The difference is irrelevant, all that matters is the point at which someone becomes satisfied. It doesn't matter where that point is, whether it's a finite number or infintely large, if the person of mention never reaches that point. Agreed?Cheeze_Pavilion said:Let me stop you right there: tons does not equal infinite. To go back to something from an earlier comment, I think you keep missing the distinction between one finite number larger than another finite number, and the qualitative--not just quantitative--difference between a finite number and infinity.
You're partially correct. The other part is developing expectations. If my kid is allowed to have as much as he wants of anything, that is what he begins to expect. If he asks for a skateboard, next he will ask for a bike, next he will ask for a car, next a yatch (sp?), next a space shuttle... at what point is he satisfied? What what point does he have 'enough' and begin to learn self-control as you have explained, or does he continue wanting 'more' and not just 'enough' as I have proposed? If he feels like he can have or do anything he wants (the ultimate feeling of security, is it not?) what is to prevent him from stealing, killing, etc?Cheeze_Pavilion said:See, I think you misunderstand human nature. Children don't get spoiled when they are assured of getting what they ask for; children get spoiled when they are assured of getting what they ask for *when accompanied by bratty behavior*. Big difference.
The third part is physical and psychological well-being. Too much candy will rot his teeth and cause early death, along with low self-esteem, etc. Bratty behavior is just part of it.
That's true, but rules are also necessary for the reasons I stated above.Cheeze_Pavilion said:Let's face it--most 'rules' have to do with the resources of the parents. There's nothing inherently corrupting about giving a kid a pony if that's what he really wants. It's just that most parents can't afford a pony. That's why they have to set the 'no pony' rule--they can't afford it.
Can you give me any real-world examples of people engaging in destructive behavior with no other motivation? The most common motivation for seemingly random destructive behavior is the desire for a feeling of power, but this is a far cry from the self-destructive tendencies that most unintentionally accompany excess.Cheeze_Pavilion said:Well, if you're really interested, look into it. I think you'll be surprised by what you find, that it plays a much larger part than you think.1. I have a hard time believing people engage in destructive behavior just for the heck of it.
These are excellent examples of people without self-control, knowing when to stop working/exercising and balance themselves with other activities. I think you'll find that both these types of people actually have an underlying desire driving them, even if it's subconscious. People become workaholics because work is how they define themselves. Same for people addicted to exercise. For some of them, the feeling of accomplishment that they get from working or exercising may be the only pleasure they get in life, and thus it becomes an escape.Cheeze_Pavilion said:What about workaholics? People addicted to exercise? Not every addict is a lazy drug-addled porn collecting glutton, you know.2. As I stated in my first post, self-control and self-discipline build confidence. Hard work, one result of self-discipline, leads to accomplishment and a greater level of self-esteem.
If you don't have good judgement, the difference is that you probably won't even want to exercise self-control until you wake up and realize the bad position you're in (example: my addiction to MMORPGS is killing my social life, hurting my career and thus destroying my self esteem). Once you wake up one morning and realize this mistake, your motivation to change and begin exercising self-control begins to take your main focus.Cheeze_Pavilion said:So wait--how are these people without good judgment going to start exercising self-control? You keep talking about how stuff like self-control is taught--how are these people going to 'learn' self-control from a Holodeck? How does that mesh with your statement: "My world is one where people's identity is tied to human nature, and remains constant regardless of their physical surroundings"?3. The holodeck would, theoretically, give us access to as much of anything that we want, essentially sending those without good judgement and self-control into a tailspin until they die or wake up to cold hard reality and begin exercising self-control.
I never said that people would learn self-control from the Holodeck, I said only those with strong self-control would be able to survive it's invention. (a slight exaggeration but you know what I mean)
I'm not saying that physical surroundings can't have an effect on a persons state of mind (otherwise the holodeck couldn't have an effect on us at all), I'm just saying that physical surroundings aren't the primary force that affects a person's state of mind. I would argue that human nature has a much more profound effect on us than our physical surroundings. This is why the holodeck is so potentially damaging... it preys upon our human nature. Physical surroundings can affect, but do not determine, who we are as humans. On the other hand, human nature does determine who we are as humans, unless self-control or self-discipline are exercised.Cheeze_Pavilion said:Let me split this Gordian knot by saying it would be more accurate to say that my world is one where a change in physical surroundings can change something internally such as the state of mind which can cause them to be satisfied. Yours is one where physical surroundings don't have that power.
I doubt it. Nothing your saying seems to hold any merit when introduced to the real world. See my remarks on your 'positive' addictions above.Cheeze_Pavilion said:Maybe so, but, I think the more you learn about, say, psychological addictions--especially 'positive' ones like workaholism--or child psychology beyond the quasi-puritan ideology you seem to have, the more merit you'll see in what I'm saying.I think we may just have to agree to disagree on this.
You have yet to explain how self-control and self-discipline are products of feeling secure. If you feel secure, how or why exactly does one control or discipline oneself?