Humans are quite a unique species. Unlike other animals, they know a lot. Yet somehow they can know too much. They think a lot, they do a lot, yet they have a lot of expectations both internally and externally. However, the nature of humans still remains quite questionable, with conflicting theories: Some say they are intrinsically selfish, while others say they are intrinsically kind, which I deem paradoxical because those two are opposites.
From Peter Wessel Zapffe, where he says that humans are too conscious
for their own good
His counters were
Isolation: Brushing aside negative thoughts.
Anchoring: Fixing onto values (family, God, career).
Distraction: Focus on the external world to avoid the internal.
Sublimation: Turning the pain into art or philosophy.
From my views: Number 1 is just psychological isolation and
negligence, and the thoughts would come back again and again if
suppressed, so it is bad.
Number 2 is just unnecessary, and doesn't actually counter problems
whatsoever, and poses an additional risk: What if the value is broken
(God may not exist, and you might not get the career you want)
Number 3 is the same thing: the argument is that playing video games
doesn’t actually help with academics
Number 4 psychologically helps, even if irrational, as you can find out
and de-burden the brain of the thoughts it has for other things, so I
would recommend that one.
The argument that humans operate entirely based on what benefits or drawbacks they feel. Honestly, I feel like this is mostly true! One common counterargument is altruism, where humans act to benefit others. However, this can enhance their reputation socially (charity big-donors being viewed positively), or it might biologically wire them to feel good, which is a good thing, so it still has a benefit to the self. Why feel good? Historically, being in a tribe was beneficial to the self. Every person can be argued to be selfish if this is the case.
However, this does not account for life-sacrifices… Ehm, it might fall apart here. So.. “Pretty much very close to being entirely selfish, but not fully.” Logically, this has no experiencible benefit to the person himself; it could also be an impulsive decision.
The normative ethical position that moral agents ought to do what is in their own self-interest. It differs from psychological egoism, which claims that people do only act in their self-interest. Usually, though, in this one, little harm is done to other people, and a gain to another person is not necessarily a loss; it can be a learning experience or help the human psychology of wanting connections with others.
They usually do things, like eating, that BENEFIT THEMSELVES as the
end.
So indeed they are a bit selfish to fulfil their own needs and
wants.
Donating to charity -> “feels good”
But then, why would you feel good in the first place if it’s a loss of
resources for you?
Answer: Social reputation, which leads to less hatred towards
themselves
Make connections, probably because of tribal evolution and such,
and it’s hard to overwrite biology -> Also need to take into account
others
And then, there is also a method of social manipulation where what the
person wants and what they want others to believe about them is very
different.
So perhaps humans are indeed self-centred to an extent, but not to the
fullest extent.
If you accept that people are shaped by nature and the way they were nurtured, you would be able to better communicate because you already know some bad things might just be there without even asking for an overexplanation (reducing how mad they are).