Perhaps a philosophical or psychological question

It turns out that man is indeed incapable of doing one altruistic act or another = physical, moral, ideal gain… all are gains that stimulate the desire for a certain lack. Unless, (Baal HaSulam): ” If God does not help him, he cannot”- that is, only after man stops developing the desire to receive (the interest) and enjoys only the true minimum necessary for existence, in order to resemble his Creator, man = earth to the highest (the comparison of form), then and only then “God helps him”- the entire pattern of man's stature is upgraded and becomes a desire in order to give - a pure and true altruist like’ Who only gives and does not take, and at the moment there is no ability to achieve in this pattern to grasp a true altruistic act - not even a true kindness, which is considered the most seemingly gratuitous giving, but indeed it is also: I felt, my values, a spiritual reward as a future profit. This is also the assumption of Rabbi Kook, in column 120. And it is clear that Kant did not achieve and even understand the level of pure, true, supernatural altruism that we explained, but only attributed it to the general social order, which is also a common interest. It follows from this that we are indeed all self-interested and that is fine because we were all created to receive the benefit of the Supreme Benefactor, as the Ramachal said, who slightly preceded Freud, because "man was not created except to enjoy"! (But) - on God. And this is the very choice that is not servile - to always succeed in rejecting satisfactions and choosing to join in permitted pleasure and not forbidden. But still the central motive in the very bones of man is to enjoy.

I would love to hear the Rabbi's words on this, thank you.

What did these quotes add to the discussion? Am I supposed to dismiss my opinion because of the greatness of any of them? Especially when they have no reasoning except for empty statements. I wrote my opinion, and I see no point in addressing opposing statements.
When they assume that only faith can lead to altruism, they are not talking about logic but about psychology. Although I disagree on the psychological level as well.