exosculate
a stagger with a beat
We all die alone!
the biggest problem with humans is...
- Thread starter fela fan
- Start date
I've only heard the name mate, so i have no idea if my ideas coincide.
My original post assumed that choices were able to be made, that is, food clothing and shelter are a non-issue.
My post is based on my experiences of life. I see people saying they want freedom, yet following a different route in life. I'm not saying independence = freedom, but i am saying dependency means freedom can't be had.
If one is in a relationship with one other person, it does not mean an end to independence.
But a person who cannot operate without relationships cannot achieve freedom in life. Their dependency on others also impacts negatively on those others, unless those others too need people in their lives.
One or two others are saying a similar thing.
I did talk about people needing others to make meaning of their life.
That assumes food clothing and shelter issues are taken care of.
I would hope the debate could stick to this line, not the need for food line. Of course we need others for our food and shelter and stuff.
I'm interested most in why people actually turn their back on freedom, albeit nearly always unconsciously. Freedom is talked of by humans as such an important thing, but at the same time they don't actually want it, or they don't actually allow it into their lives.
They will consciously recognise them as other humans, but the trouble is they live a lot of their lives not in a conscious state. I think because of their dependency on others to make meaning of their own lives (check out the popularity of soaps, and big brother, and celebrity obsession), they either control others, or open themselves up to being controlled by others.
Needless to say, at either end of this controlling, there is no freedom or independence.
You've already done this. Seems to me to be an attempt to convince everyone of this theory you have that the need for relationships is somehow a sign of weakness, and that your eschewing of relationships, somehow is evidence of your strength or superiority.
I ain't buying any of it.
Heh heh, the master of interpretation has arrived on the scene!
I have a theory yes, but that's just about the only correct thing you've managed in this post of yours.
I'm not talking about weaknesses, i'm much more interested in why humans, who so aspire to freedom, don't actually seem to want it. They say they want it, it's really important, but they to an extent run away from it.
As for your bit about me feeling superior or something, that seems to say more about you than me, simply coz you just could not be more wrong. To me all humans are on an even level, there is no inferiority nor superiority between people. If i thought like that, i'd have no freedom. And as it happens i simply am one of the humans on this planet that has dedicated my life to obtaining freedom. I see it as the highest objective of my accidental existence.
Nothing less will do.
And you can't buy any of it, coz there's no price tag. I ain't selling.
Well, that needs another thread, coz i could ask 'do we actually die?'...
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I can answer that one: Yes we do.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
I think your problem is that you associate being 'dependent' on others as a weakness.
But you can't assume this, or make these things go away - they're both dependencies. In fact, my 'dependency' on having someone make my clothing, heat my house etc leaves me free to do stuff I actually want to choose to do, because I don't have to spend time re-tiling my roof or darning my shirts, unless I choose to do so.
What rubbish. Are you saying that someone who has no friends, no family and no love in their lives is free? Pretty bleak and empty form of freedom - it's the freedom of the last survivor, who can do and say anything but has no one to share the experience with.
What does this even mean?
But you can't assume this, or make these things go away - they're both dependencies. In fact, my 'dependency' on having someone make my clothing, heat my house etc leaves me free to do stuff I actually want to choose to do, because I don't have to spend time re-tiling my roof or darning my shirts, unless I choose to do so.
What rubbish. Are you saying that someone who has no friends, no family and no love in their lives is free? Pretty bleak and empty form of freedom - it's the freedom of the last survivor, who can do and say anything but has no one to share the experience with.
What does this even mean?
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
We've had this debate before, but remind us what your concept of 'freedom' actually is...
Stop hijacking my thread.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Not at all - you're bandying the term around and failing to define what it is. What is your personal definition of freedom?
Not my problem, your problem of misinterpretation. Have you read my reply to jc2 yet, or do you simply not believe what i said to him?
I bloody well can assume this. I chose the theme of the thread, and it was not about the need for others to feed, clothe, and house us.
It was about relationships and the need for them to make meaning of one's life. A peculiarly human trait. I am wishing to explore this link with that of the professed ideal of freedom. I am wishing to find out the anomaly of being human, and whether we can solve this.
That anomaly is how can we have freedom if we depend on other people to bring meaning to our own lives?
Oh, why not just stick to the dictionary eh mate. No need for my own definition, the bible of words is fine by me. Here have this one...
The absence of necessity or constraint in choice or action.
Incidentally, and i hope you see the point, i'm not bandying any words about, that is merely the imposition of your meaning onto me as if that was what i was doing. My thread is not about freedom. It is about the link between relationships, the need for them, and freedom.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
OK
1. You can't separate physical survival needs from social interaction. In order to survive, you must interact and form relationships with others.
2. Quantify what you mean by 'freedom'. You seem to be saying that freedom means to be completely socially and emotionally independent of all other people. If that's not what you're saying, clarify your statement.
OK, so what does this have to do with being dependent on others?
1. You can't separate physical survival needs from social interaction. In order to survive, you must interact and form relationships with others.
2. Quantify what you mean by 'freedom'. You seem to be saying that freedom means to be completely socially and emotionally independent of all other people. If that's not what you're saying, clarify your statement.
OK, so what does this have to do with being dependent on others?
No, i'm not saying that. Not at all.
I'll have to repeat what i said earlier for your benefit kyser: if one needs relationships with other people in order to make meaning of their own lives, then they cannot have the freedom that humans are supposed to aspire to.
And that dictionary definition of 'freedom' i just gave you happily concurs with my thesis. Thank you.
1. On my thread here, yes you can, and yes i am. I'm not interested in the lower levels of maslow's triangle.
2. I've said that the dictionary's definition is fine by me.
No #. If you are dependent on other people your choice or action is constrained. Not necessarily in theory, but in practice, just about all the time. I did earlier say that just coz one is in a relationship (with anybody, friend, life partner, member of family) does not mean one has lost their independence or freedom. If two independent free people come together, or are together, then everything is dandy.
camouflage
gaslit at scale.
You seem to think tht it is written somewhere that humans are supposed to aspire to being psycopaths.
Don't mean to use emotive terms just for the sake of it, but this concept of freedom you're saying is the precise opposite of the zulu word "Ubuntu" (that should be well known know thanks to the linux distro, "We are people because of other people"). You're probably talking about the freedom that the United States is alwasy bombing the fuck out of weak countries in order to establish. Freedom for corporations to make money unencumbered by human rights, freedom to starve the poor, freedom from the idea of society, the freedom of 'free market' economics. The freedom of psycopathic entities.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
I can act gratuitously and without restraint and still need relationships with other people - altho I suspect such relationships might be hard to come by if I behaved in such a manner! Indeed, if you look at the psychology of the serial killer Dennis Neilson, part of his reasoning behind murdering rent boys was that he was desparately lonely and craved a meaningful, intimate friendship but was unable to sustain them and the frustration this engendered led to him murdering people. There was no need or him to do this, and he acted without constraints on his behaviour.
He acted without restraint and still needed friends. Where does that leave your thesis now?
He acted without restraint and still needed friends. Where does that leave your thesis now?
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Well when it comes to resources, that's correct, but interpersonal relationships? What about the best friend who has an affair with their BFs partner? There's an act not borne of necessty and done without constraint that isn't pathological.
There is not such thing as the denial of choice when it comes to interpersonal relationships - one can make new friends, meet a new partner if one's actions alienate existing relationships.
camouflage
gaslit at scale.
You are free to make choices but you can't be free from the consequences. The idea flies in the face of physics, let alone society.
To have freedom you must have power, but with power comes responsability. that's not just Spiderman, power means the ability to affect action, but with every action there's an equal and opposite reaction, a 'response'. If you're in the world, there's no freedom from the world reacting to your every choice of action. Unless your some sort of formless insubstantial ghost maybe.
To have freedom you must have power, but with power comes responsability. that's not just Spiderman, power means the ability to affect action, but with every action there's an equal and opposite reaction, a 'response'. If you're in the world, there's no freedom from the world reacting to your every choice of action. Unless your some sort of formless insubstantial ghost maybe.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Interpersonal relations aren't a problem, they're an opportunity, and anyone who believes that freedom and independence are in some way inimical to interpersonal relations is, IMHO, not relating enough to others.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Good weekend FF!
Spion
I hear ya
Tough - the social is what being human is all about. And our brains have evolved far beyond what purely physical determinants would require, because of that social environment
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
Depends on what you mean by "freedom". Seeing as you're ubale to tell us, then...fuck knows what your point is.
Are you unable to read properly? I've already done that on the thread.
Similar threads
- Poll
