"real" people

[sourlemone]

you're ascribing purpose to other people's lives in terms of your own. Even in a general sense (where everyone might think that way, you could be someone else's 'guide') it seems a little heavyhanded to me.

Obviously you might perceive certain traits in other people that aren't desirable and be 'driven' towards acting differently, but I think it's drawing the bow a little too far to then say that their _purpose_ in life is to act as 'markers' for their respective flaws. I'd say leave something like that to literature (think the tragic flaws of Macbeth, Hamlet etc.)

either way, not trying to disappoint - if I'm missing the thread...I'm all ears (screens, whatever)

 

[L2R]

There was no discussion, only flaming. There may have been a point buried in the flames, but that's not how grownups debate. I'm disappointed in all of you. And not just because punky is my roommate. I had a long conversation about this with her before reading this thread, and if you had given her a chance to elaborate, you'd see a very well-constructed idea that I believe to be true. And like she said, she's not assuming that she isn't one of those people she's talking about. There is a cyclical nature to the idea she's talking about. Come on guys, I know you can do better.

Let this be a lesson not to express complex ideas in 3 lines.

If there is a well constructed idea, i'd love to hear it.

 

[Morrison's Lament]

There was no discussion, only flaming.

Bullshit, unless flaming has now been expanded to encompass:

define 'drive' in this context.

were all fakes.Plastified by external influences and acceptable behaviors.

How can anything be fake?
Or is everything fake?
Do I even exist?
What is the purpose of living?

that sounds a little arrogant to be honest.

how do you know the nice people werent put there to drive you too?

you're talkin about goals and success to a bunch of moral relativists and buddhists.

advice

read buddhism, eat acid, and kill your ego ASAP

How are those flames?

I'm disappointed in all of you. And not just because punky is my roommate.

No offence, but if you came into some random thread where the initial post was that short and made no sense to anyone and it got the replies it got here - I sincerely doubt you'd be "disappointed" in anyone.

I had a long conversation about this with her before reading this thread, and if you had given her a chance to elaborate, you'd see a very well-constructed idea that I believe to be true.

You had the benefit of a long discussion beforehand, you knew what she was getting at and only needed to hear the general outline to comprehend the rest that she layed out. Perhaps if she had chosen to not put it in the form of a thread starting post that was brief and made little sense to people that hadn't had a long conversation about it the results would have been different?

In any case, I don't see anyone denying her the chance to elaborate or correct any false assumptions about what she meant.

And like she said, she's not assuming that she isn't one of those people she's talking about. There is a cyclical nature to the idea she's talking about. Come on guys, I know you can do better.

And I know you can be a lot more objective

--- G.

 

[heliospan]

Yes, it is completely possible. These people are called FRIENDS. I consider friends people who tel me things that may be shitty to hear but are true about me nonetheless and really need to be said. I consider friends people who don't only say to me what they think I want to hear.

 

[kittyinthedark]

Originally posted by Morrison's Lament
How are those flames?

The context of nearly every post was aggressive and negative.

Originally posted by Morrison's Lament
In any case, I don't see anyone denying her the chance to elaborate or correct any false assumptions about what she meant.

See above.

Originally posted by Morrison's Lament
No offence, but if you came into some random thread where the initial post was that short and made no sense to anyone and it got the replies it got here - I sincerely doubt you'd be "disappointed" in anyone.

I very much would be. With the exception of two people, I think everyone was rude. Instead of asking what she meant or for more clarification, the unified response was a big "fuck you, you're stupid and wrong." An "I disagree, here's why" would be plenty, especially in this forum. I love discussing philosophy, but this issue is one of the reasons I'm started to grow shy of CE&P and T&A - everything turns into "i'm right, you're wrong" instead of "I disagree and here's why, can you refute me." It's childish and a waste of time.

I'd love to see this thread take some real direction, so if anyone else cares, I'd be glad to give a more proper explanation.

 

[Morrison's Lament]

Go for it.

--- G.

 

[kittyinthedark]

I guess the best way to preface it is to say that she's really talking about three kinds of people that fall into the same category of "not real" as she put it originally. There are people who are incomplete, lacking any real particular personality, people who are innate fuckups, and people whose personalities are entirely derived from others and lack any real substance. The people truly in question here are the "fuckups" and "copycats" because those people offer the most in terms of stepping up your own life.

Yes, it is an arrogant assumption to make, but it's pretty much arrogant to make any determination about your ego with respect to another person, so that's not really the issue at hand. What is though is that these "weaker" (i use that term loosely) people stand to offer us a whole hell of a lot in terms of bettering ourselves. We can look at a screwup and quite obviously see what not to do in life. We can look at a copycat and realize that the shallowness and lack of true self-validity are horribly detrimental to our own happiness.

Now this idea clearly presupposes that there are distinct categories of people, "real" and "unreal" (although i don't think those are really the best words for it), but it does not necessarily delineate that one person cannot be a member of both groups. I can look at a fuckup and say, "Shit, I better not be like them," but they could look at me and say "She's completely shallow. At least I'm not like that." In both instances we are driven to better ourselves by striving to achieve the opposite of what we have seen. Now overall, people in general will tend to fall into only one category, but there are still a fair number who can give and take.

My brain is a bit fried from the meds right now, so I hope that came out okay. I guess the real question is whether or not you feel that to be the case - are there distinct groups or are there really no people that fall only into the category of "screw-up" or "non-self." I'm inclined to believe that there may be some people in the world that strictly serve as impetus for others to strive to be better. I had never really considered it, previously more in favor of the "we can all learn from each other" idea, but I have encountered some people in my life that truly seem to lack any real substance when it comes to personality and life achievements.

 

[elemenohpee]

I'm inclined to believe that there may be some people in the world that strictly serve as impetus for others to strive to be better.

Disgusting.

 

[kittyinthedark]

Disgusting.

Are you suggesting that there are no screwups in the world?

And it doesn't make me better than them. That's what most of you are missing. I'm not saying that they are inherently bad people for screwing up all their lives. I've been friends with plenty of screwups and other people going nowhere in life. That's not the issue at hand. What is is whether or not these people serve a distinct purpose for those of us who are able to keep ourselves up and going. Please read more carefully instead of automatically deciding that I'm judging people.

 

[elemenohpee]

My comment was refering to your idea that some people "strictly serve as impetus for others to strive to be better." As if these people had no intrinsic worth of their own. I guess you would say that their existence is justified by the fact that they make others better, but I don;t think their existence needs to be justified at all.
And how does this not make you better than them? You think that you are using their faults to elevate yourself, that doesn't seem like equals to me.

 

[punkybutt]

My comment was refering to your idea that some people "strictly serve as impetus for others to strive to be better." As if these people had no intrinsic worth of their own. I guess you would say that their existence is justified by the fact that they make others better, but I don;t think their existence needs to be justified at all.
And how does this not make you better than them? You think that you are using their faults to elevate yourself, that doesn't seem like equals to me.

who's trying to justify anyone's existence? they're just there. but as human beings, we're inclined to look for answers, even when there may not be one.

the thing about "someone is better than somebody else" that really threw me is that i didn't see it that way. if i said better, i meant "a better punky than 5 years ago" or "a better punky than last year." and personally, when i mean better, i mean, more able to be and let be. furthermore, the issue of someone being better than someone else REALLY doesn't matter. everyone is going to die anyway. everything is balanced, and in the grand scheme of things, an infinite number of coin tosses always end with a 50-50 split. it's the yin and the yang, baby.

ooo, also, i'd like to take this chance to say that nothing pissed me off more than "read buddhism, eat acid, and kill your ego asap." at the risk of sounding trite, YOU DON'T FUCKING KNOW ME.

 

[protovack]

I think punky is on to something here.

I used to work at a warehouse and my supervisor would always tell these really personal stories, about himself and how he views the world. He would always say things like, "I'm a good helper. I'm not a leader." And it was completely true! He never bothered to look at the big picture....he was just a very clever, efficient guy who shyed away from higher levels of responsibility. Hmmmm.

I've also known people who are "innate fuckups." At least, at the time I knew them. These are the kind of people who are not guided by any internal ethical/moral/intellectual compass. These are the kind of people that:

- Get in fist fights
- beat their spouses
- lie in order to gain advantage over others
- steal from people (either on a societal or individual level)
- neglect their children

Now why in the world would these people exist? Well, they exist because of the inherent variety within a species. Some individuals are better fit to advance their genes. Some aren't.

I don't think we should attribute any cosmic significance to this, i.e. they were placed on earth for the benefit of the more average (but not idiotic) people.

I do, however, believe that some part of our moral/ethical/intellectual construction is negatively defined. There have to be violations of the "rules" in order for the rules to exist.

 

[alasdairm]

Instead of asking what she meant or for more clarification, the unified response was a big "fuck you, you're stupid and wrong."

i just reread the thread twice and i just do not see it. nobody used terms approaching "stupid" or"wrong". indeed, the first two replies are polite requests for elaboration.

again, if you enter a discussion with a fixed set of expectations about the direction the discussion will take, you're going to be disappointed. it's organic.

alasdair

 

[kittyinthedark]

alasdair, that's why I said "except for two people." And i don't feel it's inappropriate to expect mature, non-reactionary responses. She wasn't expecting direction, just that she wouldn't get the kind or quality of responses that she did. Can you really not admit that there was a distinct negative tone at best? Anyhow, this is a stupid argument. We've made our points.

 

[Beatlebot]

I'm inclined to believe that there may be some people in the world that strictly serve as impetus for others to strive to be better.

See, I think it's comments like this that are upsetting people and making them come off rude. Frankly this comment offends me and my first thought is "disgusting".

This comment and similiar comments make you sound like you are devaluing human life. That's dangerous thinking. It's almost like saying black people are here because they make good slaves. You can't assume what anybody's purpose in life is.

 

[alasdairm]

^ i agree. you're basically saying these people have no worth - their existence is valueless - if viewed outside the context of that of another.

alasdair

 

[_high_life_]

Real=Truth(?)

Fake=Lie(s)

If anyone ever knows The Truth please let me know%)

 

[protovack]

Well, some people ARE valueless.

Parents who neglect their children by beating or starving them? Valueless

What about people who feel no empathy for others? Valueless

Thieves? Valueless

People who cannot compromise or work with others? Valueless.



Face it, there are some idiots out there. We don't have to be charitable to them.

 

[_high_life_]

Hhahahah^valueless.

What about people who feel no empathy for others? Valueless

Face it, there are some idiots out there. We don't have to be charitable to them.

 

[alasdairm]

^ i know - the irony...

just because you see no value in something doesn't mean it has no value.

frodo was all for killing gollum in moria. gandalf knew...

alasdair