|
| Thread: Some vague thoughts |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · «PREV |
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
posted April 27, 2010 01:31 AM |
|
|
As I see it. It's only a part of who you're if you choose it to be so. Of course many seem, in my view, to be raised up as them being part of some nation as a pre-set (that is, something that was set before they choose, like you don't choose to be born, etc.), however that's no excuse of why it should stay that way.
Also, I agree with Fauch that work, only for the sake of working, have little productivity, except on the matter of maintaining an economy, however economy is needed for easy trade, not for everyone to get more wealthy (which in turn just increase prizes overall).
And in my opinion, it's not either you work, or you've nothing to do with your life. I think it's a matter of choice, you choose to do what you want, and in others perspective, whatever you choose, you'll always choose something, someone will find boring, and without any 'rational' reason, thereby making it work, only for the sake of working.
So I think it's again much about perspective, about finding something that suits you, or basicly saying, do what you want, not what others want you to do, unless that, of course, is what you want.
Finally, I think it's an excellent point if it's because of laws we take less responsibility.
I see only one reason to have a law, and that is, if certain actions are harmful for society, in some way, and not possible to prevent the action itself (like a vaccine, or something similar analogy), then it's decided to try to prevent people from commiting that action, by creating consequences that would otherwise not have happened, i.e. the law.
Basicly, it's very much like adding more negative consequences to ones action, in hope that enough negative consequences will result in deciding that it's something said person do not want. However there's a big problem with these artificial consequences, and that's it creates a society based on punishment. Which leads to a society based on fear more than agreement.
A lawless society however, can only be based on agreement, but it's a very big problem, that people would not be protected from those who do direct freedom limiting actions.
Because, I have no doubt these people will still exist, even with the extra consequences of todays world, these people exist.
What also should be noticed about artificial consequences are that they make people think very differently. In stead of focusing what one think is right and wrong, it becomes very much "is this accepted by the law". That basicly means the law becomes some kind of objective standard of measure of which one can ignore the real consequences, which is a big problem, though fortunately, I don't think it's something one sees very often. Though, especially in USA where one hears about one lawsuit after another, this is a really big problem, or death penalty to name something else, where people actually agree upon, that if they follow certain processes, it's suddenly okay to kill someone deliberately, eventhough these same people would agree on that any other group of people who did so, were murderes.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 27, 2010 04:58 AM |
|
|
@ OhforfSake
I have said before how we chose who we become by our daily choices, thoughts, attitudes, and actions. Below is the link to an article that discusses how freedom and accountability/responsibility interrelate.
Clicky
Quote:
(Fauch)
yes. but is it the reason for laws, that it is hard to take responsibility, or are laws a way to release us from taking responsibility, thus to prevent us from thinking too much?
No, laws don't release us from taking responsibility for our actions. Laws are a means of holding irresponsiblie people accountable for their irresponsible actions. If everyone "policed" his own actions there would no need for police.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 27, 2010 07:19 AM |
|
|
*Sings along with Janis*
"Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose"...
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted April 27, 2010 01:31 PM |
|
|
I'll probably edit this post later after reading your link, Elodin. First I'd like to comment on the idea of we choose who we become through our actions:
Quote:
I have said before how we chose who we become by our daily choices, thoughts, attitudes, and actions.
In my opinion, we're always who we were and will be. The inner you don't change (it might, but there's no way to know, really. If you think otherwise, I'll guess first that you'd probably be misunderstanding what I mean with "inner you", so in that case, please define how you use said term.).
However what does change is the information you've recieved and the ways you decide to use that information, because of earlier information again. As time progress, you're likely to get new knowledge through this method and as we often choose our action based on what we find the best thing to do (which depends on both knowledge and reward, I'd like to call this wants and lusts), then in the perspective of others, through the actions we choose, we become who we are, in their view.
Here's an example of why it doesn't matter in ones own perspective. If I one day through several information suddenly realises the importance of education and hard work, and assuming the lust&want relationship is fit for me to actual do these things, I'd change behaviour accordingly.
Have I changed from my view? No, I do what I've always done, what I think is the best, and what I think is the best depends very much of my knowledge.
Have I changed from others view? Yes, unless I acted this way before, but it could very well be imagined it'd be a change from this lazy type to this very active type.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 27, 2010 05:58 PM |
|
|
ohforf :
when I talked about work, I meant actually work with the goal of making profit. there isn't much point. moreover, money is for exchange, if you accumulate it, it isn't exchanged, so that could be a problem. a bit like water maybe? you can find it everywhere, there is (logically) enough for everyone, but what will happen if someone can have all the water in the world just for himself?
it is exactly what I meant about laws, but I disagree about that :
Quote:
A lawless society however, can only be based on agreement, but it's a very big problem, that people would not be protected from those who do direct freedom limiting actions.
people would not be defenseless, on the contrary. they wouldn't have to rely on an exterior force like police to protect themselves since they would have the right to do it themselves. that could be even more dissuassive for bad people, because with the police, they know what kind of punishment to expect...
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted April 27, 2010 06:08 PM |
|
|
That's of course true, but I predict that in such a society a small group of people will unite, because they realise through divide and conquer they're more likely to get what they want.
I'd guess that this group, would eventually meet other groups of people who've done the same and in the end it'd be a fight for power.
Then when someone have the power of the entire country, they'd probably, as time pass, change form of rulership from a type of dictatorship (no voice of the people) to a democracy (because otherwise people would eventually take down said person), but first when those in power have secured what they wanted in the first place (which most often is profit, probably here in the form of land or wealth).
All in all, I think by removing all laws, society would automatically work towards the exact same state as it came from, and I think one should only remove all laws, when what the laws protect (which are good laws, not talking about bad laws here), can be protected without the law itself.
An example, the law of gravity, is not much of a law, because if you manage to break it, there won't come anyone and punish you. Rather it's an "impossibility" and therefore, it's superior to a law, because it does not rely on some kind of fear or agreement, rather it's impossible to break at all. [Gravity is assumed impossible to "defeat" in this example].
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 27, 2010 06:16 PM |
|
|
yeah that might happen that way. it is the question, are people fondamentaly egoist?
do we always want more than the neighbor? and why? because it is our nature? or because we have been told if we have more that means we are better?
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted April 27, 2010 06:23 PM |
|
|
I'll say, in a optimal system of society, it should not matter if people are egoistic, i.e. wants more than the neighbour, or not. Where still everyone can get what they want, without limiting anyone in the progress.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 27, 2010 07:13 PM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 19:14, 27 Apr 2010.
|
well, but if everyone wants more than the neighbor, there will necessarily be unhappy people. if someone has more, it means someone has less.
with the way occident think, we can't can't get all we want. but it is probably possible to get all we need.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted April 27, 2010 07:15 PM |
|
|
You can arrange it so, that everyone, from their perspective have more, if that's what people wants.
Though it's so much about making everyone happy, it's more like, everyone should have the possibility to make themselves happy, and in general do what they want. Then make that as easy as possible would be what should be aimed for in my opinion.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 27, 2010 11:01 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 13:32, 28 Apr 2010.
|
@OhforfSake
Quote:
In my opinion, we're always who we were and will be. The inner you don't change (it might, but there's no way to know, really. If you think otherwise, I'll guess first that you'd probably be misunderstanding what I mean with "inner you", so in that case, please define how you use said term.).
I see ways I have changed over the years and how others have changed so I'd disagree with you that people don't change. You did not say what you define "inner you" as.
I see a human being as a spirit who lives in a body and who has a soul. In my understanding the "inner you" is a spirit with a soul. The spirit and soul can change for better or worse.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 27, 2010 11:12 PM |
|
|
|
it is even say we can slightly modify our genes
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted April 27, 2010 11:59 PM |
|
|
There's a problem in using the term 'changed' very loosely, because it does not specify what exactly have changed.
Let me here define 'inner you' as used by me earlier. I think you, Elodin, would best understand 'inner you' as the term, the soul, I do also somewhat believe, you'd also understand it best that way Fauch. Anyway just to make myself clear, I define the soul as this 'inner observer' that "person behind your eyes", or if you want, a uniquely defined entity of existance.
If the soul changed, there's no one claiming actions would change, and if memory does not change, it's unlikely for the new soul to know anything had changed. Likewise for the old soul, unless a memory of former existance followed it.
This does not mean our actions are completely deterministic, it however means that since the future is not predictable on this level, it's probably impossible to seperate.
Therefore, a person cannot know, if they're a new soul in an old body. All I 100% know, is that at this current moment of time, I exist, because I observe, thereby I am.
Okay, I hope that made my previous statements more clear, for I never intented to state that we don't change our actions. We change our actions as we get new information, and we change our actions as our reward system changes as well.
Also I should add, the way I define soul, if soul change, it's no longer the same person, it's a whole other existance, with the same tools [memory, thoughts, senses, free will, and so forth] as the previous person and therefore believing to be the same person, and only small changed [the consciouss choice] will make it possible to seperate these two persons, had they both been in the same environment under the same circumstances, but isolated from eachother.
Fauch wrote
Quote:
it is even say we can slightly modify our genes
I read some time ago, that our genes changes much more due to environmental effects than earlier thought (it was thought that our genes were the same through our entire life).
Now, as far as I know, our genes code for how our body is being build (or in specific, for proteins), and some parts of the genes are more easily changed than others.
In principle, one could imagine, that since environment effect the way our body reacts back to environment, it actually provides adaption at a very high level, not only through adaption abilities from birth, but also through a flexible structure of how our body is build up. Though I can easily imagine in extreme conditions 99% of the population would still fall.
Anyway, it does however mean, that our reward mechanisms may not be as 'solid' as one would like to think, and in general, we may have an extra level of consciouss control, through proper action that have a positive feedback, which in turn makes that action easier and easier, because the reward system adapts for it.
Basicly it means, if you for example are addicted to something, it's possible that by not performing the action you're addicted to, and not focus on the action as well (thinkin about it, etc.), but do another action, your receptors reward mechanism will adapt and your addiction will weaken much faster than what one would expect.
It does however also mean that it is in general easier to get addicted to something, because when you perform some action and manage to trigger a reward to it, you condition yourself very easily, thereby easily making you addicted if you don't want to that action, and it makes it very easy for setbacks, because of the use of earlier systems, (which I think basicly is the principe of learning).
Oh well, I think that got pretty off topic. I blame Elvin!
____________
Living time backwards
|
| |
|
|
