General

Is this reasonable? an explanation of how i'm looking for noone



Enas:
I strongly agree with a chunk of what you're saying here. I think that it whould be very unhealthy to have an absolute devotion to any one person. However we're not talking about the same thing i belive. Your point of view feels especially individualized. I'm not in that page. I think that love *could* be the driving force of humanity (people think that "it doesn't work"smiley And for me, love is not only between two individuals, altho what you feel there IS love! But love is also what pushes us to do good things and most importantly, take care of other people.

What i disagree strongly with is self-love. In my judgement it's apsolutely toxic and it's a product of what i tried to explain in my previous reply. I won't follow it one bit, however that doesn't mean that everything is fine, quite the opposite. If everything was fine there whould be no space for self-love to be useful for.

We live in a dystopia. The worst one we've ever come up with.


I'll admit to an individualist bias. I was raised in the US and many of my greatest role models, philosophical exposures, and pup culture obsessions espouse individualist themes.

Still, I think I understand what kind of society you idealize. One where charity to strangers is common and born out of love for fellow humans, and is given without consideration of compensation. I truly hope such a world can come about in our lifetimes; I simply think that the path to it requires a bit of self-love.

Humans are a social species, yes, but those instincts are born of an extended sense of self-preservation. We value others' lives and company because they enrich and enable us to thrive ourselves.

When we exercise self-love, I believe we exercise empathy. By valuing ourselves, we provide a reference for how we should value others. By appreciating and seeking joy for our own sake, we know the joy of receiving kindness and charity from others. This awareness can provide the fulfillment needed to sustain a culture of compassion and charity. In a world where no one wanted anything for themselves, there would be no point to giving gifts to others, of showing compassion to others, of providing company to others. A sacrifice only has value if that which is given up has value.

Though I am no longer religious, I was raised Catholic, and one aspect of it has resonated with me through my entire life: "Love others as you love yourself." It is an admission to our inherent needs and desires as individual organisms while simultaneously being a reminder of the existence of those needs and desires in others. A call to compassion born of self-love.

The dystopia comes when people forget to consider the inner lives of others, their innermost passions and fears, their wants and needs. Or it comes from demanding more from others than they can give, to act not out of self-love, but out of selfishness.

I think there is a difference between self-love and selfishness. Self-love affords us the same charities we should direct to others. Selfishness callously deprives others of those charities. Self-love is a candle; it illuminates itself the most brightly, but still extends that light and warmth to its surroundings, and can provide a spark for other candles. Selfishness is a fire burning out of control, consuming everything around it until it chokes or starves from its own greed.

It is not selfishness to deprive a tiger of its meal by fleeing from it. Nor is it selfishness to prevent other human beings from harming or exploiting us simply because it would benefit them. Nor is it selfishness to admit when we are at our limits. There is nuance to the world, and our priorities, necessitated by the scarcity of time and resources, which means we cannot only ever give. At the very least, sacrificing ourselves to too great a degree will leave us too spent to provide for future obligations, too depleted for further compassion. A father could not give away all his possessions and belongings to a stranger without potentially depriving his own children.

There is no utopia in absolutism, except perhaps for absolute plentitude. Seeing as we do not live in such a Paradise, we must exercise moderation. Self-love is important. As is compassion. As is acting on our priorities. As is love for all people. These must be balanced. And no one can dictate that balance for others. Only for themselves.
1 year

Is this reasonable? an explanation of how i'm looking for noone

Munchies:
Oh, Enas. All these words, and I'm not convinced you truly understand what you're saying.

Munchies, im not saying stuff to convince people that i trully understand something. That's not the goal. The goal is to expose people into a different school of thought. If anything i write doesn't make sense to you maybe it's because i cant communicate what i have in mind well. Im not writing it down well enough. If you think that's the case, please tell me what's not clear so i can try to write it in a different way!
1 year

Is this reasonable? an explanation of how i'm looking for noone



Enas:
I strongly agree with a chunk of what you're saying here. I think that it whould be very unhealthy to have an absolute devotion to any one person. However we're not talking about the same thing i belive. Your point of view feels especially individualized. I'm not in that page. I think that love *could* be the driving force of humanity (people think that "it doesn't work"smiley And for me, love is not only between two individuals, altho what you feel there IS love! But love is also what pushes us to do good things and most importantly, take care of other people.

What i disagree strongly with is self-love. In my judgement it's apsolutely toxic and it's a product of what i tried to explain in my previous reply. I won't follow it one bit, however that doesn't mean that everything is fine, quite the opposite. If everything was fine there whould be no space for self-love to be useful for.

We live in a dystopia. The worst one we've ever come up with.

PolyPinoyPuppy:
I'll admit to an individualist bias. I was raised in the US and many of my greatest role models, philosophical exposures, and pup culture obsessions espouse individualist themes.

Still, I think I understand what kind of society you idealize. One where charity to strangers is common and born out of love for fellow humans, and is given without consideration of compensation. I truly hope such a world can come about in our lifetimes; I simply think that the path to it requires a bit of self-love.

Humans are a social species, yes, but those instincts are born of an extended sense of self-preservation. We value others' lives and company because they enrich and enable us to thrive ourselves.

When we exercise self-love, I believe we exercise empathy. By valuing ourselves, we provide a reference for how we should value others. By appreciating and seeking joy for our own sake, we know the joy of receiving kindness and charity from others. This awareness can provide the fulfillment needed to sustain a culture of compassion and charity. In a world where no one wanted anything for themselves, there would be no point to giving gifts to others, of showing compassion to others, of providing company to others. A sacrifice only has value if that which is given up has value.

Though I am no longer religious, I was raised Catholic, and one aspect of it has resonated with me through my entire life: "Love others as you love yourself." It is an admission to our inherent needs and desires as individual organisms while simultaneously being a reminder of the existence of those needs and desires in others. A call to compassion born of self-love.

The dystopia comes when people forget to consider the inner lives of others, their innermost passions and fears, their wants and needs. Or it comes from demanding more from others than they can give, to act not out of self-love, but out of selfishness.

I think there is a difference between self-love and selfishness. Self-love affords us the same charities we should direct to others. Selfishness callously deprives others of those charities. Self-love is a candle; it illuminates itself the most brightly, but still extends that light and warmth to its surroundings, and can provide a spark for other candles. Selfishness is a fire burning out of control, consuming everything around it until it chokes or starves from its own greed.

It is not selfishness to deprive a tiger of its meal by fleeing from it. Nor is it selfishness to prevent other human beings from harming or exploiting us simply because it would benefit them. Nor is it selfishness to admit when we are at our limits. There is nuance to the world, and our priorities, necessitated by the scarcity of time and resources, which means we cannot only ever give. At the very least, sacrificing ourselves to too great a degree will leave us too spent to provide for future obligations, too depleted for further compassion. A father could not give away all his possessions and belongings to a stranger without potentially depriving his own children.

There is no utopia in absolutism, except perhaps for absolute plentitude. Seeing as we do not live in such a Paradise, we must exercise moderation. Self-love is important. As is compassion. As is acting on our priorities. As is love for all people. These must be balanced. And no one can dictate that balance for others. Only for themselves.

Okay first of all, that's a brilliant answer! Thank you for spending the time to write it, i appreciate it a lot!
Your point is as clear as glass.

I should also say that i heavily lean towards the socialist ideology and it's biases.

I mostly agree with what you write anyway but i think this is better when other people are doing it for you. That's when you feel gratitude. And i think that our current way of living, is not letting this happen, so we resort to attempt to do this, each on our own. I don't like it since it's not natural. But
1 year

Is this reasonable? an explanation of how i'm looking for noone

Munchies:
Oh, Enas. All these words, and I'm not convinced you truly understand what you're saying.

Enas:
Munchies, im not saying stuff to convince people that i trully understand something. That's not the goal. The goal is to expose people into a different school of thought. If anything i write doesn't make sense to you maybe it's because i cant communicate what i have in mind well. Im not writing it down well enough. If you think that's the case, please tell me what's not clear so i can try to write it in a different way!


Nothing wrong with exposing people to new lines of thought. I do it all the time.

However, the wisest course of action is to have a firm understanding of what you are talking about before you say stuff. For example, if you had a firm understanding of socialism and neoliberalism, you'd understand that the two are incompatible with each other and would have never tried to attempt it.
1 year

Is this reasonable? an explanation of how i'm looking for noone


Enas:
Okay first of all, that's a brilliant answer! Thank you for spending the time to write it, i appreciate it a lot!
Your point is as clear as glass.

I should also say that i heavily lean towards the socialist ideology and it's biases.

I mostly agree with what you write anyway but i think this is better when other people are doing it for you. That's when you feel gratitude. And i think that our current way of living, is not letting this happen, so we resort to attempt to do this, each on our own. I don't like it since it's not natural. But


Thank you! I appreciate you taking the time to read my answer. I like sharing ideas, and this discussion certainly has been enjoyable (though distracting from my work).
1 year

Is this reasonable? an explanation of how i'm looking for noone

There are many ways to approach these topics. Socially we are directed in very strong ways, naturally. And different countries/backgrounds/religions, etc will have a huge impact on our ideas about love and needs.

Personally I'm fascinated by Psychology, and have been recently reading more about Attachment Theory and the four Attachment Styles. It has shed some light on (all of) my relationships, how I understand and react to emotions like love and trust, and how to heal from negative patterns. For those here that like to dive in deeper and read up on stuff, I'd recommend peeking at this approach.
1 year

Is this reasonable? an explanation of how i'm looking for noone

RobbyP:
A particular philosopher voiced an observation which indicates that the very title of my topic here is contradictory. I paraphrase them below:

A choice has no causation. If it has a causation, then it is not a choice.


A choice has no causation? My guy, everything in life has causation. Events within and outside of your control influence every decision you make.

I am not saying you are bound by the narrative of life to do and say the things you do. Rather your internal and external experiences influence your choices. There's nothing in life that exists in a vaccuum.
1 year

Is this reasonable? an explanation of how i'm looking for noone

RobbyP:
A particular philosopher voiced an observation which indicates that the very title of my topic here is contradictory. I paraphrase them below:

A choice has no causation. If it has a causation, then it is not a choice.

Munchies:
A choice has no causation? My guy, everything in life has causation. Events within and outside of your control influence every decision you make.

I am not saying you are bound by the narrative of life to do and say the things you do. Rather your internal and external experiences influence your choices. There's nothing in life that exists in a vaccuum.

RobbyP:
The true turning point, the exact core of things, has no mass. Particles always vibrate. Void allows for possibility- choice is not made by things which exist.


I will go on a limb here and assume you are talking about metaphysics, correct? I ask because we are speaking on two different planes, which isn't conducive to conversation.
1 year

Is this reasonable? an explanation of how i'm looking for noone

RobbyP:
A particular philosopher voiced an observation which indicates that the very title of my topic here is contradictory. I paraphrase them below:

A choice has no causation. If it has a causation, then it is not a choice.

Munchies:
A choice has no causation? My guy, everything in life has causation. Events within and outside of your control influence every decision you make.

I am not saying you are bound by the narrative of life to do and say the things you do. Rather your internal and external experiences influence your choices. There's nothing in life that exists in a vaccuum.

RobbyP:
The true turning point, the exact core of things, has no mass. Particles always vibrate. Void allows for possibility- choice is not made by things which exist.

Munchies:
I will go on a limb here and assume you are talking about metaphysics, correct? I ask because we are speaking on two different planes, which isn't conducive to conversation.

RobbyP:
What I talked about is exactly as I wrote it. A rock doesn't choose to be pushed down a hill, nor does a person choose to be pushed off a cliff by surprise. Only in a moment without the initiation of such forces can a choice be made.


This is a fundamental misunderstanding about the basics of physics and psychology.

I thought that, maybe, this was about metaphysics which deals with "the void" in an abstract and symbolic way. In which case, I was prepared to change gears and approach this conversation in a different way. But no. You mean this literally.

And quite frankly, I am not going to post a dissertation on either on a fetish site. All I will say is maybe do a bit more research about how the world around you works.

1 year
12   loading