I came across this little theory a couple of nights ago in a conversation regarding altruism. It has been suggested that I am pathologically atruistic, in that I take altruism to extremes helping others to my own detriment. This is almost certainly true, but the argument was over whether I did this from "true" altrusim i.e. that I expected no reward for my actions, or from a form of egoism whether concious or unconcious whereby my actions were conditioned by my perception of a reward, whether that be immediate material reward in the form of gratitute, or an intangible but none the less real increase in my perceived status withion my group, or from some more nebulous concept of reward in an as yet undefined afterlife. I had to think about this for a while. I reasoned that if the underlying reason for my altruism was unconcious I would struggle to become aware of it, since I can not readily access my unconcious mind. Consequently this was a difficult argument to refute, other than to question the existance of the unconcious mind, and also the function should it exist in terms of controlling concious actions. It suggests that the unconcious mind doesn't simply control autonomic functions but is actively involved in the decision making process that the concious mind engages in. This presents a problem since any action could be triggered by an unconcious thought and given that the unconcious is by definition uncontrolled this would surely lead to significant issues for the courts. I'm pretty certain a defense of "my unconcious mind made me do it" simply wouldn't wash.
That leaves the issue of ulterior motives to be addressed. I have no problem with this as a concept, but I am not at all certain that it fully explains the complexity of an individuals situation. I am aware of myself as a product of a sequence of events over time that have shaped and moulded the way that I perceive my environment. I am also aware that my mind is unique, as is everyones, in terms of the neural pathways that have been created over time and how these pathways influence the way I "think" and "feel" but, and for me this is crucial, I am also aware that the decisions that I take are made from a combination of thoughts filtered through my particular mental pathways to reach a conclusion. I am in control of this process and make choices based on what is the "right" thing to do.
I don't do things because they are expected, or wanted, or needed, or from any sense of how my actions will benefit me, but simply as a function of my upbringing, pschological conditioning, personal ethics and so on. The list of filters is quite a long one, but at no point does a consideration of what benefit I may derive from the action enter the equation. Perhaps I am just not wired that way. By the same token, the consideration of what it may cost me doesn't feature as a consideration. Perhaps I am just odd, but I'm not sure that the idea of an exception proving the rules applies in logical arguement. Now of course we hit upon a snag in my own arguement. This is at best anecdotal evidence, or to put it another way, no evidence at all. I could be misinterpreting my own motives, I could be masking my true intentions from myself. I may yet be proved wrong and be a slave to my subconcious, but all I have is my own evidence and my own thoughts.
So is this just futile musing to no purpose? I would like to think not, for the simple reason that the process has made me think about why I do the things I do, why I take altruism to destructive extremes, why I am, at root a self destructive personality type, and it has also reminded me that I don't need to take the opinions and theories of experts too seriously, particularly in the softer sciences.....
No comments:
Post a Comment