by vcrpamphlet » Mon Nov 05, 2018 12:02 am
Might be useful seeing it as a faux dilemma. Pinker sort of gave an answer in an interview once - most people are good natural psychologists and can tell when you’re only doing something for them to benefit yourself, when you aren’t being properly selfless. It’s possible to cover that with layers of deception and what not, but your meta-situation will usually give things away to anyone moderately perceptive about things.
If you’re more alone or lonely than you believe to be fair, it might just mean you’re more selfish than you’ve so far admitted to yourself; and if you already know how selfish you are, there’s as much use debating the motivations behind caring about others, as debating whether some foreign currency is better earned nefariously or as an upstanding citizen.
I think most people form symbiotic relationships to a large extent. Things can be more fulfilling when both benefit from something possessed by the other but lacking in themselves.
Grooming your girlfriend to your own satisfaction will only keep her happy insofar as she’s ignorant, insofar as she’s dumber than you. Perhaps the real disorder there is a willingness to live as far from personal exposure as possible, keeping your respective doll house within its pristine specification, content in the knowledge that your isolation belongs to a supremacy that’ll never be meaningfully challenged by anyone, so on and so forth.
If a perceptive wall like that doesn’t get a reality check, you’re just asking if we care about objects of potential utility to ourselves. Mixing the two lines of thinking, humanist and narcissist, makes it more complicated than it needs to be.