I've been

Discussion in 'IntroSpectrum' started by Radium, Jan 22, 2009.

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

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    thinking lately that every person secretly hates the world. All life is a reaction to this. how does one cover up this inherent dislike towards the world? so many ways to cover up your anger for the way things are...


    most are self-created delusions
    test
  2. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    what is interesting to me is how this reaction changes as people age and go through the worst that life has to throw at them. the way the reaction may warp from aggressive (confrontational) to passive (admitting defeat) or even the other way around.
    test
  3. Mcg-

    Mcg- New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    183
    hey radium.

    not sure what you mean by people secretly hating the world. Give us examples of different life stages and how this hate manifests itself into self-created delusions.

    also, when people create self-created delusions, then make these delusions a reality. Do they then love the world?
    test
  4. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    a couple real examples then

    to work from

    have you ever read lone wolf and cub? Ogami Itto was the shogun's executioner. He had a wife and a young son. One day his wife is murdered seemingly randomly and it becomes known to him later on that a complex plan was orchestrated to make him appear to be the killer as a means to strip him of his prestigious position as the shogun's decapitator. The plan was to stain the name of Ogami Itto for all future generations and to strip him of everything he had; to destroy him completely. Upon realizing this Ogami Itto resolved to enter the so called "Meifumado" the way of the demon or demon's road. Taking his son along with him, Ogami Itto relinquishes his position as executioner and travels Japan as an assassin raising a mountain of money upon the backs of countless dead, planning his revenge.

    My philosophy instructor played football when he was younger and had hopes of making it to the NFL. He never did. He spent an entire lecture talking about how flawed his way of thinking was and how he had to cope with just being not good enough in the end. He spoke of how flawed a win or lose mentality really is. He said in the end having a good time is the only thing that is important and how having a win-lose mind frame is just a waste of time. It became clear to me that he was using this as a means to justify his failure; to cover-up his defeat. Like Ogami Itto before him, it would seem he would have his own private revenge of sorts in the end too.

    these are both fairly extreme examples. I believe these reactions against reality also happen on even smaller scales.

    let use something very basic. when you get hungry you must eat. have you ever considered how hard it truly is just to be able to eat? Every day you must find a way or else you will die. And this never ends until the time comes when you finally do die one day. This seems very cruel to me. We are forced to react against this cruelty and find a way to polish it down over and over. It seems that all of life is by default a cruelty that only ever stops becoming cruel when it can be polished down or covered up.

    anyway, this perhaps can all be more easily summed up by saying simply that life is hard. My primary point is to show that life is by default, before anything, hard and cruel. That all other things (literally, every single possible interpretation on life a human being can generate) come as reactions to this. It is the first thing, the thing that comes before all other things.

    yes i think so. however that does not remove the foundation from which this conclusion has arisen from. In fact, it is that very foundation which allows or activates that particular conclusion to come into existence.
    test
  5. Mcg-

    Mcg- New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    183
    Two comments.
    First,
    I agree with you that by default we don't have what we want. But i think we need to clarify what this default it. You seem to be intimating a sort of state of nature, a pre-human society condition (think hobbes).

    In your example, you use hunger and the fact that we HAVE To eat. So we constantly have to labour to eat. But, did you ever try to stop labouring? will you starve? no. Why? human society has created a safety net for individuals, you wont starve if you stop working. Humans in societies are not chained to the pillar of necessity.

    Since humans are born into societies, while its true that in the abstract all humans must hate of the world from not being to get what they want, in societies many wants are filled from birth onwards. So althoug hteh default may be hate, the fact we are in societies ensures we are not controlled by htis hate, freeing up the mind for higher thoughts. So presuming human socitities, the default is not always hate.


    If you've ever read Hegel, he talks about how human societies first originated in the mountains, up where humans where in first instnace free from the chains of necessity. (the hate stage of society) They did not have to think about protecting themselves at all times, and there was enough food to get by. The birth of leisure gave rise to new mindstates, resulting in the growth of human nature. They then decended the mountains are reordered the socities below. This was the first stage of development of human freedom. (the last stage Hegel mentions is in Germany - pre-nazi)
    but i digress...

    Second,
    have you ever heard of cognitive dissonance theory. Look it up, i'm pretty sure its what your looking for when you mention self-dilusions after failure.

    FYI i disagree with your coach. There is no shame in trying as hard as you can and failing. Its only shameful if you let your "shame" from failing prevent you from getting back up on the horse and giving life another go, by becoming an alcoholic, etc... But even then tehre is no shame once you realize the error of your ways and get back on the horse, regardless how far you've fallen.
    test
  6. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    i think you overextend the luxury society allows to the human nature

    some constants for you

    everyone will die

    everyone will age (go through physical deterioration)

    everyone must still labor in order to be allowed the luxuries society contains (quit your job then and see how far you can stretch your so-called societal luxuries living in an alley or do they have no homeless in your society)

    and to cap things off there will always be terrible things happening in the world you live in (rape, murder, war, disease, so forth). pick up your newspaper and remind yourself of the world you are really living in.

    this doesn't sound so great to me. rather, its the best thing the world presently allows us to have.

    I refuse to acknowledge these things as good. But now I feel we are straying from my main point that "everyone secretly hates the world"

    when I say this I literally mean that every single person harbors a deep seeded resentment to the way the world is. Everyone seeks to change the world they live in into something more ideal - as the world is, by its own nature, not ideal. society makes things better, yes this is true, however, this does not take away man's pains and sorrows, from the slightest to the most severe, and his constant desires to remove them.

    take you for example. why do you go to school? what are you trying to overcome.

    is this not also a reaction against the fear of failing in this society? a harsh reality that must be fought against?
    test
  7. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    yeah I've heard of cognitive dissonance. I actually accused you of cognitive dissonance way back in the day in like 03 in one of our debates about something.
    test
  8. Mcg-

    Mcg- New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    183
    so to boil it down, what i think your saying is that individual's nature is to constantly have something that stands between where they are at and what they desire, whether this be something simple like food or something complex like world peace.

    This constant of not having what they want, leads to people hating their current condition, wanting to change it to something better: (i.e. them having their food, or world peace).


    not sure if this is correct.
    But if it is,
    what about buddists, who teach not desiring, living in a society so all their basic needs are attended to?
    test
  9. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    yes that is what i'm saying

    buddhists to my knowledge teach to not want too much from the world. to repress desire at the level to only the most basic needs (food, drink, shelter). with desire now whittled down to an extreme low they can live in a world where every desire is supposedly attended to.

    a curious reaction to be sure. one of Buddha's first assertions was that all of life is suffering. from this foundation he concludes to seek a life of limited desires. i think this example strengthens my own assertion that people harbor resentment/hate towards the way the world is as a foundation for all other reactions.

    I now quote something you said earlier that i think sums this whole thing up best

    I guess that is what buddha and the buddhists have done. still and all though, the world remains a bad place. this does not change. delusions can never replace reality - they can only cover them up.
    test
  10. Mcg-

    Mcg- New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    183
    i think what your saying is pretty solid. not sure i would characterize it as "hate" though. Your presuming that because people dont have things exactly their way, and try to change things, that they hate their current condition.

    I like the story in the book the Alchemist (Cohl) about this. I forget exactly who says it, but the lesson is basically that you should go through life seeking what you want out of life, but you should also enjoy the process.

    I think the analogy they used was that life is like carrying an egg on the end of a spoon through a maze to the end with beautiful muruls on the walls. You can either (1) ignore the egg, drop it, and look at hte walls. but then you fail in your goal for experienece of looking at the murels, (2) you can focus on the egg and not look at the murels, but then you fail to enjoy life's experience, (3) the real way to live is to hold onto to the egg, but look up around you and enjoy what's going on every now and then.

    Basically, the fact that you don't have what you desire does not mean that you HATE your current situation. You need to enjoy the ride, and keep your head up, while staying focused on your goals. That is, no hate for one's current state, but living life both existentially and with goals.

    granted this is not easy. But the point is that the basic idea of "hate" is not a necessary element of your theory.

    i'm also not seing why this is neccesarily self-delusion.
    test
  11. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    delusions because they seek to ignore how bad the world really and truly is. to replace or cover up this cruelty with pretty murals on ugly walls. light up your cigarette and laugh while you whistle your way through the maze pretending things aren't really so bad. this may be the only tolerable way for many to walk through but this changes nothing ultimately. the walls are still ugly. there is no paint that could truly change this.

    that is why they are delusions

    i used this on the riz the existentialist a few threads ago


    Rorschach (crime fighting super-hero) after being asked to explain why he is the way he is to his psychologist recalls during an investigation seeing a dead girls bones being eaten by dogs in the killer's backyard:

    "Stood in firelight, sweltering. Felt cleansed. Felt dark planet turn under my feet and knew what cats know that makes them scream like babies in the night. Looked at sky through smoke heavy with human fat and God was not there. The cold, suffocating dark goes on forever, and we are alone. Live our lives lacking anything better to do. Devise something later. Born from oblivion; bear children, hell-bound as ourselves; go into oblivion. There is nothing else.Existence is random. Has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it for too long. No meaning save what we choose to impose. This rudder-less world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. Streets stank of fire. The void breathed hard on my heart, turning its illusions to ice, shattering them. Was reborn then, free to scrawl own design on this morally blank world. Was Rorschach."

    Rorschach walks through a maze with no murals painted on the walls. this is because he keeps the image of that girl's bones being eaten by the dogs frozen in his heart. It beats inside his chest replacing his heart. it is the truth.

    a truth that many are not brave or strong enough to accept or keep beating inside their hearts. the murals cover up her image. he refuses to cover up her image.

    many choose the mural (the delusion)

    some may choose the wall (the truth)
    test
  12. Mcg-

    Mcg- New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    183
    i don't see that is delusions. your assuming the basic condition is that the world is horrible objectively, and that we cover that up with delusions.

    however, maybe the world is fantastic, yet we are constantly dissatisfied, so we cover up the fact that the world is fantastic with pessimism.

    basically, saying that people are delusion is presuming that you know the underlying true state of the world.

    the truth is, imho, that death is apart of life. Pain, suffering, etc is apart of human existence. murder, crimes, etc stem from dissonances to justice. horrible stuff happens, but its never been the case that things have been perfect. We aren't angels, all we can do is our best in eliminating these things. I don't think its delusional not to think about death, etc every second of every day. It is delusional however, to think that thinking about horrible things will somehow impact anything.
    test
  13. barnizzle

    barnizzle HIP HOP

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2004
    Messages:
    7,636
    indigos know
    test
  14. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    i've already considered this

    and concluded the reasoning to be very flawed. the reasoning does not even follow. Its conclusion violates its own premise.

    1. the world is bad because the world is flawed

    2. however, good things (not flawed) also exist in the world

    3. therefore, the world is not bad just because the world is flawed

    do you see the imaginary jump? good things can't erase the bad things. the bad things do not suddenly vanish or disappear. they are still there. therefore the world is still bad despite any number of good things you may find and show.

    the only way this would not be true is if you could (and you've been trying here and there) to somehow show how the world was 1. not flawed from a starting point. you would not be able to do this though. as someone who is so intimate with the law you should be able to see this. perhaps even in a sharper way than anyone else.

    at any rate, this is the basic argument used when people try to present the world as not actually bad. as you can see its clearly self-deluding. the only other way to present the world as not being bad would be to argue how from a starting point the world is actually good (not flawed). however, this is impossible.

    ----------

    this reasoning shown above differs sharply from what you offer as being your own belief later on in your post though (where I will show how you are actually arguing my own argument)

    to reduce this

    1. the world is bad because the world is flawed

    2. this can't be changed

    3. just try to do your best in a flawed world

    do you see how this differs from the earlier reasoning? there is no push to make the bad things somehow vanish. at best they can be limited and fought down to a level tolerable. the world however still remains flawed and therefore bad.

    and in this I can agree with you

    the reason I personally feel its important to keep the understanding that the world is flawed strongly in your heart is because to do so makes you fully aware of what you're dealing with. many people try not to think of such bad things but doing so separates you from the true nature of the world. you become fat and lazy and you lay down and fall asleep somewhere in a meadow where none of these things happen. but there is no such place for the living. you cannot escape the world. there is no sanctuary you can hide inside.

    i feel you must face the world head-on. not half-heartedly or through the filter self-created delusions. this makes me stronger than others.
    test
  15. Mcg-

    Mcg- New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    183
    you didn't address the basic fact that its YOU who is presuming that the world is bad, and everyone else is deluded. this is a value judgment on your part.
    test
  16. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    the world is bad because the world is not ideal

    for every human not just me


    is this false?

    also there are of course some value judgments being made by me in regards to what things I think are bad (not ideal) and what things I think aren't. But not everything is simply just a value judgment

    is disease bad?

    I argue that it objectively is

    do you want to argue against this?

    *cracks knuckles*

    should children be born w/ severe disabilities?

    *cracks knuckles again*

    give me your answer to both of these
    test
  17. barnizzle

    barnizzle HIP HOP

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2004
    Messages:
    7,636
    genetic corruption...thousands of years of ungodly acts..

    the world is a product of the people, corrupted by evil, not the eloheim..

    whose to say there is an actual "reason" for anything that happens...if it is written then it shall be, no ifs ands or revisions to the script....

    everything is written, even the evils
    test
  18. Mcg-

    Mcg- New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    183
    I don't agree that the world is bad because its not ideal. something not reaching an ideal does not mean its bad, also ideals vary from person to person and even within person(s) over time. In principal though, i agree, that there is a "nugget" of bad underlying all these subjective perceptions. Not sure your particular subjective perceptions/value judgments are the right ones, I 'don't think mine are either.


    take your 2 examples: disease and children born with severe disabilities.
    from one point of view (Baconian/Modern, and post-modern) disease and children born with dissabiities are bad, because both lead to suffering. Suffering is inherently bad, thus we should strive to eliminate it.

    From another point of view, we will say from the perspective of an evolutionary biologist, disease plays an important role in human devleopment. It promotes human genetic adaptation, making us healthier in the long run.

    From a fundamentalist christian perspective, disease leads to suffering. Dealing with suffering helps cleanse the soul, which is the point of living. Its not that disease is bad, and that removing all disease from the planet would clease the world of evil. Its also not the case that allowing disease would somehow make us good. But it is the case that focusing on saving the body rather than the soul puts emphasis on the wrong question. Save your soul, not your body. For disabilities, again same thing here. We should care for the disabled, and not focus on eliminating them. It speaks of evil in our society, in the condition of our souls, if we seek to eliminate them, as if they were a sort of liability. They are only a liability to our physical condition - not to the state of our souls - thus it does not make sense to even seek to eliminate them. What we should seek to do is to CARE FOR the disabled when they are born, since this is what a person would a good soul would do.

    The point is not that disease and disabilities are necessarily good for the christian fundamentalist, rather they are NOT inherently bad. That is, we should care for the soul, and the goal of eliminating disease/disabilities only matters if it is linked to the concern for caring for the soul.

    so what was the point of the above little discourse? What is Good/Bad depends largely on broader considerations, religious or ethical.


    Remember there are two classical ways to deal with this problem:
    1-people are inherently good - society makes them bad (liberalism/rousseau)
    2-people are inherently bad (original sin) - suffering/religion makes them good. (Christianity)


    your view seems to fall in position 2, with suffering/religion that makes them good being the self-delusion that has the potential to make them good (if they achieve it).


    Personally,
    Sometimes in the past I've thought particular situations were bad, then upon learning more about the world, i thought they were good & vice-versa. I've then sometimes switched back the other way. (i think you can sort of see that in how i can see 2 sides to ethical debates). This is both true for personal experiences I've lived through, and things I've observed others living through. In other words - while I do believe there is a nugget of good or bad - I'm not sure my subjective judgment at any point in time can without a doubt make that call. (this is why on this board you have seen me oscillating b/w liberal positions, conservative positions, ancient positions, medieval positions, modernist positions, and even post-modernist positions at different times)

    So what am I left with? and more broadly - given the reality of a scope of subjectivism with nugget of truth - what is society left with?

    can't get into it right now. But there is VERY CLEAR both material and ethical bedrock, which is undeniably objective, and which has been largely forgotten for the last 200 years, although its always been there and always will be.
    test
  19. Mcg-

    Mcg- New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    183
    i fear I've strayed a bit of course. So to bring it back to the subject. Is there objective good or bad? I believe so, BUT is there any certain absolute non-subjective proof? no. Can we differentiate between what we subjectively feel is bad/reality of good/bad? mostly no, and with absolute certainty no.

    The point for the thread: your argument that there is inherent dislike towards the world which is inherently bad is subjectively based, either your own subjectivism or of those who beleive cover up what you perceive as being bad with delusion.

    The result is that we don't know if the "self-created delusions" created to cover up the so-called bad are themselves real/not real. Just like how we can't know for certain if the bad we perceive is certain.

    so in sum, its not clear the delusions are delusions. It could be that they are correct views of reality, and that the opposite of your theory is true, that is, we are pessimists in that we think of their views as delusional and the world as inherently bad.
    test
  20. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    the bedrock good-evil is what I was trying to get you to admit

    and I think

    if you agree to this then

    you must agree with me

    (thus your reluctance)

    so lets start this up

    ultimately to me good-evil is a term that can only (presently) be applied to human societies . inside this box, good-evil becomes what works and what doesn't work. that is, what allows human society to work and what doesn't. simple enough.

    but yes it can be tricky.

    at any rate this routs the problems of perspective you've presented in that this and only this is the perspective that truly matters. This follows since it is this final and ultimate perspective that all other perspectives must fall into and exist inside of. This sort of makes it the king of all other perspectives.

    because we are dealing w/ societies and not individuals (Francis Bacon, evolutionary biologist, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Ghetalion) then it follows that the final say on good-evil must come from society and not from an individual.

    and that is what democracy is and the reason why it remains the dominating form of social organization.

    anyway,

    I think things tend to fall into place. What doesn't work naturally becomes dismissed for that which does. This is the first law of the universe and not surprisingly it also applies to societies. so lets expand this to some of the perspectives you offered in your last post:

    modern Post/modern:
    from one point of view (Baconian/Modern, and post-modern) disease and children born with dissabiities are bad, because both lead to suffering. Suffering is inherently bad, thus we should strive to eliminate it.

    makes sense to most societies!

    evolutionary biologist:
    From another point of view, we will say from the perspective of an evolutionary biologist, disease plays an important role in human devleopment. It promotes human genetic adaptation, making us healthier in the long run.


    then he and the few other evolutionary biologists can go and live in their own society somewhere on an island and catch every disease under the bright sun until their hearts burst open from joy. not sure how many people would like to join this society though. How many people would you estimate to want to be part of this? whats more, how long do you think to society would last; supposing a deadly disease finally does show up one day that they cannot or refused to eliminate (don't possess the adequate technology because the philosophy of freely catching disease was embraced or simply believed human diversity would super-man save them at the end of the day)

    this society sucks (also I think your example is backwards; they don't believe disease causes genetic diversity they believe that genetic diversity causes greater resistance to disease. so you have made a mistake here. you should be more careful in the future unless you did this purposely to pump up the number of examples could show. in which case you should at least cover up your tracks more carefully. this tiny alteration that you've left out would have actually strengthened my argument that disease is objectively bad. but its out in the open now at least.)


    Funamentalist Christian society
    From a fundamentalist christian perspective, disease leads to suffering. Dealing with suffering helps cleanse the soul, which is the point of living. Its not that disease is bad, and that removing all disease from the planet would clease the world of evil. Its also not the case that allowing disease would somehow make us good. But it is the case that focusing on saving the body rather than the soul puts emphasis on the wrong question. Save your soul, not your body. For disabilities, again same thing here. We should care for the disabled, and not focus on eliminating them. It speaks of evil in our society, in the condition of our souls, if we seek to eliminate them, as if they were a sort of liability. They are only a liability to our physical condition - not to the state of our souls - thus it does not make sense to even seek to eliminate them. What we should seek to do is to CARE FOR the disabled when they are born, since this is what a person would a good soul would do.


    Well, this is an interesting society. dealing with suffering instead of eliminating suffering. the notion seems to make great sense...

    to those who did not possess the technological capability to realistically eliminate the causes of suffering - in other words the ancient civilizations w/ virtually stone age medical practices that this religion and the other religions like this actually came from. Maybe they would have developed a different way of dealing with suffering (disease, birth defects) had they actually possessed the capability of treating them with things that actually worked (like say, penicillin instead of prayers).

    taking this one step further, suppose all of society thought in this way? that it was perfectly acceptable to live with things like disease and birth defects? the medical advances that could have actually put a halt to these terrible things would have never come. a society like this would not go very far.


    so what was the point of this little discourse?

    That all minor perspectives must all ultimately answer to a major perspective in the end.

    Also, 1 final thing

    the christian example you provided is wrong. I've already shown in an earlier post why that form of reasoning is wrong. the world cannot be inherently good if you are reacting against something that is bad. the very fact that you are trying to remedy the problem in some form or another betrays the reality that something bad has happened. It doesn't suddenly transform into a good thing or disappear or vanish. The bad thing has already happened. The fact that you are reacting against it is a living proof to its existence. This is not to say that good things cannot also happen but (and I show this in an earlier post) the good thing doesn't magically erase the bad thing.
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

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