Whats your view on human nature

[DeletedUser19483]

So, you can't put yourself in another person's shoes, can't understand what they feel, or you think they are idiots for feeling as they do? This is an important distinction. The first denotes a lack of empathy, the second a lack of sympathy.

hmmmm well if I close my eyes and believe really REALLY hard.......... I can think their idiots...... but no I don't "put myself in another persons shoes" why do that when they can tell me the problem then if it's actually a problem we can deal with it. I don't see the point in that step. Sure it's to see things from their point of view but really REALLY I'm there to provide a fresh point of view because it seems the point of view they were using was failing them.

 

[DeletedUser20396]

I'm there to provide a fresh point of view because it seems the point of view they were using was failing them.

This is a really good point

 

[DeletedUser20951]

hmmmm well if I close my eyes and believe really REALLY hard.......... I can think their idiots......

*cackles* BRILLIANT. *wipes away tears of laughter* Looks like you may be dealing with difficulties of empathizing and sympathizing, but, overall, this is a common symptom of youth.

but no I don't "put myself in another persons shoes" why do that

To help fathom the intricacies of another, for which there are several reasons to do so. The theory most push is that it shows true affection for them, because you are interested in seeing from their point of view. Mine are of a more devious nature (SHOCKING); imagining yourself in a position outside of your own allows you to manipulate better, broadens your perceptions of others, decreases confusion (as you are less likely to be caught off-guard if you understand where people are coming from, even if it is the polar opposite of where you are coming from), and, on a somewhat altruistic note, usually results in becoming less judgmental.

Sure it's to see things from their point of view but really REALLY I'm there to provide a fresh point of view because it seems the point of view they were using was failing them.

Aye, if they are trying to find a solution for a problem and want aid in the endeavor, giving your take on things can be constructive. The vast majority of the time, I've found that people just want to be listened to while they work out on their own how to deal with an issue, but I believe offering a new context is definitely something that can be helpful. I'm using "can" very deliberately, since most chafe at "being told what to do", even if that isn't the intention, and it often feels as though, to them, that you are making their problem about yourself when you start talking about it from your point of view. Basically, it demands that they empathize with you, which is why I think it is important to try to return the favor.

 

[DeletedUser20951]

Dude, I knew there had to be a reason why I have never been overly fond of Disney movies, but it isn't a distaste I've ever really analyzed. This article pinpoints it perfectly, though:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...is-fascistic-story-no-remake-can-change-that/
I usually dissent with most of what I read, mainly out of contrariness and distrust of others, but the voice in my head during my reading there was pretty much a long, drawn-out "YES!!!" XD

Subtle societal conditioning at its finest, hands down, especially considering the widespread adoration and impressionable age of the target audience. Right now, I am amused by the discovery, but I'm sure that will turn into another weary, displeased mood of acknowledgement of the myriad ways our negative biases are fortified, regularly and implicitly... I almost wish there was a comment section with it (maybe there is and NoScript is blocking it?), as I can hear the screams of outrage from a mental mile away at any daring to besmirch such a decorated, beloved idol. "They're just movies! There's no hidden message! THEY ARE JUST FOR FUN!", completely ignoring the fact that everything we come into contact with influences us, and we are even more likely to be influenced when our defenses are down... Like, say, when we are watching a movie simply for entertainment purposes.

 

[ajqtrz]

@NormalMoon Apathy is a realistic response to the belief that "everybody dies." But "everybody dies" is not a universal belief and one can actually choose to think that, in some way or other, what he or she, or anybody does, matters. If you think about it, if I think the universe is all that exists (i.e. I'm a strict materialist) and I know from current cosmology that it will reach a state where the energy density is so low that nothing can occur -- i.e. everything is dead, then, "eternally speaking" nothing matters. Everything, including our own actions, dies. But if I believe that nothing matters then I must also admit that what I believe doesn't matter as well. If the "truth" is that nothing matters then it doesn't matter if I believe a lie. Which is an interesting position, don't you think?

In other words, I can choose to believe things matter. And if I think it will make my life happier, more fun, or whatever, then why not? Who cares what the "truth" is if the truth doesn't matter. Tolstoy, the author of "War and Peace" arrived at the age of fifty and fell into a deep depression. He contemplated the very question implied in your words. Since he was a materialist and atheist he found that, indeed, nothing he had done or ever would do, mattered. But then, in his depression, he asked himself how it was that those who did believe things mattered managed to avoid the conclusion that nothing mattered. He looked around and found that in fact, many people, some bright, some not, believed in something "beyond" the material world. He knew, or at least he thought he knew, that they were deluded. But they were also most happy and at least reasonably fulfilled so, he reasoned, if they believed the lie they at least got some short term fulfillment from it -- which he had not gotten from his own philosophy.

Pascal, the 17th century mathematician offered a suggestion that one could respond to the question of God's existence by asking what the results would be to believe or not. In other words, if one simply choose to believe or not, how would that play out in his or her life and, if it ended up existing, the "eternal?" It's interesting to consider that he, too, suggests people make a choice and believe because the logic of existence (here, in your case the belief that things matter) leads to a more satisfactory life (and, in Pascal's case afterlife). Of course Pascal is speaking of God, but the same logic applies to just believing things matter.

After this argument, which he, I believe, calls "The Wager" Pascal then responds to the question, "but what if I don't believe in God?" -- or in this case, "that there is meaning in life," -- with "act as if you do." It's ironic but, in fact, we do tend to come to believe that which we enact in our lives. Victor Frankl, the author of "Man's Search for Meaning" concludes that a person will endure any "how" if he has a reason"why." I would suggest therefore, based upon these three authors, one would do well to find a "why" even if one knows, or thinks they know, it to be a lie. What matters, in the end, is you. Your life, your perspective and understanding, your fulfillment. And you can choose to enact what you think matters even if you are apathetic about the entire, long term, prognosis.

This "short term and selfish" perspective (as it's been termed) is not, I think a bad thing. There is no logical reason for believing a truth that makes you miserable and unfulfilled if there exists a lie that does the opposite. If there is no eternal significance in what we do or say then let us turn to the immediate and live with whatever random belief we can. At least in that way we don't short-circuit ourselves and cause those who believe WE matter any needless grief.

Just some thoughts on the "matter that matters."

AJ

 

[ajqtrz]

@SolonTheMage I agree we are just animals. Totally. But having said that, it does not mean we can't be more. Stating that a stone is a stone does not mean it can't be used as something or be shaped into something by some outside artist.

On the other hand, most people are metonymic. They live in the "here and now" and don't spend a lot of time questioning the meaning of anything. A occasional bout of "soul searching" when under extreme duress may occur, but it seldom changes them. Most of the time they respond instinctively and that, in itself, is what leads to a lot of, usually unintended, hurt.

So, while I concur that we shouldn't take things too seriously, I have to think that if we don't "walk circumspectfully" "thinking upon the things of others" we end up causing unintended harm. Thus, in a world filled with other beings don't you think a bit of self-reflection might be a healthy thing?

AJ

 

[DeletedUser20951]

If the "truth" is that nothing matters then it doesn't matter if I believe a lie.

YES. Personally, my nihilistic beliefs are both a comfort and an existential disturbance of the self, pressing me to attribute significance to everything and nothing at the same time.

 

[DeletedUser]

 

[Vergazi]

my nihilistic beliefs are both a comfort and an existential disturbance of the self, pressing me to attribute significance to everything and nothing at the same time.

Sorry, but I have to say it...Bafflegab!

 

[ajqtrz]

YES. Personally, my nihilistic beliefs are both a comfort and an existential disturbance of the self, pressing me to attribute significance to everything and nothing at the same time.

The sad thing is I sort of understand this. LOL. The "dark night of the soul" of Kierkegaard and the existentialists focuses on the need to take a leap to make things have meaning. The point of Beckett's "Waiting for Godot" I believe is that we are a species who are differentiated from other animals in that we are always waiting for something beyond the daily nothing of our animal existence. If anything separates us from animals it's our ability to despair over being merely animals. The existentialists realized the limits of human knowledge and, like Kierkegaard, responded with a mighty, "so?" Like I said, if nothing is important, neither is the truth.

So desire to attribute value to anything is perfectly natural given the premises with which you start, and the only choice you can make if you wish to meet the psychological need for self-actualization.

How's that for more "Bafflegab?" LOL!

AJ

 

[Vergazi]

How's that for more "Bafflegab?" LOL!

Your bafflegab beats the leading store brand bafflegab 5 to 1.

 

[DeletedUser19483]

View attachment 6210

[swear words] [swear words] [more swear words] WHERE IS THAT [swear word] LIKE BUTTON???!!!! Don't know why but that face made my day....maybe because it's the face I've been making today......nah

 

[DeletedUser20951]

The sad thing is I sort of understand this. LOL.

Muahahahahaha! Weep and despair at our shared comprehension! It's a strange dichotomy, is it not? I firmly maintain that a body should stand up for what they believe is right, fight injustice at every turn, struggle against the dying of our little spark on its inevitable flicker towards oblivion... Yet if that fails, any of it, either insignificantly or horribly catastrophically, even to the point where, you know, rocks fall and everybody dies, none of it ever mattered and will continue to never matter throughout eternity, so no big deal. Warm and fuzzy, comforting thought, that is.

 

[ajqtrz]

Your bafflegab beats the leading store brand bafflegab 5 to 1.

First: There's a store brand of bafflegab? I thought all bafflegab was unique to the bafflegabber. Sigh. Second: if it can be marketed how do I package it? I've never thought of making a lot of money on my bafflegab, but well, you've inspired me! (That will be $5, btw).

Muahahahahaha! Weep and despair at our shared comprehension! It's a strange dichotomy, is it not? I firmly maintain that a body should stand up for what they believe is right, fight injustice at every turn, struggle against the dying of our little spark on its inevitable flicker towards oblivion... Yet if that fails, any of it, either insignificantly or horribly catastrophically, even to the point where, you know, rocks fall and everybody dies, none of it ever mattered and will continue to never matter throughout eternity, so no big deal. Warm and fuzzy, comforting thought, that is.

Why "firmly maintain" anything? Why bother? In a universe of the dead nothing is right or wrong, nothing is just or unjust and all there is is power...the power to make things however you want them to be. I've always wondered how materialists can use non-material judgements to condemn others. As the saying goes, "you can't get ought from is" so whatever is, is not a measure of right/wrong, good/bad or anything. From whence, therefore, if all that is is the material dying universe, does one get the justification or logic to condemn anybody's point of view on anything? Ultimately to do so means the one doing the judging considers themselves the god of right and wrong for how other than personally claiming such authority, can they make such judgements?

It's all about what you believe and in the end, as Sartre says, what you believe is revealed in how you act, not in what you say or think you believe.

AJ

 

[Vergazi]

First: There's a store brand of bafflegab? I thought all bafflegab was unique to the bafflegabber. Sigh. Second: if it can be marketed how do I package it? I've never thought of making a lot of money on my bafflegab, but well, you've inspired me! (That will be $5, btw).

Nah, it's fine I don't need any more bafflegab. I have plenty of my own that I generate fresh daily. How do you package it you ask? Digital download...no need for packaging!

 

[DeletedUser20951]

Why "firmly maintain" anything? Why bother? In a universe of the dead nothing is right or wrong, nothing is just or unjust and all there is is power...

Now you're just playing devil's advocate and waffling over to arguing for the strict nihilist standpoint, tossing out what you stated previously that already answered these questions. For a bit of elaboration on my own reason, I don't see the transience of existence as making an attempt to grant meaningfulness to the meaningless obsolete, since it solves the temporary problem of living happily without a crisis of purpose and identity, which is simply another manifestation of the innate desire for self-actualization and significance.

From whence, therefore, if all that is is the material dying universe, does one get the justification or logic to condemn anybody's point of view on anything?

For our consciousness, of course. It is no more complicated than believing something is worthwhile, just, or correct within the bounds of your own sense of logic and/or morality, and thus it becomes so to you. Any sort of human discourse reveals this.

 

[DeletedUser20951]

nihilist

There's some other label that would be more relevant, but it's escaping my grasp right now.

I think true nihilists are idiots, though, like kids upset with the toys they've been handed and deciding the best course of action is to throw 'em away and do nothing but pout, instead.

 

[ajqtrz]

@Nonchalant Antipathy Yes, the nihilists can be a bit silly but what if they aren't and instead of throwing out their toys they just refuse to play the game? It's what Tolstoy contemplated, and what one British author argues the same thing, claiming you (presumably the universal 'you') should never have been born, is the question, isn't it? At the core of it is the question of self-actualization -- which you acknowledge -- and from whence our psychological need for it, and our manifestations of that need make any sense.

Naturally speaking we, of course, are animals. As such why do we even have a need for self-actualization? For from that we derive all sorts or morals -- i.e. a conscience -- and thus the drive toward praise and blame. Your position seems to have a strong sense of "right and wrong" but without logical basis. The transience of existence is not the fact being discussed, it is, in fact, the question. Is it possible IF existence is brief and transcient -- relatively speaking, of course -- is anything morally possible or are our judgements about morality themselves brief and transient? There are, like many things, two possible answers and both are psychologically determined.

First, you can declare meaning to be metonymic. A metonymy uses a part to represent the whole in literature. A psychological metonymy uses the incomplete sensory input of an object within the experiential field and projects the whole from it. In fact, without metonymy it would be impossible to live as everything would be a nearly flat world where the "back" of an object could not be known to exist because we couldn't sense it. If we lived by our senses alone we would never pour liquid into a cup unless we were looking down, into the cup, because we would not assume the cup had a bottom to it and thus would be unsure if the cup would hold liquid or not. Everything we sense we complete metonymically. We project the unsensed part from the part we sense. Meaning is the same thing. In the immediate environment we sense the presence of something and if it's unexpected we attend to it, projecting or completing it's presence metonymically in our need to evaluate it and decide if it's dangerous or not. To a lesser degree but much in the same manner we project or complete the significance of things in our social environment and from that derive meaning. I walk into a room and project (i.e. complete) the social arrangement -- the matrix of immediate relationships -- and from the clues I see, sense the rest until I get a good picture of the lay of the land. Think about it. The presence of a uniformed officer shifts the social balance of the room and while he or she may announce they are an officer, their uniform serves as a metonymy for the authority of the government. Self-actualization is often derived from the ability to properly read the social tea leaves in the room and to maneuver so you don't offend needlessly those who have power over you. Thus, meaning is derived as you successfully gain social credibility by not offending the often too easily offended.

Metaphoric meaning is the second way to derive meaning. In metonymy you sense the presence of a thing by "seeing" a part of it and projecting (from experience) the rest. It is within the immediate for the most part (though there is some cogniszance of things 'outside' the immediate environment), environment that you use metonymy. But outside that, especially temporarily, you use metaphor. Metaphor is the use of parallelism to project reality "outside" of the immediate. It is linear and is the basis for language, logic, cause and effect and so on. In fact, Aristotle noted that there is within each mind a "mental space" not unlike that of geometry and that within that space we reason. To him reasoning itself is a metaphoric process with our experience of three dimensional space used to reveal concepts and ideas and to manipulate them. Metaphoric meaning projects things like cause and effect, transience and intransigence, and all that and mesures significance by effect and permanence of that effect.

The first measure -- metonymic -- may be considered 'mere impact' -- the amount of change the presence of the thing has on the immediate environment, while the second may be considered "structural change" since if it is successful it's effect alters things over a longer period of time -- the degree of time being a measure of the weight of it's significance.

So one can derive meaning from "mere impact" or from "structural change" but in a nihilistic perspective neither is permanent and thus, from a metaphoric absolutist reference point, significant at all.

Personally I think it a bit of a cop out to require people to take the metaphoric or the metonymic reference point for meaning in their own lives, though everybody tends toward one or the other. What I'm in favor of is everybody understanding the difference between the two sources of self-actualization and out of that understanding to live their own lives however they find they are able. This is, of course, a dangerous position because some of them wish to have strict metonymic meaning -- "how many Jews can I burn in the concentration camp today?" and others wish to have strict metaphoric meaning -- "If I burn this heathen at the stake perhaps he'll repent and I'll have saved his eternal soul." But danger is one form of bringing significance to the here and now and that may or may not be a bad thing.

AJ

 

[DeletedUser20951]

Yes, the nihilists can be a bit silly but what if they aren't and instead of throwing out their toys they just refuse to play the game? It's what Tolstoy contemplated, and what one British author argues the same thing, claiming you (presumably the universal 'you') should never have been born, is the question, isn't it?

Refusing to play a game when the game is all there is means the same as throwing out the toys, and is a sign of immaturity and sullenness purely for sullenness' sake. I've never found the question of whether humanity should exist to be anything other than nonsensical; we do exist and we handle whatever hand we have been dealt in life, or we choose to argue in favor of and/or accept nothingness, which is absurd, as it eliminates any possibilities beyond nothing.

Your position seems to have a strong sense of "right and wrong" but without logical basis.

It is very logical (subjectively) to derive a conscience from what I believe is the most important aspect in life (as everybody does), and that is to have the ability to achieve self-fulfillment. Protecting individual autonomy from being infringed upon in a way that is not necessary to prevent harm (thus infringing on the freedom of others) is the broadest manner in which to allow this privilege to be accessible to the majority, including myself, as there is no one authority (again, including myself) that can declare exactly what this means for all of us (not ethically and free of hypocrisy, anyway).

Is it possible IF existence is brief and transcient -- relatively speaking, of course -- is anything morally possible or are our judgements about morality themselves brief and transient? There are, like many things, two possible answers and both are psychologically determined.

And neither answer can be proven (I think it's both), but I believe it is prudent to err on the side of what causes the least amount of damage, regardless of the potential of some hidden 'truth' existing behind our actions.

 

[DeletedUser19483]

Refusing to play a game when the game is all there

Can I make a new game? Like a better game? Please?