Why are the loudest people are often perceived to be the most idiotic? Is there some correlation between volume and arrogance, and if so, are there correlations between arrogance and idiocy and volume and idiocy? Is the old saying about the wise man and his silence true?
I believe so.
So much of society is fueled by hatred. People associate Liberals with Democrats with anti-religionists; people associate Republicans with Conservatives with religious fundamentalists. People cannot perceive their parents' stresses, or they cannot comprehend their children's fallacies (instead simply standing by the notion of "they'll grow up one day"). It's your body, your choice, but what if your friend were cutting him/herself with old/used blades? It's your lungs and our air, but my car is still a necessity. There is no room for error in ____, but mankind is an erroneous collective. Divorce is bad, but why should your loved ones have to deal with faulty marriages? The government should stay out of the home, yet they should fund programs to help those in the home.
So many fallacies on the objective scale. Indeed, mankind is very fallacious and erroneous. Quite hypocritical, too. Mankind is an approximated function with a 100% error margin.
So, what is the objectivity of mankind? We could most certainly look at history to find some answers, but we're only going to find what we intentionally search for. We can find good and we can find bad, and we can blind ourselves to either if we decide to. We can then break in the "majority outweighs the minority" rule and decide that the "ultimate" good or bad is the net sum of all good or bad and then, from there, we can pick some time frame in history and decide when humanity was at its peak.
But even still, people would turn mountains into molehills and molehills into mountains. New ideas of old messages are always being created. That is the imagination of humanity, obviously. It is not rationality. Rationality is objectivity. To be able to "discover" is the work of the imagination. To be able to question, to argue, to fight, to submit, to create, and to destroy. All stem from the imagination and a personal bias as we pick apart technicalities to justify ourselves.
So what is objectivity?
It's very simple, yet nigh impossible.
It is the "need." There are four fundamentals of every Human: physicality, spirituality, mentality, and emotionality.
The physical needs are the easiest to decipher; we need food, we need water, and we need protection (from the elements through clothing or from the environment through shelter, assuming we will take different connotations of "elements" vs. "environment").
The mental needs can also be defined, though it is slightly more difficult; we need perserverance, we need imagination, and we need communication. Perserverance allows us to breed unity, harmony, and a rationale. Imagination reinforces our rationale and allows us to discover, invent, and idealize. Communication is the necessity that links everything together with the rest of the world, even if the rest of the world is a grain of dirt for a hermit.
Why can we define those two? They are polar opposites on the External (physicality, emotionality) vs. Internal (mentality, spirituality) spectrum. It can be noted that Physicality is placed in such a way that it is more opposite from Mentality than from the other two, as is the same with Mentality to Physicality, Spirituality to Emotionality, and Emotionality to Spirituality.
...And the impossibility immediately lies therein--that's a subjective approach to objectivity. My approach.
The rule of thumb is that there will always be someone who disagrees. However, this can be ignored if that person never shows himself (either directly or indirectly), so such a saying is rather pessimistic in and of itself.
Your objectivity can be measured by your understanding of a simple rule of Circles in Geometry: any point on the circle can be the exact same as any other point (on, not in, mind you) through a simple rotation. A basic rule of Physics is that we can define our origin and coordinate system to be anywhere in any direction and at any angle so long as everything is kept in the same manner (yes, you can have an XY coordinate plane be at 47 degrees from each other on one side instead of 90) and all numbers are re-evaluated accordingly.
To relate that, anybody's viewpoint can be looked at as the same as your own with a different coordinate system. To better explain that, "Take a walk in someone's shoes." See someone else's viewpoint and make it your own for a time being, and you'll better understand not only that person's but also your own.
What is the point of all this?
This "_______is/are stupid," (usually filling the blank with "Humanity" or "Humans") is a horrible concept that should be destroyed because it is a most pessimistic idea that will never help anyone. Why should anyone's faith in humanity be lost over some minor incidents (with 6+ billion, thousands are still minor), or why should we be doomed because things don't go as you wish they would?
Sure, maybe your viewpoints would be better. But they're not initiated, are they? If you have the means to idealize, then you have the means to create. Perhaps you should consider action yourself? A failed attempt is still an attempt, and it is the highest form of "justification," many would say. After all, one can only fail so many times before one finally succeeds. That is proven by the simple notion that "Humanity as a whole is a failure, but certain individuals are successful." It has to be correct in knowing that at some point, someone is going to succeed somewhere.
So where do you stand? Coming to "realizations" about yourself will never help you. Just because you realize that your life is like an unfinished book or maybe even someone's dream does not suddenly make you more aware of or competent at anything. Realizing and idealizing are pseudo-philosophies.
...Unfortunately, I cannot continue this any longer. The whole point of this entry was to hopefully get some attention and make some people think a little more about things. I deliberately left many holes, inconsistencies, and incoherent transitions all over the place. I seek only to raise some unknown awareness. If I inform, offend, inspire, educate, or entertain, it was not my intention. If I am hypocritical, incorrect, correct, correct on some points but not on others, provoking, or profound, it was not my intention.
I seek only curiosity of others' awareness levels with this. Feel free to comment: I will respond unless it is a meaningless piece of nonsense (in the most blatant form, of course). I am curious to know what others think. I will not argue, nor will I try and justify any of my stances on things should any of those situations arise. I will probably add in more $0.02 cents, again, should the situation arise.
Anyway, thinking is the goal here, yet thinking is what I am wanting to deter from. Many people say that it is our "liberal" minds that allow us to advance; the desire to change. I counter that with the fact that not many people seek to change, but instead only seek to want change. Franklin didn't want someone to figure out electricity for him. He sought it himself. Edison didn't want someone to figure out bulbs and currents. He did it himself. The idea of "powerful, positive change" works on an individual basis: one cannot just jump on the bandwagon and say that some mindset is the key to advancement or improvement. That is flawed and, in most cases (that I've seen), quite hypocritical. Of course, this paragraph alone is a hypocrisy in and of itself.
Feedback of all kind is welcome and encouraged. Whew, next?
I believe so.
So much of society is fueled by hatred. People associate Liberals with Democrats with anti-religionists; people associate Republicans with Conservatives with religious fundamentalists. People cannot perceive their parents' stresses, or they cannot comprehend their children's fallacies (instead simply standing by the notion of "they'll grow up one day"). It's your body, your choice, but what if your friend were cutting him/herself with old/used blades? It's your lungs and our air, but my car is still a necessity. There is no room for error in ____, but mankind is an erroneous collective. Divorce is bad, but why should your loved ones have to deal with faulty marriages? The government should stay out of the home, yet they should fund programs to help those in the home.
So many fallacies on the objective scale. Indeed, mankind is very fallacious and erroneous. Quite hypocritical, too. Mankind is an approximated function with a 100% error margin.
So, what is the objectivity of mankind? We could most certainly look at history to find some answers, but we're only going to find what we intentionally search for. We can find good and we can find bad, and we can blind ourselves to either if we decide to. We can then break in the "majority outweighs the minority" rule and decide that the "ultimate" good or bad is the net sum of all good or bad and then, from there, we can pick some time frame in history and decide when humanity was at its peak.
But even still, people would turn mountains into molehills and molehills into mountains. New ideas of old messages are always being created. That is the imagination of humanity, obviously. It is not rationality. Rationality is objectivity. To be able to "discover" is the work of the imagination. To be able to question, to argue, to fight, to submit, to create, and to destroy. All stem from the imagination and a personal bias as we pick apart technicalities to justify ourselves.
So what is objectivity?
It's very simple, yet nigh impossible.
It is the "need." There are four fundamentals of every Human: physicality, spirituality, mentality, and emotionality.
The physical needs are the easiest to decipher; we need food, we need water, and we need protection (from the elements through clothing or from the environment through shelter, assuming we will take different connotations of "elements" vs. "environment").
The mental needs can also be defined, though it is slightly more difficult; we need perserverance, we need imagination, and we need communication. Perserverance allows us to breed unity, harmony, and a rationale. Imagination reinforces our rationale and allows us to discover, invent, and idealize. Communication is the necessity that links everything together with the rest of the world, even if the rest of the world is a grain of dirt for a hermit.
Why can we define those two? They are polar opposites on the External (physicality, emotionality) vs. Internal (mentality, spirituality) spectrum. It can be noted that Physicality is placed in such a way that it is more opposite from Mentality than from the other two, as is the same with Mentality to Physicality, Spirituality to Emotionality, and Emotionality to Spirituality.
...And the impossibility immediately lies therein--that's a subjective approach to objectivity. My approach.
The rule of thumb is that there will always be someone who disagrees. However, this can be ignored if that person never shows himself (either directly or indirectly), so such a saying is rather pessimistic in and of itself.
Your objectivity can be measured by your understanding of a simple rule of Circles in Geometry: any point on the circle can be the exact same as any other point (on, not in, mind you) through a simple rotation. A basic rule of Physics is that we can define our origin and coordinate system to be anywhere in any direction and at any angle so long as everything is kept in the same manner (yes, you can have an XY coordinate plane be at 47 degrees from each other on one side instead of 90) and all numbers are re-evaluated accordingly.
To relate that, anybody's viewpoint can be looked at as the same as your own with a different coordinate system. To better explain that, "Take a walk in someone's shoes." See someone else's viewpoint and make it your own for a time being, and you'll better understand not only that person's but also your own.
What is the point of all this?
This "_______is/are stupid," (usually filling the blank with "Humanity" or "Humans") is a horrible concept that should be destroyed because it is a most pessimistic idea that will never help anyone. Why should anyone's faith in humanity be lost over some minor incidents (with 6+ billion, thousands are still minor), or why should we be doomed because things don't go as you wish they would?
Sure, maybe your viewpoints would be better. But they're not initiated, are they? If you have the means to idealize, then you have the means to create. Perhaps you should consider action yourself? A failed attempt is still an attempt, and it is the highest form of "justification," many would say. After all, one can only fail so many times before one finally succeeds. That is proven by the simple notion that "Humanity as a whole is a failure, but certain individuals are successful." It has to be correct in knowing that at some point, someone is going to succeed somewhere.
So where do you stand? Coming to "realizations" about yourself will never help you. Just because you realize that your life is like an unfinished book or maybe even someone's dream does not suddenly make you more aware of or competent at anything. Realizing and idealizing are pseudo-philosophies.
...Unfortunately, I cannot continue this any longer. The whole point of this entry was to hopefully get some attention and make some people think a little more about things. I deliberately left many holes, inconsistencies, and incoherent transitions all over the place. I seek only to raise some unknown awareness. If I inform, offend, inspire, educate, or entertain, it was not my intention. If I am hypocritical, incorrect, correct, correct on some points but not on others, provoking, or profound, it was not my intention.
I seek only curiosity of others' awareness levels with this. Feel free to comment: I will respond unless it is a meaningless piece of nonsense (in the most blatant form, of course). I am curious to know what others think. I will not argue, nor will I try and justify any of my stances on things should any of those situations arise. I will probably add in more $0.02 cents, again, should the situation arise.
Anyway, thinking is the goal here, yet thinking is what I am wanting to deter from. Many people say that it is our "liberal" minds that allow us to advance; the desire to change. I counter that with the fact that not many people seek to change, but instead only seek to want change. Franklin didn't want someone to figure out electricity for him. He sought it himself. Edison didn't want someone to figure out bulbs and currents. He did it himself. The idea of "powerful, positive change" works on an individual basis: one cannot just jump on the bandwagon and say that some mindset is the key to advancement or improvement. That is flawed and, in most cases (that I've seen), quite hypocritical. Of course, this paragraph alone is a hypocrisy in and of itself.
Feedback of all kind is welcome and encouraged. Whew, next?
Rather than a debate on the specifics of what you talked about Im just going to talk a little about what I found myself thinking about after reading your post. They say the difference between a happy and a tragic ending is when you stop telling the story. A little while back Ray Charles died. I heard everyone talk about the tragedy of it. Try as I might I cant see the tragedy. The man lived to be 74 years old. Had a rich full life that included unparalleled success in his chosen field. We should all be so lucky. Does something become a tragedy merely by its end? All things end.
But then perhaps it seems tragic due to our perception of time. Our linear sense of time is convenient for creatures that live and die by causal effect but it is to be remembered that is in the end nothing more than a useful illusion.
So I have made an argument that ending is only an illusion and not inherently tragic, but instead a natural and inevitable event. Or at least I have discussed the notions that lead me to believe this and I respect you enough to know you can make the connections without diagram. You can agree or disagree as is your wont, it is merely my philosophy. But if you agree then the logic would apply similarly at all levels from lives, relationships, sexual encounters, and T.V. shows to species, worlds, suns and universes.
What is a species anyway? The simple description is a group of animals fitting a certain description that can mate or reproduce in some fashion. Its relatively easy to tell the difference most of the time when observing from one point in time. But given the nature of evolution there must be an area of overlap when creatures have characteristics of both species. So ultimately, an arbitrary line is drawn for the convenience of those who classify.
So yes Humanity as we know it will end. Either we will die out or become so different than what we are now that some one will change the label. In the end this is neither tragic nor avoidable. All things being equal its been pretty interesting. I suppose we could concentrate on the base and banal, and Im not suggesting we sugar coat things, but there has been much of the beautiful and the strange as well. I could make a list of great artists and scientists or discuss the intricacies of love and chocolate but I wont. Sometimes when I can separate myself enough there is wonder to be found in 2X4s and hotdogs.
Rationality and objectivity are not the same. To be objective you assume nothing, you judge nothing, and you remove all personal bias. To be rational you take all information garnered (hopefully) objectively and apply classifications and prioritize based on preconceived criteria and ultimately make judgments. Ideally the two notions are intertwined but still separate.
All this is how I can be an idealist and a realist, a romantic and a cynic, a lover and a fighter.
Ok, its late. Hopefully I said something interesting or at least annoying.