Why do we try to be so collaborative?
Besides topics in this forum which are incompatible with the possibility of working together and being altruistic, our topics and posters are dominated by a narrative of collaborating, making the world better and being helpful. My opinion, of course. Discussions about morality are about how to be the most moral; as a person and as a society or to argue about morality under the pretense that my way is better because of some reason that makes it best for everyone. Discussions about economics are about how to resolve flaws in our systems which hurt the most vulnerable, solving inequality and poverty. Discussions about philosophy usually take a self-help angle, they're posited as being beneficial and helpful to others. Or when it's religion, it's about why religion is or isn't good for us. You get the idea. Only "truth" really escapes this but then people think truth is unconditionally what's best for us so that's fine too.
People do argue but generally only because they have different ideas about what's best for us.
I don't think we're like this because we're a benevolent species, I think it's perhaps because people instinctively or subconsciously see merit in being seen as a caring, dependable team player. Or is it just because people who think collaboratively gravitate towards philosophy in the first place?
If philosophy on these topics just has to be about how we can help the people, is it destined to be detached from reality? Where people act based on emotions, opinions, carefully gaurded self-interest and pragmatism based on their own specific circumstances, wants and needs? Like we sit here and talk about how to approach every issue in a moral and rational manner and then go live our lives dealing with lesser issues in the opposite way?
People do argue but generally only because they have different ideas about what's best for us.
I don't think we're like this because we're a benevolent species, I think it's perhaps because people instinctively or subconsciously see merit in being seen as a caring, dependable team player. Or is it just because people who think collaboratively gravitate towards philosophy in the first place?
If philosophy on these topics just has to be about how we can help the people, is it destined to be detached from reality? Where people act based on emotions, opinions, carefully gaurded self-interest and pragmatism based on their own specific circumstances, wants and needs? Like we sit here and talk about how to approach every issue in a moral and rational manner and then go live our lives dealing with lesser issues in the opposite way?
Comments (42)
I think in many ways we have very small minds. Some people really make a difference through their actions. Which is why I sometimes get short with people, though I know I’m no different; talk the talk or walk the walk. If you’re typing away here then you’re not doing the walk. But we can create something of ourselves by our opinions and posts and altruistic ideas. We’re probably good people but essentially selfish and lazy. I think very few people live a philosophical life, what and who are we? We create ourselves in self indulgent ways, in ways we don’t have to pay for.
This is a good point. And while these forums are great, they also hide us from one another. So much of the truth is physical. Think of how quickly we judge people when we can see and hear them. Walking the walk comes into play here in regards to health, style, and comportment. If someone hasn't learned how to eat or to move their body in the world, it's not easily hidden. And comportment (body language) might say as much about the stand they take on their existence as their words. Of course knowing how someone spends their money and where they get it is hugely illuminating.
Quoting Judaka
A person could argue that philosophy always has a political charge -that the philosopher is always trying to lead people.
Quoting Judaka
But why would we want to be seen as team-players if there weren't some truth in it? We are very much social beings, but our current lifestyle emphasizes competition and clashing worldviews. So these days we are largely sewn together by money.
It is almost to the point where I wonder if that's the reason some people engage in philosophy. To be righteous and fight for the oppressed, help the innocent and condemn those they see as the problem. All while never having to actually do anything besides sharing opinions and arguing them.
It is not a good thing to be seen as selfish, uncompassionate, self-serving, self-interested. I'm not saying we're not team players or that people can't be collaborative, of course, that's a part of who and what we are. I'm just saying, the collaborative, benevolent, altruistic motivations are put on display because they are interpreted by others and perhaps oneself to mean that you are a good and kind person. Which gives status.
I'm not really saying that's a conscious motivation for most people but I just feel that conversations are completely dominated by this angle of good-doing. When you look at peoples' actions in real life, yes there is good-doing but also a lot of other feelings and interpretations beyond "what's good for us". Even some of the most out-there posters on this forum still argue in terms of humanitarianism and what's right. We're all just saints who want what's best for everyone else all the time and have nothing more to say? From the posters I like the most to the ones I dislike the most, they all talk about what's best for everyone else. I don't know anyone who talks about things in other terms.
I'd assume its because the human species is collaborative by its nature, and species that work together soon overcome species that work individually. Idiot humans who are brainwashed into believing they are all-important 'individuals' are a bit like fleas perhaps?
Personally, I don't engage in philosophy because I want to be seen as caring or a good team player. I think most of the more serious philosophers or students of philosophy engage for the exchange of ideas. If I'm talking to someone I'm probably probing them about something and I'm seeking a really well thought out defense of that idea that I'm probing about.
So, tl;dr... it's about improving my own understanding.
I'm just saying, why do you automatically start talking about "species that work together"? That's the highest possible level of analysis even if it conveniently ignores the value of competition. Collaboration itself in real-world examples is mostly motivated by self-interest, it's only really in high-level philosophy where we pretend like we're all part of a big family. Your biggest enemies aren't other species, you know that.
Also, we aren't solving the world's problems here. If you are talking about how to do it, the question has to be asked about why? How can something totally lacking in pragmatism also be completely divorced from morality and image?
I think most people would say that. The question is that if we look at what people are doing rather than talking about doing, what does that indicate? If it is true that people have their ideas and pursuits measured and validated by a claim for utility and justice for the masses then I want to ask that question about it.
Would you agree that our opinions in philosophy are more benevolent than we are? There's no prejudice, no counterweight to compassion, no self-interest and competition is just kind of ignored. Wouldn't that make philosophy a feel-good exercise which paints a picture of our intentions and concerns as only containing the aspects of our nature we most want to put on display?
This is what Spengler called 'ethical socialism' as a kind of default setting of our age. We unconsciously assume that there is one right way and that it is our duty to find and impose it. Secular thought is still 'religious' in terms of a default enlightenment humanism. Solomon wrote of the 'transcendental pretense.' This is basically the assumption of a universal humanity. Certain enlightenment philosophers took their experience of being human and understood it as the way of being human. We don't think of a plurality of ways of being scientific and rational. There is one rationality, one science, one humanity. I'm not against these assumptions, but it's interesting to bring them to consciousness.
I think it's useful to look into why we value objective truths. Roughly they are objective because they work for everyone. If I ramble on about my preferences, I'm likely to bore or annoy others. If, however, I speak of things accurately that are important to both of us, then I'm actually contributing. I am listened to and valued because the objectivity of my knowledge accords with the self-interest of my listeners.
More generally, I think enlightened self-interest explains much of morality. Don't do unto others what you don't want done to you. What we want to avoid is a war of all against all. We want to not be robbed and murdered, so we resist our own urges to rob and murder. And we cage people who do. Once we have peace and security, we find many of our highest pleasures in relationships. What we want from most strangers, though, is that they leave us alone.
What is a crowd? A group united under a banner, whatever that is, cooperating with each other for some cause or purpose; the cause or purpose serving as a glue that brings people together. However, there exist other classifications of humanity e.g. race, gender, religion, affection, etc. that divides and subdivides the crowd into smaller and smaller chunks until we arrive, finally, at the individual, the indivisible, structural and functional unit of a crowd.
So, it's not that we're collaborating for a purpose greater than us as much as we're using the crowd to further our own interests.
Could you give me an example? Under the banner of philosophy you have everything from Hobbes to Rousseau to Rothbard to Marx. If you think philosophers are too high-minded look at Hobbes or Adam Smith.
If you want to talk about how to get people to be actually do more good you might want to go to a psychology forum or a sociology one. Philosophers work at identify the good.
The "we" here is us, of course, I don't just lump every philosopher who ever walked under the sun as the same. I actually don't want to talk about how to get people to do more good, I'm actually tired of that topic and I'm complaining about it. I'm saying that it's all we talk about and I'm investigating why that is. If we limited discussion to just career philosophers, I don't think I would have brought up this issue.
Typical of SteetlightX, making threads about garbage leftist ways of thinking. Philosophers don't agree with each other even when it comes to do-gooding, we are definitely not a single-minded mob.
I think you've provided really logical and reasonable counter explanations for this phenomenon.
Quoting thing
Good point, agree.
Quoting thing
Another good and relevant point. I'd add truth to this list as well, I think that people today are very focused on talking about things from the perspective of this universal humanity. Tribalism still exists but it always seems orientated around having different visions or interpretations of doing what's best for all of us (in philosophy, not politics).
Quoting thing
it's a fair point and I relate with it, is this what requires us to keep up a facade that our contribution to topics involves pragmatic utility to the listener or society. Like, "listen to me because I can make things better!" It does feel like when people are offering utility, it's universal, I don't hear people offer wisdom about how to get one over your competition in philosophy and utility is generally offered as useful for everyone regardless of your circumstances, excluding the mega-rich.
Quoting thing
Well, I certainly agree generally speaking, especially when it comes to "don't do's". Though things become a bit more complicated when it comes to economics, politics and higher-level morality. Which generally seems to be orientated around the concept of "one humanity" and how to better it.
Generally, you give a pretty reasonable picture of why we try to be so collaborative, I like some of these things but sometimes it does feel like it's just a facade which has grown popular because it's very positive and socially useful. Like it's just too hard to argue against it without seeming like a terrible person.
Quoting Judaka
This makes me disinclined to engage with you further.
I'm a nihilist/moral relativist and I don't know what you're talking about. I don't agree that meaningfulness means being important to the functioning of the universe. I don't think the universe needs me to function - or anybody. Also, the universe doesn't care about me and isn't something which can consider me important. I also don't agree with your singular approach to truth, goodness, knowledge and justice "etc". There's a lot that's subjective about those things, isn't there? Rhetorical question, I don't think we can discuss this topic, we're lightyears away here.
Quoting Pfhorrest
I can understand why you might say that, based on my knowledge about you which is limited. Would it help if I said far-leftist? Re-read what Themadfool just said, is that really what you want? If people are lobbying together for climate change, is it really important to divide those people by their sex, age, race, gender, sexual orientation and other bullshit? Is that what makes an individual? I don't really want to talk about identity politics and the way the far-left divides people but yeah, it's pretty garbage.
That's funny because I really don't discuss this topic very much if at all in philosophy. Certainly haven't discussed it that much around here.
If you're just trying to bash disingenuous virtue signaling then sure go ahead.
Morality can get a little emotional though. If you're going to take a totally amoral or flippantly nihilistic take on meta-ethics then yeah i guess you might face a little backlash. I don't think saying there's something objectively wrong with genocide should count as being disingenuously moralistic.
As to the evaluation of "good" and "worse" and so on, relativism just reduces to nihilism, and nihilism just reduces to giving up on even trying to answer the question, which only guarantees that you will never find the answer. Even if we cannot know whether or not there are answers to be had, all we can then do is either try to find them if we can, pushing on even if we don't find immediate success at that endeavor; or give up and not try. We can never know that success (at answering questions of what is better or worse, etc) is impossible; only, at most, that it has not been achieved yet.
Okay, I might be purposefully conflating talking about what's good, how to do good and how to get people to do more good. If your experience in philosophy has been different than mine then that's fine, might be a little hard to relate to each other though. Just means your interests and mine in philosophy are probably a little different.
I don't agree with your definition of meaning. I believe all meaning comes from interpretation and essentially comes down to "this means that" or in other words, what information can be taken from the thing we're taking information from or forming opinions about. I mean information as both intersubjectively true and subjectively true.
You've got an avatar with some leaves in it, I might take that to mean that you like nature. I could be totally wrong and it also doesn't mean that I think it's important or significant that you have an avatar with leaves or that I think you like nature. You may also tell me, "no, I don't like nature" but that doesn't mean I have to believe you, maybe I refuse to believe that anyone with leaves in their avatar couldn't like nature. The way I am using the word means and meaning now isn't different when it comes to a question like "what is the meaning of life?".
Now, I'm already a nihilist, I don't think there is an objective meaning to life, I think that I can interpret my own meaning or purpose. I didn't give up on answering the question of life's meaning, or what's good and worse. I just reject that those questions have answers which supersede my own personal interpretation. My importance to myself is unconditional, I don't even ask myself this question. Basically, I don't feel the need to negotiate with you about what means what.
I guess you fall under the category of what @thing was talking about, embracing a universal humanism which strives to find an answer that can be the answer for everyone?
I’d just like to go back to this statement of mine.
Quoting Brett
It might be more accurate that we create ourselves because we are so very little.
Who exactly are we? Some of us might have been in the position where we find yourself reduced to nothing but the moment, we no longer have anything to grab onto to define who we are. When we retire we no longer have a job or skill that defines us, if we move away from where we have always lived there are no longer others who act like a mirror to our existence. Eventually we find that ee only exist in the moment, if we are talking to someone all that is real is how we treat that other person, it’s not really about us. Our identity is totally constructed. Some of my friends are artists, I know that that’s their identity, not being fathers or husbands, which is just another identity anyway.
I think collaborating is natural, it’s been a constructive behaviour in our evolution, but I don’t think the necessity is there any longer except on a superficial level, or maybe altruistic level. I don’t think the world requires us to be collaborative anymore to achieve our individual wants. That may not be a very pleasant thing to realise. Maybe collaboration is like an aspect of morality, a holdover from the past and it feels a little threatening morally to ditch it altogether. So we cling to it. Virtue signalling is an obvious example I think.
To be honest I don’t see much collaboration going on here, despite what people might think. Conversations begin well enough then very quickly get acrimonious. I don’t see a lot of listening and sharing, what I call humility and curiosity, taking place.
So we are not really who we say we are, we’re just constructed identities and collaboration is a civilised item in our bag of tricks.
I don't, it's just meaning comes from interpretation so without stipulating who's doing the interpretation then the question doesn't make much sense.
What you're saying makes sense if we treat meaning like knowledge to be discovered. Objective meaning. All I'm saying is that meaning is subjective, a subject must interpret what something means. Whether it's the importance of life, what one should do with their lives, how one should treat life or any other such question. It's all for the individual to decide and no higher power exists to tell them that they're objectively wrong because there's no such thing as objective meaning.
That's my stance anyway.
I think that what on the surface appears to be collaboration is actually either forced by necessity, a show or in order to compete in a competitive world. I think it's also more important to be shown as someone who wants to work together with everyone to make the world better but absolutely no necessity to actually do that work. Though thing has changed my mind a bit on exactly why we are focused on collaboration and altruism in philosophy. I wonder whether people really feel comfortable putting other ideas and priorities on display?
If someone said they want to focus on their art and fuck the world's problems, compared to if they are always showing themselves to care. For many of us, is there really no fear about what others might think? Also, as an artist doing your own art versus trying to help people and solve problems, is it easier to feel validated and useful?
Quoting Judaka
I think being really honest and working from an original thought of your own, to develop even the merest seed, and putting it out there is quite difficult. Some of the OPs I’ve put up have almost disappeared without trace. No one seemed to engage with them. Maybe they were nonsense? I have no idea. But to get people to engage with you then I guess you have to appear collaborative and your post needs to be reasonably accessible. So collaboration may be a tool of making ground. It also involves some compromise. Artists don’t compromise, they don’t collaborate unless it’s in their interests. They really have an unhealthy obsession in relation to the rest of the world. Philosophers are no different. When I read about their lives I see nothing any different from the driven artist.
As it happens, collaboration is one of the more successful ways of doing business in the world, whether it is feeding the poor and hungry, working for Exxon, or serving in the Mafia, Camorra, Cosa Nostra, or whatever criminal enterprise one is employed by.
Some individuals don't collaborate. Social isolates who live under bridges on rural freeways don't collaborate, for instance. Isolated monks and nuns who live solitary lives in prayer don't collaborate. Rattlesnakes don't collaborate. Mad dogs don't collaborate.
Are Do-gooders any different than mafia hitmen, as far as collaboration is concerned? Probably not.
Well, let's not characterise human interaction as collaboration thoughtlessly, there is very little collaboration taking place on this forum and that wasn't what this thread was about. I've discussed many topics with you but I don't think I've collaborated with you on anything. Forums like this for me can be characterised by people feeling like they cannot change anyone else's mind, their opinions not really being cared about and people spending most of their time debating others.
It can be entertaining, validating, enlightening but we're not collaborating on anything. We're not even making or doing anything.
What I'm actually talking about is how we talk about collaborating and how we talk as if we're entirely altruistic. Now, you may be entirely altruistic, for you, I'm willing to concede that's actually just how you are. However, in real-world social environments where there's status, prestige, egos, competition, general dislike for some people and our emotions/psychology to worry about, are people as selfless then? Isn't philosophy just a special topic where selflessness and selfishness look the same?
Where if you're the most helpful, best contributor, who is ethical and caring, then you're also satisfying your desires of looking good, feeling good and presenting an admirable image of yourself to others and yourself. Couldn't it become difficult to share unpopular opinions that don't promise to help others or which portray you in a negative light?
I have become suspicious because while I can expect some of us to be this way most of the time and most of us to be this way some of the time. I am starting to think that everyone is this way nearly all of the time.
Is it the fate of an uncompromising philosopher in this setting, to perhaps make threads that nobody appreciates or responds to? Is it the fate of an uncompromising artist to not have their art enjoyed by others? Or is it just difficult to go out on a limb, however, sometimes it can work out?
Quoting Judaka
I think it’s very likely that others will not respond to uncompromising posts. They make begin the conversation then pass. As for an artist it’s difficult to know if they’re ever compromising. Picasso, though his work appeared original and compromising, might very well have compromised at a particular period to reach the people buying art at that time. But he appeared to be uncompromising which appealed to the market.
It is quite difficult to go out on a limb. You may be producing absolute rubbish or you may strike a vein.
It’s interesting that we’re using the word compromise, which is not so removed from collaboration. We certainly understand the meaning and use of compromise. If you asked why do we compromise then the answer would not be so difficult. Isn’t it to get at least part of what we want instead of losing everything?
That is not me, I'm afraid.
I don't equate collaboration with altruism, but think of it as working together for a common goal. Collaboration does not imply egalitarianism either, but simply requires some degree of consideration of other's inputs. It is the underlying political component of most human interaction, which requires that everyone's input at least be heard and discussed prior to rendering a decision that will impact them. It is the opposite of dictatorial, which is usually a very ineffective personal or business style. To be a true dictator requires power that few have, leaving most Napoleons all by their lonesome.
Human beings are intrinsically social? That's just not a valid response. Can only see our social nature as collaborative? I daren't try to figure out what you're thinking.
As philosophers, aren't we always thinking about how things should be by ourselves? People form opinions on economics, politics, religion and so on without actually needing any kind of consensus. We don't actually do anything because we're not involved in the decision-making process and so while we're not dictatorial, we're also not dependant on input from others either.
My question is basically
1) Do you agree that posters on this forum generally and quite strongly emphasise altruistic and humanitarian aims?
2) Do you agree that people in the real world, while still being generally good people, are less concerned with being as altruistic?
3) If you agree then why do you think this is?
The validity of the response seems to be going over your head. If you want to say that collaboration is not an essential characteristic of (functional) sociality, then it seems you daren't try to figure out what you are thinking.
I never said collaboration is not an essential characteristic of society but I have said the opposite.
Quoting Judaka
I'm suggesting that the ideal of being collaborative and altruistic is put on display while other motivations aren't. Which leads to an imbalance in the representation of ideas in forums like these. I'm asking whether that is true, if so why that is and whether that undermines the discussions here.
Does real philosophy take place in action, is the street the only true place to live out your philosophy, can it be applied to the street? Otherwise what purpose does it serve? If you feel it doesn’t need a purpose then what is it you’re doing?
If you’re on the Internet, typing away, arguing about justified belief or whether we’re moral features, are you actually engaged in philosophy?
Are we really living our philosophical ideas in posts on this forum?
As @Judaka asks, are we talking about ethics, values, collaboration but not actually living them out there in the world where the rules change from street to street, the true reality in action.
Under pressure would we maintain those ethical ideas we claim to find so essential for living and so important in our concern for others. Are we really just living out a philosophy of inaction? No harm done, but no good either.
Of course people will display socially beneficent attitudes and behavior if they are not sociopaths. What would you expect from a social animal?
This has got me thinking about people who do not collaborate. Are these the people that really contribute towards our advancement, who drive themselves towards their objective, maybe their destiny which they’re aware of.
I think you're right Brett, we are mostly living lives of 'no harm done but no good either' and whether that should be characterised as being moral, getting on with our lives or cowardice really depends on the situation.
My biggest concern isn't that we shouldn't be aiming to collaborate, I'm a big fan of doing what's "best for yourself and the group" and collaboration out of self-interest. It's that as individuals discussing problems in society, we are doing so while simultaneously restricting ourselves to ideas and motivations which are great for showing what a good person you are. We're not getting the complete picture, we can accuse others, we can paint pretty ideals but our motivations are tainted.
If I can admit that I am prone to this kind of behaviour, that it's my nature and the nature of others to paint this pretty picture and present an image of ourselves that is pristine, can this be useful and how?
Well, I'm with you, how does knowing what you know impact your opinions on how discussions play out on the forum or in similar discussions? Do you have a process by which you vet people for their authenticity or do you possess any general scepticism towards the discussions on topics where the motivation of displaying or hiding certain thoughts and behaviours is plausible from this point of view?
Quoting Judaka
I think it would be useful for many things; it keeps the wheels of society running smoothly, reduces tension, encourage inclusiveness, it’s democratic, it’s the basis of our success as a species. But, does it breed mediocrity, does it hold us back? Was modern society built on collaboration or fiercely independent individuals?
I’ve being thinking about this lately; the idea that philosophy is action. I haven’t any reference to philosophers who might fit that idea; Sartre decided he needed to take to the streets, action over writing, Machiavellian is of interest or the idea of the Warrior King who carries the book and sword.
Are we really getting anywhere with this consensus we fall back on. If climate change is the problem people imagine does it require strong individuals to drive through change? Is that the revolution? Is Trump just the first of what will come, of individuals intelligent and strong who take what’s needed, who drive through their objectives, and is that a good or bad thing?
I don't know how to answer this. I try to avoid imputing particular psychological motivations to what people say on forums like this. I presume good faith; a desire to get at the truth, until I believe I have been proven wrong in that assumption. If I become convinced that someone is not interested in questioning their own ideas then I tend to lose interest in engaging further; or I might just ask the occasional critical question to see what kind of response I will get.
1) I think there are certainly posters on this forum who do strongly emphasise altruistic and humanitarian aims, but there are also many who merely give lip service to it, and many more who misunderstand what is meant by collaboration, as a concept that is more fundamental than altruism or humanitarianism.
2) I think we have developed a social reality which downplays the value of altruism in favour of the individual. I think we still recognise some value to collaboration, but we misconstrue the aim of that collaboration as serving only those individual ends which ‘naturally’ align with those of others - and once we have achieved these we look to where our ends diverge and we are in conflict, or where those we have helped to achieve are then serving their own ends to our detriment. I think we are generally ‘good’ as long as we are surrounded by ‘good’, and we see altruism as any ‘good’ that we observe whenever we deem that surrounding ‘good’ to be insufficient. Altruism is not something we acknowledge in ourselves - only in others.
3) I think that we generally misunderstand the origin of altruism and the fundamental nature of collaboration. We seem to believe (thanks to Darwin) that it all developed out of our need for survival, and that humanity has excelled at this to the point that we no longer need collaboration to survive, which indicates to me that we’ve lost sight of its fundamental role in our existence. To define collaboration as ‘working together for a common goal’ implies motive, but there is evidence of collaboration without a clear motive even in the most basic chemical reactions.
Collaboration is simply ‘working together’. It does not require self-consciousness, a known motive or even life - only the simplest sense that what matters is this vague awareness of and connection with more than this, here and now. This basic collaboration occurs to some limited extent in every process and every cell of every body, in every chemical reaction that contributes to them, and in every atom that interacts both within and around us.
That the vast majority of interaction in the universe does NOT result in much collaboration, connection or even awareness does not preclude its fundamental necessity in our own highly unlikely existence.
Quoting Possibility
I think this is probably true. Someone cannot just create the idea of collaboration because they can sense a motive, it has to exist first. Motive can’t create a human trait.
I don’t see altruism or collaboration as motivation in itself. I think perhaps this is a misunderstanding: that we should be striving to be ‘altruistic’ for its own sake. Altruism and collaboration are not what drives us - they are the means by which we succeed at anything. Once we determine where we want to go, what we hope to achieve, then collaboration is the most effective means to achieve this; the ONLY means to achieve anything. We are limited only by our lack of collaboration, which stems partly from our lack of connection, which in turn stems partly from our lack of awareness. The capacity is there - we’re just so afraid of failure that we refuse to try. We’d rather keep excluding, isolating and ignoring what doesn’t fit into our neat intellectual concepts of the world, than admit that our concepts are lacking, that there is more to reality, and that we cannot make sense of it alone.
I think that philosophy, more than most pursuits of knowledge, recognises the importance of collaboration - at least in some areas. Most of the information that contributes to philosophy comes from the painstaking research, study and exploration by those with little to no interest in philosophy at all. What undermines the discussions here may simply be this assumption that people are pushing an agenda of ‘altruism’ or ‘collaboration’ for its own sake, and the distrust we may have for what appears to be an open-ended or undisclosed result. That’s understandable. We like to think we’re working towards something concrete, and many so-called philosophers these days seem reluctant to lose sight of the shore - especially those of us here who are otherwise alone and isolated in our philosophical studies.
The general view is that there is currently no concrete step forward - there hasn’t been for a while now. And just because we’re earnestly looking for one that seems solid enough, doesn’t mean we’re prepared to test them out. It can be difficult to tell here if anyone is ‘walking the talk’ - particularly when it comes to ‘altruism’ and humanitarian aims. But the ultimate aim of philosophy should be to arrive at a practical understanding of the real world, rather than one that sounds reasonable in theory. In as much as a philosophy highlights anomalies in our experience of human behaviour - whether ‘altruism’ or ‘evil’ - it must be deemed insufficient as practical understanding.
I think when we’re trying to protect our philosophy from the real world, it probably needs a rethink.
Quoting Possibility
This might have been the case once, but it may not be the only way for people to reach their goals anymore, and I say reach their goals because they are individual goals.
Diversity puts a strain on collaboration. There are far more “tribes” with different agenda than we’ve ever had. Communities no longer have common goals. Who do you collaborate with? those with similar goals. Diversity creates adversity.
Collaboration might be like the vestigial organs in humans. It still seems to be part of being human and we act it out but it does nothing anymore and many no longer truly feel it.
You don’t have to ‘feel’ collaboration for it to occur, and it certainly doesn’t require common goals as such. Collaboration only requires that the outcome, not necessarily the motive, is the same.
Diversity interferes with collaboration only because we place more importance on the motive or the ‘individual goal’ than the actual outcome in how we relate to each other, and to the world.
When Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin, it was on a contaminated petri dish that he had previously discarded from an unsuccessful experiment. Once we can recognise and predict the outcome we’re chasing and map the causal conditions, then we can consciously collaborate to recreate the required conditions, and the diversity in the ‘individual goal’ is quickly forgotten.
Quoting Possibility
How is there an outcome without a motive? Could that happen?
Quoting Possibility
How do we recognise the outcome we’re chasing, who’s outcome, how do we arrive at it?
The origin of life is an outcome without apparent motive. Any ‘motive’ we try to attribute to this outcome is a self-justifying prophecy, because there can be no ‘motive’ prior to the existence of life.
Quoting Brett
The outcome doesn’t belong to anyone. In Fleming’s case, an outcome - inhibition of bacterial growth - was observed and recognised as being desirable, found to be predictable and was replicated in order to achieve Fleming’s goal of curing disease. But the ‘individual goal’ of the penicillin mould was not to cure disease, not to collaborate, but to isolate and exclude bacteria to achieve its own ends. And yet, by Fleming collaborating with this recognised ‘potential’ in the mould, by working together with it, he was able to arrive at the outcome he was chasing, which was the same as the outcome the mould was chasing.