UPSB v3
Serious Discussion / Admitting that we feed on tragedy
-
Date: Tue, Feb 2 2010 04:42:47
Now it might be shocking to hear these kinda things but humanity feed on tragedy, so do you.
You are watching comedy or something and then hear a news of really brutal rape-murder of very young little girl. We go "oh my goodness" and start talking about how horrible it is or how crazy the rapist-murderer is or how sad the parents would feel. We become very excited with talking about things like this.
We feed on tragedy. We feed on problems. We watch movie with people dying and gain entertainment from it. We feel alive because we see people die. We feel safe because we see people unsafe. We feel happy because we see people unhappy (or vise-versa). We feel young because we see the aged people. We live in relative to others. So we feel good by seeing people in tragedy.
If no one ever dies or get ill, we don't need doctors. But because people die and get ill, we need doctors. Doctors gain their meaning of life by trying to help people live. But they are able to gain this because people die and get ill. If no one commits crime, we don't need the police. But because people cause crime, we need police. Police gain their meaning of life by trying to keep people safe. But they are able to gain this because people commit crime.
We feed on tragedy. We gain meaning of life from tragedy. We are carnivores of tragedy. Let's admit it.
Don't get the wrong idea. I'm not saying this is bad. -
Date: Tue, Feb 2 2010 04:56:09
"The soul would have no rainbow had the eyes no tears."
We can't recognize good without bad.
HOWEVER, I do think you slipped a few things that aren't universally true in there: "We become very excited ..." or "We watch movie with people dying and gain entertainment from it"
I think there's a difference between recognizing that without bad there can't be good, and actively enjoying others' misfortunes ... I certainly don't believe most people fall into the second category ...
EDIT: ^Good song exemplifying the "good" kind of thing I'm talking about -
Date: Tue, Feb 2 2010 05:03:54
I don't feel like this at all, but looking at how the news always emphasizes tragic stuff you might have a point.
Cops however don't want crime they want it to be peaceful, doctors want people to be healthy. Some might be in it just for the money though, in which case you would be right, but to generalize an entire profession like that is kinda whacked.
I know when someone gets lucky somehow I do get a part of me that actually goes against them like I hate them for it. I have to think no thats stupid I am going to be happy for them, but my initial reaction is usually negative. It doesn't work in reverse though at least for me, bad thing happening to others usually is a neutral reaction for me. Like tragic stuff on the news doesn't elicit any kind of reaction from me. If something bad happens to someone I know well or like I genuinely feel bad about it. Its only when someone I don't like has something bad happen to them could I really say I feed off of it like you say.
If I was misanthropic then I would agree with you, but I feel pretty neutral to humanity as a whole. I am pretty sure it depends on the type of person though I am sure some people do feed of tragedy but I don't think they form a majority. -
Date: Tue, Feb 2 2010 11:02:28
Your first paragraph is bullshit for me, I never do that. I never 'discuss' world problems or issues I hear about unless it directly affects me (which it usually doesn't). I guess I've known some people to do this though.
Your second paragraph, I suppose you could have a point. Even though it is pretty obvious that we're only safe if we know other people are unsafe, because it is all relative. However, this is much like the 'violent videogames affecting people' attitude. IMO, when someone buys a movie, they buy it because they know it's entertainment and not real. If there were reality shows where people were killed I doubt they'd be as popular, although there might be some hardcore try-hards who'd buy them. Movies like Blair Witch Project (which is obviously fake anyway) seem to mainly be rented because of the major buzz around them (created by movie studios). I suppose you have something of a point here, but I don't think that saying people watch movies to gain entertainment from tragedy is really true. If your next door neighbour's house is entered and they are held at gunpoint, you aren't going to grab some popcorn and get them to tell you the story of what happened, because that shit is real life.
I don't really see how your third paragraph relates to the thread title. Doctors have jobs because people get ill and/or die? Not really sure how that's relevant. You can't really guess the reason that people commit crimes, everyone probably has their own reason. It might be a mental problem, some major tragedies have happened to them, etc. You can't really generalise when it comes to people's reasons and opinions. -
Date: Tue, Feb 2 2010 15:15:18
"You are watching comedy or something and then hear a news of really brutal rape-murder of very young little girl. We go "oh my goodness" and start talking about how horrible it is or how crazy the rapist-murderer is or how sad the parents would feel. We become very excited with talking about things like this."
i think you are confusing the word excited with emotional. excited would be a positive emotion. -
Date: Tue, Feb 2 2010 16:10:14QUOTE (Awesome @ Feb 2 2010, 02:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I don't feel like this at all, but looking at how the news always emphasizes tragic stuff you might have a point.QUOTEYour first paragraph is bullshit for me, I never do that. I never 'discuss' world problems or issues I hear about unless it directly affects me (which it usually doesn't). I guess I've known some people to do this though.
you say you don't feel like that but in reality you do unconsciously.
I brought up the Doctor/illness problem because I'm saying that because there's a tragedy or problematic things like illness Doctors exist. And Doctor gain their meaning of life for trying to cure those illnesses. In another word, they are feeding on tragedy.
And Zombo is right. I used the wrong word. "excited" is not the right word here. Emotional might be better. -
Date: Tue, Feb 2 2010 16:20:51QUOTE (Dark Angel-REX @ Feb 2 2010, 12:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>you say you don't feel like that but in reality you do unconsciously.
I brought up the Doctor/illness problem because I'm saying that because there's a tragedy or problematic things like illness Doctors exist. And Doctor gain their meaning of life for trying to cure those illnesses. In another word, they are feeding on tragedy.
And Zombo is right. I used the wrong word. "excited" is not the right word here. Emotional might be better.
a. don't try to tell people how they feel, if that's the way you feel fine, but that doesn't mean everyone does
b. no, doctors don't feed on tragedy. i guarantee you 99% of ER doctors would be absolutely thrilled if there were no emergencies in a given day -
Date: Tue, Feb 2 2010 16:24:13QUOTE (strat1227 @ Feb 2 2010, 11:20 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>b. no, doctors don't feed on tragedy. i guarantee you 99% of ER doctors would be absolutely thrilled if there were no emergencies in a given day
normal reaction... anybody would like to slack off in their job for once... especially doctors and their demanding schedule... -
Date: Tue, Feb 2 2010 16:25:46QUOTE (Zombo @ Feb 2 2010, 11:24 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>normal reaction... anybody would like to slack off in their job for once... especially doctors and their demanding schedule...
ok, then is it unfair to say a surgeon would be thrilled if there were no emergencies in the ER? even if it doesnt affect them at all? -
Date: Tue, Feb 2 2010 16:30:08
A. No. Everyone does. If we really don't care about tragedies then we would never discuss ethics in the first place. But we discuss ethics because there's tragedy. And therefore we are feeding on tragedy.
To say more fundamentally, we live while people die. We live on top of those who die.
B. You don't seem to get it. Yes, Doctors are thrilled if there were no emergencies in the day. But even if there are no emergencies for the day they are still Doctors. Doctors exist because people get ill or injured. Because people get ill or injured (the tragedy) Doctors gain meaning of life by trying to save them. Even if they are just working for money, they are feeding on tragedy (the patients).
Being thrilled or not has nothing to do with feeding on tragedy. Even if they are thrilled that there's no emergency it doesn't change the fact that they feed on tragedy. More, like we all do.
You make it sound somewhat negative. But as I said, it's nothing bad. It's natural. That's how humanity lived up until now. -
Date: Tue, Feb 2 2010 16:31:50
I respectfully disagree entirely.
-
Date: Tue, Feb 2 2010 16:32:25
explain.
-
Date: Tue, Feb 2 2010 16:40:02
I feel as though your avoiding defining the term "Feed on tragedy". Everyone that has posted here seems to have a different interpretation of what you mean by it. If you clarify, I think more useful responses could be given.
-
Date: Tue, Feb 2 2010 17:05:09QUOTE (Dark Angel-REX @ Feb 2 2010, 12:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>explain.
I did ... and you said "you think you don't but you do" ... I'm not sure how to respond to that lol ...
edit: refer to my first post, i explained as best i could there -
Date: Tue, Feb 2 2010 17:09:37
the basic point i think, is not tragedies but negative events.
because humans tend focus on negativity a lot.
like I said before, when I want to buy a product, I google "sucks" then I check the negative reviews only (don't care about positive reviews). If the negative points are something I think I can handle or doesn't affect me, I buy the product. On eBay, I never check positive trade feedbacks, I only check negative.
even in PS, negative comments always get more attention and replies.
it seems that ppl ALWAYS do not want bad things to happen to them regardless of how serious it is, but for good things you only want them if they're really good for you. Tha's why bad things get more attention. -
Date: Tue, Feb 2 2010 17:19:55
isn't tragedy negative events?
QUOTEI did
don't think you did.QUOTEI feel as though your avoiding defining the term "Feed on tragedy". Everyone that has posted here seems to have a different interpretation of what you mean by it. If you clarify, I think more useful responses could be given.
I mean that we are unconsciously "gaining" from other people's, if tragedy is not the right word, negative events. -
Date: Tue, Feb 2 2010 17:22:52QUOTE (strat1227 @ Feb 1 2010, 11:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>"The soul would have no rainbow had the eyes no tears."
We can't recognize good without bad.
HOWEVER, I do think you slipped a few things that aren't universally true in there: "We become very excited ..." or "We watch movie with people dying and gain entertainment from it"
I think there's a difference between recognizing that without bad there can't be good, and actively enjoying others' misfortunes ... I certainly don't believe most people fall into the second category ...
Spoiler:
EDIT: ^Good song exemplifying the "good" kind of thing I'm talking about
Dunno how I can explain any better than this, sorry. -
Date: Tue, Feb 2 2010 17:48:00
oh that? so then why did Terminator series sell so much? If most people don't fall for the "second" category, then it should never have been sold in the first place. Not so many people think about "oh so this is what's gonna happen if technology go too far". They just sit on their seat, watching people die from a safe distance, and find it amusing. Or why did greeks long time ago enjoyed watching Medea, a complete tragical play of those times?
Are you gonna say because we know it's unreal? Then how come he creators are so desperate on trying to make it so real? The more real it looks the better.
I recently found a song called Vicarious by Tool, and I found it to perfectly fit what I was thinking. It's because we vicariously live while everyone else dies. Similar, though not the same, kind of feeling happen when we watch News on TV on the sofa. This time it's real. But we still watch it. We feel that it's horrible. We watch horrible news from a safe distance. And then we unconsciously feel alive or safe. Or otherwise, at the same time feel that we might not be so safe after all and start worrying about security and self protection. We unconsciously feel ourselves in their shoes. The more we do that, the more we feel alive.
The more real the killings look, the more alive we feel vicariously and unconsciously.
And I'm saying that we feel that way and it's a good thing. Thanks to the people who die, they have given us opportunity to feel alive. Thanks to the people who get ill, they have given doctors opportunity to feel meaning of life.
We gain from what other people suffers. -
Date: Tue, Feb 2 2010 17:56:45
I'm not saying nobody feels that way, I'm just saying everybody doesn't. I didn't watch Terminator just to see people die. Maybe others did, but you can't say EVERYONE did.
You're generalizing a state of mind, some people may feel that way, others don't. I don't, and no matter how many times you state "No. Everyone does." as if it were fact, it still won't be true of me.
Also, you opened with "but humanity feed on tragedy, don't you think?", so please be open to others' opinions, don't just say "No. You're wrong." -
Date: Tue, Feb 2 2010 17:58:02
fine. I take that back. humanity feed on tragedy. So do you.
QUOTEI'm not saying nobody feels that way, I'm just saying everybody doesn't.
I assume you had a typo or something with this one. It's contradicting.QUOTEI didn't watch Terminator just to see people die.
then why did you watch it? How did you feel when you watched it?
-
Date: Tue, Feb 2 2010 18:00:34
Then there's no point to this thread. If you're not willing to discuss, then why post in serious discussion?
-
Date: Tue, Feb 2 2010 18:03:13
Well because I was serious, so it was better than the off-topic section.
Fine if you don't like the thread here, i'll have it moved.
Zombo, I would like this thread moved to Off-Topic section. -
Date: Tue, Feb 2 2010 18:04:32
Hmm, it's fine here if you're willing to discuss, but if you're not I'll move to off-topic, let me know if you'd like it moved back here, or elsewhere.
-
Date: Tue, Feb 2 2010 18:06:38
I thought you weren't satisfied with it. I was okay with SD area. I thought you had the problem with the thread being in SD section.
EDIT: well at least I still have to appreciate for the thread move. Thanks. -
Date: Tue, Feb 2 2010 18:18:47
Double post but sorry. I thought this was better in another post.
strat, I have to point out one thing that I didn't realize up until now. I was looking for a discussion.
I never said "don't discuss". But I have pretty good confident that I am right on this, and that's why I had myself saying "you do too". Just because i said "you all feed on tragedy" doesn't mean it wasn't open to discussion.
You see, I'm into philosophy right now, and I am pretty confident that my philosophy is "more correct". If I am not confident then I wouldn't discuss in the first place. I say God does not exist and people will oppose. I'm still confident that God doesn't exist and I will still defend my position. But it's still open to discussion. Same thing here.
SO that makes Serious Discussion the better place for this thread. Sorry for making you do this over and over again, but could you move it back to SD? -
Date: Tue, Feb 2 2010 18:36:21
maybe some ppl like me are like that,
but not others, I can't imagine my grandmother or my mother enjoying watching violence so... if they watch violence its probably martial arts film, in which case you are not watching it for violence, but because martials arts is an art. -
Date: Tue, Feb 2 2010 18:50:29
well i was a bit extreme on Terminator. Or the "dying" stuff about the thread. But in any movie, there's always a conflict and ending. We watch those conflict and apply and interpret their feelings on ourselves. Then we feel entertainment or whatever feeling we would get, and now we have a new experience. We would feel we would want/not want those experience. An experience where we are in some sort of trouble and is trying to gain the goal. Somehow we gain pleasure from watching a conflict and get it resolved.
That is because that is what we want to do. To feel life by watching people suffer, or to feel life by helping people from suffering, or to feel life by solving a problem. We are in the end, pointless without tragedies and problems, or as you say, negative events. -
Date: Tue, Feb 2 2010 19:10:10QUOTE (Dark Angel-REX @ Feb 2 2010, 02:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>That is because that is what we want to do. To feel life by watching people suffer, or to feel life by helping people from suffering, or to feel life by solving a problem.
I agree up until this point you keep coming back to. I think rather than "feeling life by watching people suffer", the reason conflict resolution is so appealing is the RESOLUTION, not the conflict. The only reason conflict exists in these movies is so they can be resolved. You rarely if ever see conflict without resolution, because people enjoy seeing people wind up with a "happy ending", I like things to end up good, I don't watch it to see the suffering, I watch it to see the suffering END. -
Date: Wed, Feb 3 2010 01:09:47
thats basic plot writing 101: you describe in detail the protagonist so that s/he is likeable and the audience feels attached to him/her, then you put him/her in a challenging/difficult situation. Since you know the character well, you feel compelled to root for him/her, then when the person is triumphant, you feel happy that your favorite character is well.
-
Date: Wed, Feb 3 2010 01:22:40
Thread/topic is is pointless.
1.) Every person feels differently about a situation.
2.) Some people do feed on tragedy, but not ALL. Example: The media coverage of most celebrities follows around bad things that happen to them. For those who do take joy in relishing themselves on ones tragedy's will find it.
3.) The song Vicarious by Tool is a rash generalization of Public-trends in media, not humans. I'm a tool fan, I know.
./done -
Date: Wed, Feb 3 2010 05:15:34
1.) Wrong. Everyone basically live upon other people's suffering unconsciously.
2.) um. okay?
3.) I wasn't really talking about the public trends and media. I was just considering about the Vicariously living while others die.
./might be better if you think further into it. It only sounds ridiculous at the moment because it's unconscious.
strat, exactly the point I'm getting to. We enjoy watching conflict because we want to enjoy the resolve. We enjoy the resolve because we have enjoyed the conflict. We also need the conflict as well. Without conflict there's no resolve. We enjoy them both.
That is basically how we live. There's a conflict and we feed on it to resolve it in some way. Whether the problem is personal or more like humanity as a whole, whether the problem is happening in other person and not you or not, we feel ourselves satisfied or sympathize or pity or feelings like that. Thanks to the conflict that surround you and other people, you attempt to solve in a certain way. When you see a hungry children of Africa, some people just leave it at that or maybe some people sympathize or pity them. In anyway, those people are feeling that one's self is more "happy". What they do as an action after that is not the point. The part that you feel slight happiness is the part I am talking about.
If you want me to tell you how the mind works, it'll take a very long complex explanation, but basically, human's mind contains many unconscious emotions and feelings that is actually hard to realize by themselves, with the degree depending on how their brain is structured. And at one point or another, they sometimes may realize those emotions, but some people choose to "deny" the feelings so they could live with much more "idealistic" emotions or in other words, "how we are supposed to feel". It's very easy to deny. Human mind is filled with denial. Some people deny themselves. -
Date: Wed, Feb 3 2010 05:26:15
so you're saying that there some people who consciously feed on suffering, and then the rest of the people who don't, unconsciously deny it but still feed on suffering.
i am sorry but this kind of opinion is not falsifiable, so it can't be considered science. it is as the same level as religious belief. there is nothing we can say to argue against this kind of opinion.
i can say the same thing for anytihng:
"everybody is homosexual; some are openly gays; the ones who are not are unconsciously denying it"
its impossible to prove me wrong because I can always say you are unconsciously denying it. -
Date: Wed, Feb 3 2010 06:14:56
Well not sure about homosexuality some scientists say it's genetics. But you are on a right track in fact, but bit off.
We live and think in somewhat structuralism sort of world. IMO if homosexuality is not genetics, then I would say people isn't born homosexual but becomes homosexual. But if you are homosexual, but because society says this and that, you deny it and suppress it, then yea. maybe.
On the other hand, we have basic instincts that we are born with to "resolve a problem". When that instinct is connected with information you get from living in a society, it becomes connected unconsciously. Since we all here are in society, our instinct of "solving a problem" is connected with the society. That's where we become eaters of "negative events". Because we gain meaning of life from solving negative events in some way.
So then if you consider people who have never been in society, then they might not feel the way I said, but I highly doubt anyone here to be that. I wouldn't go as far as brain defected people or people who is in society but someone like the girl who was raised by a wolf found in India, to apply the same thing on them. -
Date: Wed, Feb 3 2010 06:50:23
we live on the problems of others
-
Date: Wed, Feb 3 2010 07:00:51QUOTE (Dark Angel-REX @ Feb 3 2010, 01:14 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Well not sure about homosexuality some scientists say it's genetics. But you are on a right track in fact, but bit off.
We live and think in somewhat structuralism sort of world. IMO if homosexuality is not genetics, then I would say people isn't born homosexual but becomes homosexual. But if you are homosexual, but because society says this and that, you deny it and suppress it, then yea. maybe.
On the other hand, we have basic instincts that we are born with to "resolve a problem". When that instinct is connected with information you get from living in a society, it becomes connected unconsciously. Since we all here are in society, our instinct of "solving a problem" is connected with the society. That's where we become eaters of "negative events". Because we gain meaning of life from solving negative events in some way.
So then if you consider people who have never been in society, then they might not feel the way I said, but I highly doubt anyone here to be that. I wouldn't go as far as brain defected people or people who is in society but someone like the girl who was raised by a wolf found in India, to apply the same thing on them.
homosexuality is just an exemple, here's another
"everybody is racist; if you think you're not, you're denying it"
similarly I can say:
"everybody is NOT racist: if you think you are, you're just faking it"
clearly both can't be true, yet both are unfalsifiable.
similarly I can say
"nobody feeds on violence. if they do, they're just inconsciously faking it" -
Date: Wed, Feb 3 2010 07:18:27QUOTE (Dark Angel-REX @ Feb 2 2010, 01:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I mean that we are unconsciously "gaining" from other people's, if tragedy is not the right word, negative events.
The gaining part is precisely where I think I need clarification. How do we gain? Are you saying we become happy from tragedy? We enjoy being involved in tragedy?
It seems like what you are trying to say is that people enjoy major events more than minor events, but this is not limited to tragedy, and I think this is why people abject to your statement. Change it to "people feed on extremes", not tragedy.
It is true that some of the most popular events are tragic accidents, but so too are celebrity marriages and popular legislature, which people wouldn't consider tragedies, simply extremes. People are interested in major events, not when Sally learns to ride her bike for the first time.QUOTE (Dark Angel-REX @ Feb 2 2010, 01:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>then why did you watch it? How did you feel when you watched it?
It was kick ass when they killed the bad guy. Why did you?QUOTE (Dark Angel-REX @ Feb 2 2010, 01:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>so then why did Terminator series sell so much?
Movies sell because people like to see protagonists defeat the tragedy inspiring antagonists, this is the most common plot for nearly any story in existence.QUOTE (Dark Angel-REX @ Feb 3 2010, 02:14 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Well not sure about homosexuality some scientists say it's genetics.
-
Date: Wed, Feb 3 2010 07:56:50QUOTE (Dark Angel-REX)you say you don't feel like that but in reality you do unconsciously.
I can't go to the Police and say 'DAR wants to kill me unconsciously". Give me some real fucking evidence. If you point me to a psychological report or paper or something which seems to clearly argue this point then fine but don't go telling me what the fuck I think.
I do not watch the News. I do not read the newspaper. I do not read magazines. I do not follow the lives of celebrities. I listen to the radio purely for music and sometimes when people call in and shit. The only exposure to real world events I get is slashdot, because that is all I choose to get.
If I want to feed on tragedy I will watch the news and read the newspaper and all that shit.
I don't enjoy life because I see other people suffer. I would personally say I enjoy life because I have fun joking around with friends. That is what I look forward to, not hearing about who the fuck died or was injured so I can say feel better/safer/anything.
Your doctor point still seems irrelevant. They have a job because of tragedy but that isn't a bad thing. Maybe it's bad for doctors who enjoy tragedy so they can get more work, but I would say it is very likely that many doctors get jobs to help people. -
Date: Wed, Feb 3 2010 13:13:13
So so far it basically looks like you're posting your own world view and trying to force it onto other people ... the only examples/proof you've given so far is stuff like "doctors have jobs" and "people watched Terminator" ... which don't really make any sense at all ...
QUOTEIf you want me to tell you how the mind works, it'll take a very long complex explanation, but basically ...
Oh come on man, you don't know "how the mind works" any better than anyone else on the planet ... this is what I hate about some debates ... people come in acting like they know everything in the goddamned world. You just graduated high-school dude, think for a minut that maybe, just maybe, you DON'T know everything .... -
Date: Wed, Feb 3 2010 16:12:50QUOTE (strat1227 @ Feb 3 2010, 08:13 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>this is what I hate about some debates ... people come in acting like they know everything in the goddamned world. You just graduated high-school dude, think for a minut that maybe, just maybe, you DON'T know everything ....
This is why having a religious or political discussion would likely lead to out right flaming rather fast. -
Date: Thu, Feb 4 2010 01:14:50
crap this is gonna be long.
QUOTEhomosexuality is just an exemple, here's another
"everybody is racist; if you think you're not, you're denying it"
similarly I can say:
"everybody is NOT racist: if you think you are, you're just faking it"
clearly both can't be true, yet both are unfalsifiable.
similarly I can say
"nobody feeds on violence. if they do, they're just inconsciously faking it"
Like I said. Racism is not something that we already have at first. We become racist according the things the society teaches them. Not we are born racist. That's why I could deny people being racists or not. So for most of the guys here, we are taught by society that racism is wrong. That's why most of us feel racism is wrong.
However, people could be easily unconscious of feelings that is connected with instincts.
This can't really be explained without first explain how human mind works which will take a bit long, but seems like we need so.
so here it is.
First we have two things. Thoughts and Brain structure. Look at the three boxes on the left. In thoughts, there's Instincts, thoughts you already have since you are born. In Undermind you have thoughts that are relatively hard to realize as much as Instincts and is something you have when you were raised as a baby (like things your parents teach you). Then you have Societymind which is things you could relatively easily realize and is thoughts you gain as you go into the society. The latter two thoughts can be moved and switched places while instincts could never do that.
Then we have brain structure. Your brain structure is in charge of choosing from the thoughts. It's much easier to get things from top box because you don't have to do all the work of moving the boxes. That's why we become more societal. But that doesn't mean your brain structure always have to choose from the society box. Basically, your brain structure tend to choose thoughts that are 'most' profitable for you. So when you are in school or in jobs, your brain structure has the tendency to choose thoughts from the societymind. On the other hand, when you are alone, your brain structure moves the societymind box aside and usually choose from undermind or instincts (easy ones like you masturbate when there's no one around).
So a question. What happens if two people is raised perfectly the same, will they have two same mind? Highly not, although similar. Brain structure is different. Even if they have exactly the same things in the Boxes, if the guy on the right is different, they choose different things. So then if it's a twin, will they have two same mind? Highly not. Things in the Boxes are different.
So then if a twin is raised perfectly the same, will they have two same mind? Highly yes, but brain structure may have very very minor difference. But raising twins perfectly the same way is impossible.
Thoughts that are connected to instincts tend to be unconscious. For example, a thought that we are actually feeding on other people's negative events tend to be unconscious because it's our instincts to "solve problems" in a certain way. It's pretty hard to move two big heavy boxes and find that thoughts inside your instincts.QUOTEThe gaining part is precisely where I think I need clarification. How do we gain? Are you saying we become happy from tragedy? We enjoy being involved in tragedy?
It seems like what you are trying to say is that people enjoy major events more than minor events, but this is not limited to tragedy, and I think this is why people abject to your statement. Change it to "people feed on extremes", not tragedy.
It is true that some of the most popular events are tragic accidents, but so too are celebrity marriages and popular legislature, which people wouldn't consider tragedies, simply extremes. People are interested in major events, not when Sally learns to ride her bike for the first time.
You are right. I should change it to "extremes".QUOTEI can't go to the Police and say 'DAR wants to kill me unconsciously". Give me some real fucking evidence. If you point me to a psychological report or paper or something which seems to clearly argue this point then fine but don't go telling me what the fuck I think.
Wow you are pretty mad and extreme. read above.QUOTEIf I want to feed on tragedy I will watch the news and read the newspaper and all that shit.
I don't enjoy life because I see other people suffer. I would personally say I enjoy life because I have fun joking around with friends. That is what I look forward to, not hearing about who the fuck died or was injured so I can say feel better/safer/anything.
But you feel alive because people die. If no one dies, you don't feel alive. More like there wouldn't be a word "alive" if nothing dies. You gained the feeling of being alive because you know people die.QUOTEYour doctor point still seems irrelevant. They have a job because of tragedy but that isn't a bad thing. Maybe it's bad for doctors who enjoy tragedy so they can get more work, but I would say it is very likely that many doctors get jobs to help people.
I never said it's a bad thing. Have you ever read the thread?
I said it's a good thing...QUOTESo so far it basically looks like you're posting your own world view and trying to force it onto other people ... the only examples/proof you've given so far is stuff like "doctors have jobs" and "people watched Terminator" ... which don't really make any sense at all ...
You don't get it. I might be extremely confident that I am right, but I said it's open to discussions. And I am looking forward for you and the other guy's replies, the only way to become better with philosophy or stuff like that. And I am pretty much defending my own stand. What's so wrong about that? More like some people here are pretty mad. And then you just go off and say I'm pushing it. Okay, I'm pushing it. But then by your standards, you are also pushing that I am wrong.QUOTEOh come on man, you don't know "how the mind works" any better than anyone else on the planet ... this is what I hate about some debates ... people come in acting like they know everything in the goddamned world. You just graduated high-school dude, think for a minute that maybe, just maybe, you DON'T know everything ....
I don't know everything. But I know something.QUOTEThis is why having a religious or political discussion would likely lead to out right flaming rather fast.
Very true. -
Date: Thu, Feb 4 2010 01:20:52
so basically you're saying "feeding of tragedy" is a basic instinct of human nature.
some people are able to supress this instinct consciously or unconsciously, others not.
what is the proof that "feeding on tragedy" is a basic instinct of human nature? -
Date: Thu, Feb 4 2010 01:21:28QUOTEFirst we have two things. Thoughts and Brain structure. Look at the three boxes on the left. In thoughts, there's Instincts, thoughts you already have since you are born. In Undermind you have thoughts that are relatively hard to realize as much as Instincts and is something you have when you were raised as a baby (like things your parents teach you). Then you have Societymind which is things you could relatively easily realize and is thoughts you gain as you go into the society. The latter two thoughts can be moved and switched places while instincts could never do that.
Then we have brain structure. Your brain structure is in charge of choosing from the thoughts. It's much easier to get things from top box because you don't have to do all the work of moving the boxes. That's why we become more societal. But that doesn't mean your brain structure always have to choose from the society box. Basically, your brain structure tend to choose thoughts that are 'most' profitable for you. So when you are in school or in jobs, your brain structure has the tendency to choose thoughts from the societymind. On the other hand, when you are alone, your brain structure moves the societymind box aside and usually choose from undermind or instincts (easy ones like you masturbate when there's no one around).
So a question. What happens if two people is raised perfectly the same, will they have two same mind? Highly not, although similar. Brain structure is different. Even if they have exactly the same things in the Boxes, if the guy on the right is different, they choose different things. So then if it's a twin, will they have two same mind? Highly not. Things in the Boxes are different.
So then if a twin is raised perfectly the same, will they have two same mind? Highly yes, but brain structure may have very very minor difference. But raising twins perfectly the same way is impossible.
Thoughts that are connected to instincts tend to be unconscious. For example, a thought that we are actually feeding on other people's negative events tend to be unconscious because it's our instincts to "solve problems" in a certain way. It's pretty hard to move two big heavy boxes and find that thoughts inside your instincts.
Sources, proof? This mostly just sounds like trying to prove something by randomly making something up to me.QUOTEBut you feel alive because people die. If no one dies, you don't feel alive. More like there wouldn't be a word "alive" if nothing dies. You gained the feeling of being alive because you know people die.
How would you describe feeling alive in the first place? I don't specifically have any other feeling when someone else passes away. In my eyes, I just exist. That's it.
-
Date: Thu, Feb 4 2010 01:24:20
Ok, so if I'm understand this correctly, you're basically going to act as a brick wall, and no matter what we say you're just going to try to find some way to refute it and never admit that there's a chance you're wrong?
Then I'm out of the thread. The only fun thing in discussions is if both parties are willing to yeild and/or change sides/viewpoints.
If you would have made a point that wasn't what I originally thought, but was convincing, I would have yielded and changed my mind on the matter (you can ask anyone that I commonly discuss things with, Awesome, Shadowserpant, Zombo, etc, this is ALWAYS how I treat discussions).
But I'm not interested in making points if you're going to refuse to accept them.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't understand the point of threads in serious discussion when people come in "Knowing" that they're right, then what's the point of discussion -
Date: Thu, Feb 4 2010 01:25:40QUOTE (Dark Angel-REX @ Feb 3 2010, 05:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>But you feel alive because people die. If no one dies, you don't feel alive. More like there wouldn't be a word "alive" if nothing dies. You gained the feeling of being alive because you know people die.
I don't understand how not dying completely removes the feeling of being alive. Yes, if nothing died we probably wouldn't have the verbal idea of being alive, but you certainly still have a sense of existing. -
Date: Thu, Feb 4 2010 02:31:07QUOTE (Erirornal Kraione @ Feb 4 2010, 10:21 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Sources, proof? This mostly just sounds like trying to prove something by randomly making something up to me.
Let me tell you one thing. Even hypothesis are "random", if you wanna call it that way.
Of course it's merely something I see just like what Freud did. But makes better sense because it could be applied on people and it works.QUOTEHow would you describe feeling alive in the first place? I don't specifically have any other feeling when someone else passes away. In my eyes, I just exist. That's it.
You feel alive because people die. That's all. If no one dies, then they exist forever. Then we wouldn't know if we exist or not because nothing ever disappears. If you have ever debated whether you really exist or not, then you would understand the problem of "exist" being extremely difficult. Then what if no one ever disappear? That makes this problem even more harder.
May be you wanna reply what Decartes said "I think therefore I exist". But he thinks this way because he thinks "in order to do something there must be a subject". But what if that's not true? That's why problem of existence is hard already and then it's even harder if no one dies.
You feel you exist because people become non-existent. You usually don't understand this right now because people die in reality. But in a "if" situation, everything changes.QUOTEOk, so if I'm understand this correctly, you're basically going to act as a brick wall, and no matter what we say you're just going to try to find some way to refute it and never admit that there's a chance you're wrong?
Then I'm out of the thread. The only fun thing in discussions is if both parties are willing to yeild and/or change sides/viewpoints.
If you would have made a point that wasn't what I originally thought, but was convincing, I would have yielded and changed my mind on the matter (you can ask anyone that I commonly discuss things with, Awesome, Shadowserpant, Zombo, etc, this is ALWAYS how I treat discussions).
But I'm not interested in making points if you're going to refuse to accept them.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't understand the point of threads in serious discussion when people come in "Knowing" that they're right, then what's the point of discussion
more like you are also acting like a brick wall as well. If you don't wanna discuss. Fine go ahead. Don't discuss.
You are highly misunderstanding. I admit there's a chance I am wrong, but I don't admit that I have to admit I am wrong just because people say I am wrong, which i see that they don't give much "evidence" as well.
If you are thinking Discussions = Changing your own opinions, then you are highly mistaken. At least for me.
And if you are just wanting to change my opinion, then you may just leave as you wish. Because I always thought discussions are, of course it MAY involve changing opinion, debate. You don't change your opinion when you do debate in official places do you? You have to choose a stand and then you have to defend it. That's what debates are. Once you admit you are wrong, that's when the other team wins.
More like to me, discussions are game.
But if you don't like that, then go ahead. If you don't want to play Video Games, then you just have to not play it. Same thing here. If you don't want to play the game, then go ahead. Don't play it. -
Date: Thu, Feb 4 2010 02:54:16QUOTE. Once you admit you are wrong, that's when the other team wins.
This is called stubbornness. And no, I have no interest in participating. -
Date: Thu, Feb 4 2010 02:58:55
but then by your standards, so are you. I don't think you have given any perfect evidence that proves me wrong, but you just say I am wrong and so on.
-
Date: Thu, Feb 4 2010 03:01:41
The person making a claim bears the burden of proof, you have yet to prove any support outside of your own opinions, thus your claim isn't even validated yet.
I can't disprove an unvalidated claim -
Date: Thu, Feb 4 2010 03:08:23
oh but I have said already in the beginning. I don't know why anyone thinks it makes no sense, but as I said, we are able to live and gain "meaning of life" because there are tragedies, or as Sadistic pointed out, extremes.
Doctors gain meaning of life because they try to cure illnesses and extend life as long as possible. That is because there is a tragedy called illnesses and death.
If they just want money, same thing. They gain money by fighting illnesses and death.
To be less severe, like Zombo pointed out, we see product reviews about how it sucks or not and we gain knowledge that "we should not buy this product", and now the person have saved few bucks by not wasting money.
This happens all unconsciously. We don't keep on thinking every time we gain something "we have gained because someone has suffered something for us". Because it's unconscious. -
Date: Thu, Feb 4 2010 03:11:40
ok agian, you're giving your opinions, nobody can disprove what you think.
also, you're making completely undefinable claims, like zombo said, anybody can say "everybody X, and anyone who doesn't X is faking or does it unconsciously" there's no way to debate something like that -
Date: Thu, Feb 4 2010 07:22:06
For 'feeding on tragedy' to be an instinct, I would have thought we would have had to have gained it through evolution. I see no reason that at any point in human history we needed to feel emotion from other tragedies to survive.
Sure, we may have felt certain emotions like being glad that it isn't us or maybe even sadness, but if humans are 'social beings' then I doubt that evolution produced instincts which made us 'feed on tragedy'.
I know very little of biology and not a great deal of evolution, so I'm not sure about this.
As a side project, please provide evidence against this claim: At some point in time aliens came to earth and killed all the humans who didn't feel emotion towards watching other people get hurt.
Btw, by 'human' I mean either humans or any form that they have evolved from. I don't know the different names for the stages of evolution we went through. -
Date: Thu, Feb 4 2010 09:55:42QUOTE (strat1227 @ Feb 4 2010, 12:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>ok agian, you're giving your opinions, nobody can disprove what you think.
also, you're making completely undefinable claims, like zombo said, anybody can say "everybody X, and anyone who doesn't X is faking or does it unconsciously" there's no way to debate something like that
what part I said on the post above you was opinion? It's a fact.
More like we get some of the products in store because someone is working with low wages in some other country. No matter what you do, you are unintentionally taking advantage of other people's tragedy or suffering or negative events or extremes. More like you are using the computer software and internet and stuff like that, but did you know that there are hundreds of people becoming mentally ill after working on software programming and stuff around the world? But we use the internet. You use the internet. We have fun on the internet. You have fun on the internet. You use the internet, and you gain whatever you want to gain from the internet.
There you go. I have at least proved that YOU gain on other people's negative events.
We are unconscious of the facts like that. Or if you don't like the word unconscious, then how about "unaware"? Or how about "unintentional"?
Okay, I'll take back about the watching movie/entertainment and stuff. Not an appropriate example for stuff like this. I'll admit my wrong there.QUOTEAt some point in time aliens came to earth and killed all the humans who didn't feel emotion towards watching other people get hurt.
Possible, but very highly unlikely:
1) If aliens came and killed all the human who didn't feel emotions towards watching other people get hurt, then that means people with emotions were left. If the aliens killed the people, then wouldn't the emotional people at least leave some evidence that such events happened because they are emotional?
2) It's very low possibility that aliens exist (there are thousands of planets we know, and no one has figured out if animals exist there). And it's more unlikely that they are, like humans, have knowledge to make technology. And then it's even more unlikely that they have technology that surpasses us. Then it's even MORE unlikely that they have the technology to come to Earth (it takes many light years from the closest system to get to Earth). And if Einstein's relativity is right, then it's impossible to go faster than light.
3) If aliens came, what's their purpose for killing only the humans who didn't feel emotions towards watching other people get hurt? Aliens have absolutely no profit. They just wasted hundreds of years of their life (more like they are dead before going back to their home planet). They just wasted the technology to get here and go back.
my point here is that there's something called "perfectly right" and "relatively right". In the case of your alien stuff, it's the "relatively wrong". I believe my statements are "relatively right". -
Date: Thu, Feb 4 2010 12:41:51
So at the moment you're just saying that you won't move from your opinion.
Then there's no use for this debate, as right now we're debating over two different opinions, both of which can't be actually proven. So you just barged in saying: "I think this, I am right, nothing you can do about it."
That's not a discussion. That's just pure bullshit. How about you go to your Philosophy teacher and debate with him about this? See how he will respond. -
Date: Thu, Feb 4 2010 12:48:47QUOTE (Dark Angel-REX)More like you are using the computer software and internet and stuff like that, but did you know that there are hundreds of people becoming mentally ill after working on software programming and stuff around the world? But we use the internet. You use the internet. We have fun on the internet.
Wtf? Are you serious?
He gains from using the software, he doesn't gain from them getting mentally ill. If anything, them getting mentally ill is a bad thing for him because now they'll write less software for him to use.
Now I'll address your responses to my claim (which was never a good analogy in the first place, but w/e):
1) if it were an early stage of human evolution where we could not communicate very well and couldn't pass down stories to generations then no, we couldn't leave signs that it had happened. (I did address what I meant by humans in my post)
2) This isn't proof, you're just saying it's unlikely. There is still a chance.
3) How am I to guess the motives of those damn aliens? Maybe to them we are all ants in an ant farm. They watch us go about our day like we think we are the only ones here. But then one day; BAM! They vaporise us!
Anyway, I agree with what you said at the bottom, and there is less chance of this being true than your 'feeding on tragedy' idea. It is just that you cannot really provide proof to truely prove most theories wrong. You can only say that they are unlikely. It is especially difficult when the theory delves into a field that we know (relative to other parts of science) very little about. -
Date: Thu, Feb 4 2010 15:33:21QUOTE (Erirornal Kraione @ Feb 4 2010, 09:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>So at the moment you're just saying that you won't move from your opinion.
Then there's no use for this debate, as right now we're debating over two different opinions, both of which can't be actually proven. So you just barged in saying: "I think this, I am right, nothing you can do about it."
That's not a discussion. That's just pure bullshit. How about you go to your Philosophy teacher and debate with him about this? See how he will respond.
He said overall he agrees with several places that I have to think again, but he never used the word "bullshit".QUOTEHe gains from using the software, he doesn't gain from them getting mentally ill. If anything, them getting mentally ill is a bad thing for him because now they'll write less software for him to use.
What? Are you serious?
He gains from using the software, which caused many mental illness in process of making it. In another words, thanks to the guys who suffered mental illnesses to make the software, he gained whatever he wanted.
Not sure why it sounds so wrong. It's a fact. We feed on it directly or indirectly. Even if it's indirectly, it doesn't change the fact that we are feeding on it.QUOTENow I'll address your responses to my claim (which was never a good analogy in the first place, but w/e):
1) if it were an early stage of human evolution where we could not communicate very well and couldn't pass down stories to generations then no, we couldn't leave signs that it had happened. (I did address what I meant by humans in my post)
2) This isn't proof, you're just saying it's unlikely. There is still a chance.
3) How am I to guess the motives of those damn aliens? Maybe to them we are all ants in an ant farm. They watch us go about our day like we think we are the only ones here. But then one day; BAM! They vaporise us!
I know. I can't prove it. But I already proved we feed on tragedy above anyway. You are using the computer too. You are feeding on other people's hard life or whatever. More like you feed on your own tragedy too. When you suffer something, you feel very happy when your suffering is replaced with something good. Thanks to your feeling of suffering, you would feel happier than when you weren't suffering and gained the same thing. You eat food. Who do you think makes all the ingredients? farm by using machines? Their hard work? You fed on it there. That's proof right there. Everyone's feeding off each other's negative events or extremes or suffering or hard work.QUOTEAnyway, I agree with what you said at the bottom, and there is less chance of this being true than your 'feeding on tragedy' idea. It is just that you cannot really provide proof to truely prove most theories wrong. You can only say that they are unlikely. It is especially difficult when the theory delves into a field that we know (relative to other parts of science) very little about.
Very true. Fine. I was wrong that people wanna watch people die. But it's a fact that we feed on other people's extremes, directly or not. -
Date: Thu, Feb 4 2010 15:36:24
it seems to me that, regardless of situation thrown at you, you always interpret it in a way which fits your vision. since you think any situation can interpreted negatively, your vision is correct. to me that's not any different from religion.
-
Date: Thu, Feb 4 2010 15:59:03
I'm going to say this one more time Zombo. I did not interpret it negatively. I interpreted it positively.
I've said this many times in this thread, but I said it's a good thing. I said "thanks to people who become ill, we have jobs like Doctors, and doctors gain meaning of life by trying to cure ill people". I am being positive.
I'm pointing out that tragedy actually give us better lives. -
Date: Thu, Feb 4 2010 16:00:46
Well not only that, but what he's unbudging from seems to change depending on how we refute it.
It's now that we "benefit from negativity" and his proof of this is "mentally ill people worked on software you use"
That's ENTIRELY different from what we started with. Because the negativity doesn't CONTRIBUTE in any way. We would NOT be worse off if the people weren't mentally ill. And we DEFINITELY don't "feed from" or "gain from" the fact that they're mentally ill. We gain from the software, but that has nothing to do with their mental state (Even assuming the whole mentally ill people thing is true).
So no, we don't gain from the negativity at all.
Basically in any situation you give, if you took away the negativity it would improve the situation, period. Thus, we can't feed on negativity, since the negativity ALWAYS makes the situation less desirable.
disprove that and i'll agree with you. -
Date: Thu, Feb 4 2010 16:05:06
No no no no no. First of all, you are taking the word "feed" negatively, which wasn't the case for me.
Yes you are right. We don't directly gain anything from other people being mentally ill (maybe therapists), but we indirectly do.
EDIT (because you edited): if I took the negativity it would "seem" like it would improve the situation. Mean while, therapists lose many of their patients. So it seems like it's fixed, but it's not. The whole thing works very systematically. And the need for therapists are decreased.
Then what some people wanna do is fix that situation again. Try to save those therapists who are no longer needed. We constantly try to fix something. And we gain meaning of life from that.
Anyhow, if, all negativity in this world is gone, how boring life would be? We no longer have things to gain. Ah, but here, is another thing we have to do. "How to destroy bordom". Another negativity. we wanna fix that too. And therefore we live to fix those things. -
Date: Thu, Feb 4 2010 16:06:57
check out my edit.
if you disprove those 2 lines, i'll gladly change sides -
Date: Thu, Feb 4 2010 16:09:53QUOTE (Dark Angel-REX @ Feb 4 2010, 10:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I'm going to say this one more time Zombo. I did not interpret it negatively. I interpreted it positively.
I've said this many times in this thread, but I said it's a good thing. I said "thanks to people who become ill, we have jobs like Doctors, and doctors gain meaning of life by trying to cure ill people". I am being positive.
I'm pointing out that tragedy actually give us better lives.
really? ok let's try an example:
"thanks to the people of Haiti who died, we have jobs like grave diggers, and grave diggers gain meaning of life by burying thousand of corpses with dirt in large pits to clean the city"
if you seriously believe that I have nothing more to say to you -
Date: Thu, Feb 4 2010 16:15:24
A bit extreme to me. But grave diggers still get money from it. That's how they would live.
More like thanks to the people of Haiti that are suffering, volunteers gain meaning of life by trying to help them.
BTW, i edited my post before strat. -
Date: Thu, Feb 4 2010 16:17:21
I think you have a very sick twisted life view.
In any case, until you disprove my previous post, everything you say is pretty much pointless, so either address it or admit that you can't please -
Date: Thu, Feb 4 2010 16:17:32
omg...
those grave diggers have to be monitored. if they do their job too long they develop serious mental illness
there's a difference between hoping for bad things to happen so that they have something to do, and recognizing that there is evil in the world and want to make a positive action to get rid of it. -
Date: Thu, Feb 4 2010 16:18:47
and when they get mental illness that's when therapists come in and do their jobs.
i edit my post strat.
EDIT: Zombo, yes. there is. And if I have said we are HOPING bad things to happen, then I'm sorry I'm terribly mistaken. But I'm not sure i have said that. -
Date: Thu, Feb 4 2010 16:22:00QUOTE (Dark Angel-REX @ Feb 4 2010, 12:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>EDIT (because you edited): if I took the negativity it would "seem" like it would improve the situation. Mean while, therapists lose many of their patients. So it seems like it's fixed, but it's not. The whole thing works very systematically. And the need for therapists are decreased.
Then what some people wanna do is fix that situation again. Try to save those therapists who are no longer needed. We constantly try to fix something. And we gain meaning of life from that.
So you're honestly saying, with a straight face, that if ALL mental illness disappeared today, there would be people would want to bring it back so that therapists would have jobs? That's the most ridiculous thing you've said yet. -
Date: Thu, Feb 4 2010 16:23:31
no, that's not what I am saying. Seriously. you really have to stop twisting around what I have said.
EDIT: Elaborating to that. if all mental illness disappeared today, we are much happier. Therapists are probably happy too, but they still lose jobs. SO some people would want to give them other jobs they could do so they can get money to live. -
Date: Thu, Feb 4 2010 16:25:23
the fact there exists evil in the world is just REALIST; that's how the world is. And we need to deal with it.
if there is less evil in the world. we dont have to spend as much workforce focusing on getting rid of bad stuff. those people can then be reused on good things, making contributions which increases well-being, like technology research, arts, teaching.
it would be completely stupid to have even more evil in the world so that we have to waste energy and people dealing with those things. we'd rather have less of them so we can focus on making good things.
but because evil exists, it is necessary that some people take care of them. but if that evil disappears, we can now us those people to for positive things and that's a net gain for humanity. -
Date: Thu, Feb 4 2010 16:29:26
It's that process I am talking about Zombo. We, or at least some people, try to take care of those evil that exist in the world. Isn't that a positive thing?
I have not said, nor do i think, that I would want more evil in this world. I have said that because evil exist, we try to fix it. Because we try to fix it, our lives aren't as boring. And there will constantly be more problems later on in this world as humanity develop. We'll try to take care of those too.
that is how we live. And I want to try fixing those problems too. -
Date: Thu, Feb 4 2010 16:51:27
ah you forgot the key words at the end of your post "in my opinion"
really we've reached an impasse. i have my opinion, you have yours. no matter how much you present it as "fact", it's juts an opinion. -
Date: Thu, Feb 4 2010 16:51:30
if all you want to say in this discussion is:
1. There exists evil in the world
2. We need to get rid of it.
then this entire thread was pointless. all you manage to do is use so many confusing words that people never understood what you mean.
furthermore, nobody is going to argue against these two points.
If you don't believe 1 is true, you're naive and idealistic
If you don't believe 2 is true, it means you don't even care about bad things happening to yourself. Anybody should at least think that everybody is trying to take care of bad things for oneself. Those who don't are probably suicidal. -
Date: Thu, Feb 4 2010 16:54:46
well I never thought this thread would go this far. I thought it would just end up "oh okay".
But then there came all these misunderstanding and some faults in my part as well for writing so confusingly just because I suck with English or I try to explain everything way too much, and made it much more confusing and severe.
EDIT: more like what I wanted to say was
1. There exists evil in the world.
2. We need to get rid of it.
3. But our life isn't as boring because we try to get rid of the evil.
4. Therefore, evil actually gives us meaning of life. Let's admit that.
Then someone misunderstood me and thought I was saying that EVERYONE WISHED FOR MORE EVIL IN THIS WORLD. -
Date: Thu, Feb 4 2010 17:03:07
"Let's admit that"
No, because I disagree.
I don't have a copy of the reply PM i sent you, could you post it here? those are my thoughts on the situation -
Date: Thu, Feb 4 2010 17:08:51
Our PMs, and my views on the matter:
DAR: I'm not a manic you know. I don't wish there be more pain in this world. That's ridiculous. Total misunderstanding.[/quote]
I know you don't, but what you're saying (if i'm understanding correctly) is that the process of ridding the world of negative is in itself a positive.
Strat: I disagree, I think it's a necessary negative. Like spending money. I buy food because I need it to live. I like the food. Does that mean I like spending money? Hell no, but I have to.
Same with this. Fixing evil isn't good or fun or enjoyable or life-affirming, it's just something that needs to be done.[/quote]
DAR: and that was basically what I was pointing out.
It's these negatives that gives us meaning of life. Of course it's fun or enjoyable. But you said it's just something that needs to be done. That's what keeps us moving, no?
What if those negative never existed? What keeps us going? We have to gain in order to become happy. It there's no negative, what's there to gain?
So I was saying evil actually gets us going. But you misunderstood that I was saying everyone wishes for more evil.
I honestly didn't think that thread would go 4 pages. I thought it would just end with 5 or 6 replies with "meh yea that's true". Part of the reason being my way of writing which caused tons of misunderstanding. I apologize for that. I always write too much and cause misunderstanding. I read over the thread and I understand that. I'm sorry.
Strat: No I disagree. Again, is spending money the purpose of life? No, if everything was free I could live equally as happily.
Just as banishing evil isn't the purpose of life. If all evil was gone and we didn't have to banish it anymore, we wouldn't cease to have meaning in life, we'd be able to focus more on our main purposes in life (however we individually decide to assign those) -
Date: Fri, Feb 5 2010 01:01:19
sorry I don't have the copy of PM neither could you post it here?
-
Date: Fri, Feb 5 2010 01:44:12QUOTE (Dark Angel-REX @ Feb 4 2010, 07:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>He said overall he agrees with several places that I have to think again, but he never used the word "bullshit".
I'm pretty sure Eriror is talking about the way that you presented and "proved" your view, rather than the view itself. -
Date: Fri, Feb 5 2010 03:42:10
yea i guess.
-
Date: Fri, Feb 5 2010 04:32:04
I think I would prefer a world with no evils. I can have plenty of meaning to my life without it.
Taking away racism doesn't take away literature.
Taking away murder doesn't take away science.
Taking away rape doesn't take away sex.
Taking away death doesn't take away the "fullness" of life, and I'm not quite sure why you think this assertion holds so well... -
Date: Fri, Feb 5 2010 04:38:15
oh well you gotta wait for Strat's reply in because I don't have the copy.
-
Date: Fri, Feb 5 2010 04:46:29
This one?
QUOTE (DAR)And okay, I have said already that I was wrong about the entertainment stuff in the post somewhere.
But my conclusion is that:
-There's always bad in this world. From personal level to worldwide level.
-We always try to solve it to give us a better life.
-It's because there's bad there's good.
-Then bad actually gives us opportunity to make good. Then we are feeding on the bad.
I have always try to say this from the beginning, but I got it fucked because I write and explain too much and never simplifies what I say. -
Date: Fri, Feb 5 2010 04:49:32
sadistic is 100% right
just because we've live all our life in the presence of evil does not mean we cannot imagine meaningful life without evil. -
Date: Fri, Feb 5 2010 05:13:20
@strat
no, the one you talked similar thing as Sadistic said. well that too though. -
Date: Fri, Feb 5 2010 09:55:38
Okay, seems like strat isn't here, so i guess I'll just say it here the same thing I told him when he said same thing Sadistic said.
QUOTEI think I would prefer a world with no evils. I can have plenty of meaning to my life without it.
Taking away racism doesn't take away literature.
Taking away murder doesn't take away science.
Taking away rape doesn't take away sex.
Taking away death doesn't take away the "fullness" of life, and I'm not quite sure why you think this assertion holds so well...
Okay first of all, there something that most people fail to realize. People today, especially people like us, have plenty of time while people decades ago, centuries ago, and so on, didn't have that much time (of course there are minor exceptions. Rich people had more time, or the ancient greeks of Athens had more time). People back then didn't have to think about meaning of life. The reason is because there were constant danger that surrounded them that they didn't have the time to think about things like that. The instincts to live constantly keeps them moving. Most of them had a lot of issues. Since culture evolution happened and something called "countries" were made, people always fought against lack of rights, lack of protection, lack of social service, war, etc. They had kept on trying to gain these rights (civil rights, women's rights, etc.) and those were big goals of those days. But how is it now? Most country takes form of feminism or at least close to feminism like society, we have plenty of rights since we were born like speech, education, etc, that were once the big goal of the guys many decades ago. So then what else do we have left to gain? Family? Well everyone always had the same problem. Rights? What kinda of rights do we need now? We already have almost all of them. Education? We already have them. Freedom? We have tons of it.
Second, what makes you happy is not something you have but something you gain.
Things that makes you happy:
1) When you gain something you want.
2) When you lose something you don't want to hold on to.
Things that makes you unhappy:
1) When you lose something you wanted to hold on to.
2) When you gain something that causes harm to you.
3) When you can't gain what you want to gain.
It's the amount and size of the thing you gain that makes you happy. You might say you are happy already because you have this and that, but that is merely because you know that there are people who still doesn't have those. Most of you probably eat everyday, while Hungry African children don't. You compare yourself to them and gain the relief that you weren't that person (or something else). And we still don't get those enormous happiness as when hungry African children gain everything we have. So then what happens if every single person in the world have the same amount of rights as you? You wouldn't feel so happy because we are born with these things and it's not something we gained, and more like you have nothing to compare yourself to, so you wouldn't feel so happy. Rather, it'll just get you bored. Having these things becomes normal and not special.
By these standards, we are capable of becoming unhappier than those hungry African children. We have plenty of things since we were born. hungry African children probably don't have so much. Turn it around. We have plenty of things to lose, while hungry African children don't have so much thing to lose. This pretty much explains why suicide rate of people like us are higher than those of those hungry African children. African children are too busy trying to live. We aren't as busy as they are. African children don't have much things to lose. We do. hungry African children well has the ability to become much happier than us.
To be more specific, if you suffer first, you'll become much happier when you gain something big than when you didn't suffer at first. If you are super handsome and you were always to go out with girls, you won't be as happy when you gain a idealistic wife than when you were ugly and was never good with girls but you gain an idealistic wife later in your life.
Think about it. There's a rich kid who gets presents everyday. You give the kid a candy. That kid would take the candy but wouldn't say "thanks". Because getting something becomes normal for the kid, he doesn't really feel the appreciation of being given something by someone else. Rather, the kid will go on and ask for larger "better" presents. (though if raised well by parents the kid will say thanks, but he wouldn't feel so happy getting the candy).
Third, like strat and Sadistic pointed out, if all the negatives are gone from this world, we will be much happier. Wrong. First of all, removing all negatives is impossible. Second, We won't be any sadder you are right, but we'll be very bored. It's because we have nothing too big to gain anymore. And bored is a form of "frustration" with no object to frustrate for, check 3) above. So it would give you somewhat unpleasant feeling. I call this "real boredom".
In fact, we are in middle of getting the "real boredom". The more time we have, the more you could use the time to play or something. But when we have TOO MUCH time, then we don't have enough of what we want to do to use those time. That is called boredom. It's when these boredom increases that people would think "what is meaning of life?", consciously or not.
Now I'll say this again. I'm not wishing for more negatives to the world. -
Date: Fri, Feb 5 2010 12:03:08
If a kid that lives in poverty gets a PS3 (assuming he is able to play it and shit) he will probably appreciate it more than someone who is rich or just doing well (like you said). That does not affect how much I enjoy getting a PS3, I'm not affected by their 'tragedy'.
If your point is that you appreciate things more when you are not used to getting such items, then no one has to admit anything. I'm pretty sure every one could easily acknowledge that this is common sense. -
Date: Fri, Feb 5 2010 15:31:18
No you're wrong. There's difference between "feeling happy" (an emotion) and "happiness" (a state of mind).
What you are talking about is only the emotion and not the state of mind, which is really what we are seeking.
Look at Maslow's pyramid of needs: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...hy_of_Needs.svg
When your basic are not even satisfied on a daily basis, you're not happy, in fact you're unhappy. In other words, you're in the NEGATIVE. In order for this person to be happy, he must first attain the "neutral" level where all his basic needs are satisfied, before even attempting to reach for higher levels (which are more psychological).
So in your example of the candy for example, you give it to a poor whose basic needs are never satisfied. Maybe that brings them to a higher level. But the reason they FEEL happy is because the difference between their current level and their new level is big. The bigger the difference, the more you feel good. But when we talk about the state of mind of that person it is still at a lower level than the rich person.
In other words, if a poor person manages to rise a level, he feel happy about it. But that person is still not as happy as a person on a higher level. -
Date: Sat, Feb 6 2010 08:30:13QUOTEIf a kid that lives in poverty gets a PS3 (assuming he is able to play it and shit) he will probably appreciate it more than someone who is rich or just doing well (like you said). That does not affect how much I enjoy getting a PS3, I'm not affected by their 'tragedy'.
If your point is that you appreciate things more when you are not used to getting such items, then no one has to admit anything. I'm pretty sure every one could easily acknowledge that this is common sense.
My point isn't about appreciating. Not about tragedy, but about as zombo says, "negative state"QUOTENo you're wrong. There's difference between "feeling happy" (an emotion) and "happiness" (a state of mind).
What you are talking about is only the emotion and not the state of mind, which is really what we are seeking.
Look at Maslow's pyramid of needs: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...hy_of_Needs.svg
When your basic are not even satisfied on a daily basis, you're not happy, in fact you're unhappy. In other words, you're in the NEGATIVE. In order for this person to be happy, he must first attain the "neutral" level where all his basic needs are satisfied, before even attempting to reach for higher levels (which are more psychological).
So in your example of the candy for example, you give it to a poor whose basic needs are never satisfied. Maybe that brings them to a higher level. But the reason they FEEL happy is because the difference between their current level and their new level is big. The bigger the difference, the more you feel good. But when we talk about the state of mind of that person it is still at a lower level than the rich person.
In other words, if a poor person manages to rise a level, he feel happy about it. But that person is still not as happy as a person on a higher level.
No, you are wrong. You are right about the fact that emotion and state of mind is different, but you explain them wrong. And Maslow's pyramid of needs is faulty. I'll explain why below, but let's get to the Happy and Happiness stuff first.
First, so then by your standards, people long time ago were terribly unhappy to being with? I highly doubt that. That doesn’t explain the reason why in country like USA or Japan or those advanced countries, suicide rates are generally higher than those of developing countries. Even the rich guys commit suicide. They probably have food to eat everyday, they probably got houses, might have a family, and they got jobs too (most of them at least). But I know people die of hunger, but I don’t really know anyone who commits suicide because they are hungry. Psychological damage level of hunger is obviously much lower.
Adding to that, there’s a difference between someone who was born fighting hunger and someone who wasn’t hungry but became hungry because they got fired or some reason. Someone who was born fighting hunger don’t know what it is like to be able to eat food anytime they want, while someone who became hungry do. There’s a psychological damage difference in that.
Second, when you gain something, you become happy, and your level of happiness also rises at the same time. As time passes, the happiness level decreases (the rate of decrease depends on each person). For example, you get a wife and now you feel happy. Happiness level rises as well. But as time passes having a wife becomes normal, and rather it becomes “boring†(The time passing depends on people though. Some people could get bored really easily while some might not get so bored so easily, anyhow let’s leave that part at that). Then some will go and seek for another woman to get the same type of happiness the person gained with his wife again. That’s how happy and happiness works. You need to keep gaining in order to be happy and keep the happiness level high or get it higher, or else your happiness level will decrease as time passes. That’s why we move on with games because we get bored with it and because we want to gain “freshness†in games, to give an easy example.
Third (and this goes with the first as well), your definition of “neutrality†is wrong. “Neutrality†is merely a relative. Because we, and you, were born with many rights and food and shelter and stuff like that, we feel it’s “neutralâ€. But for people who don’t even know that world like ours exist, their neutral is in much more “lower†level. You shouldn’t apply our own perspective of “neutrality†on other people and judge that they are unhappy. That’s the last thing you should do.QUOTEMaybe that brings them to a higher level. But the reason they FEEL happy is because the difference between their current level and their new level is big.
Forth, You just proved my theory to be correct. And this goes with Third as well, but you are terribly mistaken about unhappiness. Do you think hungry African Children even know what freedom of speech is? No. They will know OUR STANDARDS only when they see it. If they don’t see it, they think their standards are the standards. Therefore, they live in those standards, not ours. The reason the poor kid you talked about is still unhappy is because he knows that there are higher level that he could get into. But if the kid doesn’t know such higher level, how would the kid even know? Happiness is relative to the standards of each person, not yours or Maslow’s.
Finally let’s get to Maslow’s faulty pyramid that he created only according to his standards. I’ll first say this. Maslow did well making the pyramid. He placed each thing in the right position, but the problem is, he didn’t realize that it was merely his standards of the world he has lived, and that his pyramid could differ in levels according to each person. Take a look at the fixed version of Maslow’s pyramid by me:
-
Date: Sat, Feb 6 2010 14:16:39
what you just said did not contradict what I said, it only reinforces it.
QUOTEFirst, so then by your standards, people long time ago were terribly unhappy to being with? I highly doubt that.
Depends. If you talk about nobles who had all their basic met, then they are probably at high levels. If you talk about a peasant trying to survive during a bad harvest, then all they're thinking about is food. Technology in general give more people more opportunity to be happy because it allows us to spend less time on basic needs and more on good stuff.
you say that even rich people commit suicide. Did I ever mentionned that money = happiness? No. If you look at the Maslow pyramid, money buys you the most basic level and possibly safety (you don't even need money sometimes to fill those as long as you can eat, sleep, etc.), so that you're not in a negative state. But the higher level stuff, money does not really help. Also, sometimes depressions can be caused when you make a huge drop in level. So suicide can be caused by emotional reaction to losing a lot.QUOTEAdding to that, there’s a difference between someone who was born fighting hunger and someone who wasn’t hungry but became hungry because they got fired or some reason. Someone who was born fighting hunger don’t know what it is like to be able to eat food anytime they want, while someone who became hungry do. There’s a psychological damage difference in that.
exactly, proves my point by happiness being a state of mind and happiness being an emotion. The differences in gains and losses is an emotion, the level you are is a state. At the moment you gain or lose, you will have a strong emotion, after it stabilizes, you are now at that state.QUOTESecond, when you gain something, you become happy, and your level of happiness also rises at the same time. As time passes, the happiness level decreases (the rate of decrease depends on each person). For example, you get a wife and now you feel happy. Happiness level rises as well. But as time passes having a wife becomes normal, and rather it becomes “boring†(The time passing depends on people though. Some people could get bored really easily while some might not get so bored so easily, anyhow let’s leave that part at that). Then some will go and seek for another woman to get the same type of happiness the person gained with his wife again. That’s how happy and happiness works. You need to keep gaining in order to be happy and keep the happiness level high or get it higher, or else your happiness level will decrease as time passes. That’s why we move on with games because we get bored with it and because we want to gain “freshness†in games, to give an easy example.
this contradicts nothing, it means that over time, stability tends to decrease. and that you need to do something to maintain it.
ok finally, just because someone, in their lifetime, will not be able to achieve higher levels of happiness, DOES NOT MEAN they CANNOT achieve higher levels of happiness. Just because a hungry african will struggle all his life to satisfy the basic level does NOT mean that there is nothing beyond for them if they succeed. If you take a kid like this an adopt him, then yes the kid will stop worrying about basic needs and start exploring higher levels. -
Date: Sun, Feb 7 2010 06:35:51
No, you probably didn't read everything I wrote, or just misunderstood what I wrote. I said you were RIGHT that emotion happy and state happiness is different, but I said you have WRONG fundamental idea.
QUOTEDepends. If you talk about nobles who had all their basic met, then they are probably at high levels. If you talk about a peasant trying to survive during a bad harvest, then all they're thinking about is food. Technology in general give more people more opportunity to be happy because it allows us to spend less time on basic needs and more on good stuff.
Okay, I was talking about people much much before that, before cultural evolution. So those people were all unhappy? Are you sure? Or are you just saying that from our point of view in what's "neutral"?QUOTEyou say that even rich people commit suicide. Did I ever mentionned that money = happiness? No. If you look at the Maslow pyramid, money buys you the most basic level and possibly safety (you don't even need money sometimes to fill those as long as you can eat, sleep, etc.), so that you're not in a negative state. But the higher level stuff, money does not really help.
Nope. And that wasn't what I was pointing out neither. I said rich people starts off with basic needs already met. So they are at neutral level to begin with. And yet, while even the rich people commit suicide because they feel unhappy, hungry African Children don't commit suicide because OUR standards of basic needs are not met. What's this? You said hungry African Children are unhappy. But then why would rich people, who are neutral to begin with, commit suicide? By your standards, shouldn't they be, relative to the hungry african children, happier?
What I am point out really, that you didn't seem to understand, is that no one is born at unhappy state (nor happy state) but in a "neutral state" because they live upon THEIR OWN standards. Not ours. You say hungry African Children are, because OUR standards of basic needs are not met, they are unhappy. But I don't necessarily believe so. Like I said, I'm pretty sure Hungry African Children don't even know what "freedom of speech" is. If they don't know, they can't wish for it. More like they are too busy trying to get the basic needs, which is something they are wishing for. If they don't know anything about everything higher (in maslow's pyramid) than psychological, they can't wish for it. Once they know, however, then they'll wish for it.QUOTEok finally, just because someone, in their lifetime, will not be able to achieve higher levels of happiness, DOES NOT MEAN they CANNOT achieve higher levels of happiness. Just because a hungry african will struggle all his life to satisfy the basic level does NOT mean that there is nothing beyond for them if they succeed. If you take a kid like this an adopt him, then yes the kid will stop worrying about basic needs and start exploring higher levels.
At what point did I say anything that contradicts that?
Zombo, our thoughts of our last 3 or 4 posts, are SIMILAR but not Identical, and I well understood that since you started posting the 2 post below this. So YOU think I am not contradicting any of your thoughts, but no. It looks like it because it's similar, but there's a fundamental difference that you think hungry African children starts out in an unhappiness state while I point out that that is only if they know that there's higher level, and in actuality, everyone starts out in "neutral". -
Date: Sun, Feb 7 2010 07:04:02
what
from a purely biological point of view, a person who can't even get basic needs like hunger satisfied, will always be reminded of it by his own body through pain.
you don't even need to look beyond physical point of view to see how a person at level is at a very low state of happiness.
this is not even subjective, that's a biological fact.
people that have to worry constantly about basic needs don't even have the time or mind to achieve greater levels of happiness. -
Date: Sun, Feb 7 2010 07:21:29
you are mixing up physical pain and psychological pain.
-
Date: Thu, Feb 25 2010 02:14:08
Not really contributing to the discussion or anything but: anthropology > most psychology