It comes out, then, that a person is indeed incapable of performing one altruistic act or another without some gain—physical, value-based, idealistic… they are all gains that drive the will toward filling some lack. Unless, as the author of Baal HaSulam says: “If the Holy One, blessed be He, does not help him, he cannot overcome it”—meaning, only after a person stops developing the will to receive (self-interest) and enjoys only the true necessary minimum required for existence, in order to resemble his Creator—man, from the word “I will resemble the Most High,” in equivalence of form—then and only then “the Holy One, blessed be He, helps him”: the entire structure of the human level is upgraded and becomes a will in order to give— a truly pure altruist like God, who only gives and does not take. And at present there is no possibility of attaining this structure so as to grasp a truly altruistic act—not even “true kindness,” which is considered giving supposedly without compensation, but in fact it too involves my feeling, my values, spiritual reward as future gain. That is also Rabbi Kook’s assumption in Column 120. And clearly Kant neither attained nor even understood the level of truly pure, real, supernatural altruism that we explained, but only attributed it to the general social command, which is also a shared interest. It follows from this that we are indeed all self-interested, and that is okay, because we were all created to receive the beneficence of the supreme Benefactor, as Ramchal said, anticipating Freud somewhat, that “man was created only to delight”! (“But”) in God. And that is the very non-after-the-fact choice—to succeed always in deferring gratification and choosing to connect to permitted pleasure and not to forbidden pleasure. But still, the central motive at the very core of man’s essence is—to take delight.

I would be happy to hear the Rabbi’s thoughts on this. Thank you.

What did these quotations add to the discussion? Am I supposed to dismiss my own view because of one of their greatness? Especially when they contain no reasoning beyond mere declarations. I wrote my view, and I see no point in addressing contradictory declarations.
When they assume that only faith can bring about altruism, they are not talking about logic but about psychology. In any case, I don’t agree even on the psychological level.