Please log in. To create a new account, enter the name and password you want to use.
If you supplied an email address when you signed up or added a email later, you can have your password reset.
This user name doesn't exist. If you want to create a new account, just verify your password and log in.
This user name exists. If you want to create a new account, please choose a different name.
Enter the current email address you have registered in your profile. You'll get an email containing your new password.
You have no email address in your profile, so you can't have your password reset.
Password reset. Check your email in a few minutes
That account does not exist.
The email address specified is not registered with this account.
Delivery to this email address has failed.
Long posts are fine for monologues or when you just feel like venting your mind out. What worries me is that it's much more difficult to hold a debate/discussion when the message size keeps growing.
Further thoughts on that.
At best, most of the message will go not replied, and only a specific point will be addressed. At worst, every point is discussed, and the message size grows with each reply (and the time that properly composing each reply also goes up). And then there's a limit to how much focus we can pay to a large amount of text.
Perhaps it's fine, because after "too much" is said about a topic, you guys just lose your interest in it and let it slide.
Now, there are two points I wish to address on this post. 1. The nature of an immortal observer (mostly replying to Gregol)
Mostly my same stance from before, but detailed further.
If the observer is immortal, he isn't gonna try to suicide, that'd be pointless xD' But I think an eternal observer wouldn't become too depressed. You know, for all the misery and stupidity that you claim to see on your every day life, there's also all sort of other people. Curious people, kind people, loving people, smart people. In the end, humanity is a huge soup of every type of personality and trait you can think of.
Unless humanity wipes itself out, I think that given enough time, an observer would reach the conclusion that this is just a bouncy ride, with ups and downs, and there's no ultimate winner. There's no ultimate doom, no ultimate glory, things just are a continuous cycle of change. And like the change of seasons, it becomes something that no longer bothers you anymore.
And if humanity wipes itself out, the observer will just have to content itself with watching nature for eternity :B
2. The importance of humility in acquiring wisdom (mostly replying to Mnessie)
I've been thinking about how to best reply to this since I saw Mnessie's reply yesterday. The reason I think being humble is important in becoming wise is because it is the vaccine that prevents you from becoming confident on your knowledge, which is the virus which corrupts people into becoming arrogant.
Humble definition: adjective 1. not proud or arrogant; modest (this is the definition relevant to our case)
I see humility as the ability of accepting that you might be wrong, no matter how likely it is that you are right. Without it, as your knowledge of a particular area deepens, you will develop a sense of certainty in having the right answer. These are the roots of confidence, in which you come to believe yourself "certainly right" in the areas you have become invested yourself in. If left unchecked, arrogance will rise when confronted with a differing opinion. Why? Because you know you are right and "it would be a waste of time listening to somebody else who's obviously wrong because I am right."
Without humility you will close doors to alternative reasonings, and completely block out sources of information/knowledge which you deem useless.
Dealing with the most likely counter argument (i.e.: "so how can you prove that I am not wasting my time by being surrounded by superficial people instead of more intelligent beings?")
Of course, the counter-argument to my stance is "so how can you prove that I am not wasting my time by being surrounded by superficial people instead of more intelligent beings?" Well, the response to that would be split in two parts: First, nobody is saying that given the choice between two groups of people, you should pick the least liked group "just because you might learn something from them." Humility is accepting that, against all odds, you might learn something from these people who are around you, it is not asking you to spend company with them.
Second, what we can learn from people isn't limited to what they know. You might learn something valuable about yourself by just trying to deal with them. Some social skills? Diplomacy? How about challenging yourself into figuring out how to get them to see your point of view and actually get them moving from their state of ignorance into one less ignorant? There are many possibilities, and there's much to be learned from them. Even if the people are not themselves the sources of knowledge.
And, I guess I've written enough for now. I rest my case.
EDIT: Mnessie ninja-posted me, so I suppose I should add these bits: @Being "the same"
The same? It is impossible for me to disagree more. I don't even know where to start. Even our blueprints are messed up... that's a start I guess.
Depends on context, really. For instance, in front of the law (or god), we are all (treated) the same. I understand that from a biological standpoint, we are all variations on the same basics. What was Gregol's context for which he stated we are all the same, though? I can't quite pinpoint it.
@Abolishing gender roles
It's not, we simply shouldn't. I find fighting for any form of justice to be an affront if it does not include all parties.[...] In your case, the way we perceive others, not women or men specifically.
Agreed, but when I say "if women are getting this treatment, it would just be fair to have men get this treatment, too," isn't that pretty much the same of what you say? If we cannot abolish a rule that applies to half the population, we can simply extend it to cover the other half. Problem solved xP
SK7000
over 11 years agoFurther thoughts on that.
Perhaps it's fine, because after "too much" is said about a topic, you guys just lose your interest in it and let it slide.
Now, there are two points I wish to address on this post.
1. The nature of an immortal observer (mostly replying to Gregol)
Mostly my same stance from before, but detailed further.
Unless humanity wipes itself out, I think that given enough time, an observer would reach the conclusion that this is just a bouncy ride, with ups and downs, and there's no ultimate winner. There's no ultimate doom, no ultimate glory, things just are a continuous cycle of change. And like the change of seasons, it becomes something that no longer bothers you anymore.
And if humanity wipes itself out, the observer will just have to content itself with watching nature for eternity :B
2. The importance of humility in acquiring wisdom (mostly replying to Mnessie)
I've been thinking about how to best reply to this since I saw Mnessie's reply yesterday. The reason I think being humble is important in becoming wise is because it is the vaccine that prevents you from becoming confident on your knowledge, which is the virus which corrupts people into becoming arrogant.
I see humility as the ability of accepting that you might be wrong, no matter how likely it is that you are right. Without it, as your knowledge of a particular area deepens, you will develop a sense of certainty in having the right answer. These are the roots of confidence, in which you come to believe yourself "certainly right" in the areas you have become invested yourself in. If left unchecked, arrogance will rise when confronted with a differing opinion. Why? Because you know you are right and "it would be a waste of time listening to somebody else who's obviously wrong because I am right."
Without humility you will close doors to alternative reasonings, and completely block out sources of information/knowledge which you deem useless.
Dealing with the most likely counter argument (i.e.: "so how can you prove that I am not wasting my time by being surrounded by superficial people instead of more intelligent beings?")
First, nobody is saying that given the choice between two groups of people, you should pick the least liked group "just because you might learn something from them." Humility is accepting that, against all odds, you might learn something from these people who are around you, it is not asking you to spend company with them.
Second, what we can learn from people isn't limited to what they know. You might learn something valuable about yourself by just trying to deal with them. Some social skills? Diplomacy? How about challenging yourself into figuring out how to get them to see your point of view and actually get them moving from their state of ignorance into one less ignorant? There are many possibilities, and there's much to be learned from them. Even if the people are not themselves the sources of knowledge.
And, I guess I've written enough for now. I rest my case.
EDIT: Mnessie ninja-posted me, so I suppose I should add these bits:
@Being "the same" Depends on context, really. For instance, in front of the law (or god), we are all (treated) the same. I understand that from a biological standpoint, we are all variations on the same basics. What was Gregol's context for which he stated we are all the same, though? I can't quite pinpoint it.
@Abolishing gender roles Agreed, but when I say "if women are getting this treatment, it would just be fair to have men get this treatment, too," isn't that pretty much the same of what you say? If we cannot abolish a rule that applies to half the population, we can simply extend it to cover the other half. Problem solved xP