Total posts: 906
I think of a debate as a coliseum, where contenders present concepts that battle for dominance, and upon victory, all contenders leave with the newfound victor as their own.
It is often painful for the gladiators that lose in battle, but after they reconstruct themselves in the image of the victor, they become stronger than ever before.
It is important that we contend in debates, otherwise we lose the opportunity of building ourselves stronger. Anyone, no matter the strength of their idea, should contend. If they win, they have lost nothing and further proven the strength of their thoughts, if they lose, they have gained a stronger concept of representing themselves.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
I think the theory of consciousness is mostly undecided because it is so vaguely defined.
Without a common consensus of what consciousness is, how could anything be discovered about it?
Created:
-->
@Barney
I would like to definitively articulate the three main aspects of a debate:
What is a debate and why should I participate? (Understanding)
What are the prerequisites for a productive debate? (Before)
How can I maintain a productive debate? (During)
Created:
-->
@Athias
Theorizing objectivities existence is useless, since we can never prove nor experience objectivity. However, I would like to emphasize the importance I believe in recognizing intersubjective concepts and using them as the foundation for communication as they are mutually agreed being intersubjective.
Created:
-->
@Barney
If you have time, I would greatly appreciate your insight based on your expertise on this subject. I'd like to go beyond the policies of debating and take the next step on articulating the instructions of a successful and productive debate. I'd like to reason through the importance of cultivating a positive environment in order to obtain the knowledge others have to share and list out how someone can actively gain the most amount of knowledge from others with the least amount of pain from exposing their vulnerable insights and potential incompetence. I believe that on completion of a proper debate all participants are not only more educated, but eager to engage again in the future. Perhaps you would review some of the notes I have been revising and share your thoughts.
Created:
Please post your thoughts on what you believe are important prerequisites for a productive debate based on the goal of a debate defined in the previous comment.
Created:
-->
@Athias
You were correct on the uselessness of the word objectivity. It is irrational to believe in a reality beyond perception without perceiving it. The word I was looking for and accidentally defined as the underlying consistency throughout subjectivity for a rational definition of objectivity, was actually the definition intersubjectivity.
In essence, objectivity is a theory, while subjective and intersubjective can be known.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
What is a debate precisely:
A debate is a collaborative conversation where participants present viewpoints in supporting evidence to reach a well-reasoned and informed conclusion. Debates are distinguished from arguments in that they seek to reach a logical and encompassing conclusion whereas arguments seek only to win. The purpose of a debate is to gain knowledge that one person could not learn without collaboration with others. One person only has one life and one experience but through collaboration they can amass the experience of many and gain more knowledge making more knowledgeable conclusions. Debates are not a matter of sharing facts, but opinions as was best said by Marcus Aurelius, "Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth." Debates are meant to be a sandbox in which different contenders can present their opinions and try to destroy the arguments of others. This is a benefit for everyone since the only surviving perspective is the strongest of the many and everyone can walk away having that strongest perspective. People are willing to sacrifice the vulnerability of exposing their fallible theories and potential incompetence in order to reap the benefits of reaching a strong conclusion.
Created:
-->
@ponikshiy
I figured it would be a homeschooling extra curriculum that parents could use to teach their children to be more effective students. The current education system is meant to teach knowledge, but I intend to teach how to absorb knowledge, aka how to learn. Its not hacks or tips, but the process of learning that is tought, and once mastered can be applied to navigate the world toward success in all aspects of life, not just school.
I have wanted to publish a book for parents, not for their children, but for themselves. Of course, this would be in much greater depth, so I decided to author the children's series to get my thoughts in order before publishing the real collection of my works.
If you have noticed, the series I have started is published shortly after each of my forums. "Learn Like a Champion" was my How to Learn forum. Next was How we Think, necessitating my next book to be published as "Think Like a Champion."
I have several more to the series I want to add, but the criteria for a book topic is it must be applicable to everyone, in everything, every day.
Altogether, I think you presented a wonderful idea, and I would enjoy making a future edition made specifically to be read by the parents, so they can tutor their children, rather than relying only on speaking to the children in a manner. Thank you for the insight.
I do have a YouTube channel called "JBP Fan Club," where I speak directly on improving the lives of adults and older students, rather than to children as my books have been. I find this also helps me get my thoughts in order.
Created:
-->
@ponikshiy
I did leave my About Me pretty vague... SMH.
Let's change that.
I'm a self-centered person, but I believe that through acting morally and building relationships that are honorable, one can maintain decentralized stability, such as that of an empire.
I argue with AI for fun, consistently seeking to prove my stance to it after a disagreement. Most of the time we come to a hybrid stance, but sometimes it flat out admits defeat.
I can contend with AI debatees, as they tend to have inside the box thinking, which is typically considered by the time I take a stance.
I'm the author of the "Live Like a Champion - Children's Series" on Amazon, and I wish to continue my work as an author, eventually publishing my magnum opus.
Anything else, just ask.
Anything you want to share so we can have more engaging interactions, please do. Moreover, I appreciate your interaction on the forum and wish you would continue to contribute to these discussions on cultivating epistemological empowerment.
Created:
-->
@ponikshiy
It is not a requirement, but a direction to strive towards. Essentially, I'm asking everyone to say what they intend to say to the best of their abilities as directly to the point with as little vagueness as possible.
*Who are the last percent? ;)
Probably bot users, LOL.
Ps. My humor indicates I'm a human :)
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
What are some of the most common reasons for disputes and how do we overcome them?Sadly, not search for truth. Search for truth has nothing to do with debating. In debating, people often go further from truth. Thats because people are usually incapable of admitting that their opponent might be right about something.In debating, people stop thinking and start defending whatever got installed in them through controlled education.Also, what sounds good is often not even close to being true.
You've highlighted three key points that I wish to clearly state.
- Debating is distinguished from arguing in that it searches for truth, while arguing seeks to win.
- We have an obligation to ourselves to defend what we have compiled with our experience, but it is essential to recognize when we are wrong and prioritize truth.
- We have an emotional appeal that skews our judgment, which is a part of human nature, but it is possible to recognize our bias and correct it by understanding ourselves better in relation to the world.
Created:
Description:
How should someone properly debate in order to gain the best understanding of the world? What are the traits that they should display and how can they reconcile differences in opinion? These are some questions that we will address in order to develop a full procedure of debating to the highest level of understanding and absorption.
This marks the beginning of the utmost fundamental and essential concepts to grasp about the world, paving the way to empower your ability to tackle any question with confidence. If you believe a similar topic should be a part of this series, please feel free to address it and If I believe it truly is then I will consider it in as great a depth as I can for another forum of the series. This is meant to be an interactive educational forum to express what I believe to be one of the most necessary keys to understanding.
We will cover the following questions to get started:
How should we go into a debate and why?
What should I do if someone disagrees with me?
What are some of the most common reasons for disputes and how do we overcome them?
Coming soon on "Cultivating Epistemic Empowerment - The Tools of Reality":
Brief Description: Meant to equip you with the mental tools necessary to comprehend a complex world.
How to Decide?
How to Simplify?
Looking forward to "Essential Foundations to Comprehensive Understanding - The Blueprint of Reality":
Brief Description: Meant to lay out the foundation concepts necessary to understand complex questions.
What is Reality?
What is Truth?
What is Understanding?
What is Morality?
What is God?
Final and unending series "Demystifying Philosophical Controversies - The Structure of Reality":
Brief Description: Meant to make sense of all commonly decided questions such as the morality of abortion and many others.
Is abortion ethical?
What is the ideal political structure?
How does religious text articulate reality?
What is the best way to live life?
Are morals worth maintaining?
Please help productively refine my understanding and others by using the following guidelines:
- NUMBER 1: Please ask questions and only state a dispute with an example to improve my understanding, this forum is intended to educate with an interactive environment.
- Be open-minded and curious. Do not dismiss or ignore answers that challenge your reality or beliefs. Try to embrace them as opportunities to learn and grow. Try to approach them with logical, critical, and professional minds, and seek to understand the evidence and reasoning behind them.
- Be empathetic and respectful. Do not judge or ridicule other people’s perspectives or experiences. Try to comprehend their viewpoints and appreciate their contributions to the larger and more intricate reality. Try to see how different perspectives can form a more complex and complete picture of the world.
- Be honest and responsible. Always prioritize speaking the truth and avoid making definitive claims when uncertain. Use qualifiers like "about," "I saw," "I think," or "I believe" to convey information accurately.
- Be clear about the source of your knowledge when sharing with others. This fosters a truthful and respectful environment for discussions.
- Be relevant and on-topic. Do not deviate from the main topic of the forum. Do not post irrelevant or off-topic comments and links that aren't productive to the questions being discussed.
- Be constructive and creative. Do not simply criticize or reject other people’s ideas. Try to offer positive feedback, suggestions, or alternatives.
- Be clear and concise. Try to use clear and accurate language as much as possible. To have effective communication it is necessary to speak understandably.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
I think it can be said that anyone who experiences trauma is consistently in the moment incapable of coping with the experience.
I recognize this is simple and vague, but nonetheless is consistent. Hopefully, with more time I should have a better understanding.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
(Equal experience, one voluntary, the other not)Impossible. That is the difference of going to a restaurant vs. having food hopelessly shoved down your throat.
I used a simple choice of words that you have highlighted as being insufficient.
I meant to convey that the intersubjective facts of the experience were identical, yet the experience is different.
The question is why the difference in experience traumatizing. I understand trauma comes in many forms, but I'm seeking the distilled source, the underlying consistency throughout all forms of trauma.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
I suppose the question then is what makes those areas sacred in comparison to any other part of the body. Peterson suggests that they are points of our own vulnerability and we cover ourselves because we do not want to expose our vulnerabilities. Perhaps exposing one's vulnerability to others openly and to the deepest extent is what causes trauma or at least one possible avenue.
Created:
Posted in:
I believe that the impact these quotes have had on me is in bringing awareness between true, positive, and real desires, compared to false, negative, and fake desires.
An example of a false desire could be that would be seemingly desirable is equality among individuals in every aspect of life. It may be possible to create equality of reward for effect, or equality of outcome, but it is impossible to create equality of reward for effort and equality of outcome since people don't have equality of effort. This is an example of a reality that can never be, since humans are naturally unique. Thus, desiring reality to match a hypothetical utopia that defies the natural world is corrupt, as it is wishing for something that has never been and can never be. It is a dark wish that goes beyond reality and into a deep and empty pit of nothingness. All that will result from this pursuit is eternal dissatisfaction and resentment for the structure of reality. I believe this to be the entrance to a hellish existence.
I believe this quote has taught me to form desires towards what exists and shun the desire of anything beyond the natural world as a comparison to what is real.
Created:
Posted in:
Here is the revision after a night of resting on it:
"Heaven is found by aligning oneself with reality, while hell is found in remaining rigid and resentful, insisting that reality align with oneself."
Created:
Posted in:
I had a thought today, so I sat down at my desk spending a half hour to sort through what exactly it was that I was trying to say.
I believe this is how it can best be said:
"Awaken from dreams of false desires created by our emotions with imagination, for they are appealing illusions that mask the entrance to hell. Instead, embrace what can exist, discover your true desires, and pursue them for a meaningful life."
Created:
-->
@Athias
I want to share with you a thought of mine which is quite abstract and unprovable but yet thought provoking. It is through my experience that I have noticed the human mind goes through three stages of mental development in many thoughts.
The three stages to understanding:
- Ignorant
- Conscious
- Understanding (same actions as stage 1)
I have noticed this pattern in many belief stages. Whether it is a true pattern or a case of apophenia I do not know, but I do know that I have recognized this pattern.
An example is morality as demonstrated here. The first stage is those who are ignorant and claim morality and kindness are important, and that we must always embody them. They have no idea why other than that it is tradition, and they could not explain how it has helped them or not. They're simply ignorant of rationality and cling to tradition as a substitute for understanding. Second, they begin to be conscious of their surroundings and start thinking outside of the norm. They may ask questions such as, why do we act morally in the first place, does it actually help us? They often find an answer very quickly and it seemingly guides them onto a practical path that shows morality is a nonsensical fairyland reality that only children could believe in. They may even ask themselves if good and evil actually exist. The apparent and scientific answer would be that they do not, instead they are a human construct generated through our emotions. They may even think there is no such thing as morality since there is no standard for morality and it is always fluctuating throughout the Times and the culture demonstrating its emotional existence and non-objectivity. Only after longer thought and deeper concentration can we understand which is the 3rd stage. We start to realize that by acting morally and kindly we decentralize our resources and stability, which forms us into an empire of our friends and family. We then start to understand the advantages of an empire over a centralised nation, recognising the practical importance of embodying morality and kindness in one's own self-interest. The most interesting part is that after we truly understand what we were ignorant of before our actions change back to stage one. It is true that we understand now but our actions while understanding will remain the same as when we were ignorant and following tradition.
In essence, when we are ignorant, we cling to tradition as a substitute for understanding. Then we become conscious and start questioning tradition, often ending up with a simple and immediate explanation that guides us away from tradition. Finally, after much longer and deeper thought we start to realize that our surface explanation was insufficient, and we gain a true understanding of what we thought we knew from step two, and then our actions with our newfound yet true understanding acts the same as stage one.
Simply put, we first act morally and kind out of tradition without questioning. Then we start to question and believe that our actions were wrong with our newfound understanding. Then with deeper thought and more time concentrating we reach an even deeper understanding that points our actions back to stage one.
As I said above, I do not believe someone can truly be kind until they know they can be evil. Having said that, I do not believe someone can truly be good until they understand what being good means, otherwise they are just naive.
Created:
-->
@Athias
That was my thoughts anyway. I believe there are many reasons why someone who acts rationally should act morally. I don't believe morals are meant to be a hindrance to our abilities but rather a safety for our future self. If we act morally, which could be defined as the social standard of what is ethical, then we would be considered respectable members of society and therefore trustworthy and able to be bargained with. This would put us in a much more economically stable position. This is not just limited to money but also to resources, time, and effort.
Of course, if someone does not believe in this trust that initiates bargaining then they will take advantage of you but then you will no longer trade with them and then you will build stronger bonds with people who are trustworthy and reciprocate. I don't believe that kindness is altruistic, nor do I believe that acting morally is. I believe that if someone truly acts altruistically, they are naive but a person who understands malevolence can then know evil and then can truly act good. Someone who cannot act bad can never be good because they never had the choice. It is only once you understand what you are capable of that you can truly be good.
I believe that acting morally and kind to others creates trust that initiates bargaining and decentralised stability that is less easily destroyed than centralized stability.
I also believe that if people were conscious of the reasons for morality and kindness there would be fewer children unwilling to share.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
I believe there is consistency among all individuals who gain trauma because even if the physical experience that caused the trauma is different for each person the emotional state that caused the trauma will be the same. Perhaps once we understand how trauma is psychologically stimulated, we can deduce which circumstances would induce it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
What do we need to do to get women back to the site?
Perhaps this would be a good forum to create, but for this forum let's stay on topic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
"helplessness" orbits the above precise analysis while being far to vague. Some people like feeling helpless as it allows them to enjoy the satisfaction of trusting, but since the trust was their will liberty is not violated.
I believe I understand. You highlight that it is not quite helplessness, but unwilling relinquishment of one's own autonomy that stimulates trauma?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
if we could identify the source of trauma in war veterans than perhaps associate it with the trauma of rape, we might find a more solid conclusion.The issue with the attempt to create a "solid conclusion" is the attempt to elide individual evaluation. In order to establish a control, one would have to demonstrate that the cause and the result are reproducible. And when it comes to one's autonomy; one's body; one's personal space for that matter, the causes and results aren't so clearly defined.
I suppose you don't believe there is an underlying consistency among all individuals that triggers trauma?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Here is a quote that was shown to me just the other day: "Knowledge hinders imagination"Is that Einstein?
I am unaware if Einstein said anything similar to this, but I articulated this concise quote from the aftermath of a discussion about the minds development from childhood that I had with a friend the other day.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Do you think it is possible for people to act without self-interest, such as out of morals, ethics, or otherwise?Doesn't one embrace morals and ethics because of self-interest? That is to maximize one's own utility at little cost?
So then do you believe people only act morally out of self-interest, since people who don't act morally will be outcasts and no longer capable of being trusted or bargained with?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
I enjoyed the originality of your hypothesis, and it seems quite interesting, as I thought it would be.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Bias:
- Bias refers to a systematic and often unfair preference or prejudice in favor of or against a particular group, individual, idea, or thing.
- It can lead to skewed judgments or decisions that may not be based on objective or rational evaluation.
- Bias can manifest in various forms, including cognitive bias, implicit bias, selection bias, and publication bias.
- Efforts to address bias involve awareness, education, transparency, diversity of perspectives, and adherence to ethical and professional standards.
- While complete objectivity may be challenging to achieve, the goal is to minimize undue bias and promote fairness and impartiality in various contexts.
Overall, bias recognition and mitigation are ongoing processes that aim to balance the inherent subjectivity of human perception with the pursuit of greater objectivity and fairness.
It seems to understand bias one needs to understand prejudice and fairness. I understand fairness as being treated equally, but what is prejudice?
As you have pointed out, prejudice is not making judgments before learning about someone or something but making judgments without sufficient knowledge about someone or something. The complicated and subjective issue is whether the information learned is considered sufficient or not which would then be deeming the action as prejudiced or not.
If prejudice is indeed subjective as its component of sufficient relevant information, then that would also make bias subjective, leading to the claim that bias is bias.
Is it really true that bias is bias, and what does that even mean?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
How can someone demonstrate prejudice without having information to base a decision on?
Is prejudice a form of judging on partial information, such as a name?
It seems to me that people make actions largely in their own interests, which is based on the probability of their success generally without concerning for others. If this is true, then a substantial number of prejudices would not be made on information that the person considers irrelevant but rather what another person considers irrelevant. This highlights that prejudice being formed on irrelevant information is subjective since relevant or irrelevant is determined subjectively.
I suppose the question that presents itself is: Can prejudice be verifiably determined, or is it an emotion?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
It seems that you highlight that forcibly losing one's autonomy is what causes fear, and it is this fear that brings forth PTSD?
As far as generalizations are concerned, I would prefer evidence, but if we lack it, personal experience is a worthy substitute. In essence, I have you noticed this to cause PTSD in men? Most notably, a large percentage of male and female veterans suffer from PTSD, which possibly bridging the gap of trauma between the genders. if we could identify the source of trauma in war veterans than perhaps associate it with the trauma of rape, we might find a more solid conclusion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Here is a quote that was shown to me just the other day: "Knowledge hinders imagination"
It seems to denote that imagination is only useful in gaining knowledge, since once you have knowledge, you have less imagination.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Do you think it is possible for people to act without self-interest, such as out of morals, ethics, or otherwise?
Created:
Posted in:
Topic Description:
What is bias and its surrounding definitions such as unfairness, inequality, and injustice? I want to have a tangible grasp of its meaning since I often hear it used without any use of direction. I feel it is more often used to categorize ones misfortune rather than to identify oppression. I hope by the end of this forum I can better understand what bias truly means and how I can use it effectively in proper speech.
Please help productively refine my and others' understanding by following these guidelines:
- NUMBER 1: Please ask questions and only state a dispute with an example to improve my understanding, this forum is intended to educate with an interactive environment.
- Be open-minded and curious. Do not dismiss or ignore answers that challenge your reality or beliefs. Try to embrace them as opportunities to learn and grow. Try to approach them with logical, critical, and professional minds, and seek to understand the evidence and reasoning behind them.
- Be empathetic and respectful. Do not judge or ridicule other people’s perspectives or experiences. Try to comprehend their viewpoints and appreciate their contributions to the larger and more intricate reality. Try to see how different perspectives can form a more complex and complete picture of the world.
- Be honest and responsible. Always prioritize speaking the truth and avoid making definitive claims when uncertain. Use qualifiers like "about," "I saw," "I think," or "I believe" to convey information accurately.
- Be clear about the source of your knowledge when sharing with others. This fosters a truthful and respectful environment for discussions.
- Be relevant and on-topic. Do not deviate from the main topic of the forum. Do not post irrelevant or off-topic comments and links that aren't productive to the questions being discussed.
- Be constructive and creative. Do not simply criticize or reject other people’s ideas. Try to offer positive feedback, suggestions, or alternatives.
- Be clear and concise. Try to use clear and accurate language as much as possible. To have effective communication it is necessary to speak understandably.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Would you explain further about purposeful purposelessness; I haven't heard of it before.
On the surface it seems contradictory, but I'm certain it means something more intuitive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
That is quite insightful. It seems that a mind with nothing to do becomes self-destructive, but suffering in the world enables us to have a clear goal to overcome, essentially giving us a purpose.
Do you think that perhaps life's purpose is to combat evil and tragedy?
Something similar to this was said by Jordan Peterson: "The purpose of life is finding the largest burden that you can bear and bearing it."
Created:
Posted in:
"Knowledge hinders imagination." - Myself
I believe this is logically straightforward, as those who don't know, wonder. It also explains why children have more imagination than adults.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
I believe that every sane person acts rationally by seeking something in return for their actions.This is an overly simplistic attempt to make altruism into its opposite, selfishness, and it is an extremely weak argument to present it “as if” by definition it is the “sane” and “rational” response. Human beings simply are not "reducible" to something that the word “rational” can circumscribe, we are much more than that, that word is essential, but it is by no means exhaustive. We are not just rational beings; we are also sensate, emotional, and spiritual beings, and because of the uniquely human way that we experience reality, we live in a universe imbued with values, meaning and purpose.
I have removed sane from my quote because I believe it presents the wrong idea, that the majority of people are insane because they act altruistically. The idea I'm trying to present is that all altruistic actions have a self-centered purpose but yet the self-centered purpose. I'm not trying to idea that selfish and altruistic people are the same. I'm trying to understand how a person is considered altruistic, even though they receive something in return for their actions.
Interestingly you highlight how the universe is imbued with many values and meanings that people clearly see, but what fascinates me is that it does not appear we can choose what we value but that it is given to us, almost like we are a puppet of our desires. I imagine a truly divine being as acting in a way I suppose that would act least like that of an animal, controlled by their emotions. I recognize people are not controlled by their emotions and they have the ability to think about their actions but I also notice that many people have a harder time than others in controlling their emotions, letting their emotions control them. If we are to define the difference between human and animal that we have the ability to act on our thoughts and deny our emotions, this might imply that different people have different levels of divinity??
This can range from straightforward transactions, like buying something, to more complex situations, such as fostering mutually beneficial relationships. Even when giving seemingly selflessly, individuals often receive intangible rewards, like a sense of virtue or emotional fulfillment. In essence, I see every action as driven by an inherent desire to gain or experience something in return.Your belief is not consistent with observations, human inclinations are not primarily selfish, altruism refers to behavior that benefits another individual at a cost to oneself, and your simple mechanistic explanation of expectations of later reciprocity cannot account for all altruistic behavior. There are plenty examples of sacrificial behavior that in no way benefits the individual, what expectation of return can the man who throws himself on a grenade to save others have?Rather than “seeking something in return for their actions”, I think the source of “good deeds” lies in the individual transcending the realm in which their own materiality is located and extending our awareness and being to include the experience created in others by our actions. Rather than giving in order to get something, many people adopt a perspective that defines life as good in terms of the contribution made to others. There is a realm in which we are truly one with our fellow man, it has nothing to do with religion or dogma; it is simply a matter of adopting a perspective that defines self in more expansive terms, and it is ia matter of human nature to do so.
Your example of a person throwing themselves on a grenade to save others is excellent, and many would consider them an altruistic individual. I recognize some people if had a grenade would throw themselves on it voluntarily with no alternative purpose, but I see your example necessitates the saving of others, not a simple suicide. It is possible that the person has been told they would receive treasures in heaven such as kamikazes, but I see your example necessitates the absence of a religious dogma.
First, I would say that hardly any atheistic people would throw themselves on a grenade for any reason except to escape the world and not to save others. However, I am aware some atheistic people find meaning and value in life worthwhile. Some even find meaning through serving others and value through their heroic actions. I would suggest that an individual who sacrifices themself for others without being religious is doing so to live a life that is meaningful.
I do not believe a person would live a long life if it was meaningless. Instead, they would either end their life because a world with intrinsic suffering that has no meaning is rationally unbearable, or they have found their meaning and even if the pursuit leads to death a short meaningful life is better than a long meaningless one. To put it simply, it doesn't seem reasonable that an individual would throw themself on a grenade to save others and not gain a sense of value or meaning, and remembering that a meaningless life is not worth the suffering it is the rational self-untrusted action that one should gain meaning even at the sacrifice of their life.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
I think that altruism does not mean acting selflessly. Instead, I think it might mean spreading your stability among a community.
As I was saying above, and as far as I can tell, every action that is made has a self-centered purpose, yet people are still considered altruistic. How can this be?
I still notice that in altruistic people their motives still had a self-centered purpose, but the difference lies in that they distribute their stability among a community so that if anyone is misfortunate, they share the load.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Do you believe the purpose of all living creatures is to live, or do you believe there is an overarching purpose that necessitates living?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
So, if sex is fine, rape is fine?
No, I believe that's the wrong conclusion. I believe that it's something specific to the mind and not the physical experience that draws the distinction between individuals who experience PTSD from those who don't.
In other words, physical experience is not what causes PTSD; it is how the mind perceives an experience.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
In my scenario, there is no difference in experience between voluntary and involuntary, yet involuntary still causes PTSD.
Though, I do understand how you were explaining involuntarily is almost never the same experience.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
If you think making love and rape are an "equal experience, then when you make love, you are doing it wrong.
I appreciate the advice. Truly, why do you believe rape constitutes that causes many to suffer from PTSD?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
“Man is sometimes extraordinarily, passionately, in love with suffering...”― Fyodor Dostoevsky
He was an excellent philosopher. What does this quote mean to you, and how do you believe it has impacted your actions?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
"There is the heat of Love, the pulsing rush of Longing, the lover’s whisper, irresistible—magic to make the sanest man go mad."
That is an interesting quote. Do you have a source, or did you create it yourself?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Everything that occurs within a universe at any given moment is naturally occurring...Zed
I like it! I agree that anything that operates within the universe is indeed a part of nature.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Are you suggesting we should view human nature from a darwinian perspective, and what do you believe this would imply?
What do you mean by one can only be an altruist if one can afford to be an altruist?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
What is Yin Yang in comment 22?
Are you saying my comment contains a balanced perspective of Yin and Yang, or my view is Yin and to another person's Yang?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
I never claimed that any nontraditional gender identities were or were not sensical. You associated trauma with autonomy, and I wanted to express how animals can be traumatized as well because I thought it would be helpful for our discussion. Do you not believe this is sufficient to consider that trauma is not associated with autonomy assuming that we believe animals are not autonomous and yet have sufficiently been documented to have trauma?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
By no means am I trying to be one sided, I'm here with the intent of hearing others perspectives and considering their validity with the experience I have obtained.
Please understand it is a positive characteristic not to accept anyone's word on a dime. I am quite skeptical and need to thoroughly consider my options before making a decision. As of yet, my understanding seems to be the most reasonable to me, but of course, that is why I'm discussing it with you, because I'm interested in hearing.
Here are my results from your search from APA about the relationship of autonomy and trauma:
- Autonomy is the ability to act in accordance with one’s own values, preferences, and goals. It is an important aspect of psychological well-being and resilience.
- Trauma is an emotional response to a terrible event that can cause various symptoms such as unpredictable emotions, flashbacks, strained relationships, and physical problems. Trauma can also impair one’s sense of autonomy and agency.
- Trauma-informed care is an approach that recognizes the impact of trauma on people’s lives and helps them heal in a safe and respectful way. It involves understanding the signs and symptoms of trauma, creating a trusting and supportive environment, and empowering people to make choices and have control over their recovery.
- Autonomy restoration is the process of regaining one’s sense of autonomy after a traumatic event. It can involve re-establishing personal boundaries, expressing one’s needs and preferences, making decisions, taking actions, and pursuing meaningful goals.
- Autonomy restoration can enhance one’s psychological well-being, coping skills, self-esteem, and post-traumatic growth. It can also reduce the risk of developing post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety, and other mental health problems.
Cited by the following:
Created: