Have we lost the ability to think for ourselves?

Are we actually learning things in school or do we only pass the exam to forget the knowledge of what it is?

Would you rather be in a field of green grass or sin city because you saw it on a movie?

what do you consider necessary, fun, sociable?

Why do people do things when they know what happens?

im kinda bored
:bugeye:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I've been told I think for myself so I am sure that is true.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I've often thought that, when you get to that point when you start work you tend to only remember what you need to for your job.

Having passed my GCSE's (not sure of the USA equivalent) i find that my knowledge of Chemistry, French (i know!) and the like has really diminished.

I guess i could always try and re-learn those things if i wanted to. But again it's having the time and the will to want to do that as it does not relate to my occupation, interests anymore.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

both depending on what direction you take and how you use your knowledge

sin city ,much more exciting but grass is a close second

eating/drinking, anything challenging, "drinking":m: lol

1 either to try and get away with it
2 they could care less the consequences
3 they are retarded

 

Ha!
Love it.

 

No one is truly objective.

The only real difference between men is in the degree to which they question themselves, and the extent of their honesty in doing so. In those instances where honesty with regard to self-analysis is achieved, it is even rarer to find the man who takes steps to remedy his misconceptions or prejudices.

Evolutionary theory would indicate that possession of a conforming mind is of greater advantage than an individual one.

 

Agreed.

I would quibble with this one. My reason is that many people need to question themselves less. So I would shift the focus from an active process to a more passive one. I would say their willingness to notice things that do not fit their ideas, emotions and thoughts that do not fit their self-image, ways the criticism of others actually does seem to fit them and so on. IOW more of a stopping of processes of denial and utter defensiveness.

I think that is because people tend to engage processes that add a layer instead of getting to the root of their problems and distortions. They try to suppress the old process, so it just goes underground or they feel smug and superior to those who cannot control theirs, despite the fact that the first person, the suppressor, really did not resolve it, they just decided it was bad or wrong intellectually.

Their ego and superego have new rules and items that are dystonic.

That is complicated, I have to think about it.

 

I disagree with this on a couple specific examples. Sociopaths for instance are known to mimic behaviors in order to use them to their advantage, so they get ahead as long as they stay ahead. The extremes that come from the activity give them a greater advantage at times. besides following the leader turns people into sheeple, someone has to be the outlier in the equation. Or possibly a couple minds who think alike.

 

Again, the degree of honesty in self-analysis (where one engages in self-analysis to begin with) is a significant factor.
No one can be truly honest. That in itself does not preclude degrees of honesty.

The human mind is quite capable of distorting or even manufacturing "memories" to blunt the effect of a traumatic experience.
Men have a tendency to paint themselves in a light acceptable to the image they hold of themselves. Without this self defence mechanism, man would be mentally paralysed and unable to function effectively.

Confidence is an aphrodisiac, is it not? Confidence does not indicate that one is "right". It merely indicates that one believes one is; and therefore (from a viewpoint of evolutionary theory, again) a more functional human being.
The onging effect is exponential.

It is, rather.
Let's see if you can refute it.

 

Sociopaths don't commonly contribute to the gene pool though, do they.
Take a sample of serial killers, for example, and find out how many actually go on to have children.

Yes.
However... is the sociopath or the comformist more likely to yield long-term results?

Of course. A leader is not necessarily someone with a truly individual mind, though. In fact, most would be quite the opposite.
If you consider that in recent history, society in most cultures has tended toward the elected leader rather than an imposed one, it would tend to reinforce the idea that individuals are being weeded out.
Leaders must be at least seen to conform to public opinion, or they won't be leaders for long.

Now, if you're speaking of individual minds more generally, they still function within the framework that allows them to be an individual. While they might challenge some aspects of the social or scientific mores, such a challenge is almost invariably mounted from within the framework of that society.

 

I don't disagree. I had problems with this active self-interrogation - to use a more charged word. Or to use another self-doubt. I often think that those who need to question themselves more, never do. And those who really do not need to very much at all, spend too much time on it. The former group is only to glad to take up the space the latter's process leave open.

This seems to argue against self-analysis/self-awareness. It is also an untested judgment I would guess. One could investigate in stages, gently peeling back the layers and see if one can bear it, taking breaks when necessary. I have found all the worst possible things so far and I still want to live and I am not paralyzed. If it had hit me all at once, way too much.

But confidence in oneself can also be sound. Just because 'out there' we can see examples that are unsound, we do not need to draw the conclusion that self-doubt must always be present to some degree or other.

 

Heh. I can run with that.
Guilty as charged, in fact, intentional or otherwise.

It does, in effect.
It is medically recognised (or theorised, with some substantiation) that we do indeed do this.

Without this being a direct questioning of you, we have again the degree of honesty with which one does so.

And the extent to which one either ignores or acts upon what one discovers once that examination has occured.
Most often, we will justify rather than alter.

Of course not - I can't see why that is relevant, though.

 

Hm. I wonder which excess you are guilty of. Perhaps both.

Sure, we do hide stuff from ourselves where strong emotions (we are not comfortable with) are hooked in. But it is not healthy to leave it all in their festering. I think we have a lot of judgments about what must be left alone 'in there' or.......[fill in the fear here]. I think these need to be challenged.

The trick is how to alter some of this stuff. I think that is part of the reason we do not want to know. What the hell do we do once we have found it? I do have answers that I feel work for me. But I do think a strong underlying panic is that one will then have to live knowing one is wrong and not being able to do anything about it.

So you find you have a prejudice. What do you, The Marquis, do about it?

Just trying to put your thoughts on confidence in a context. I guessed wrong.

 

Mostly the first. I am, as they say, my own worst enemy. Certainly the only one capable of mounting any such challenge.
It is incredibly difficult to feel anything other than apathy when one sees mankind in all its glory. The only... only... thing which can still make me feel anything for it, once I get past any philosophical justification for doing so, is that I am one of them.

My advice? Don't go too far. Leave the basic structure intact.
"Gaia" has placed it there for a reason. I use the word as a catchall term for evolutionary theory, nature, or even your god... your preference as to what you call it.

Bingo.

Less of a prejudice, and more when one discovers that the underlying platform on which we base our view of ourselves is a construct.
Personally? I lie to myself. The problem with that is I know I'm doing it.

A couple of years ago I made a decision, in what I recognise to be self-preserving desperation, that went against the grain of everything I considered myself to be. I tried to justify that decision in a hundred ways, all the while knowing I was merely justifying. It was a paradox of a nature leading to a fairly agonising crash. The person I was prior to that decision ceased to exist.
It is only fairly recently that I have once more attained a platform of acceptance. How have I done it? I'm not entirely sure. Perhaps there are some lies I can accept, when the issue is survival.

 

Cogito ergo sum.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Bah.

You are aware that quoting that is akin to posting one of those little pictures of a kitten with some appropriately amusing quote on the bottom?

 

this is a gem. it reminds me of a couple of scenes from herzog's the enigma of kaspar hauser, particularly the apple scene.

the relationship between will and intellect is complicated, and ultimately i find rilke (ore even "the book of job") more satisfying than nietzsche.

 

sorry. i'm kinda lazy and in the habit of simply pointing at the moon.

as per rilke: think "8th duino elegy."

also, there's an old gary snyder essay, an exegesis upon "the wild," in which he traces the term "will" (wille, rather) back to the pre-teutonic term, ghewiltijos, meaning "wild."

now, prideful sorts, egoists, and behaviorists find the two terms/notions--will and wild--entirely antithetical; but those of us who've gotten over ourselves know otherwise.

 

Is anything really satisfactory, other than in a moment?

You have, however, given me something I may have to find time to watch.
Youtube. Of all things.

A little microcosm of the internet itself. Mostly garbage, but once in a while...


going to sleep. Horribly drunk.

 

be sure to watch herzog's version and NOT the more recent kaspar hauser film. the latter is more faithful to feuerbach's text, but an abomination nonetheless.