Let me try again, and incorporate also what both you and Brian have said, cuz it's good stuff:

Firstly! Rest assured that there was nothing anywhere on this website that I took personally. Your comment on altruism had set me off, not because you brought it up, but only because it reminded me of others with more malicious (or perhaps simply self-conscious?) intent who happened to make the same point as you for different reasons. I get what you're saying and even agree: people who do good things do them because it makes them feel good. There's nothing wrong with that sort of motivation, and I'm glad you pointed it out.

My problem comes in when, like I said, cynics (yourself NOT included!!) try to make me feel silly for doing things for others, and do so by telling me that pure altruism doesn't exist. Like Brian said, it's almost as though the cynic is trying to erase any notion that my humanitarian actions make me “better than her” (as if I would imply such a thing, anyway). I suppose then, my “so what?” is said more to question the intent of the cynic; said more to beg the question, “why are you making me feel guilty to replace your guilt for not contributing to society? I'LL FIGHT YOU.” (Okay so I won't actually fight her. Not until my BF makes me a Tae Kwon Do master, at any rate. I'm too little to go around beating people up, even for the good of humanity.)

My last digression aside, I hope that made sense. The point of all my seemingly endless rambling here was not so much to disagree with you, nor to shake my finger at you for discussing the existence of true altruism (heaven forbid I shake my finger at you for initiating discussion, period!). My intent was more to say that, yes, pure altruism doesn't exist. But like you said, that's no reason to stop doing good things for others, and we shouldn't feel guilty for feeling good when we contribute to the greater wellfare of society. There's nothing wrong with doing good things because it makes us feel chipper. Better than doing things to hurt others and feeling good about *that*!

And thanks also to Brian for your input, it helped ground my thoughts.

P.S. I really wish I could read what looks to be Portuguese.

P.S. Just to clear it up, the finger in The Middle Finger Project was aimed at rigid, money and power-driven societal expectations….not people. So yes, “Love you” it is!

Thanks for the comment, and welcome to the site.

I definitely don't mean to imply that capitalism is bad, nor engaging in altruistic activities, but just thought I'd point out the inconsistency. :p

But you make an excellent point–in order to even think about doing things for others, we first have to be in a position to do so. In that respect, it seems to represent a cycle.

As always–thanks for stopping to hang out.

Your comment is totally fine. That's the point of this entire website–to encourage dialogue and get a conversation going. Thanks for making it! I understand the point you're making, and I suppose my response would have to be that technically, you could probably say “So what?” to my entire website. Everything that I post is in the name of provoking thought. That said, asking “so what,” is sort of like saying that people shouldn't debate whether God does or doesn't exist since there isn't going to be a solidified answer, or the difference between right and wrong. Obviously, blindly accepting assumptions isn't the ideal scenario, so we question those assumptions. That was my intention here. Within this context, calling out altruism was done more for us to be mindful of others' intentions with us, rather than our intentions with them, although it's all relative. It sounds like you're highly offended that I would ever suggest that anything that you do is done without the purest of intentions, and I apologize if that was your reaction but I didn't mean to say that such acts shouldn't be performed; simply that we receive psychological benefits from doing so in the process. But beyond seemingly selfless big acts like volunteering in orphanages, for example, we're surrounded with this concept everywhere, right down to this blog comment. For example, what are you getting from leaving it in the first place? Well, you definitely get the benefit of being able to express yourself and feel as if you've got some type of influence in the world, you get the benefit of social interaction, you get the benefit of having further refined your thought processes and life philosophies, and you might even be receiving the benefit of possible traffic to your own website from readers here that might see this. Whether you're consciously doing it for those reasons or others is a different matter. On my end, what do I get from responding? All of the same things you do with the exception of the last, but in exchange I get the benefit of showing readers that their comments matter to me, which will build trust and hopefully ultimately help me expand The Middle Finger Project.

See what I mean?

Brian can call me cynical all he wants, but I'd rather be considered cynical than obtuse. (I'm not calling you that!) By the way, I know Brian in real life and he usually doesn't send so many jabs my way when there's a round of beers involved! :p

I think the “so what” is that if altruism is pure self-interest, the cynic tries to remove any notion that the altruist is better than her. If you have no problems with the cynic putting herself at your level, then I suppose there really is no “so what” there at all. On the other hand, if you'd like to say that other people also ought to be altruistic, because it represents some higher cause for humanity, then I think you're going to have to fight her on that one.

Hmm.. I think this should be a blog post at mskarenau.com. Man, you and Chevy have provided me with quite some material to think and write about, either indirectly or directly. Sweet.

Anyway, sorry I ranted on your comment section, I didn't mean for it to turn out a rant, nor did I mean to make you feel bad about saying “pure altruism doesn't exist”! Because it's important to recognize the motivations behind our deeds, and I don't have issues with the way you've framed it. My reaction unfortunately came more from my past experiences. I hope you don't feel I took it out on you!

Everyone I've come across so far (except yourself, actually) who has made that statement has done so cynically, as a way of calling out the hypocrite in people who put effort into doing nice things for others. In this scenario, saying “pure altruism doesn't exist, you're only doing it so you can feel good about yourself” is not only mean-spirited, but it's also counter-productive. I think you would agree with me on this one: not only is saying that with these intentions making the good-doer feel crappy, but it makes it seem as though the act of kindness is less beneficial to this world simply because the doer feels good for doing it. It's happened to me on more than one occasion, and it's created a negative association to that statement.

Does that make sense? It's midnight over here after a long day. I hope I've clarified my thoughts a bit better.

I can't say I actually have a preference for either really . . .both have their strong points.

Firstly, I would like to thank Christopher Dugan for his comment. I would like to spend a moment expanding upon it here.

I share your love of Ayn Rand, the Fountainhead is one of my favorite books. So much so that I came within inches of becoming an architect. The fire that burned within her was unparalleled, and when it aspired to that ultimate individual whom she idolized oh so much, there are few that could match its brightness. My qualms with dear old Ayn's views is when she uses that fire to punish as opposed to warm.

Not to reduce such a masterpiece as the Fountainhead down to mere psychology, but let us examine this work against Ayn Rand's own life. She was forced to flee communist Russia at a young age, and naturally grew up demonizing the communist ideal which pushed her from her home. Altruism, more-or-less the initial ideal of communism, certainly an unrealized ideal, became the core tenet which she began to attack.

In the novel the Fountainhead, Rand's glory is shown mostly via the character of Howard Roark. When Roark speaks, we listen. When he does anything, he does so amazingly. He is that individual whom Ayn had such a dear love for and hoped to inspire all of us with. When we read her descriptions of him, our breath is still and our heart skips a beat.

Compare this to her depiction of Ellsworth Toohey, the “bad guy” of the story, the diabolical mastermind who uses altruism as a platform by which he degenerates all to useless scum. Her description of him is vulgar, using horridly cliche antics to make him sound as despicable as possible. It is all so childish, she seems to be going out of her way to create a small puppy whom she can then kick to make her look superior.

Ayn's heart is in the right place, but her mind is not (Just look at any of her book's sex scenes). She wants to trek up that mountain which when she reaches the top she will be that perfect individual, but she wishes to find an enemy along the way. It is the fault of many an unbridled passion, wanting to gauge their success by the failure of their enemy.

We all essentially want the same thing. Evangelical Christians just want a perfect world. Muslim Extremists just want a perfect world. The Nazis just wanted a perfect world. Its in their misdirected passion, their obsession on hatred (Of sin, the Western World, or Jews) that they fail and became just another miserable and childish sect, wanting to prey on an inferior or 'less holy' kind.

To be of true power is to aspire to all, and reject none. To love all, and hate none. And doesn't loving all sound a little like altruism? I know it's called the Middle Finger project, but could, for once, Fuck You turn to Love you?

PS You say that religion operates on fear and consequences, and while I'm not going to differ from you, as there are aspects of religion which are certainly centered around consequences, I would like to say that that is only one aspect. There are plenty of other aspects of religion, if you are to read the gospels you'll realize that Jesus essentially is advocating that Howard Roark mentality when he says “You will always have the poor” when he is reproached by the Apostles for allowing Mary Magdalene to apply perfume to his head when the money from selling that perfume could be used to help the poor. Religion is just as much about living courageously as objectivism. If you're interested in Religion at all, check out http://killingthebuddha.com Some great articles in there.