Man feels good when he does charitable deeds be them large or small. Some believe this to be itself an act for self-pleasure. That is, one does charitable work for their own selfish reasons. That may in fact be true, insofar as people could use this device to attain pleasure, but I pose the question: Why does the feeling exist in the first place? Why do we feel good when we do good deeds? Why not just feel good when we help ourselves? In a world where nature tends towards simplicity, it seems out of place that this sort of self-pleasure by charity should exist.
I believe when this feeling was created(or selectively survived evolution) the simplest reason for its continued existence is in the first action, the charity, that perhaps the second action, pleasure, is only a means to ensure that the first takes place as part of some epicurean or animalistic mind set remnant of our earlier days, like orgasm and procreation.
However orgasm is not the reason civilized man has children; children being the sole biological reason for sex; the reason is love. Thereby, I believe that the sole reason civilized man gives charity is love for others and not for personal gain.
The final question remains: Why is this important? Well, it is important because I believe it proves that man does not do things for personal pleasure but because they have a genuine desire to help others.
**********
AMENDMENT: People claim that humans have sex for pleasure. This is inherently faulty however. The reason that two people usually have sex is for love, the connection between two people. Some do have sex for pleasure, but a majority of man, I think you will agree, has sex for reasons tied to love (perhaps even giving pleasure to their partner).
AMENDMENT II: People claim that emotions and human reason are abstract, unidentifiable concepts. However, they are not. I'm of the firm belief that their is nothing to a person that is not materially in their body. Logic dictates this. Nothing can exist without existing by the very definition of the term. Faith does not make something true or false. Only hard evidence can prove the existence of something not rhetoric and idealistic conversation.
AMENDMENT III: People claim that there are no absolutes, that likewise man cannot be defined in such. This is correct. Perhaps there are some out there whose goal is to derive self-pleasure, consciously or subconsciously, from charity. I believe however, that they are the exception to the rule, not the rule themselves. As I stated, nature tends towards simplicity.
AMENDMENT IV: I acknowledge the possibility that this feeling like orgasm is reminiscent from pre-historic man.
***********
AMENDMENT of AMENDMENT II: Contrary to possible assumptions, this article itself is not nulled by the argument presented in AMENDMENT II. One is able to theorize reasons behind a physical existence (i.e. deduce the reason something exists), though as I said not the physical existence itself. Theorizing cannot make something exist or cease to exist.
I believe when this feeling was created(or selectively survived evolution) the simplest reason for its continued existence is in the first action, the charity, that perhaps the second action, pleasure, is only a means to ensure that the first takes place as part of some epicurean or animalistic mind set remnant of our earlier days, like orgasm and procreation.
However orgasm is not the reason civilized man has children; children being the sole biological reason for sex; the reason is love. Thereby, I believe that the sole reason civilized man gives charity is love for others and not for personal gain.
The final question remains: Why is this important? Well, it is important because I believe it proves that man does not do things for personal pleasure but because they have a genuine desire to help others.
**********
AMENDMENT: People claim that humans have sex for pleasure. This is inherently faulty however. The reason that two people usually have sex is for love, the connection between two people. Some do have sex for pleasure, but a majority of man, I think you will agree, has sex for reasons tied to love (perhaps even giving pleasure to their partner).
AMENDMENT II: People claim that emotions and human reason are abstract, unidentifiable concepts. However, they are not. I'm of the firm belief that their is nothing to a person that is not materially in their body. Logic dictates this. Nothing can exist without existing by the very definition of the term. Faith does not make something true or false. Only hard evidence can prove the existence of something not rhetoric and idealistic conversation.
AMENDMENT III: People claim that there are no absolutes, that likewise man cannot be defined in such. This is correct. Perhaps there are some out there whose goal is to derive self-pleasure, consciously or subconsciously, from charity. I believe however, that they are the exception to the rule, not the rule themselves. As I stated, nature tends towards simplicity.
AMENDMENT IV: I acknowledge the possibility that this feeling like orgasm is reminiscent from pre-historic man.
***********
AMENDMENT of AMENDMENT II: Contrary to possible assumptions, this article itself is not nulled by the argument presented in AMENDMENT II. One is able to theorize reasons behind a physical existence (i.e. deduce the reason something exists), though as I said not the physical existence itself. Theorizing cannot make something exist or cease to exist.
Comments
+nature tends toward simplicity!?
+(in response to "Why not just feel good when we help ourselves?") there are other species that have "charitable" behavior. Female vampire bats, for example, will feed orphaned bats. They evolved in a way that allows the female bats to think of the needs of many others and help the species. why do you assume humans are any different?
Nature tends towards simplicity also could be interpreted as nature has a reason for everything that exists and that extraneous things will eventually be weeded out for the good of the species (like the tail, or appendix).
And to be fair the final part is taken out of contest. I am using that question to show that we actually feel good doing good for others. Perhaps this is a benefit for the species. But the act remains. And I don't believe that we do it for ourselves individually.