Is charity dead?
(I realize the photo's a little corny, but I was getting some really cheesy pictures when I googled 'charity'.)The other day in my Literary Theory class, I got into a bit of a heated discussion with the professor and another student. They both maintained that there was no such thing as true charity because charity is ultimately self-serving. I don't usually talk in that class because the professor's kind of hot, and I don't want to embarrass myself by saying something stupid. But I'd had enough when they matter-of-factly stated that there was no such thing as charity.
I mumbled something from my seat in the back of the classroom and the professor saw my mouth move, I guess. He asked me what I had to add to the discussion. I said, "That's a personal belief, not a truth." When prompted, I added, "I believe in true compassion. And true compassion leads to true charity." The other student, a guy that's probably in his late twenties (and thus, knows everything because he's a couple of years older than me) said, "But even when you do something nice for someone else, you'll feel better about yourself."
I had a lot to add to that comment, but I could feel my face getting red. So I shut up. (Sometimes I really hate that I'm of Irish descent.) I was getting a little agitated because I KNEW that this guy thought that I was being naive, that I'd never actually thought my argument through. But I have. Countless times. And I've decided that true charity is pretty illusive -- it's a slippery little sucker -- but it is possible. A person that commits a compassionate act without a single thought of feeling good about themselves has become truly charitable. Right?
When the class was over and I was walking out, the professor said, "Hey, I didn't want to offend you. I'm just a pretty cynical guy and sometimes it comes across a little too abruptly." I just said, "I'm pretty cynical myself sometimes. No problem." But what I MEANT to say was, "I can be pretty cynical myself sometimes. But I want to believe the best of people. I try to see redeeming qualities in others. I want to believe in kindness and goodness. In fact, I'm learning to look for those qualities instead of the bad ones. I'm trying."
What do you think? I want to know. Is charity dead? Or was it ever really alive in the first place? Can man be truly charitable?
posted by Lauren | 9:46 PM
30 Comments:
"A person that commits a compassionate act without a single thought of feeling good about themselves has become truly charitable. Right?"
I'd say you're right. People who claim there's no such thing as true charity typically do so for one of two reasons:
1) They have never experienced true charity within themselves, and as a result cannot accept that others are capable of experiencing it. They suspect everyone of having ulterior motives, because they themselves always have them.
2) They feel guilty for not practicing true charity, but are too lazy to make any sort of effort towards incorporating it into their own lives. They would rather belittle the very idea and pretend it doesn't exist, because that way they can assuage their guilt without having to change the way they live their lives.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Right-o, Ian. I couldn't agree more. What a lot of people don't understand about altruism, I think, is that "feeling good about yourself" is just a byproduct. It's not like I think, "Hey, I want to feel good about myself right now" when I give my seat up to an older lady, for example. Often, it's just an automatic response -- and not automatic because it's learned, but automatic because people are naturally inclined to do "the right thing."
I recently read an article about this very thing. It was a study about altruism involving children -- very young children, so you know there were no ulterior motives. You should really read it:
http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2006/03/02/115990-study-shows-babies-try-to-help?pp=1
I'm sorry for the deleted comments, Lauren. I tried (unsuccessfully) to create a link. Sorry.
I think charity is a learned thing. A lot of it is cultural, too. Like in the South, you just DO certain things because it is expected of you. (Which is obviously NOT altruistic. Or is it?)
But now we're getting into the whole Nature vs. Nurture debate.
I tend to have a very negative view of people in general, and believe they are more likely to be selfish by "nature" (eg: "the natural man/woman" issue, or Paul's reference to the "old man"). However I think the truth might lie somewhere in-between your two arguments; I think some people are just more likely to be charitable by nature, but I also think that we can *learn* to internalize and experience charity. Does that make sense? Both nature and nurture play a role, though the extent of their respective influence depends on the individual.
That's my point, Ian. I naturally look at the negative aspects of people and I'm working on being more compassionate.
And I think that most human characteristics are both learned and innate.
Reghan said, if men can be charitable, women can. I didn't explain your whole post to her, I just thought that sounded funny.
I agree 110%, Ian.
I would add that it's not self-serving if you're already happy. Maybe people who make that claim are simply not happy.
Well, I think you can still be unhappy and believe in true charity. I also believe that, even if you are already happy, committing acts of compassion will still make you feel good about yourself.
(And, to be honest, I don't think these people are probably the happiest in the world... )
And Reghan is definitely right. I love it. Tell her I said hello.
In some ways charity and service are a gift from Heavenly Father to his children. He knows we can't be happy all the time, or even most of the time. Life is hard for everybody in some way or another. I think we have this principle for two reasons, so He can have us meet the needs of others in his stead, and to provide a way for us to - for want of a better phrase - feel better. He cares about us, but instead of giving us a magic potion to drink when we are low, he asks us to show compassion towards others, thereby helping both of us. I think your post about your grandma illustrates this beautifully. Despite her trials in life, she constantly looks to others and their needs and you have felt the blessings of her compassion. It's not an immediate fix for either of your problems, but it makes life seem less frightening, our problems less overwhelming and I think it helps push away the worst thought of all, which is that we're alone.
And on another note, I don't think there's any shame in a positive quality like charity being learned. If we were all innately perfect, we wouldn't be here in the first place. I am still learning charity, patience, humility, tolerance, honesty, sacrifice, the whole lot. It's the curriculum for the course. I'm glad I have examples to look up to and friends who are working towards the same thing.
Wow. That was a really great comment, Genevieve. I agree with every single thing you said.
Exactly right, Genevieve.
I've been thinking about this post a lot over the past few days because I've recently received a lot of charity from my friends and family in the form of a listening ear and a supportive spirit. That's definite charity -- when you feel bad and people use their time to listen to you because they know you need to talk. There is no ulterior incentive there. People have other ways to spend their time. They're not just listening out of obligation because they think that they will one day have to have you listen. Some things that people have to let out are so lengthy and one-sided, there's no way that can be repaid.
But friends listen to other friends' problems and frustrations anyway. Why? Because of true charity. Where does this charity come from? Pure love. Charity is the pure love of Christ (Isn't that what the Bible says?). Even if you're not a Christian, you can still assert that charity is pure love. It makes complete logical and philosophical sensen. There's such a thing as altruism because there's such a thing as pure love.
Someone will inevitably say that there's no such thing as pure love in this world. To which I would say: bullocks. Vulgar, though that sentiment may be, it's true. The idea that there is no pure love is complete trash. Everyone can think of a time when they felt pure love for something or someone. Think about a pet you might've had when you were three, an activity you enjoyed so much growing up, a "romantic" partner, or a friend. I think almost everybody can remember a time when they felt pure love. And that pure love manifests itself in doing good things for other people -- without even thinking about it!
The concepts Sara mentions are definitely part of my own particular definition of "friendship."
"Charity is the pure love of Christ" is actually from the Book of Mormon (Moroni 7:47).
You guys always write such good comments. Thanks!
Ian: I remember another view you have (or had?) of friendship from a blog about a year ago. You said, "Ambrose Bierce wrote: 'Friendship, n. A ship big enough to carry two in fair weather, but only one in foul.'" (Just messin' with you.)
Sara: I think a lot of people do have ulterior motives for listening to their friends. Even if the motivation is that you want to be a good friend. I mean, friendship is about reciprocity. Most people expect to be able to talk about their problems with their friends. Especially if you listen to theirs. Anyway, that's arguing a pretty irrelevant point. I think that people usually look out for themselves and their interests before anyone else's. Unless it's their own children. Then all selfishness (hopefully) goes out the window.
And I'm not going to dispute that there is such a thing as pure love. But the problem lies in calling an emotion 'love' in the first place. There is an infinite number of different kinds of "loves" -- every person that I love, I love in a completely different way. Arguing another moot point; it's been debated since the dawn of existence. I'm just in a devil's advocate kind of mood.
Lauren: I draw a distinction between the way most people use the words "friendship" and "friend," and my own definitions. There are many people who (inexplicably) consider/call themselves my friends--yet we do not intentionally spend time together, we do not call one another, and we do not engage in any sort of prolonged written/typed correspondence. I consider those people "acquaintances" at best.
And I still think there is much truth in Ambrose Bierce's statement. It just needs to be understood in context. ;)
Also, what about people who actually enjoy listening? Does that make us less charitable? That's a troubling thought...
I don't understand why the definition of friendship has to be so precious. If there are people who offer us friendship, and we don't want it, fair enough. But let's be gracious about it. Thankfully, there have been people in the last year or two who have made offers of frienship to me, I was a little distracted and paid them not a lot of attention. But they stuck with me, and now I'm making the effort too, and making some really nice friends in the process.
I guess in your case it's because you both made the effort. They offered you their friendship, which I suppose means they made an active effort. But when no effort is made on one or the other party's part...
We never did see eye to eye on this matter, and i don't suppose we ever will. ;-) It's all semantics anyhow I suppose.
Hmm, for some reason I feel like you two are talking to each other now. Which is fine. That's completely fine.
I agree, though, G. I think we should be more quick to label acquaintances as friends sometimes. Why are we so hesitant to do that? Is it because we're scared of being rejected by them? Or are we just trying to be cool and reserved? 'Cause some of us are way past that...
And I think that even if the friendship that we offer to another is rejected (or maybe just not acknowledged), we can still call them a friend.
Does this make any sense at all? Is that even relevant to what you guys are talking about or did I totally misread it?
I think "G" (which always makes me think of James Bond's "Q") was responding to the whole discussion. My comment was just a knowing nod to a metadiscussion she and I have had, on and off.
I see it as the other way 'round, Lauren. I think people are too quick to label their acquaintances "friends." The word "friend" loses much of its meaning, becoming a generic term for anyone who passes through our lives without becoming an enemy. It may be that we each have a different idea of what the word "friend" means...That could be part of it.
I would never consider someone a friend if they rejected my offer of friendship; but that doesn't mean I would stop behaving as a friend towards them.
It's really neat how a discussion on charity has flowed so effortlessly into a discussion on the nature of friendship!
IT NEVER LOSES MEANING. IT WILL ALWAYS BE AROUND. And, even so, what if it does lose meaning for you personally? It's still there. It's still the same, regardless. "A rose by any other name..."
Just like the word "love". It's something that is (obviously) positive. Yet we attribute "love" to many different emotions BECAUSE IT CANNOT BE DEFINED. Neither can "friendship" really. Maybe the word "love" has been over-used or even abused. But I'm kind of glad that it has, because that means that people are still looking for it.
(I don't know if any of this is coherent because I'm in the middle of researching for a paper, and my mind isn't going back and forth between blogging and academic thought very well.)
Yeah. I'm paper writing too. It's a rough month. Didn't mean to hit a nerve...
The English language is full of words that describe different sorts of relationships. I guess it feels like we're sacrificing specificity and richness of language for the sake of convenience. I've got a particular scene from "The Simpsons" in mind right now. ;)
As for whether it's losing any meaning or not, I suppose it would be more accurate to describe it as changing its meaning. Is that better? In the same way that "sarcastic" is often used when people actually mean "facetious" or "ironic."
RE: "... we're sacrificing specificity and richness of language for the sake of convenience." Derrida would argue that when words were invented we began that sacrifice. But now I'm just showing off.
My point is that that sacrifice has always occured in every language (some more than others) and always will occur. That's not to say we can't minimalize it. But being stingy with the word "friend" isn't going to solve the problem, friend.
Are you one of those people that always has to have the last word? 'Cause so am I. And I can go all day because I have a research paper that I'm procrastinating on. Any excuse to take a break.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, since I'm sure that there are plenty of people out there who would disagree with BOTH our personal definitions of friendship and with our separate perspectives on semiotics.
And I'm not one of those people who has to have the last word, but I am addicted to writing. The simple act of typing or scribbling a sentence brings me immense pleasure.
Please post again so that I don't have the last word. But try not to say anything interesting...
I am officially posting last.
*phew* That's a relief!
Wait a minute...Dang!
Post a Comment
<< Home