Grim Realizations

[Zantos]

The Power Rangers only ever existed in order to sell you crappy plastic toys. Each sold separately, so you needed to get your parents to fork out 6 times at about £25 a go to get the full Megazord. It ruined my childhood memories when I realised that.

 

[Doclector]

That there's a decent possibility I may have far more common sense than the people in charge of my course at uni.

Then there's the fact that I have to sign on to a dodgy internet credit card to get my credit rating up, because apparently, innocent until proven guilty doesn't count if you've never borrowed anything in your life (seriously, I've never even borrowed money from friends that I didn't give back after two hours at the most), and if I make a completely original point in one of my essays, I can't make it because I need a reference to validate even the most basically logically sound point, despite the fact that the works I can reference are essentially also just essays that just so happened to be published. Makes me wonder who published those in the first place, because THEY don't always have references.

Basically, I'm struggling with the fact that one of my worst adolescent fears, the fear that I'm not just paranoid and arrogant, that the world and everything that I care about IS in fact run by morons and bearocrats who like nothing better to get in my way, and in the way of any kind of progress.

 

[TWRule]

You repeat, in different words, most of the point of the Pratchett quote. Well done! In essence, I think, it is meant to convey one taking on the responsibilty of seeing to others' wellbeing by claiming them as one's own and making them part of one's self.

I'm not sure what I'm saying was the same - I was stressing that what a family/community follows is something (usually a worldview or set of values) that no one person in the community necessarily ever had. Taking someone's pre-existing interests and internalizing them, which I believe is what you and Pratchett were talking about, is quite a different matter. Maybe someone only cares about survival, for example. I can choose to sympathize with his cause, but that doesn't make me part of his/her family, even if we actively work together for it.

The best analogy I can think of off the topic of my head would be a band of soldiers. Maybe they go to war as part of a loose, impersonal military organization, but they emerge as a band of brothers (even if they no longer care at all about the political values of their home nation). Even further, let's say they decide to hire a mercenary to help their cause - that merc still may not be welcomed into the brotherhood even though they ostensibly fight for the same cause, because his/her values differ, and the soldiers choose their values over his.

And how is this not an action based in self-interest? They chastise themselves for not properly upholding their moral code. There is disappointment and embarassment among the family that one of theirs did not do what they thought was the proper action, fearing what it could mean for them as well as the family member who was violent. Self-interest is not always based in survival.

You could frame it as self-interest, but that oversimplifies the situation. Why do you think they chose that particular moral code over any other? If they were only following self-interest, how could they (or anyone) even arrive at a conception of proper action, let alone one that differed from everyone else's?

*snip*

First off, let's just stop talking about 'honesty' about human nature or any conception of what's true. Let's get straight that we only have our individual bias' and the most either of us can do is convince the other of why they should take up our view.

I don't subscribe to any such simplistic understanding of the value of selfishness or selflessness, though I do tend to see egoistic views as naive and misguided for various reasons. I was never arguing for ethical altruism though (the view that you should sacrifice all you can indiscriminately for others).

So why should I believe in your view, which seems to me to reduce to egoistic hedonism, where humans are basically conceived of as pleasure-seekers with no ability to perceive or strive toward a higher purpose? It allows us to rest on our laurels, discard ethical and philosophical responsibility (maybe killing others makes me feel better than helping them?), and never try to lift ourselves up to noble action? What does that do to give meaning/purpose to human life? I, for one, would never want to be part of a 'family' where the others only treated me well because it made them feel good (they may as well get a pet instead) and not because they want a genuine human relationship with me. I don't want to live in a world full of pleasure-seeking zombies.

Why not believe in a humanity that can lift itself up to nobility, seek higher purposes, not just because it makes them feel good, but because it's what's right, can have consciences that can tell the difference, can have genuine unique interpersonal relationships in which they do not treat each other (consciously or unconsciously) as objects that dispense pleasure?

 

[Thistlehart]

You could frame it as self-interest, but that oversimplifies the situation. Why do you think they chose that particular moral code over any other? If they were only following self-interest, how could they (or anyone) even arrive at a conception of proper action, let alone one that differed from everyone else's?

They wanted to, and they felt that was best for them and theirs. Yes, it is simple, but it's remarkable how simple many things become when you break them down.

First off, let's just stop talking about 'honesty' about human nature or any conception of what's true. Let's get straight that we only have our individual bias' and the most either of us can do is convince the other of why they should take up our view.

I suppose I should apologize two-fold. The bit about honesty may have been going a bit far, sorry if that offended. It was not intended to. Sorry about that.

I'm also sorry if I came across as pushing my beiefs down your throat. I just wanted to explain how I saw things, and maybe you'd get something out of that...

I don't subscribe to any such simplistic understanding of the value of selfishness or selflessness, though I do tend to see egoistic views as naive and misguided for various reasons. I was never arguing for ethical altruism though (the view that you should sacrifice all you can indiscriminately for others).

So why should I believe in your view, which seems to me to reduce to egoistic hedonism, where humans are basically conceived of as pleasure-seekers with no ability to perceive or strive toward a higher purpose? It allows us to rest on our laurels, discard ethical and philosophical responsibility (maybe killing others makes me feel better than helping them?), and never try to lift ourselves up to noble action? What does that do to give meaning/purpose to human life? I, for one, would never want to be part of a 'family' where the others only treated me well because it made them feel good (they may as well get a pet instead) and not because they want a genuine human relationship with me. I don't want to live in a world full of pleasure-seeking zombies.

...at which I seem to have failed spectacularly. Again, I'm sorry.

Why not believe in a humanity that can lift itself up to nobility, seek higher purposes, not just because it makes them feel good, but because it's what's right, can have consciences that can tell the difference, can have genuine unique interpersonal relationships in which they do not treat each other (consciously or unconsciously) as objects that dispense pleasure?

Oh I do. It's why I'm still here, after all. However, a friend of mine once told me, "If you want to be able to move forward, you have to accept where you are. Denial just sticks you in place."

 

[TWRule]

*snip*

I'm not offended so there is no need to apologize - I'm just trying to make sure we are clear here so that additional confusion can be avoided.

Oh I do. It's why I'm still here, after all. However, a friend of mine once told me, "If you want to be able to move forward, you have to accept where you are. Denial just sticks you in place."

Your friend's advice may be sound for everyday life, but I tend to think discussing where we are is generally a waste of time when it comes to philosophy - all that really matters there is where we should be (and to a lesser extent how we'll get there). I commented on this thread in hopes of pointing out to you that the outlook you've been sharing doesn't really accomplish or even allow for humans to lift themselves to nobility as I've been describing, but then I've already said my piece on that.

 

[Biodeamon]

I earlier wrote an entry in my journal (yes, i have a journal, shut up!) that i intended to to write a month later just to see how much changed and i went back to it checked the date and....the journal entry was dated dated back 2 YEARS. It only felt like a couple of months and already i'd gone from grade 9 to grade 11. i really have a bad sense of time...

 

[Thistlehart]

I commented on this thread in hopes of pointing out to you that the outlook you've been sharing doesn't really accomplish or even allow for humans to lift themselves to nobility as I've been describing...

I'll have to respectfully disagree. There's more than one way to skin a cat. Pardon the cliche.

 

[Relish in Chaos]

OK, so grim realizations...well, the depressing usual. Life is ultimately pointless, all endeavours are essentially ways of killing time before time kills us, my inherent pessimism, low self-esteem and laziness means that I'll "fail at life", life was better when I was a child and teenagehood actually aren't the best years of your life.

Life would be better as an animal, being entirely neutral creatures with an arbitrarily set path, or lack thereof, and presumably (hopefully) don't think much about anything in general.

God, Heaven, Hell or any other supernatural bullshit doesn't exist, so what's left for me after I die? Reincarnation? So I'll be stuck in a cycle of living through different bodies until, I dunno, the universe itself dies? Or I'll "wake up" from the dream that is life? Or I'll be "stuck" in an empty body underground or, alternatively, burnt to ashes so I'll be nothing? And the worse thing is: NO-ONE EVEN FUCKING KNOWS AND LIKELY NEVER BLOODY WILL.

Death. I am a depressed human being, and I would commit suicide if not for my family and the fact that I?m afraid of what happens afterwards. So yes, I am trapped. The optimists say, ?It could be worse?, but the pessimist that is me replies, ?But it could be better!?

OK, less depressing things...

In the future, physical books will go the way of the typewriter in favour of Kindles, e-readers, etc. Same with traditional video games, its consoles and controllers.

I?m growing up, and in almost two years, I?ll be 18 and officially adult. And I feel as unprepared as ever. Back when I was a child, I thought that even becoming a teenager was so far off in the future that it was like it would never come.

 

[Dante DiVongola]

My grim realization is just how fragile and frail life can really be. Within a few weeks, my girlfriend dumped me, my best friend is getting sexually harassed and possibly might be raped, I went out with one of my roommates to dinner and they stuck me with a huge bill, my schizophrenia, depression, and insomnia have come back full swing, and I have the looming threat of flunking most (if not all) my classes because I've been getting migraines recently and had to stay home. It's not the roughest situation in the world, but it's still one rough time I'm having now and it all seemed to happen in the blink of an eye.