social dynamics for men

>>18572022
Being noble. Honor can be confused with being weak, but it's not. I have no need to shame anyone, nor am I weak, as I help those in my care, as well as complete fucking strangers when I can (donate time to a recycling center, food to a food bank, and have even paid the rent of complete strangers who needed help, by donating to a church pastor/priest in a poor part of the city, telling them to give to those who need it the most).

That said, my acts of good will are not out of some sort of compulsion, or in the hopes of being accepted, but because they are the right thing to do, and, if I feel I my charity is being abused, I can stand up, walk away, and take what the other party wants with me, all without a twinge of guilt. I don't need them, they need me (although clearly not badly enough to abstain from seeking to abuse my acts of good will). I can feel shame, I can fail, but I strive to live a life where I don't feel ashamed about anything I've done, and if I fail, I can fail without regret, as I did the best that I could do with the knowledge and skill I had at the time.

I love deeply, I give generously, I live the best life I can, and am not so greedy as to not seek to improve the life of others.

What category of person would you consider me, out of the 4 you listed?

>>18572053
egomaniac

true altruism is a lie.
you do it because it makes you feel good.

>>18572053
Partially disingenuous and partially lacking exposure to know the raw truth of motivations of both yourself and other people.

Your actions are ultimately self serving all the same since you are compelled out of self interest, your noble acts really only serve to establish your position as being above those who receive your 'charity' and 'nobility', you raise yourself above them by having 'sympathy' and they confirm this by receiving it willingly, this is also why they ultimately stab you in the back.

You merely haven't been exposed to the nature of motivations of yourself and other people, your position is one formed by a lack of understanding or being disingenuous and a lack of exposure.

>>18572067
>True altruism is a lie.
Burden of proving that claim lies on the claimant.

>>18572074
You assume to much in your analysis. I do it because it was done for me in my time of need, and I remember how much it meant to me when I didn't have to choose between rent and food. I have chosen to act in kind, and pay it forward. While I do not deny a feeling of pride, I'm proud enough in my actions and friendships to where I feel no compulsion to do this in order to be a good person.

That said, if the two of you have your minds set that the opinions in OP are true, then, by all means, continue to believe it.

>Advice on this perspective?

I don't know, grow strong and prosper?

Given people and social dynamics and social justice changing how we perceive items like strength and weakness, I think your post is just a projection-- you believe people are binary representations of their strengths and weaknesses and you think you're above people. In reality, only you know the truth-- whether you're an insolent little child who suffers internally and tears himself to pieces, or if you're someone who can stand tall and face their life fearlessly. We don't know.

Better yet, we don't care.

>>18572067
You're a total fucking dipshit by this point and that's why we don't care.

We're good because it's fucking conducive to a successful and less-shitty life. Spreading goodness is an ideology pretty firmly rooted in pragmatism, nobility and altruism be damned; it's meant to mitigate risks and create a safer environment for our progeny so that they don't need to fight for their world as a right (see: world wars).

In the end, you're just fucking overthinking it. Some total fluke could see your sorry ass mowed down by a truck tomorrow, and here you are worrying about how everyone else sees you.

God damn beta to the max, and that's from a dude who busts nut to hentai. Get a fucking grip, get a fucking backbone and stop putting the pussy on a pedestal. Y'all need to make some god damn friends and shoot the shit or something.

I take everything as seriously as goddam possible and I'm still not a friendless virgin, so I know it ain't that.

>>18572086
>I do it because it was done for me in my time of need

But do you assume appreciation as well?
Perhaps you don't require people to but there is still a power dynamic at play were the recipient is positioning him/her self as being in need, dependent, a position of weakness and you are filling a position of strength which is affirmed by willingness/gratitude of the recipient.

I'm not attacking you personally I'm just thinking these are the true foundations of this behaviors even if self-reported motivation differs.

>>18572088
>>18572067 is not the OP.

>you believe people are binary representations of their strengths and weaknesses

Not quite, I say dividing everything into strength/weakness is the only relevance their qualities ultimately have. It's not quite the same, it's about behavioral analysis, not about being a dick.
Your angry assumptions are uncalled.

>>18572137
>But do you assume appreciation as well?
I do, but I do not require it myself, which is why I donate anonymously towards everything I can. The food bank recipient does not know or even have the opportunity to thank who donated the food. The poor church goer does not know or get to thank to who paid the rent. The person walking their dog in the park (which is funded via recycling) doesn't know who sorted the recyclables. That said, assuming appreciation does not necessitate that I am doing it for appreciation, assumed or otherwise. It simply necessitates that I don't subscribe to the theory in OP, where there are only egomaniacs and selfish cunts.

>>18572022
You remind me of something I read once, that I found important enough to actually type out (do not think that I hold your views in the same vein; if anything, I believe they refute them).

>What then is the role of belief for a leader in these times and those to come?

>Understanding the hold that belief lays upon the undiscerning is the first step. There are beings who discern and those who do not. Those who discern are, in the normal course of events, of the leaders, although we must admit that not all leaders are as discerning as they should be, and some discern not at all. Likewise, not all people of the lands are undiscerning, and, as will be discussed later, those of the lands who are discerning are most dangerous and must be handled with the greatest of care.

>Whether leaders or peoples of the lands, those who do not discern are but the highest of the animals. Because they are like unto the cattle of the fields and the sheep in the meadows, a discerning leader’s role is to care for them. They must be fed, and they must be kept happy and healthy. They must also come to understand that not all their desires can be satisfied, and therein lies the role of justice and discipline, for, as in the case of animals, one cannot appeal to the reason of an undiscerning individual, for one such has no true ability to reason. Rather, such an individual wants and feels, then uses a crude form of logic to rationalize those desires. The most dangerous are those who are skilled with the tools of logic and reason and yet have no true understanding of the universe that surrounds them, for they will use such logic to make themselves the center of their limited world, regardless of the cost to others—or to themselves.

(cont)

>>18572022
Cont from >>18572161

>Most important, because not all desires can be satisfied, a leader must also offer comfort to the undiscerning. One of those comforts is that of faith, the comfort of the irrational, the comfort of believing that a supreme being cares for each and every being who prays to this deity. A leader may claim, “But I care for those for whom I am responsible.” That should indeed be true, but the truth as such does not offer comfort to the undiscerning, for a leader is not seen as a supreme being. It matters not that a leader ensures that murderers are caught and punished, or that food is shared equitably so that none starve. It matters not that a leader provides justice and a land where the industrious prosper. The undiscerning will not praise the leader for such; they will claim that all the benefits provided by the leaders are the “will of the deity.”

>For these reasons, a truly wise leader will always align himself with the perceptions of the undiscerning. He will not claim credit for what he has done, but will remain modest, and assert that he was but carrying out the will of the deity, “Yahweh,” “Allah,” or “The Almighty,” "Science (which they do not truly comprehend)," or whatever divine appellation the undiscerning of that time and place have adopted. By so positioning himself he will reduce unrest among those over whom he is placed to care, and thus minimize the use of force and applied justice.

File: machiavelli.jpg (5KB, 355x142px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 355x142px

>>18572161
>>18572163
This reads a bit like pic related

How exactly do you deduce which you yourself fall under? The most dangerous or the truly wise? There does not seem to be an objective way of knowing without external verification which may in turn be merely acting in their own interests and they will tell you according to these interests?

What are you getting at with this bit?

>>18572183
>How exactly do you deduce which you yourself fall under?
What does it matter? If you were a leader, would that give you an excuse to slack, thinking it's impossible to go from discerning to undiscerning? If you were a "person of the land," would you be comfortable resigning yourself to that fate, thinking it is impossible to go from undiscerning to discerning?

>The most dangerous or the truly wise?
The most dangerous to the leaders; those in power.

>There does not seem to be an objective way of knowing without external verification which may in turn be merely acting in their own interests and they will tell you according to these interests?
Indeed. You can only try your best to discern what you can through what you see/hear/feel/etc. You can not presume to know the motivations of those outside of yourself, although you can certainly make predictions and act accordingly.

>What are you getting at with this bit?
Any answer I would give would be utterly useless to an undiscerning individual, who would simply seek a way to either twist its logic to benefit themselves. It would also be utterly useless to the discerning individual (whether leader or civilian), because they would intrinsically both sense the truth of what they are reading, while wondering if they fully understand the truth of things, and seek to study and discern said truth themselves.

This is, of course, accepting that the words themselves aren't just a load of shit. Welcome to philosophy.

File: Fobfolie.jpg (15KB, 325x325px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 325x325px

I recognise that my own actions are selfish. Even if I do something from which another person benefits more than me, I still gain something in the form of self righteous gratification. All I can do is steer myself so that I don't harm others in the process; if I were to inflict misery on someone undeserving for personal gain I would be a bad person by my own definition, and I get no sense of satisfaction from being a bad person.

I chose 4)

I don't talk to anyone outside of work other than my wife or other women

>>18572022
Your dumb little dichotomy doesn't exist, you sound like a 14 year old that had an epiphany; the brightest people on this planet have spent the better part of this century writing about how society and individuals in it work, and they're just a ignorant as when they started. You sure as hell aren't a scientist, so don't pretend you know how shit works.

>>18572183
Not him, but you are taking what appears to be an observation, and trying to attribute motive to said observation by comparing it Machiavelli. Then again, that's just, like, my opinion, man.

>>18572221
If you find me ignorant, enlighten me.

>It can not be known
>muh humanity is above knowing

why so aggravated?

>>18572257
Nah. Others have already tried that, and you seemed to disregard everything they've said, which means there isn't any talking you out of it, only cementing your beliefs. Which means ridicule is not only ok; its apropriate.

>>18572270
Go ahead, have at it, hold nothing back, mock at your leisure, that is if you can.

>>18572279
Sure. Any attempt to create a dichotomy in humans results in you looking like this teacher:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vivEzQUGHOQ

>>18572286
You may dabble in whatever obscuring convolution you feel comfortable with princess.

This is a look at behavior surrounding social hierarchy and how behavior establishes value within the social hierarchy. It has to be relevant in that context, I'm open to concrete refutation but you provide none, nor has anyone provided concrete refutation, if they would I'd happily change my position and admit fault.

>>18572296
Firstly, that's not how that shit works. If I say that there is a god, the burden of proof does not fall to you to disprove it. It falls to me to prove it.

Secondly, you have already been disproven. You attributing motive to the noble guy would be like me saying that everything just that happens is because of a deity.

The fact that you could read that other anon's excerpt and not realize how it disproves you shows how belief-driven you are.

I'm not who you responded to, btw. I'm betting he didn't stick around, just like I won't be, because to do so would be a waste of time. All the evidence you need to refute your argument has already been laid out in this thread.

>>18572389
Thank you, that has some merit to it, sure, but if that were to be enough to fully dismiss the argument it would mean virtually all behavior that is known to rely on self reporting can be dismissed as fully inaccurate and worth nothing.

How could we possibly know the motive for 'nobility' if the only way of measuring it would be self reported and therefor fully dismissible as 'leaning on faith' as you put it?

>>18572395
Your argument against noble guy relies on the "appeal to motive" fallacy. It's a textbook example, in fact. His does not rely on any such fallacy. You lose by default.

Appeal to motive: an argument is attacked by calling into question the motives of the person making the argument.

How do I become stronger as a man.

>inb4 gym