A Simple Theory

Discussion in 'IntroSpectrum' started by Sodium, Aug 14, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. McGirth

    McGirth New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    Messages:
    4,883
    Also I'm definetly not a beleiver in the idea of evolutionary psychology which seems to be all the rage these days. IMHO its nonesense/reductionist.
    test
  2. Sodium

    Sodium I Get Computers Putin'

    Joined:
    May 6, 2003
    Messages:
    1,935
    So we both agree that the need to control is a universal human quality? ok.

    i think the term "evolutionary" has thrown you off. i mean yeah if the need is universal it then *must* have at least some kind of link toward evolution. i guess its not really necessary to say that though. Kind of excessive now that i think of it. I can see now how the use of this word has warped your approach to this subject. its made your thinking kind of rigid in that you think (or think i think) everything must ultimately relate to effective survival in order to meet the requirements of "evolutionary". this is incorrect thinking, i think.

    for example:

    "CONCERNING THE FIRST PART:
    I think i see what your saying. your saying that:
    1-All humans need to control things
    2-Control implies getting what one wants and knowing how to
    3-what one wants (in your sense of the term) are things directly linked to both individual and species survival (ie. procreation, food, water, shelter)"

    well more accurately, "what one wants" is simply just that - whatever the hell you want. who knows what the hell you want. you could want anything.

    what you want extends beyond your basic and essential needs. and, not only that, but what you want can be completely and ultimately counter-productive to those basic and essential needs. evolution should have obviously removed such ineffective behavior. but this isn't the way evolution works. evolution doesn't require only the most effective means of survival. if that were true then humans would have wheels instead of legs. but as you can see we're still walking.

    so i don't see how the fact that humans pursue wants that are seemingly irrelevant to survival invalidates my theory. this was an incorrect read on the way evolution works on your part.


    anyway i think we've converged here (no homo) on this and we pretty much agree and are saying the same thing. your whole thing with disputing this as an evolutionary measure isn't even really directed at actually disproving the theory itself but kind of just a flimsy area you felt you had to go for.


    1. my use of the term reality really was just a blanket word which meant things outside of you. so like, nature/god, some guy, bad traffic, crowded elevator etc

    and you're right the responses would differ based on who/what was challenging the person.


    2. you make a very interesting point here. i think your reasoning is wrong though. i think the weak point is when you propose that a person with more control equates to being more - according to my theory - content, as being content is defined as a state where one is in agreement with reality opposed to disagreeing with reality either through forms of depression or forms of anger/aggression.

    i believe this is wrong because a person who is constantly trying to control reality has greater tendency to be challenged by reality. this person constantly wishes to bend reality to his will, yet naturally, is often met with resistance. he is essentially trying to break apart reality and restructure it in his image. this - in its own way - is like an attack on reality (opposed to the state of being content: an agreement with reality).

    so when he gets his hopes crushed he essentially has been defeated by reality. this defeat thus leads to things like depression usually.

    so in sum, because a person with greater control is often confronting reality, he has a greater tendency to be defeated by it. thus it follows that a person with greater control is in fact more likely to get depressed/angry.

    interestingly i think this does well in explaining the phrase ignorance is bliss as the ignorant are less controlling, and thus more content.
    test
  3. Sodium

    Sodium I Get Computers Putin'

    Joined:
    May 6, 2003
    Messages:
    1,935
    and don't compare me to nietzcha me >>> him as far as philosophers go i own that niqqa something terrible
    test
  4. McGirth

    McGirth New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    Messages:
    4,883
    agreed. i would go further on the evolution point but its not really the main point so I'll let it slide.

    1-thats what i thought you meant by reality. But i think distinctions can be made as i made. Antoehr distinctionthat would be useful is the individuals body/mind sections that are maliable v. other peoples bodies/minds. After all, why isen't one's physical body/personality/psychology ALSO part of reality and subject to control of... the WILL (gasp! the WILL! hi nietzsche!!)? Either one's own or someone elses.

    2- i honestly thought of your point here and agree. perceiving less things you can control and not having the resources would lead to more hapiness than perceiving many things you can control but simply don't have the resources to do.
    test
  5. Sodium

    Sodium I Get Computers Putin'

    Joined:
    May 6, 2003
    Messages:
    1,935
    point taken [chicken]
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)