It may seem an odd question, but... Can you like, dislike, or hate (any emotional response really), someone you don't personally know? Think about someone you don't personally know, who you have some opinion about, for example George Bush. Are your opinions and feelings really about the person, or his actions and policies? Can you really hate someone you don't know? If not, is this what makes killing in war conceptually different to murder back home? I ask because I was considering sciforums users, and I realised that my posts may seem harsh now and then when discussing things other people care about, but which I don't really care about. A couple of people here I like, but most of you are just text on a screen to me. If my posts ever seem harsh, generally it's simply because I don't care one way or another, not because I dislike people. To actually post something I intended as cruel or supportive or whatever, I would have to give a damn. If I saw a guy trying to kill a kid or rape someone or something bigger like that, I would try to intervene and maybe break bones, but I don't think I would feel a personal involvement. Rather my outrage, if you could call it that, would be based on principle - a person should not behave that way, so I'll fix it. I think that no matter the scale, whether small and insignificant or something important, I only really feel a personal involvement at all if the person or people matter to me first. A punch-up in a pub, or two nations at war... When there is personal emotional involvement, then I will actually feel something about it. Otherwise, all I can summon is opinion. Any ideas?
Well, it's a tricky question. When teenagers fall in love with their idols, the love is very real to them, it's just that the idol may not at all match with the illusion of them that the girls have painted up in their minds. So the love is real, but it's directed to a fantasy, not a real person. Since they have not met the person, they can't possibly know what they are actually like. Although in this time and age, so much of the idols personality is put on display in differents shows in media. So maybe the reality and the illusion are getting closer to eachother. But when you speak about rescuing a girl from getting raped, it is clearly an act of compassion toward the victim, not just an annoyance because irrational behaviour is put on display for you. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I think we hate what the person has done/is doing or what they stand for Example, I hate the way George Bush has handled rescent matters. I may say I hate him, but I only hate what he's doing. He's probably a nice guy, but we don't know that. People judge others by what they know
I gave this some thought awhile ago, and I would have to say that no, you can't truly have feelings for anyone's personality unless you have a clear understanding of who they are based on personal interactions with them. I despise the gluttonous conservative pigs that run our nation, and truth be told although I would like to think that they are major, major assholes I'm not completely sure because I've never even [darthvadervoice]looked upon them with my own eyes[/darthvadervoice].
I don't know what you guys think hate means, but... There is many people I do not personally know that I feel animosity toward. That I detest in all their personality and behaviours. And definetly people I have a distaste for.
i think that you can "hate" certain undesirable behaviors in others, but, on the same hand, that very same person might have/display some very lovable traits(behaviors) about them, too. wait...are the words: "traits" and "behaviors" synonymous?? why...bless my soul....i guess they are! :bugeye: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes, I am pessimistic. Isn't this simply a matter of knowing someone enough to actually hate/love them? To me, I don't know anyone, and no one knows me. Ever heard "Every man is an island."? We'll never be able to know someone in their quintessence, and vice versa. We're all just blind, deaf, and mute beings, unable to communicate except in meaningless guttural voices and vague gestures. For example, you can never know what goes on in another's subconscious. No one is so naive as to reveal everything about themselves. We are isolated creatures, but the need for social activity and hunger for love forces us to join together and share, contrary to our vicious human natures. I see that there are many arguments of disliking what a person does or displays. Well, doesn't that reflect the person, so in turn, you dislike the person? Personally, I've never hated anyone. How can you hate someone, when they're just being human? It's hard not to feel compassionate, because we are all just stumbling around in the dark. I don't hate Hitler, I don't hate Charles Manson...they're victims, not to be ostracized, but learned from and to pity. Or maybe I'm just so elite and egotistical, that this whole "compassion" thing is a facade. Who knows? This supports my idea of separation. I don't even know myself properly to conclude my feelings for others.
"We'll never be able to know someone in their quintessence, and vice versa. We're all just blind, deaf, and mute beings, unable to communicate except in meaningless guttural voices and vague gestures." Not only do I disagree to a ridiculous extent with what you mean to say, but you're plain wrong. We can communicate in many, many, many ways not including speech, which you call guttural voices. How about music. Or interpitive dance (shudder). Or film. Or visual art. "For example, you can never know what goes on in another's subconscious." Wrong. Now, we can neverk now for sure. However, this is a useless statement as we can never, technically, know anything "for sure". "No one is so naive as to reveal everything about themselves" This, if anything, shows your complete lack of knowledge on psychology. You seem to have some ridiculous idea that the words we say about ourselves are all that we reveal about us. In fact, I'd say it's definite that I learn more about a person from what they say not about themselves than what they do say about themselves. And, as you with the high understanding on the unconscious would know, what we reveal about ourselves through our words is often of little to no choice of our own. "We are isolated creatures, but the need for social activity and hunger for love forces us to join together and share, contrary to our vicious human natures" We are not isolated creatures in the least. We are 100% social animals. "How can you hate someone, when they're just being human?" What the hell does that have to do with anything? "I don't hate war. War is just part of human nature!" -- "I don't hate murder. After all, it's just a result of being human!" -- "I don't hate genocide!"... "I don't hate Hitler, I don't hate Charles Manson...they're victims, not to be ostracized, but learned from and to pity." Haha. Oh bluesoul. Yeah, Chucki and Adolph were victims. See John Lennon wouldn't have a personal meeting with Chuck therefore it was okey-dokey for Chuck to go kill some folk and say that the white man needs to rise above the black and jewish evil. And Adolph, fuck, he had to grow up poor!! Fucking hell! If I grew up poor I'd definetly say I was a victim enoug hto slaugher millions of innocent people! "Or maybe I'm just so elite and egotistical, that this whole "compassion" thing is a facade" Or it's just stupid and uninformed. "I don't even know myself properly to conclude my feelings for others." And that's the first intelligent thing I've read in this post.
%BlueSoulRobot% I have heard it said by theists that "only god knows what is in our hearts". I've heard it said by others that one is only whole upon death, for we continue to grow throughout life; thus we can not know the complete self until that moment. This is true. Those who have studied any psychology will knnow that the conscious mind is basically a bridge, a filter, and a sorting mechanism between the outside world and our subconscious mind. Well, here I must disagree, but only on a personal basis. I have the idea that if you love someone and wish to be with them, you should trust them without reservation. I think there's a bit of both in us. Yin and yang in all things. We need personal space, we have our individual needs and desires, but we are after all social creatures as we can see from our evolution. The actions make the man? Yes, I agree. But does the man do actions he disapproves of for what he percieves as the greater good? Or is he merely a complete prick? I must agree somewhat. Ten years ago I had some people trying to kill me; a very personal effort, not just part of the job. I was angry and wanted to hurt them in turn, but even then I saw value in them. I don't hate them personally. Pity them, sure; learn from them, certainly; but remove them from society, absolutely. I don't think compassion is a facade. It is, however, occasionally hard to reconcile with logic. Then you're in company with such notables as Aristotle.
"Not only do I disagree to a ridiculous extent with what you mean to say, but you're plain wrong. We can communicate in many, many, many ways not including speech, which you call guttural voices. How about music. Or interpetive dance (shudder). Or film. Or visual art." Yes, but those are slow ways of communication. It is distorted in it's output, and distorted in the input (the other person's experience of it). "Wrong. Now, we can never know for sure. However, this is a useless statement as we can never, technically, know anything "for sure"." That's what I'm saying. :bugeye: "This, if anything, shows your complete lack of knowledge on psychology. You seem to have some ridiculous idea that the words we say about ourselves are all that we reveal about us. In fact, I'd say it's definite that I learn more about a person from what they say not about themselves than what they do say about themselves. And, as you with the high understanding on the unconscious would know, what we reveal about ourselves through our words is often of little to no choice of our own." What?? Ok, I'm saying that we do <b>not</b> express everything within ourselves. Where did you get the idea that I said people exposed themselves?? "We are not isolated creatures in the least. We are 100% social animals." Social to the extent that it is based on fear of isolation. And I'm saying that we are alone in our minds. "What the hell does that have to do with anything? "I don't hate war. War is just part of human nature!" -- "I don't hate murder. After all, it's just a result of being human!" -- "I don't hate genocide!"..." You mean war came from some supernatural source? Of course humans are at the foundation of such atrocities as war and murder! We do it of our own accord. Are you implying that these "bad things" were forced upon us, that "the Devil made me do it"? "Haha. Oh bluesoul. Yeah, Chucki and Adolph were victims. See John Lennon wouldn't have a personal meeting with Chuck therefore it was okey-dokey for Chuck to go kill some folk and say that the white man needs to rise above the black and jewish evil. And Adolph, fuck, he had to grow up poor!! Fucking hell! If I grew up poor I'd definitely say I was a victim enough to slaughter millions of innocent people!" They're triggers of the darkness that dwell in us. Maybe the average Joe doesn't erupt in homocidal rages every so often, but they fulfilled their dreams of slaughter. They're sad, misinterpreted creatures, twisted up in their own sad heads because no one knew them enough to stop it when they could. "Or it's just stupid and uninformed." Hey, so what? We all can't be omniscient beings. Stupidity is everywhere. There are bound to be millions of uninformed people. You are uninformed. I am uniformed. We all are. Deal with it. "I don't even know myself properly to conclude my feelings for others." "And that's the first intelligent thing I've read in this post." That's the whole point of the post I made! That we don't know each other, or ourselves! <hr> (This is an example of miscommunication of ideas.) :m: <--Where'd this come from?? Just testing it out, because I saw it in the Smilies box.
Words from the omniscient being: It's all a matter of definition. We do know all about eachother, but our present mind/body construction prevents us from having full access to that information, because experiencing and developing the small mind is a big part of the point of being a human being within the physical reality. We have narrowed down our options to fully be able to believe the game to be reality. The collective human consciousness have access to all minds, but the singular human can only exprience a limited part of it. It's like a singular cell in a whole human body. Like an atom within the universe....you know what I mean. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Bebelicious Very sorry, I can't remember right now who wrote it or sang it. I'm soooooo sleepy, I'll find out tomorrow.
err... in other words... right? Tyler, you seem to have a proclivity for trying to prove people wrong even when they're right, simply because you don't like everything they've said. Kindly refrain, makes you look somewhat foolish.
Actually though Squid, I'm quite right. She said we don't know what's in another person's unconscious. And we can know. We just can't be 100% sure. Her statement seemed to imply she thought we really don't know anything (or, at hte very most, much) at all about what goes on in another human's unconscious. Which is just straight out false.
Oh? Carl Jung taught me differently. "Though, the word subconscious is truly misleading." - Carl Jung, On The Nature of the Psyche
Tyler My father has borrowed by old psych textbook, so I can't quote from that today, but you really should just accept that I am correct.
