Poll: Change The World

[000Ronald]

Or Alternatively, "Life Is Hard! I Tried To Teach You That"

This mindset infuriates me. Don't get me wrong, you should be honest with your children, but what you shouldn't do is tell them the world is out to get them, and that they need to fight with everyone just to survive!

This is a philosophical issue as much as it is a moral one. By teaching a child that the world is out to get them and that they'll be lucky to get by at all, you teach them that the world is a thing that happens to them. You can't expect a person with this mindset to succeed in the world, because they just won't have the drive. If it happens, it'll happen. What's more, you're teaching them to incite further conflict, without teaching them justification. They'll just go through life making problems where there are none. They'll be miserable, and everyone around them will be miserable.

Sucessful people, happy people, believe that they happen to the world. These are the people that change things, these are the people that get things moving, for better or for worse.

I'm not just nitpicking because I'm absurdly idealistic. Yes, life is really, really hard. I know. But that doesn't mean that you have to sit there and take it. You face life, you face the future as a companion, something that experiences life with you, not as a conflict to be won.

EDIT: Changed the name of the thread; I figured it might be confusing.

 

[tehweave]

The world bends to my will. I give it a reprieve every so often. It rewards me by making my life awesome.

This may sound egotistical, but dammit... You can have it your way too.

 

[Anarchemitis]

The more you know the less you know, the more you know you know.

This paradoxical statement indicates the fact that the more that is explored (with means such as science or whatever), the more there is shown to discover. The more answers we find, the greater the number of questions found that have yet to be asked.
For which reasons, the greater level of acceptance you have with the inheirent lack of knowledge everyone possess, the smarter you are [in a certain paradigm].

The main point of that statement is that Humility is far more valuable and important than Pride.

 

[loc978]

I voted "yes", because as I see it, there is no "the world" that either happens to you or lets you happen to it. There are individuals and there are groups of individuals, and sometimes you will interact with them. Something to remember in those interactions is that every human being has had a different set of experiences to yours, and thus you will not understand every one of their actions or positions on a subject. Too few children are taught this lesson, in my opinion. Too often, alien concepts are automatically seen as evil, rather than an opportunity to learn. If we teach kids to collaborate and to have interest in learning, the attitude that "the world" is there to help and be helped will follow.
Also, we'd see a sharp rise in technical competence as people who learn differently and at different rates stop being ridiculed so often. For more on the subject...

Spoiler: here

I happen to agree with this guy:

 

[EvilPicnic]

Neither. Both. You interact with the 'world around you' and in return the 'world around you' interacts with you.

The idea about yourself 'happening' to the world is a bit hubristic imo...

 

[Kpt._Rob]

Do you want to improve the world?
I don't think it can be done.

The world is sacred.
It can't be improved.
If you tamper with it, you'll ruin it.
If you treat it like an object, you'll lose it.

There is a time for being ahead,
a time for being behind;
a time for being in motion,
a time for being at rest;
a time for being vigorous,
a time for being exhausted;
a time for being safe,
a time for being in danger.

The Master sees things as they are,
without trying to control them.
She lets them go their own way,
and resides at the center of the circle.

I quote here from the Tao not because I think it is solid evidence to oppose the idea that one must approach the world as if "they are happening to it," but to point out that there are many methods of approaching the world, and to say that anyone who says that theirs is the only way to happiness is exceedingly arrogant. I won't say that your approach, OP, is not a valid one, merely that people can approach the world in other ways as well, and still find happiness.

The world is not so simple that one solution can bring everyone happiness, or make everyone happy. The world has layers of depth and complexity beyond imagining. The world is hard, and the truth is that not everyone is going to "make something huge" out of their lives. But that's okay. Could it not be that, for some people, maybe approaching life less as something to be defeated, and more as something to be content with, is good advice?

 

[Attack__cat]

Scientifically the world happens to you. if the world didnt exist and you were in a vacuum (and somehow alive) there would be no contact, no stimulus. all would be darkness. no feeling no touch no heat no light no sound.

becuase 'the world' exists there are stimuli to trigger receptors that send nerve impulses that we percieve. from a humans standpoint that is the world, a collection of stimuli triggering receptors in your body.

we can influence it sure, but we only experience those influences and see the effect they have through stimuli from 'the world' being fed back into our systems. (lets say i have no sense of touch/hearing for this example)if i knock/move a cup on my desk i influence the world. but i only know its moved because light reflects from it into my eyes and i can percieve its relative position in space, which is the world influencing me.

if the world didnt 'happen to me' i would never percieve the world and not even know it exists (and i would die of lack of food/boredom). if i never happened to the world the world would continue relatively normally.

unless you go into quantum observation and all that 'tree falls down and theres no one there to hear it' malarchy.

 

[Raikov]

That would depend on your desired impact. For the vast majority, the world happens to you in the early ages, up to a point. The point usually happens when you get a job and get the ability to influence others through the social networks that job provides.

In this day and age, that point is very individual, and can be reached early or late, considering the unemployment rates and the type of job you get.

From what I've seen so far, the more socially accepted you are at school and in the social circles of your younger life, the longer it takes for you to start impacting on the world.

However, those that are unsuccessful and unhappy with the world, usually finds way to change their immediate surroundings more to their liking. Now if these ppl are somewhat successful in their early attempts, they will go on with their lives always trying to influence the world around them to the better. At least better for them.

Real life example: Me and a few of my friends never really fitted in at school, for various reasons. So we wanted to have a better experience. We started playing PC games together in LAN:s. Our group expanded quite fast and soon the basement we gamed in was way too small. Instead of becoming an elitist group of bastards, we put some pressure on the school principal and got to use a part of the facility to engage others that were unhappy with what was considered 'normal' free-time activities at the time.

Turned out to become a social revolution. We expanded to other nearby schools so that everyone would get the chance to join, and we even managed to get sponsors for food, drinks and tournament prices.

Now, LAN:s at schools with dozens of gamers are considered normal. I'm 25 now, so this was about 7 or 8 years ago. So me and my friends started to impact the world around us at an early age, because we were unhappy with the choices we had. Gaming is now an accepted form of social activity here in this backwater, and as it turns out, soccer is at an all time low.

I guess that means we won. Take that you mainstream populist bastards! =P

Oh, and I'm still doing this. I'm an employee at a large nearby industry, and I am still engaged in creating alternative social activities for me, my friends, and anyone willing to join in. Not so much LAN:s these days, with all the fast connections (we had 56k modems back then. yeah >.<), but now it's Airsoft, pen-and-paper RPG:s and boardgames.

Sorry for the wall of text. But Yes, I happen to the world. But the world had to happen to me first.

 

[Kakujin]

I feel that I influence the world a lot more than it influences me

 

[badgersprite]

It's a bit of both. Yeah, awful shit is probably going to happen that you have no control over at some point, but the most important lesson I think anyone can learn is that you do have absolute control over how you deal with it, how you react to it, and that is how you grow as a person.

The most important thing I figured out when I was being bullied in high school for being gay was that I wasn't the problem - the other kids and their issues were - but that I was the solution. I had complete control over how I felt about myself. They could talk behind my back, beat me up, or whatever else all they wanted, because their shit was their own problem. I didn't have to take it. And that realisation led to me making proactive steps to make my life better and regaining my confidence.

I went from being ready to drop out of high school as a result of the depression I suffered as a result of being bullied, to getting into law school, because I realised I had agency over my own life.

Attitude isn't going to solve all of life's problems, sure, but it can help you see that you aren't stuck in a situation, or that you have other options. We all have times where we feel like we've done nothing to deserve something shitty happening to us, and yeah usually that's the case, but there can be a huge difference between, "I don't deserve this. Why does this keep happening to me?" and "I don't deserve this. I'm going to make sure this never happens again."

 

[smithy_2045]

It goes both ways.

 

[Togs]

Or Alternatively, "Life Is Hard! I Tried To Teach You That"

This mindset infuriates me. Don't get me wrong, you should be honest with your children, but what you shouldn't do is tell them the world is out to get them, and that they need to fight with everyone just to survive!

This is a philosophical issue as much as it is a moral one. By teaching a child that the world is out to get them and that they'll be lucky to get by at all, you teach them that the world is a thing that happens to them. You can't expect a person with this mindset to succeed in the world, because they just won't have the drive. If it happens, it'll happen. What's more, you're teaching them to incite further conflict, without teaching them justification. They'll just go through life making problems where there are none. They'll be miserable, and everyone around them will be miserable.


Sucessful people, happy people, believe that they happen to the world. These are the people that change things, these are the people that get things moving, for better or for worse.

I'm not just nitpicking because I'm absurdly idealistic. Yes, life is really, really hard. I know. But that doesn't mean that you have to sit there and take it. You face life, you face the future as a companion, something that experiences life with you, not as a conflict to be won.

EDIT: Changed the name of the thread; I figured it might be confusing.

At first I was kinda intrigued- we reach similar conclusions from diameterically opposed approaches but then I reread it and spotted all the inconsistencies and faulty logic.
Yes you should prepare children for the harshness of life- how else will they learn?
And no if life is harsh then you shouldnt fight against people- you'd be better cooperating to alleviate the hardships.
And your whole second paragraph? by far the most depressingly defeatist thing Ive read in years, you basically say "if life sucks why try?"- just as I said above because it sucks is why you should try in the 1st place- "what is a man if he does not try and make the world better?"

You call yourself idealistic but to my mind you sound more like a cynic in denial.

 

[000Ronald]

Or Alternatively, "Life Is Hard! I Tried To Teach You That"

This mindset infuriates me. Don't get me wrong, you should be honest with your children, but what you shouldn't do is tell them the world is out to get them, and that they need to fight with everyone just to survive!

This is a philosophical issue as much as it is a moral one. By teaching a child that the world is out to get them and that they'll be lucky to get by at all, you teach them that the world is a thing that happens to them. You can't expect a person with this mindset to succeed in the world, because they just won't have the drive. If it happens, it'll happen. What's more, you're teaching them to incite further conflict, without teaching them justification. They'll just go through life making problems where there are none. They'll be miserable, and everyone around them will be miserable.


Sucessful people, happy people, believe that they happen to the world. These are the people that change things, these are the people that get things moving, for better or for worse.

I'm not just nitpicking because I'm absurdly idealistic. Yes, life is really, really hard. I know. But that doesn't mean that you have to sit there and take it. You face life, you face the future as a companion, something that experiences life with you, not as a conflict to be won.

EDIT: Changed the name of the thread; I figured it might be confusing.

At first I was kinda intrigued- we reach similar conclusions from diameterically opposed approaches but then I reread it and spotted all the inconsistencies and faulty logic.
Yes you should prepare children for the harshness of life- how else will they learn?
And no if life is harsh then you shouldnt fight against people- you'd be better cooperating to alleviate the hardships.
And your whole second paragraph? by far the most depressingly defeatist thing Ive read in years, you basically say "if life sucks why try?"- just as I said above because it sucks is why you should try in the 1st place- "what is a man if he does not try and make the world better?"

You call yourself idealistic but to my mind you sound more like a cynic in denial.

Yes, I realize that. I'm just not sure how to remedy that.

 

[Togs]

Yes, I realize that. I'm just not sure how to remedy that.

Meh the fact that you want to remedy it suggests that its not really you- its a stage mate, and a common one at that.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Something too complicated for a quick and easy generalisation, I think.

But, the idea of an individual being able to control their own destiny...given that they'd be in conflict with 6 billion nominslly equivalent individuals also trying to control theirs in mutually exclusive ways, it doesn't really work.

 

[exessmirror]

shit happens to me, not i happen to shit