Here's a good discussion!

[Derek]

What do you all think of this statement that is very popular?

The whole purpose of life is to be of service to your fellow human beings. You give to others that which you wish to experience and enjoy.

How do introverts handle this?

I'll be anxious to hear all the opinions and replys. yhanks, Derek

[Twilight12]

This is a good discussion topic....one that I've been thinking about lately too.  Generally, I agree with the statement.  I feel pressured a lot at church to do extraverted service activities, and I'm tired of feeling guilty about not being able to do them.  For instance, I rarely cook even for myself, so "whipping something up" for a church function is very stressful for me. 

On the other hand, I have attended retreats where the emphasis is to slow down, and pray and meditate, which I found extremely helpful - so I often encourage others along those lines.  I guess we all have different gifts to offer.

[Scylla]

Hi Derek:

My "whole purpose" was and is to discover what I was designed to do best, and then to do it to the utmost of my ability. Engaging in self-actualization makes me feel joyful, and sharing  joyfulness with the people of my community is performing a "service". It is like the notion of putting on your own oxygen mask before attempting to help fellow passengers in an aircrash with their mask. You must be able to breathe in order to act.

[newmom2008]

The whole purpose of life is to be of service to your fellow human beings. You give to others that which you wish to experience and enjoy.

If by that, they mean my purpose is to entertain people, then no, I disagree. I don't feel constantly obliged to humor and entertain everyone I meet. I am reasonably courteous but I am not a performer.

[Jonimom]

My contribution to this is to be good to the people I come in contact with.  If I see a situation where I know I can help, then I do.  I don't really seek out people to serve, though.

[Margee]

hi Derek - this is a good topic! wow!

"The whole purpose of life is to be of service to your fellow human beings. You give to others that which you wish to experience and enjoy."

I have a lot of people in my life - some I really like and some I don't. (I work with the public) Whether I like them or not - I try to treat everybody with friendliness and respect. Yes - there are times when I must 'grit my teeth' !

Whoever comes in my contact - whether it be a quiet introvert or a loud extrovert - I always try my best to treat everone with respect. Sometimes I do not succeed as I have posted here, because I find opinionated people and 'bullies to be hard to tolerate some days.

I am still working on my flaws. if I feel I have hurt someone - I try to make amends immediately.

I am an introvert who smiles at anyone who I think needs a smile and a friendly 'hello'. If I can help someone who needs my help - I try to do it. BUT - if my 'batteries are low' - I now ask God to put someone in their path to help them because I don't always have the energy for it . I have learned through the years that you can't rescue the whole world, but if you treat the people in your community with love - that's a good place to start!  Sincerely, Margee

[Alex]

I agree with Scylla - btw, Ayn Rand would roll in her grave if she saw that statement, but that is a sidenote ;-)

[Margee]

Alex - What a discussion this is!! I love Ann! This is Ann's Quote: "My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute"

 This is my own personal opinion on Ann.

 If that statement was 'set in stone' as a 'world rule', then I think she definitely would roll over in her grave, (and,you're right - it is set in stone for some people!) but personally from what I've read about Ann - I think she would say this:

  " You have to make the choices. It is your right to make your own choices. But you do get to decide whether to do it in a way that will best benefit your life and lead you to happiness." Objectivism (as she promotes) says that we should be free to live our lives however we as individuals see fit, with the one rule that we cannot use physical force against other people. It  is a policy of 'individual liberty', so if one felt that the whole purpose of life is to be of service to fellow human beings, then I believe she would  say this: - "go ahead and 'serve'' , (if that's what makes you happy) but don't push your opinions on me. I think that 'objectivism' promotes the idea that each person should be free to do whatever they want to do, just as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else and it makes the individual happy within themselves.

 Objectivism is a philosophy for living. It promotes values like love, friendship, wealth, and comfort. It respects science, technology, and innovation. It emphasizes reason and clarity. It values purposefulness, achievement, and success. It reveres passionate living, and pursing the greatest heights. It sets personal happiness as your goal, and gives you the tools to figure out how to achieve it, and we all have the right to decide what that would be for our own personal lives.

Sincerely, Margee
.

[Scylla]

Hi Derek.

Being research oriented, I went looking for the author of the statement "The whole purpose...It sounds like a confused combination of several belief systems, rather than a single clear view.
I couldn't find an exact version, but I found the following authored by Depak Chopra that I think might be the origin:

http://www.peace.ca/spirituallaws.htm

"Chapter 7: The Law of ?Dharma? or Purpose In Life

    * Everyone has a purpose in life?a unique gift or special talent to give to others.
      And when we blend this unique talent with service to others, we experience the ecstasy and exultation of our own spirit, which is the ultimate goal of all goals."

I think introversion is a "unique gift", and a very powerful one. Like the Magician's Apprentice" we need to understand the gift before we try to use it to serve.

[Alex]

Margee, I agree - I think one of Ayn Rand's main objective(no pun intendend) was to show how supposedly good deed and intentions had a tendency to backfier

[Derek]

Hi all. Thanks for the link Scylla.
Alex, (or anybody), why do you say that good deeds and intentions have a tendency to backfire?

What good answers on this post. I'm not religious or anything, I guess you could call me spiritual because I believe in God, so what about this common commandment through-out the world, that God seems to want us all to love our neighbours as much as ourselves? Isn't it kind of selfish to keep by ourselves for most of the time? I treat people nice but I don't seem to go out of my way for anyone and I always feel guilty about this.

for instance, if someone askd me to do something and it kind of benefits me, I'll do it, but if there's nothing in it for me, I won't do it. This seems very selfish to me and I always feel bad. I was brought up that you are supposed to be there to help everybody. I'm still confused? Isn't that Ann a bit celf- centered with her whole philosophy? Mind you, Id love to have her opinion,"with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life" and not feel guilty about it. Thanks  Derek

[innerstatic]

My purpose in life is what I decide it to be; it is what makes me feel fulfilled.  No more, no less.

[Alex]

Derek, Ayn Rand had a bugbear against the concept of 'Altruism', eg. the moral obligation to live for the sake of others. Instead her point was that Man must put himself at the center of his life(not by that meaning callous egotism should be condoned).

As for why good deeds tending to backfire, well Ayn Rand's point is that she advocates a rational morality, eg. not one based on faith or dogma, but a morality based on reason - Altruism is the concept that you must love everybody and for the sake of others - her argument is(and funnily the same argument was used in the cartoon 'The Incredibles', from where I will steal this quote).

Saying everybody is special is just another way of saying nobody is

So her point is, it doesn't make any sense and is not credible that everybody is special, because if you say so, you are basically saying that there are nobody who are better than others at something or more loveable as person. I am sure in your day to day life you meet people where you like some more than others and also occasionally some you actually dislike. Human nature is so that you can not love everybody - if you love somebody you love them because they deserve it and are worthy of love. Altruism taken to the extreme would say that Jack the Ripper is lovable  which according to Ayn Rand's philosophy is just irrational.

Furthermore her point is also, there is an objective morality - not one that is dictated by faith - but, one that manifests itself in real life and which can be based on observation. Eg. you will feel immediately the effects and consequence if you do not lead a moral life, eg. if you steal, lie, behave aggressively etc - and in the positive way if you are kind, helpful and loving(You might think there is no difference here to the general points of Altruism, but the point is that this morality is based on real human life and common sense, not because it is dictated by a faith that put a bit harshly says, this is good because my faith says so - it is a morality that is open to scrutiny and adjustment if needed, unlike religious edicts that in the most extreme are the words of God and thus never can be challenged

But, going back to why it backfires. Imagine a religion that evokes a passionate adherence in it's followers. This religion might start to makes laws that fall within the tenets of it's faith - imagine if these laws to nonfollowers of the religion come across as completely goofy and inappropriate or oldfashioned, but they are forced to follow them even if they don't seem based in any way on reason. Clearly the followers of the religion did this for the sake of their fellowmen(but alas according to their interpretation of what is good and right) - the problem then becomes that these irrational laws(beliefs) whilst wellintentioned are imposed on others even if they might not agree or find it appropriate. For example a response to a certain action a follower does might be met by the follower's response, I do this because this is my religion and my religion tells me to do so(rather than, I do this because I think this is right for me and me only) - or what often also is the case, the follower does it because he is told to do so by a co-religionist, everybody else does it, it is expected and the consequences of not doing it are either social exclusion or a fear of eternal damnation - in short, private matters and decisions for example about what to eat or which clothes to wear are then not decided by the person him/herself but by the norms of the fait or group - it is in some ways the ultimate betrayal of the self.

It also applies often that for strong believers in a certain religion or political theory often see themselves of a broad movement for great change - It attracts certain kind of person who in order to look good to those who they think they must impress(usually authority figures) then follow the doctrines of the religion or movement to the extreme and harshly imposes the doctrines on those who are less pious. People who follow such movements tend to isolate themselves and refuse to tolerate any critiscm of their way of thinking and consider those who do not agree heretic - in the end this then leads to a justification for them to eliminate others who do not follow their path. This is the extreme result of collectivist movements, but what collective movements all have in common is that man must 'do something good for others' and that men are not individuals, but a part of something bigger and greater and there is something noble in sacrificing oneself(even a life) for a cause. Ayn Rand's point is that man must focus on his own needs, his own happiness and what is right to him - not what society dictates, because if not, you can have these as mentioned unfortunate sideeffects that leave to tyranny(within the own sociecy) and war with other societies.

Her philosophy in summary can be seen in the quote from Atlas Shrugged:

I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine


I hope this explains what I meant

/Alex

[Derek]

 Alex,thanks. I had to read that 3 times! I picked this up that you said:" according to their interpretation of what is good and right" I read a book one time,'The Four Agreements', where the author said that we were all 'trained up like dogs' according to the environment we were brought up in. 'They' told us what was right and wrong; Teachers, parents,friends in the community, and the religion that our parents might have belonged to. And we believed them.

So then we grow up and believe certain things are true. Then we start to question them. Then we start to come to our own conclusions and let some of those old beliefs go. And it's hard  to let go because when you have been told something for so long, it becomes part of your DNA. So a part of the quilt I feel could be because I still am believing what 'they' told me. Is that what you are saying in a nutshell? If it is, I like it.

And then, are you saying that if I do those things (like go out of my way) for people only when it benefits me, I probably will feel a little guilt because I know deep down that if it didn't really benefit me, I wouldn't do it? So is this what you mean when you say:"you will feel immediately the effects and consequence if you do not lead a moral life, eg. if you steal, lie, behave aggressively etc - and in the positive way if you are kind, helpful and loving".........?

I will look forward to this answer before I go any futher. Thanks for all the input. I sure do appreciate it. Derek

[Alex]

And then, are you saying that if I do those things (like go out of my way) for people only when it benefits me, I probably will feel a little guilt because I know deep down that if it didn't really benefit me, I wouldn't do it? So is this what you mean when you say:"you will feel immediately the effects and consequence if you do not lead a moral life, eg. if you steal, lie, behave aggressively etc - and in the positive way if you are kind, helpful and loving

Yes, that's the point - but, there is no need to feel guilty about this in my opinion. I also do things for the pure aim of just being helpful and bringing joy to others - for example I might give a generous tip to a waiter. It makes me happy to see their happiness in this, but let's say if I frequented a certain restaurant, always gave a good tip but the waiter would be dismissive and impolite despite of my generosity chances are then that I would not continue to give this waiter a tip the next time. I want to reward good behaviour and punish bad - so if a waiter is impolite, I won't give him a tip - that would as I see it be irrational(Ayn Rand's point was that goodness should be based on rationality,not dogma). I think this is a small example of what makes society work. I like the saying by Abraham Lincoln:

When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad, and that is my religion

So, if I conduct a friendly act, I do it not because I feel obliged to, but because I want to, it makes me feel good and because I believe I am friendly by nature(and admire this quality in others)- and my reward is the happiness of the recipient and that I feel I am making the world a better place by being friendly. However, if there is no reciprocity, imagine a person you have always been kind and generous too, but always responds and reacts unkindly to you in return I think chances are then that at some point you will withdraw your affection, because eventually you start to feel that the other person does not deserve it. This is the point that was raised in my previous response. Being good should be based on reason and come from within yourself, not because some edict or religion tells you to - by having a selfdefined morality you have real and rational goodness rather than a 'goodness' that is imposed by conventional wisdom(and which might seem goofy to those it is imposed on). Also, you have to decide from with your own reason what is good(also for yourself) and not what you think others think is good for you-  Let's say a religion places high importance on being vegetarian - A vegetarian might then for example think it is good and a road to heaven to enforce his dietary rules on non-vegetarians, thinking he is doing some good that way.It might be well intentioned, but the deed is unwelcome by nonvegetarians - eventually vegetarians might think people who are not vegetarian are bad, so it is ok to wage war against them.

Anyhow, I am not saying that people in your community, parents, peers, friends and even religious people do not or should not have a say in shaping your opinions - any good parents will teach their child right from wrong and good opinions are formed by being exposed to various sources, but the point is at some stage it is likely you have to reevaluate and question some of the beliefs you were told and accepted as fact as a child. All cultures, religions share the same views on what is bad, eg. you should not kill, steal, lie and so forth - In fact I think this might be a universal human value set that those who are not psychopatic generally share - However there are wide discrepancies in opinions on what is good. Ayn Rand's point is that, it should not be the will of the group or society that should decide what is good for you, but rather yourself and that you have the responsibility yourself to decide what makes you happy - This doesn't mean though this is a license to go on a wild rampage committing unethical acts like stealing, lying being violent or so forth, but rather that you decide yourself what works for you - eg. some religions might forbid you to drink alcohol, but you might yourself not think that you will burn in hell for not obeying that edict or that this per se makes you a bad person. In line of this thinking Margaret Thatcher once said,

There is no such thing as society: there are individual men and women, and there are families.

The point here is that we are all unique and indidivual, we have different tastes, opinions, preferences and values and therefore some 'monopoly of the right opinions' whether that be a state or a religion should not impose it's will on it's individual members(for example forbid to them drink alcohol, dress a certain way or have a certain opinion) - Individual members can be trusted to administer themselves what is right and wrong and the alternative would be tyranny.

To sum this up, let me give you an example, imagine that growing up you were told and everybody around you felt that being gay was wrong and immoral. Then, say you had some experience with gays and you started to see them not as an invisible group but individual men and women with exactly the same good good and bad traits like any other human.  You might then begin to judge them on their individual behaviour and not judge them by their sexuality and for example decide this person must be bad because he is gay. This is a good example of the points raised - certain people will not sway from say religious dogma that was indoctrinated into them in childhood, but instead close their eyes and ears to personal scrutiny and independently developed conclusions(this is in fact many ways easier than having yourself to grappe with difficult thoughts on what is good and bad, right and wrong etc - However in extreme cases such lazy thinking can then easily lead to that the majority believes that those who do not share their views are dispensable and then proceed to commit bad act in 'goodness'(eg. for example to persecute homosexuals(even if you would think it would be a completely private matter how you practice your sexuality)