RE: An eye for an eye? I’d say - think at least twice.
Happy people don’t do crappy things.
Unless they've managed to project the illusion of happiness, or they're a complete sociopath.
It isn't even meant to be an eye for an eye. Those scenarios come about from the breakdown of negotiation, of not looking at mediation as a mutually beneficial exercise. Instead it is a win/loss equation - with the perspective of the majority of social constructs being that someone will win, and someone will lose from the negotiation.
Then, it's only a fine line to dance toward conflict and away from mediation.
Is altruism the exact opposite of an eye for eye?
I'm not versed on anthropology or politics, or economics, but the capitalist eggshell and governmental veils of "rule" leave a very under nourishing environment in the petri dish of freedom.
I could not say it better.
I am pretty uncertain about both, altruism, and whether mother Teresa could be a role model for this concept.
The problem with altruism is that part of this theory is the idea of a bigger reward. Which I don't like that much. It's the promise that if you act altruistic, you will receive a bigger reward in the end. Not the initial theory but what other philosophers like Humberto Maturana made out of it.
And mother Teresa … she worked for Satan himself: the Vatican and embezzled a lot of money for them. In the world we're living today it's not that easy to acknowledge "real good". Wolves in sheep clothes … Often the worst enemies of humanity cover themselves in the most friendly costumes. NGOs to cover your true colors, charities and whatnot. Never to help the case, always to help themselves …
I am so glad there are such fierce, independent, and intelligent people like you and @araksa-dragonkey on Steem.
It reminds me of the discussions I had on the lawns with my peers at university. Discussing the underlying root cause of things, and using critical thinking to examine the whole lot.
NGOs can only "thrive" because of the environments that necessitate their existence.
Yes, it’s true. And I am not a very big fan of Catholicism or religions in general myself. As for Teresa, I don’t know much about her person - the name came more as a symbol. Now that I’m thinking about it, I think - was she truly altruistic but used by the organization as a tool, or was she conscious about being a worker for something sinister? Only an assumption, but I think it could be that she didn’t give a damn about Vatican or religious institutions in general; she would still be doing her thing with or without them.
Hmm... let’s see another well-known example then. Or an example where a person does something that truly takes away from them and makes them suffer (but they do not believe in afterlife rewards and they are not in any way masochistic)... If I find such an example, I’ll come back to this curious topic.
If you ask me, there are millions of examples and their altruistic nature doesn't allow them to brag about it. ;) So, a famous person might not be it …
Yes, true again :D
Yes... then they are perfect liars and manipulators with very special and interesting minds) And I know many people (especially women) who say they’d love to date a psychopath... and I am laughing quietly in my head :) You girls don’t know what you are in for and how it can all end. Too many thriller films and charismatic “bad” characters on TV.
However, I have come across something that put this whole psychopathy “illness” in question. If one can control his emotions, feelings, and reactions, and produce them by will despite presence or absence of any necessary irritants or stimuli - does he then enter that mind state of a psychopath?..
I don’t know much about altruism and what is “true” altruism. I think it goes hand in hand with unconditional love toward people, maybe not even close people, but people in general. To me true altruism would be something like mother Teresa... that level of doing everything for others and living a very simple life.