My philosophy of life

  • Thread starter Sprinter
  • Start date
dgood,
Good for you, too! I find it refreshing to see people identify their own value system and go for it. But I don't understand why you and sprinter are arguing... you have identified what I think are two of the most important aspects of happiness (material security and community harmony).
These are not mutually exclusive. Where's the argument?
 
Someone does think money is evil and shouldn't be an object of pursuit.
I agree that it is those things we possess that make us happy, anyway, when having money, you are automatically triggered to happiness.
 
I didn't think we were arguing :) I said we can agree to disagree. Otherwise I think we'd be arguing. I gladly accept when I am wrong or when someone I am debating with has made a good point. How else can we get anywhere? I was just making my point and case, see what he thought of it, and let him know what I thought of his... in the meantime maybe we both learned something from it. It's all in how you go about it. Something can be learned from everything if you have an open mind to anything.

But I think, of course, in todays day and age that we DO have to persue money. I just don't think it buys us happiness. Possibly, it can buy the individual a brief moment of happiness, yet there is a bigger picture here. We're all on a planet and we cannot escape each other. I think we should learn how to take care of each other, and solve OUR problems first before we start putting gold and diamonds in our mouth. You know? People see and hear about that in a country where they are eating their own fecies just to stay alive.. and it drives them to kill. We've gotta value life, all life. Unfortunately, materials are at the top of the pedestal for the majority of humans now days. I think we've gotta start over and view the whole human race as one individual, then we can have a clear perspective on what it is that needs to be taken care of in our lives, otherwise we've got 6.5 billion Earths of their own running around trying to solve their own problems, when they could do that by solving all of their problems together as one. What's easier? One trying to solve the problems of 6.5 billion, or 6.5 billion trying to solve the probems of one? Some tell me I am much too far fetched... I tell them to give it a try first. Their current models don't seem to be working.
 
Last edited:
We tend to be selfish and greedy, this is the problem of human beings since long time ago.
 
dgood,
People don't fight over money or goods (unless they're starving, of course). People fight due to an inherent need for conflict. If we did as you suggest and broke the world up into small self-sustaining communities, you would of course stop large-scale war, but it won't be long before people become attached to their community as their "people" (like many of us do today with our countries); after all, their community is all they need. Then our inherent need for conflict would resurface eventually and we'd have tribal warfare.
Not that I'm dissing the suggestion. I love the idea, and you're right, it would most likely reduce things such as starvation, but it wouldn't stop things that we as a species have a need for.
 
Friends, there is no Utopia, Natural Selection is always ruling, let's accept the fact!
 
There would be no need to fight... all the communities would help each other as well. There's no form of money, and no form of governmental power. The only thing that may be needed would be a small police like force for each town.... if even that... imagine what happens to crime when there is no money and everyone is self sufficient... :) why war? Even technology and energy are free. The only type of government I would suggest is a scientific government... the best minds in the world working towards curing all diseases with no biudget of course, and working on anything and everything in space exploration and new technology... and all the findings would be made known to the public.. along with the current research.
 
Last edited:
356
0
I think i want to learn, the f-word and make alot of money.
 

Astronuc

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,491
1,612
clouded.perception said:
People fight due to an inherent need for conflict. If we did as you suggest and broke the world up into small self-sustaining communities, you would of course stop large-scale war, but it won't be long before people become attached to their community as their "people" (like many of us do today with our countries); after all, their community is all they need. Then our inherent need for conflict would resurface eventually and we'd have tribal warfare.
The 'need' for conflict is an interesting idea. Apparently some people do, e.g. bullies, for whatever reason.

I however would prefer to do without conflict. I would rather spend my time watching and enjoying Nature, and solving problems and contemplating the mysteries of the Universe.

As for small communities, look at the Amish or Quakers. I believe they work quite successfully without a police force.
 
I'm not sure it's a need for conflict so much as the inability for everyone to escape conflict. As Astronuc pointed out there are groups that can live peacebly without need of anyone to enforce the peace. Not everyone is compelled towards conflict, and I'd probably say that most people would prefer to be without any conflict. Unfortunatly there are some who seek out conflict for various reasons, and those few force conflict on everyone else.
 
Everyone seems to be (assuming I don't have the wrong end of the stick) looking at conflict as a bad thing.
Human beings, as with all social mammals, have an inherent comparative ranking system. We call it 'respect'; the more respect, the higher the ranking, the more power. The only way to compare people is through some kind of conflict, even if it is one that takes place entirely in your head (as some do, but most don't).
War is simply conflict on a very large scale. People can't escape conflict and very few people want to escape it entirely (although of course most people don't like bullying, violence, etc.). It is an inherent part of our natures. Competition, for instance, is controlled conflict, and we often do it for fun, or to test our skills relative to others (such as sport).
Let's say we have 'good' conflict (organised, fun competition) and 'bad' conflict (bullying, unnecessary violence). Obviously, a world without good conflict is inconcievable, but we mostly want to stay away from bad conflict. However, accepting that a need for conflict is an inescapable part of us, and accepting that people are often defensive of their own families, or morals, or societies, etc. (anything "them"), we can see that it is very easy for good conflict to escalate into bad conflict. Remember that some people thrive on the things that I have defined as 'bad' conflict (to them it's good of course), and the best way to stop them is to meet them on their level.
Basically: there will always be someone ready to escalate our need for conflict into something dangerous.
Permanent end to war is impossible because it goes against our nature.
 
I agree with most of what you say.... but, permanent end to war is impossible and part of your nature only because you accept it to be that way... simple as that. Your nature is whatever you make it. You're no longer an animal run by survival instincts, we are totally capable of going higher than that. We can control our thoughts, our actions and our "nature". What you bring into acceptance... will manifest.
 
Last edited:
If we accept to deny violence, poverty, selfishness and war as a part of our nature, we will manifest into a peaceful global society. The action is simple ; Anything that we bring into acceptance will manifest. What do you accept as a part of human nature? Is it death, destruction and violence? Then so be it, we will continue to war and suffer. Or is it peace, care, love and giving. Then so be it, our world will change. What do you wish to manifest? Accept it.

Change comes from within every single individual, including myself. What do you wish the future of this world to look like? Start the change today, accept the good, deny the bad. We are a species of manifestation, not a controlled heirarchy of manipulation. Please, wake up.
 
Last edited:
dgoodpasture2005 said:
If we accept to deny violence, poverty, selfishness and war as a part of our nature, we will manifest into a peaceful global society. The action is simple ; Anything that we bring into acceptance will manifest. What do you accept as a part of human nature? Is it death, destruction and violence? Then so be it, we will continue to war and suffer. Or is it peace, care, love and giving. Then so be it, our world will change. What do you wish to manifest? Accept it.

Change comes from within every single individual, including myself. What do you wish the future of this world to look like? Start the change today, accept the good, deny the bad. We are a species of manifestation, not a controlled heirarchy of manipulation. Please, wake up.
That's all well and good when it comes to individuals, but how far will a peace loving attitude last in a violent world. Now, don't get me wrong, I mean no slur to pacifists or whatever your personal beliefs are. I wish violence and pain to no person, but how can you convince other people of that? In a world of confusion and freedom, how can there be anything but pain and suffering? What motivation is there to follow the path of peace and justice, other then altruism? Unless everyone is inherently good, which rests on a metaphysical concept of good and evil, this utopian world of peace can never be realized. In the material world of flesh and blood there is no good and evil, there is only comfort. Good and evil can only be applied as an abstract concept with no motivation to believe it. It then stands to reason that there will be people who take this notion of peace, give it serious thought, but then say, "screw it, I want what you have, no give it to me or I'll kill you". What do you do then, but be prepared to fight back. We must be vigilant against threats and dangers, and not turn a blind eye and hope they won't be there.
 
Lead by example. There's no better example in life... than leading by example itself. I understand what you are saying, and how you could be a bit baffled at the prospect of my view. I've been bringing about change in many people myself. Even those who wish to do me harm. Simply by not doing harm back... not giving in to the emotion of the moments actions... and taking over your otherwise instinctual reactions. Mental and physical self control. If we can all start to do this and not give up on the goal, others will come around. That's all I can ask for... none of us can force change in a forceful way, yet we can give everyone a little nudge in the butt. If someone punches you, and you punch them back... a fight breaks out. If someone punches you, and you ask them why... maybe you'll come to an understanding of what it is that drives their negative energies and actions... in doing so you might also wake them up to the good of the world. Some people just never experience that kind of interest or care being given to them. It can't be any other way... if we want change.. it must come from within... we aren't controlled... we are the controllers. Think of it like a hydraulic engine(this may be hard for you to udnerstand.. I'm not very good with engines.. but this is what I see in my head when I visualize good and bad in this world) so when the piston shoots up on one side, the other side is filled with water, and the side where the piston shot up, all the water is pushed out of. Let's say that the water is the people... and the right side is the bad of the world... while the left side is the good of world. Right now the left sides influence is pretty low. The right side needs to be pushed all the way up.. so that the left(good is full...) it's like a teeter totter... we're in a constant battle for peace... but none of us realize it(or the one's that do, don't do anything about it). Let's all sit on the good side and flip the bad out of here. Sorry... that first analogy with the engines was horrible.. but I'll leave it up here for your personal entertainment lol.
 
Last edited:
Dawguard said:
That's all well and good when it comes to individuals, but how far will a peace loving attitude last in a violent world.
This seems to be the biggest misunderstanding in the world today. The WORLD is made up of INDIVIDUALS. A violent WORLD means we have too many violent INDIVIDUALS. You ARE the world. You ARE both the whole and the peice. You are as ONE together, but also as one individual in 6.5 billion. We are all connected and we all have influence, regardless of linguistics or religions. Like a landslide... if you can get enough individuals to become good, the rest of the world will fall down that same path. Or it can go towards the bad... it's our choice. Right now we seem to be stagnant and somewhere in the middle... with a sense of bad beginning to win out.
 
Last edited:
dgoodpasture2005 said:
This seems to be the biggest misunderstanding in the world today. The WORLD is made up of INDIVIDUALS. A violent WORLD means we have too many violent INDIVIDUALS. You ARE the world. You ARE both the whole and the peice. You are as ONE together, but also as one individual in 6.5 billion. We are all connected and we all have influence, regardless of linguistics or religions. Like a landslide... if you can get enough individuals to become good, the rest of the world will fall down that same path. Or it can go towards the bad... it's our choice. Right now we seem to be stagnant and somewhere in the middle... with a sense of bad beginning to win out.
I understand what you mean, but I think it is overly optimistic. The problem with this worldview is the way it is applied to crime and punishment, and intercountry relationships. Example, a murderer is on trial. He has admitted his guilt, and according to your philosophy then we should give him the lightest sentence possible, in an effort to turn the other cheek and spread good. Well, the ideal is fine and good, but someone else will see this and realize that they don't have much to fear, and they will be more likely to kill someone. They won't come away with the idea of good that you gave an example of, they will come away with less inhibition to do evil.
However, on a personal note, I think you are right, at least to a degree. Violence should always be a last resort, but you should always be prepared to use it. Not all evil can be understood or tolerated. Not all evil will follow an example of good. Sometimes there is only one way to defend ourselves, and we must always be prepared to use that way, the way of violence.

Now, I'm not advocating violence. I hope that all conflicts can be resolved peacefully and without violence. I hope that we can always reason and understand each other, but it is, in my opinion, naive to think that everyone can become good by example. It is never a good idea to turn a blind eye to problems in the hope they will go away, or to ignore evil in the hope it will see you and become good.
 
Last edited:
Dawguard said:
I understand what you mean, but I think it is overly optimistic. The problem with this worldview is the way it is applied to crime and punishment, and intercountry relationships. Example, a murderer is on trial. He has admitted his guilt, and according to your philosophy then we should give him the lightest sentence possible, in an effort to turn the other cheek and spread good. Well, the ideal is fine and good, but someone else will see this and realize that they don't have much to fear, and they will be more likely to kill someone. They won't come away with the idea of good that you gave an example of, they will come away with less inhibition to do evil.
However, on a personal note, I think you are right, at least to a degree. Violence should always be a last resort, but you should always be prepared to use it. Not all evil can be understood or tolerated. Not all evil will follow an example of good. Sometimes there is only one way to defend ourselves, and we must always be prepared to use that way, the way of violence.

Now, I'm not advocating violence. I hope that all conflicts can be resolved peacefully and without violence. I hope that we can always reason and understand each other, but it is, in my opinion, naive to think that everyone can become good by example. It is never a good idea to turn a blind eye to problems in the hope they will go away, or to ignore evil in the hope it will see you and become good.
No, according to my philosophy that is NOT the case... I said to understand them and help them... not just dismiss them on a short sentence and let them back out. When we come to understandings we solve problems, not only on a small scale but also on a large scale. We can make change happen by example and by changing our current roles. There is no other way... we cannot escape this planet(that I'm aware of at this moment). I agree with the rest of what you stated... we should always be prepared for a last resort. If this conversation is coming to an end, thank you for the input, you gave me some new ideas and helped me learn a bit more. Take it easy Dawgaurd ;) Rumble on.
 

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top