Absorbed.

Is being selfish a simple matter of looking out from your own eyes, and not being able to conceive another's? Is it simply a matter of letting all else die but that which you seek the most? When does a legitimate protection of self turn into a situation which makes others wish they were dead for all the pain you are causing them on your account?

Where ends thy need, and where begins my hope? I have met many people in my life, and everyone has had an active part of them continuously working towards ensuring their own prosperity, hope and courage. 'tis but a shame that in their avid desire to save their own hides, they must lose out on so much that would seem great for their own selves.

A healthy amount of saving oneself effort and trouble is rational and expected, but a complete aversion to anything that might cause a mite of risk but lead to a plethora of gains is strange. A selfish person is very content with letting others stick their necks out, but shall protect his/herself at the cost of nearly everything else. That seems to be the rule with which they lead their lives.

Pity, that.

Fear and Choices

I've been watching V for Vendetta almost manically for some days, now. It made me consider quite seriously human nature and the nature of the fear which is the primary motivator in it. Most human actions are determined by fear. Governments are based on fear - fear is the underlying principle that seems to unite all human actions. Fear of some sort determines every institutional mechanism. Freud tried to unify all human action through the perspective of sex - but sex is about fear, is it not? Fear of not being able to procreate. Fear of not being able to leave a mark upon the world. Fear of not performing. Fear of even talking about it afterwards.

Bertrand Russell, on the other hand, attempted to determine human behaviour and the existence of the myriad of human institutions through the perspective of power. He essentially stated that since the desire for power is the greatest one, individuals and institutions seek power. However, this is incorrect in that power might be desired, but Russell did not actively consider why it might be so. The reason I believe that any entity would seek power is to protect itself or to cater to the fear of being harmed, or the fear of not being allowed to survive, for any number of reasons. All entities are essentially self perpetuating, hence there is a fear that they shall be unable to perpetuate themselves, hence the need for power - to prevent such an eventuality, or at the very least, make it seem less likely.

Also, what seems to surprise me the most is that when I think of it, nearly all human actions are governed at least partially by fear of some consequence or the other. Even when were have "conquered" our fear, we are still doing something which is in fear of some other eventuality. Let me explain this, if I can.

Consider a soldier in a war, who is showing extreme amounts of valour in attacking the enemy positions, and so on and so forth. Think of all the propaganda that has gone into making him that way. Think of all the possibilities of losing the war and what it will do to him/his family preying on his mind. Consider his understanding of what his comrades or commanding officer will say if he isn't brave.

Sex and power are mere manifestations of fear. We glorify lack of fear to person, without realising that the fear has merely transferred unto some other subject, that you care for enough.

When one looks at one's own actions in such a light, they make a lot more sense.

PS: Arbit speculation about my own motives started somewhere through the middle of this particular post. Spent about two days writing it.