a question

see if you dont like this thread, then please don't bother to even let me know whether you think others will answer. i am not interested.


yes i figured my posts would have little efect on a person who still hasn't managed to figure out what "man" and "comfortable" possibly could have meant, even after those were explained.


well you feel free to let me know what you think of a thread topic that, by your own admission, has gone over your head, and i can't let you know what i in turn think of your sheer inability to get the drift of things ??? i got to confine that away from this very thread???




and finally to oblige you - here's are a few sample answers from the other forum -

-----> We are probably more comfortable being what we are expected to be...it would help us be accepted in our society thus feel more comfortable. BUT, it is likely more natural for us to be what we are. That is why the constant internal struggle we all deal with. We want to be what we are, its natural, but we conform to what we should be, for comfort level.


------> Humans are a race of social creatures. Humans have always had to cooperate and work together to survive, thus breeding strong group mentalities. Thus, I would say humans are more comfortable being what they are told/believe they should be, rather than what they "are".



and now please oblige me in turn, by becomming an observer, or - in the unlikely event that you manage to figure out what i'd asked, come up with something germane.

The first answer start by saying-"we are probably etc".That means nothing.If you think it means something steer clear of philosophy.It then goes on with a "BUT" and says the very opposite.It's just a pile of words.Not a shred of meaning in it.

The second answer just chooses sides which is,presumably,due to the personality of the writer.
Some people would agree with it and others not.

We already know you are not interested in anything which you don't care for so there is no need to inform us despite your lack of interest causing you to type out a lengthy response.When I lose interest there will be no response.

There are people reading these threads who are wondering if philosophy is any use to them.You ought to bear those people in mind as well as yourself.They won't be served by any subjectivism.
Philosophy deals with evidence.It is a science.It is for leaders.
And posts from another forum are not evidence in this case.They are evidence of the state of mind of the poster.That's all.

I know what "man" is and I know what "comfort" is.
And I don't go about blithely assuming that "man" in the philosophical sense is anything like me or you or anybody else and I only know what I'm comfortable with.The idea of speaking for the whole human race at all times and places and in all circumstances is meglomaniacal in extremis.

another invaluable rant from you. ty


and now please take the hint (notice how i have saved myself a lot of time by chooseing not to type a long response that will again wasted on you) and try your luck someplace else, where you have a greater chance of making yourself useful.

You try your luck somewhere else.Who do you think you are telling me to get off the thread.This isn't your forum.

What does it mean to you if what you type isn't wasted.Oh-I know-something that produces a response which flatters you.Everything else is a waste is it?You have had a better philosophy lesson off me than you'll ever get off agreeable flatterers.

What do you plan doing with an answer to your original question which satisfies you.What answer would satisfy you and what use would it be?

N.e.v.e.r.m.i.n.d.


and keep deluding/flattering yourself that you are comming up with brilliant philosophy lessons !!


and this isnt your forum either - so unless you can discuss the topic, try not to voice what you think of the thread. or be prepared to get answered in kind.



damn !!!

its been such a frigging displeasure to reply to your dense rants and get dragged into this "your momma" competion. sorry can't match you there, i just aint your kind. so i am putting you on iggy ok?

Does that mean running off?

I never claimed to be doing "brilliant" philosophy.Where do you get such daft ideas from.
This is flat-ribbed elementary stuff.

There are other words besides "dense" you know.You don't have to continually use the same word.Brahmin you ain't.

which isn't for a halfwitted pom to judge.

and yes, i'm running off - from the "your momma" you want to drag me into.

You mean you're throwing the towel in.Pretty words won't disguise that.

starting again...
what comes more naturally to man -
is he a sort of living being who likes being himself (& following no one), or following what/whom he thinks (or is told), he ought to follow ??

the majority follow the latter, the minority live the former.

It's the old,old story.

The individual against society.We give up a portion of our freedom in return for the safety and other benefits of a collective system which we could not achieve as individuals.The argument has raged since argument began.The amount of freedom given up is a function of a number of factors of which power (or terror) is possibly the most important.Humans will give up a great deal of freedom to avoid being tortured or liquidated but not all will as many revolutionaries have proved.
Generally speaking women are more content to be told what to do than men but not in all cases and less so today in modern western societies than used to be the case or is still the case in underdeveloped areas.
Besides society demanding obedience there are other social groups such as family or peer group or work colleages.The whole system of manners and etiquette is employed to enforce conformity to these groups which cannot rely on legal sanctions.

The educational system seeks to coerce individuals into becoming "comfortable" with the degree of conformity required by the state whilst at the same time not stifling individual initiative in,say,legal economic activity or scientific research.

Those who resist these types of coercion beyond certain limits will find themselves ostracised by the group which,in some cases,amounts to a death sentence.

Obviously these different socialisation techniques affect individuals in different ways and there will be a spectrum from absolute non conformity-the hermit or the hobo-to total conformity as seems to be happening to the majority of the population of N Korea.I stress "seems".

As a result of terrorism there has been a shift in some countries in the balance between conformity and freedom which the majority seem comfortable with although there is a significant minority which is not.

These strands are in a complex balance and it is impossible to say where the balance is comfortable and for whom and when or where.

There are no answers to the problem other than each individual making his or her own subjective judgement.Even the Sex Pistols had to conform to airline regulations and parking restrictions.

There are no answers to the problem other than each individual making his or her own subjective judgement.Even the Sex Pistols had to conform to airline regulations and parking restrictions.[/QUOTE]



You said everything I would have to say, Spendius.

That is exactly why I gave a Subjective answer:)

The only thing i would add is: Brahmin, ya can't find answers to essential human 'questions' from other people.
THE ANSWER LIES WITHIN.

cheers

i didnt ask about myself or about anyone else.


i wanted to which of the 2 ways comes more naturally to humans.

are we BASICALLY an instinctive, individualistic sort of animal
or
a conforming, comparing (notes) sort, ever in need of a shepard?

I've tried to explain that the tensions between the two conditions you are exercised about is the principle subject of most of the best writing that has come down to us.They are the principle subject of most serious movies and they can be detected in day to day media output.

We,on here,are highly unlikely to have anything new to say on a subject so exhaustively treated and by people of great talent.

I suggest you engage your mind with as many of these works as possible and then you will see that there is no definitive answer to the problem you have.And there are no shortcuts either.

i suggest, that you, for once, learn to take a hint.

Why don't you concentrate on the subject you raised instead of wasting your time suggesting what I should do.

Anybody would think that you had me pegged out as one of your followers.

it was you who wasted your time suggesting what i do !!

and yes you do seem to be following me, and refusing to take a hint, having made your modest point(s) so repeatedly - so you cant blame them !!

I'm not following you.I'm following the thread as much as I can when extraneous stuff doesn't get in the way.It is an interesting subject for philosophy.
Machine Man or Tarzan.I don't understand women so I'll not offer a comparable example.

Do you think it makes no difference regarding your question whether males or females are different with their responses to the question you pose?

Do you often repeat yourself?In the pub people who do that find themselves in the company of similar people.I think it is caused by underestimating one's audience or possibly having nothing else to say.

It is considered the height of poor taste in philosophy circles which these threads are as yet but tangential.