|
Until you sign up you can't do much. Yes, it's free.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 | / / / Viewing Topic
|  |
|
|
Chivalry: Reality or Romantic Myth? |
| What do you think? |
|
|
|
|
 Replies: 7 — Last Post Aug. 10, 2006 6:50pm by Twisted Ferret
|
|
|
|
|
( happygoluckyelf )
Dairy Product Addict
|
    
A good friend of mine wrote a report arguing that the idea of chivalry, or might for right, as established in the myth of King Arthur's Knights of the Round Table, does not exist, and never has. She claimed that in any point in time when a person is considered chivalrous, they are not because even if their actions are admirable their intentions are not. In other words, every good deed has a selfish motivation. Let's just say my friend is a bit of a cynic. In my opinion chivalry did exist, but it has died. I think, perhaps it's just wishful dreaming, that once upon a time people actually did things just for the sake of doing the right thing, but in our current time anything honorable stems from a dishonorable thought. For instance: a guy acts like a gentleman on a date (opens doors, pulls out chairs, etc), but only because he wants a payoff of a physical nature. OR (just so i don't seem sexist) a woman devotes her life to finding a cure for AIDS, but only so that if she does she will be rich and famous, not because she actually cares about the disease. My question is: Which side of this preverbial river do you stand on?
-------
"Nothing endures but change"
|
|
|
snowfish
Omnipotent One
 Patron
|
 
um, this isn't a proverbial river, and just because you can't accept that people have unselfish motives for their humanitarian action doesn't mean it doesn't happen. There is of course to be argued that all action is to some extent egoistic, but not nearly so bluntly as you describe. I try to help the community to help the community, and I am polite to be polite.
-------
I probably don't even mean it.
---
queer Native mixed pride
|
|
|
( happygoluckyelf )
Dairy Product Addict
|
Maybe that was the wrong way to word my question. What I want to know is which view do you agree with. Although I forgot option C: chivalry still exists today. Obviously you agree with C. And as a side note: *eek* you sound a little angry.
-------
"Nothing endures but change"
|
|
|
Yaromov
Dairy Product Addict
Patron
|
I believe in chivalry, even in todays world. It kinda goes back to our good friends SPA, well mostly Aristotle, but even if its in small pointless encounters it still exists, perhaps not on a grand scale, but definitely believe it exists today.
-------
"They think that the afterlife will be beautiful, and make sense, unlike life. She knows that it is just like life, foolish and crazy." -- JOAN ACOCELLA (In a book review for the New Yorker)
last.fm
|
9:52 pm on Aug. 9, 2006 | Joined Feb. 2003 | 346 Days Active
Join to learn more about Yaromov Colorado, United States | Metrosexual Male | 427 Posts | 7914 Points
|
|
| |
|
|
thrive in bliss
Visionary
|
So basically is altruism flawed? The argument for the affirmative is that you can relate any action back to the self, thus making it selfish (what your friend proposes). Take Mother Theresa and Donald Trump for example. They both enjoy what they do, even though one helps people and the other one is after monetary gain. Since they both derive equal pleasure from their endeavors, we conclude they are equally selfish, and anything but altruistic. The problem with this argument is that if every action is selfish, then no action is selfish since the word loses its meaning. It is more useful to distinguish desires (or motivations) as either self-regarding or others-regarding and build a definition of altruism from there. EDIT: I though I should elaborate. Altruism (or as you have termed it chivarly) is certainly possible and present. If you disregard the cynical and logically flawed view as shown above that altruism isn't possible, you will find that there are people who act solely with the pleasure of others in mind. Even if they get pleasure from doing it, they are getting pleasure because other people are pleased. Hardly selfish. (Edited by thrive in bliss at 12:59 am on Aug. 10, 2006)
-------
Sing with me, sing for the years
Sing for the laughter and sing for the tears
|
|
|
TheOtherHorseman
Where shall wisdom be found?
Patron
Support Leader
|
Altruism certainly can and does exist, and for good reason. Thanks to the structure of early humanity's family groups, we have an evolutionary nudge towards selflessness.
-------
"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
|
|
|
TheAndreaXoXo
Dairy Product Addict
|
Unfortunately in our society today, the acts that are considered chivalrous are no longer needed to get whatever physical means a man may desire. So before chivalry may have existed even with "bad" intentions, but at least it existed at all. Expecting a man to do something chivalrous nowadays is pretty much out of the question. Most guys think girls are prudes if they dont have sex with them after a month of dating at my school, and they are hardly even remotely polite. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Looking for something else?
|
|
|
|
|
|
| / / / Viewing Topic | |
|
478 users online 
165504 members 
You have 1 new message.
