » March 3rd, 2016, 2:24 am

fygment wrote:
Lightzy wrote:
fygment wrote:
I don't think an act has to be completely selfless and altruistic to be "good". Is an act diminished because it benefits two people instead of just one? I believe in looking for mutually beneficial solutions when ever possible.
but when they find, within their hearts, that their primal motivation was selfish, THAT'S what bothers them, eats at them.
They replace their notion of "good/bad" to "altruistic/selfish", and want to escape the prison of selfishness
.

I reject the idea that altruistic is inherently better then selfishness. I think they are both sides of the the same illusion - that you have to choose between self sacrifice and sacrificing someone else. The goal should be for everyone to benefit including yourself, and that is usually possible with a little creativity. It's simple logic- the more people who benefit the better, and that includes yourself. It's about finding balance, not obsessing over extremes. Subscribing to pure altruism makes you as much a slave as pure selfishness.

It's not about bad/good/better. That is philosophy and cultural norms which are very mercurial. Anyone can invent whatever they want, so long as their ego accepts it.

The wisdom of kabbalah is about working with the ego itself. It's very practical and abhors philosophy. It's about self examination, truthful and mature.
For example, think about things you did today, things you said today to others, etc. Your interactions with ppl. Was there anything you did that was purely altruistic? or was it always colored, to some extent, by the desire/expectations to get something in return? Did you do anything where there was NO compensation for the ego?
Now, if you've come to the understanding that it was all ego, in the end. That this is human nature, does this make you feel bad? Does it feel wrong? even.. "evil"?
If so, you're ready (and have need of) the wisdom of Kabbalah, to "change the nature of a man". Not only that, according to the wisdom of Kabbalah, when you change the nature of man, you change it to what? You change it to the nature of God. God being defined as the pure aspect of giving and benevolence, with no selfish desire. The quality of bestowal. Love.



But I suppose you could take the same principle and work with it globally, as an observer:
1) Any relationship that ends, for example, is because 2 egoists are in it, wanting to receive pleasure/compensation for whatever action they take. Once they do not, they break up/divorce. Divorce rate in the USA is currently assessed at 50%. Well, back in 2012, now it's probably higher. Do you want a life like that? That's the ego for you.

2) Communism, as discussed here previously, is indeed impossible and was never actually implemented. It is opposed to human nature. How can you make someone work more while getting less in return, personally? You can't. The ego doesn't allow man to take comfort in "but other ppl live better because I work harder". That is the ego, human nature. So you need to put KGB/police to make sure everyone works harder while getting nothing in return. But what would make the police work so hard too? so you need to put observers on top of the observers ad infinitum. Human nature does not allow that you work and others gain, unless you receive direct compensation to your ego.

3) Capitalism, as manifest in our times, is the direct result of the ego unrestricted. 99% of the world's wealth in the hands of less than 1% of the world's population, with the great majority living in abject poverty, and it's only going to get worse every year, whatever you do, until the ego is corrected. Again, it's because human nature WILL NOT ACCEPT doing good for others without compensation, and the compensation of "I"m such a good person for giving to charity" is obviously not compensation enough.

kilobug
Adventurer
Posts: 922
Joined: September 21st, 2014, 1:07 am
Location: Paris, France

Re: What can Change the Nature of a Man?

Post by kilobug » March 3rd, 2016, 3:10 am

Lightzy wrote:Was there anything you did that was purely altruistic? or was it always colored, to some extent, by the desire/expectations to get something in return? Did you do anything where there was NO compensation for the ego?
Now, if you've come to the understanding that it was all ego, in the end.
That's a very typical fallacy, a variation over the fallacy of gray. That very few acts are not colored _at all_ by "the ego", that very few acts don't give _any_ compensation to the ego (ie, that there is pure absolute white) doesn't mean that everything is _all_ the ego, that there is no altruism at all (ie, that everything is pure black or there is a single shade of gray). "It's not purely altruist, therefore it's purely selfish" is just wrong. #fefefe might be not be "pure white", but it's more different from #010101 than it's different from #ffffff.

Yes, when I give to charity I feel some "warm fuzzies" that I'm a good person and I'm helping others. There is _some_ compensation for the ego. But I would get more happiness by spending the same money to buy a better computer or more video games or more nice Numenéra hardcover books or whatever else. The act is not fully altruist, there is "some" compensation for the ego, but it doesn't mean it's "all ego", that it wasn't altruist at all.

And that fallacy of gray is so easy to do, and so crippling to accurately navigating the world that I wouldn't call it "wisdom" at all.
Lightzy wrote:It is opposed to human nature.
Again I won't enter the deep political debate[1]. That caricatural view of monolithic human nature is a complete myth, that is not compatible with any modern understanding of human psychology, wherever you come from social psychology studies, ethnography, cognitive science (cognitive biases and cognitive model of the mind), or from evolutionary psychology.

"Human nature" is a complex set of opposing, contradicting desires and forces, that are greatly shaped by the environment in many ways (some ways being actually understood down to a chemical level, like being exposed to violence during childhood result in lower concentration of some kind of neurotransmitter which themselves increase violence level in adults). And "the nature of a man" is which of those forces are dominant, tend to express themselves more, and that can be changed - even if not easily.
Lightzy wrote:Human nature does not allow that you work and others gain, unless you receive direct compensation to your ego.
That's just factually false, or there would be no volunteer in NGOs, no gift to charity, no humanitarian workers in the third world, no nurse doing unpaid overtime to ensure her patients are doing well, no teacher doing unpaid overtime to help their students in trouble, no International Brigades crossing borders, suffering risking their lives to save a distant Spanish Republic, or countless other examples of the same.
Lightzy wrote:Capitalism, as manifest in our times, is the direct result of the ego unrestricted.
That's partly true - but capitalism itself would collapse if it were not for all the altruist acts keeping it afloat despite the system itself being based on greed and selfishness. But again we're diving into politics, so I'll stop.

[1] It's not a well guarded secret that I'm a "communist", easy to find looking for me in a search engine, but I don't think this forum is the good place for political discussion, altough if anyone wants more detailed on my political views, feel free to ask elsewhere.

Carlo
Initiate
Posts: 1
Joined: March 3rd, 2016, 6:12 pm

Re: What can Change the Nature of a Man?

Post by Carlo » March 3rd, 2016, 6:18 pm

"What can Change the Nature of a Man?"

"Nothing can change the nature of a man."

-- was my answer. Given the common cinematic ending of PS:T, which reflects the inner nature and history of the Nameless One regardless of his latest actions, I believe it was fully justified in-game, as well as philosophically.

(Of course the whole point of the dialog was to come up with your own answer from the -very- long list of answers provided, none of which I recall as being invalid.)

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest