Wasserpistole: Is it true that we always do everything for ourselves and not for others? If we help them, WE want it, we want them to be save, happy or whatever, what do you think?

ColorStorm: No, I don't agree with the logic that rules altruism out as a possibility. It's so disgusting and nihilistic. And rationalistic, as in it's fuckwit logic (no offense to you, just commenting on the times when people actually put forth such arguments). If you want someone to be happy, and you do something to that effect, then it's for them. I mean usually. There are possible exceptions. And no, it's not like you 'simply' get endorphins in your brain that make the action worth it to you, sometimes an act of love is a sacrifice, and the sacrifice outweighs the 'warm and cozy' feelings you get from making it. And even if making someone else happy *does* make us happy, the very fact that our happiness is contingent upon theirs is evidence of altruism. (You didn't ask about altruism specifically, but I think the argument is closely related. Specifically, I guess I'd say that if making someone else happy makes you happy, then acting on that still counts as doing something for the other.)

Wasserpistole: Even if it is for ourselves, if we don't harm others, and more than just that, if we help them and everything, there is nothing disgusting to find in my opinion. Imagine a young mother not able to protect her child, it would kill her. So she is doing it
(also) for herself. And now Imagine a young mother with hate in her heart, throwing her child in the garbage can or not that extreme, she just don't love and care about her kid, she knows she should, but she can't. The thing is, you feel your pain
and your joy and nobody else. So we do anything for ourselves, 100%, but if we do good, it is not a problem at all.
ColorStorm: you're falling into the same rationalistic trap that a lot of people do, making every person into an island. it's a depressing view and it's not necessary. why do you think it would kill the mother if she couldn't protect her child? she's not
really protecting her child to prevent it from (emotionally) killing her, and even if she were, it's significant to ask why she cares enough that she'd be killed by it in the first place. instead, she tries to protect the child and not being able to
protect him/her would kill her both for the same underlying reason, which is love.
love is connective, it's not wholly selfish or personal
no man (or woman) is an island.
i believe the foundation of love is the liminal awareness of the unified nature of all beings, or at least that's a part of it. compassion is there for trans-personal
(the unified nature of all beings is also what fundamentally makes communion possible)
Wasserpistole: I always felt it that way, since I was a teenager, it was always deep inside of me. It's very philosophical and complex and I can't have a profound discussion with you about that topic in English but I never meant any harm.
ColorStorm: harm? nah, no harm at all =)