Selfishness of Humankind

There is no such thing as an unselfish act. Maybe that doesn't make a lot of sense; people are always doing nice things for each other. Giving money, volunteering, donating food and supplies to a needy nation. They are all selfless acts of charity. Well, that is wrong. There is no such thing as an unselfish act. Every act is selfish. While some acts may be more or less selfish than others, no act is purely unselfish.Many factors contribute to the selfishness of an act. Obviously, handing money to a homeless person is less selfish than killing another person for their money. The big question is, "Why is helping other people selfish?" To answer that question, another question has to be asked. That question is, "Why do we help other people?" The answer is hidden, but easily uncovered. There are two reasons why we help people. One of them is the feeling we get when we help another person, that feeling of pride, responsibility, and great generosity. When you help another person, you feel good about what you did, that you are important and unselfish and are a deserving human being. Would we do acts if we did not get this feeling? Perhaps, but there is yet another factor contributing to the need for humans to help others. Humans feel they have to help others, in order to be good people. When one is walking down the street and encounters a homeless person, depending on the person, they will feel compelled to help that human out, by giving some money. It feels obligatory, like there is no choice. And of course, accompanying the donation comes the "generous" feeling.In some cases, a huge factor that forces one to help another is guilt. Back to the homeless example, you might feel guilty seeing someone less fortunate then you, therefore you help them because you feel guilty. Or, you might be at a water fountain, and there is a long line behind you. While you might want more water, you stop anyway, because my staying there, the guilt grows and grows by each second, until it is unbearable. Of course, if the person doing the drinking is guiltless, that person won't move. For that person, their simply is no reason to move, therefore, the person doesn't move.If a person doesn't get a good feeling out of helping another person, they won't help them. If somebody doesn't feel compelled to donate to another person, they won't donate to them. If somebody doesn't feel guilt, they won't have the necessity to perform any guilt-removing action.There is no unselfish act; every single thing that anybody does is at some level selfish. Perhaps the act most thought of as unselfish is sacrificing your life for someone else. On the contrary, that is the most selfish act in the entire world, as it combines all three of the factors which contribute to a human helping another human. In the last moments before you die for another, one feels a sense of triumph, that they are doing the ultimate deed of righteousness, thereby granting them a happy death. Perhaps they feel compelled to help that human out, because they did some great misdeed to them and must right it by sacrificing themselves. And finally, perhaps the most powerful, is the guilt. If you let someone else die in your place, you have to live with the horrifying guilt of what you did. So, it's simply just easier to die instead of going through years of pain. While it is noble, it is also cowardly, in order to avoid having to face the horrible life after watching someone else die because of you. And of course, if the person doesn't get any pride, doesn't feel compelled, and is guiltless, they will not perform the final act. It's that simple, you selfish pig.

The Meditations on First Philosophy by Descartes

The Meditations of First Philosophy is considered one of most important of all of Descartes’ works. This philosophical study contains Descartes’ complete metaphysical and epistemological position. He considers the problems of the sources and nature of knowledge; the validity of truth, by questioning everything in sight even those truths that are evident to everyone; the nature and destiny of man; the existence of God, and the creation of the universe. An important issue in his work is that Descartes' doubt is a practical and rational doubt. That is, the meditator, or the person thinking/arguing, does not just doubt everything at random without any reasons, but is providing solid motives for his/her doubt at each stage. For instance, the author rejects the possibility of being mad, because it would weaken the rationality with which he doubts things. Thus, Descartes is trying to set up his doubts within a rational framework, and in order for his arguments to proceed he needs to stay within those rational borders. Descartes was the first one among philosophers to raise the subject of skepticism. He was the initiator of the claim that we really cannot know with certainty anything about the world around us. The main idea behind this claim is not that these doubts are possible, but that the possibility of the doubts themselves can never be entirely overestimated. From this Descartes’ point it follows that if people can never be certain about things, then how can we claim to know anything? This skeptical approach was the basis for the new philosophical dogma and became popular with Western people as the ground for their knowledge and understanding of the world. The main problem with this approach however is that no one actually lives skepticism, meaning that no one actually doubts such things as whether other people really exist, or is things are real. On the other hand it has to be taken into consideration that it is difficult to live without skepticism nowadays.Another important notion brought by Descartes work is the development of a conception of the mind in which the senses and the imagination are mental faculties, rather then spiritual as was argued before him. His claim about people being a thinking creature in the first places provides a better understanding all of his philosophical preferences. Making a concrete distinction between body and soul is one of the major distinguishing points in his work. It give us essential insights into our nature and world and provides with such important conceptions as that of the mind or soul which he says is distinct from the body and thus does not die with the body, but is immortal. This concept in particular is one of the major in religion and for a spiritual person believing in God; it helps us realize with the tools of rational mind the eternal truths of the universe. It’s a great work leading us from doubtful thoughts to the more logical and methodically proved understanding of things around us.

Philosophy & Ideas

Have you ever heard of hot and cold evil?A few years ago a friend introduced me to the concept. Hot evil, he said, was the kind that outraged most people immediately. Examples might be a violent crime against innocent children, or an attempt at genocide. Cold evil was far more insidious--the kind of evil that many of us have participated in through apathy or seeming powerlessness. What Adolf Hitler did to the Jewish people and other minorities was hot evil. Those who were aware of that atrocity and participated in it by doing nothing took part in cold evil. This philosophy and idea poses the question, is one evil worst than the other? Surely they were both horrible. Of course, the perpetrator of evil is reckoned worse because of direct involvement. But as Edmund Burke said, the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. So the so-called powerless can be implicated very seriously.It's a familiar thought, and one echoed in a statement from American political philosopher Hannah Arendt. She once wrote about Adolf Eichmann, who was convicted of horrific war crimes against the Jewish people. She said, "The trouble with Eichmann was precisely that so many were like him, and that the many were neither perverted nor sadistic, that they were, and still are, terribly and terrifyingly normal. From the viewpoint of our legal institutions and of our moral standards of judgment, this normality was much more terrifying than all the atrocities put together."So which is worse, hot evil or cold evil? Does it even make sense to choose between one evil and another? The point we so easily forget is that in choosing between two evils, whichever choice we make, both are still evil. The problem here, as Arendt pointed out, is that ordinary human nature can lead to some pretty awful behavior.How many times have we regretted doing nothing and allowing another to suffer the impact of evil intentions? Are we our brother's keeper? That famous phrase comes from one of the most ancient accounts in Western culture. It's the timeless story of Cain and Abel. What happened to those two brothers is a powerful warning of what can happen when hot evil is not mastered on an individual level.The account of their fateful encounter is in the book of Genesis, chapter 4. It's a primal account of the way human nature can take any of us when unrestrained.When you read the account of the two brothers, the difference in attitude is apparent. Genesis says: "Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground. And in the process of time it came to pass that Cain brought an offering of the fruit of the ground to the Lord. Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat. And the Lord respected Abel and his offering, but He did not respect Cain and his offering. And Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell. So the Lord said to Cain, 'Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it.' Now Cain talked with Abel his brother; and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother and killed him" (verses 2b-8).

Other Side of Socrates

Socrates was one of the worlds greatest philosophers the worlds ever known. He did something that only a handful of people throughout history have been able to do,and that is to change the whole course of human thought.Centuries after his death he is honoured as one of the wisest persuaders ever to have graced this planet. His Method?His whole technique, now called the "Socratic Method" was based upon getting a "YES,YES" response. Asking questions with which his opponent would have to agree,he kept asking questions,winning admission after admission,until finally one finds themselves, embracing a conclusion, that only minutes ago you would have emphatically apposed.When talking to people,don't begin by discussing the things on which you differ.Rather speak of the things on which you agree.Keep emphasizing the fact that you are both striving for the same thing.The Key Repetition for emphasis! Emphasize that there is only one difference,one of method more than purpose.Get the person saying Yes Yes....A No response is a very difficult obstacle to overcome,as a "NO", subconsciously tells a person to stay constant.When you say "NO",all your pride of personality demands that you remain consistent with yourself. You after saying no, may feel ill advised,but nevertheless,there is your precious pride to consider.Start a person on the affirmative.Its a very simple technique - this "Yes" response.And yet how much,it is neglected!It often seems as if people get a sense of their own importance by antagonizing others at the outset.A skillful speaker, from the outset gets a number of "YES" responses. This puts into motion a mindset,a psychological process that has your Listeners moving in the affirmative direction.An illustration of this is,if you were to Propel a ball in one direction, it would take an enormous amount of force to deflect it; in fact far more energy,than when you first started it, on its original path.All you need to do, is think that when a person says "NO",and really means it,that every molecule every ounce,of their being, gathers together into a condition of rejection.When to the contrary, a person says "YES",has none of the withdrawal activities take place.The next time we are tempted to tell someone that they are wrong, try the subtle art of "Socrates Method",asking gentle questions that encourage "Yes" responses. I believe its the Chinese that say it Best, in a wise old proverb saying,"He who treads softly will go far"PRINCIPLE #4Get the other person saying "Yes,Yes" immediately

Free World's Religion

Humans have always believed in everything with some supernatural power. Entities like the Sun, the Moon, a great mountain, a storm wind and things like that have always tickled human imagination. In order to be able to 'communicate' (ask for help) with such powerful 'beings', the human imagination began to personalize the supernatural. That was the start of Mythology and religion. Even humans with incredible power and abilities found their way into Mythology.Actually we ought to be grateful that Mythology exists. It passes down to us events that could be the sole imagination of our forefathers but also events that could have some historical background. Thanks to Mythology we know more about our origins.The main religions of today, like Christianity, Islam and Buddhism are events based on some historical/mythological roots of later date. We have no intention of offending the worshipers of any religion as we believe that neither the original Christians nor the original Moslems had any other choice. Both Christianity and Islam claim that it was 'God' who ordered the introduction of such beliefs along with commandments on how to live 'a proper life'. It was certainly not possible to reject a request from god. These two religions created by 'God' have evolved into great powers counteracting each other and dictating much of human development since then.We are not intended to give an account of every hostile action between Christianity and Islam. Without criticize any supporter of these two religions, we can note that their supporters have been fighting each other just because of their religion, in the name of their god. A lot of blood has been spilled through crusades and jihads. Today we have two worlds, the Christian and the Islamic, sometimes cooperating with each other, but even facing each other as their greatest enemy, still a result of the two religions created by the same god.Now imagine a different world. First, imagine a world without Islam which was created some six hundred years after Christianity. We can assume that the Islamic world of today would have been under Christian influence. The Moslems would probably be Christians and perhaps all the rest of the world. We could have been a united global community under the same 'God'. I assume that all humans would welcome such a community.Then imagine a world without Christianity. The world would probably be under Islamic influence. The Christians of today would be Moslems believing their religion is the only 'true' one. Again, we could have a united world under the same 'God'. Then why did 'God' create more than one religion? Obviously, a united world under one religion was not on God's agenda. If we believe that Christianity was created by 'God' by the 'name' Yahweh through his son Christ, then we ought to believe that Islam too was created by 'God', by the name Allah through his prophet Mohammed. But what was God's purpose? Looking at the results, I thing most people agree that 'God' did something wrong. Of course we can always justify his actions we do not understand by saying 'mysterious are the ways of God'. Are we supposed to be satisfied with that? Obviously many people are not. This is why they cannot accept the doctrines of Christianity.

Integral Culture

Observers have noted that contemporary society is characterized by three sets of opposing forces:
Business-as-usual forces that want to maintain the existing institutions and ways of doing things. They want to keep the mechanisms of institutional and governmental control pretty much as they are, keep the economy global and growing, and keep the world's economic wealth in the hands of those who currently possess it.
Nostalgic forces that want to go back to an earlier time and way of doing things — to a simpler, less anarchic period characterized by traditional values and a slower pace of change.
Insightful forces which recognize that neither of the above approaches are viable. This group's vision is rooted in a deeper-than-ordinary understanding of our existential situation, and incorporates a new ethics which values both the-good-of-the-whole and the well-being of individuals. These forces advocate:
the long term sustainability of human society,
economic justice (e.g., an adequate material standard of living for all, and an equitable sharing of resources and the fruits of technological innovation), and
the establishment of cultures and institutions which allow people to develop their innate physical, intellectual, emotional, and spiritual potentials, facilitate a deep understanding of our existential situation, and lead people to voluntarily choose an empathetic, caring-based personal morality — a morality that is compatible with our existential situation, and which must become widespread if this vision of the future is to become an actuality.This Insightful group is surprisingly large. For more than a decade, pollster and values researcher Paul H. Ray studied the lifestyles, interests, values, expectations, preferences, and choices of Americans. Based on his work with hundreds of focus groups, dozens of surveys, and especially a highly-focused values survey at the end of 1994 [1], Ray reports that the insightful group, who he calls cultural creatives, total 44 million people. He says:"American culture is changing rapidly. . . . Three different streams of cultural meanings and worldviews are evident at this moment in history: Traditional, Modern and Trans-Modern (i.e. becoming Integral), each comprising distinct subcultures of values. I use the terms Heartlanders, Modernists, and Cultural Creatives to denote, respectively, the bearers of these three subcultures."Today's Heartlanders believe in a nostalgic image of return to small town, religious America, corresponding to the period 1890 to 1930. It is a mythical image that defines for its adherents the Good Old American Ways. The Heartlanders, America's cultural conservatives, are 29% of the population, or 56 million adults."Modernism emerged 500 years ago in Europe at the end of the Renaissance. . . The dominant values are personal success, consumerism, materialism, and technological rationality. Bearers of Modernism represent about 47% of the population, or 88 million adults.

The Development of Norway's Culture

Norway’s development culture was flourishing here from at least the ninth century. Findings from burial sites indicate that the Vikings were great shipbuilders with a strongly developed artistic tradition represented in crafts, woodcarving and jewelers. Significantly, these skills were also passed on to those parts of Europe that they occupied. The beautifully decorated stave churches built after Christianity was introduced into Norway also underscore the artistic abilities of the Norwegian people. The Gothic cathedral of Trondheim, known as Nidarosdomen, represents a golden age of Norwegian cultural development. It was the last monument to be erected before the dark era in which nearly half the population was wiped out by bubonic plague and Norway ceased to be an independent state.During the union with Denmark, Copenhagen functioned as the capital of Norway, so that not only the written language, but also Norwegian culture and artistic life became strongly influenced by Denmark.In Copenhagen Norwegian artists found work opportunities that were simply not available to them in Norway; Ludwig Hulbert staged his early plays there, whilst Copenhagen’s University was the only institution at which Norwegians could undertake academic studies. As a result, when it was finally reinstated as an independent nation, Norway had relatively little of the cultural life so typical of other European capitals during the 19th century. However, a vigorous culture was developing in the regions, embracing architecture, decorative arts and music and folk tales. Furthermore, when Romanticism experienced its breakthrough in Europe, Norwegian artists found ready inspiration in the breathtaking landscapes of their motherland. Subsequently the second half of the 19th century witnessed a new era of rich artistic development and the work of Henrik Ibsen, alongside the paintings of Edward Munch, became a part of international cultural history.During the course of the 20th century Norway, like many other countries, was affected by many foreign (and particularly since World War II, American) cultural influences. Norway’s development cultures, taking place against a background of widespread determination to uphold and support the uniqueness of Norwegian culture, has created an interesting mixed expression in contemporary Norwegian artistic life.In recent decades the Norwegian cultural sector has prospered and a number of literary and performing artists – particularly in the fields of contemporary dance, fine arts and music – have won international acclaim for their work. It is hoped that in the future their achievements will be recognized alongside the more high-profile activities of Norway’s scientists and adventurers who have hitherto been responsible for putting Norway on the world map. This section takes a look at developments and trends in each Norwegian cultural sector, backed up with detailed directory entries for key organizations and bodies throughout the country. Where possible, other web resources are listed to enable the reader to go deeper into each sector. The majority of such sources extend across many institutions, including art, sound, photography, film, archival material and literature.