Ideals

[Jenne]

LHX, that sounds like the real definition of altruism for Teh Really Real World(tm).

I just have this theory that we don't do anything for others, ever, that doesn't somehow serve our own needs best, however those needs manifest themselves.

i was typing a response, but then i got confused

did you agree with me or disagree?


i assumed disagree, but that might just be because im generally cranky right here

if it makes any difference, i was being dead serious:

do things for self, and your environment benefits
do things for your environment, you wind up interfering, stepping on toes, and everything gets crossed up

i dont like to quote Crowley, but he said it:
"do as thou wilt..."

I was agreeing, but not explicitly.

And I agree with the above, to a point, as well.  Unfortunately, I need to eat--I think this flu just won't leave me alone, and this sort of ahem...exposition needs more fuel for the brain cells.

I'll share my thoughts anon.

[P3nT4gR4m]

If I recall my business management assertiveness training it went something along the lines of - assertive is selling a situation that benefits you, to a person who also benefits from it. Choices are - Make yourself happy at the expense/to the exclusion of everyone else or make everyone else happy along with you. One makes for a happy, fluffy goodvibe kinda world the other would seem to get increasingly difficult.

[Cain]

A few years ago, I had "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" explained to me as "really" meaning that once you get settled in to what you're really supposed to be doing in this life, the universe will get out of your way and let you do it.  It sounds like that's similar to what you're saying - take care of yourself first and foremost, and the rest of the universe will take care of itself.  Wait for something else to take care of you because you're busy taking care of other things instead, and, well, you'll be waiting a while.

Sounds quite Taoist.

Well, being the nasty little Classical Realist I sometimes am, my opinion is that ideals are highly dangerous things to have just flapping around the place.  Many criticisms within foreign policy thought about the NeoConservative ideology is its too idealistic and too impossible.  Practicality is overlooked in the name of idealism, even to the point that you hurt yourself.  And then, at the end of the day, when you're bloody and beaten and hated quite justly by the world, you can at least say "I was doing the right thing!"

And thats a criticism I feel is valid.  Ideals mean you have an idea of what is right and wrong for others, without even knowing them (an impressive trick, I'm sure you'll agree).  "Let justice be done, though the world may perish" is the motto of every idealist everywhere.  When ideals and action fuse, everyone is in for a world of hurt because, as I keep saying, perception is imperfect.  You cannot know what is best for everyone and trying to force such things is going against the natural grain of things, for want of a better explanation.

Ideals can inform action, but they can never directly influence them.  To use a politics example again (excuse me, but it is my area of knowledge) the invasion to invade Iraq could have easily been made on human rights and self determination of the populace (republican) ideals.  But then you would have critically assessed the situation on the ground and in country, projecting how current actions and decisions will impinge on the future prospects of the country.  Instead, the ideals of a liberal democracy springing up overrode these critical checks on policy, to the current detriment.

So if I apply that to my own ideal, namely that of more personal freedom, I have to think about how this benefits me and everyone else around me.  For example, there would have to be certain checks involving consent in actions, and a certain amount of focus on the social contract.  But if by infringing on my freedom it shows that the same method can be used against others personal freedoms, suddenly my ideal becomes the interest of others as well.  It is not so much an ideal as a meta or foundation-ideal, a precondition for other ideals to take hold. 


On an entirely personal note, I tend to agree with this vein of though concerning self benefit with the general good.  I am not what is perceived by people as "good" because I think it is right, but because it suits my interests more than if I were to not be.  Equally, when I do not act in a way that is perceived as good by people, its because its in my own self interest to be so and that benefit outweighs any potential cost.

Sorry, if this makes little sense, I did not have a very good night's sleep and I am in fact going back off to bed right now.   I'll revise or expand on this later as I am able to.

[P3nT4gR4m]

 

Just goes to show you can never make assumptions about people you meet on teh internets. I had you down as a dyed in the wool idealist. :-D

(back to drawing board and comfy armchair of psychology)

[LHX]

the only reasonable ideal would seem to be a vague one

something along the lines of 'good is better than bad'

being a part of something that can endure is better than being a part of something that is self-destructive by default

[P3nT4gR4m]

the only reasonable ideal would seem to be a vague one

something along the lines of 'good is better than bad'

being a part of something that can endure is better than being a part of something that is self-destructive by default

Not to be forgetting the law of entropy. Keep an open mind and never assume that being right is enough (or even plausible)

[LHX]

'right'

what does that even mean?


its more like:
'are you able to adjust to new situations? or are you going to get washed away?'

and getting washed away is really just another new situation anyway


does water erode land masses because they were wrong?
no

we dont call it tragic either


that law of entropy is key

[P3nT4gR4m]

'right'

what does that even mean?


its more like:
'are you able to adjust to new situations? or are you going to get washed away?'

and getting washed away is really just another new situation anyway


does water erode land masses because they were wrong?
no

we dont call it tragic either


that law of entropy is key

Law of entropy - any structure will eventually collapse

(not to be confused with thermodynamics theory of the same name)

[LHX]

Law of entropy - any structure will eventually collapse

unless the structure takes the form of a pile of dirt

[P3nT4gR4m]

Law of entropy - any structure will eventually collapse

unless the structure takes the form of a pile of dirt

Will eventually collapse. Some structures last longer is all. Even itty bitty particles break down on all sorts of itty bitty levels.

[faust]

Entropy my whole if an ideal crumbles it might be useful later on. I prefer constant dynamic change, I will be 100 percent certain on something so I don't get bogged down and restrained and end up hesitating beyond the point of action, I always consider the fact that I might be wrong and am ready to accept the fact without wounded pride or dwelling or regrets.

doubt leads to idleness and excessive needless introspection if not kept in check.
besides if I am wrong about something there is nothing to stop me turning 180 on it.
hypocritical in appearance but in Truth the view changes.

my high ideal and mantra is: "find contentment where you can and help others do the same."

[P3nT4gR4m]

Entropy my whole if an ideal crumbles it might be useful later on. I prefer constant dynamic change, I will be 100 percent certain on something so I don't get bogged down and restrained and end up hesitating beyond the point of action, I always consider the fact that I might be wrong and am ready to accept the fact without wounded pride or dwelling or regrets.

doubt leads to idleness and excessive needless introspection if not kept in check.
besides if I am wrong about something there is nothing to stop me turning 180 on it.
hypocritical in appearance but in Truth the view changes.

my high ideal and mantra is: "find contentment where you can and help others do the same."

Doubt is a crippling condition that comes from the belief that you can be right, therefore, it's also plausible you are wrong. All is experimentation. "I suspect this be the case" replaces "I believe". Then do it and it either turns out good or bad, in your's and others opinions. Doesn't mean you were right. Doesn't mean you are right. Just means it worked out okay. On to testing next theory. "Oops no, that was a complete disaster but fuck it - you liv and learn" replaces "Oh my god no ... how can this be? I was right and look whats happened - my beliefs have been shattered"

[LHX]

yeah its true

you cant really discuss collapse without re-build


from that angle its a matter of embracing the process



there is still a lot of people who dont like the idea of things 'collapsing' - especially when the structures collapsing might be people

[faust]

peoples mortality is a parasitic topic, and is a minefield due to everyones different beliefs of what will occur after they die.

I dont fear death but I do find physical pain unpleasant.
I believe that when I die I will be gone(make the most out of life)... or
I wont be (still no idea what occurs, make the most out of life and do my best to enjoy it and make others enjoy it).

collapse is only collapse if you are too attached to they item. change is always change and will alwas be there for you if you want it.

[LHX]

basically - it is a unknown element

the problem we face is that we have been taught to fear the unknown

thats how it breaks down


if you teach a child otherwise, they will grow up and live accordingly


its a tough frame of mind to bust out of

personally - ive tried to give up 'believing' anything and accept the 'wait and see' approach

i have hunches - but fucked if i know for certain whats inside that box