Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Philosophy, in all its guises. => Topic started by: Sriram on July 12, 2017, 06:49:07 AM
-
Hi everyone,
One of the hallmarks of our times is the absence of Idealism. No one has the confidence in oneself or the trust in others to determine and follow any set of ideals any more. The concept of 'Character' building seems outdated.
Spirituality, religions and certain philosophies are about ideals. They are not just about explaining things as they are. They are about how things should be, how we should live and what goals we should pursue.
I have many times written about the three stages in our lives. Childhood, Adolescence and Maturity. Here is an article about it for those who might be interested.
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2016/04/20/three-stages/
People who are mentally in the Child stage will accept authority from someone like a religious leader, holy book or even ones own parents. Such people have no problem following a lifestyle or pursuing goals that elders and others have prescribed based on their wisdom. This mindset is safe and has its advantages.
Those who are mentally in the second stage of adolescence are habitually skeptical and cynical. They are full of themselves and ready to rebel at any sign of authority. They are the 'live as you want' brigade.
In the third stage of Maturity are people who have the experience, wisdom and self discipline necessary to understand the do's and don'ts of life. Even if they don't understand life itself, they know that it should be lived in certain ways for ones own and society's benefit.
It is the second stage people who can end up messing up their lives because they neither have the maturity to understand the consequences of their lifestyle nor the willingness to obey their elders. They no longer accept the authority of religions or their elders. They don't have the confidence and self assurance that comes of experience and wisdom and therefore they have no ideals at all. Everything is questioned, scoffed at and discarded.
Life without any ideals can not only mess up our own lives but also mess up our community. Ideals are goals and objectives that people fix based on certain understanding of life and the repercussions of our actions. If we keep scoffing at them, the consequences will be dire.
In present times many people have moved beyond the child stage but not yet reached the Mature stage. This gives rise to continued uncertainty and doubt , continued skepticism and cynicism about what is right and wrong. Nothing is right or wrong in itself. Its only about police, courts and criminal offences. Otherwise anything is ok for them. Anyone prescribing certain lifestyle are viewed as interfering in other peoples business.
I think in coming generations people will gain mental maturity based on a secular understanding of the subtle aspects of life and they will bring back ideals in their normal lives, giving youngsters some life goals and ideals to follow other than mundane ones.
Just some thoughts.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Thanks for that Sririam (always find your posts at least interesting :D). That post struck home. My mother came from a Quaker(SofF) background and many of her ideals are ones that I espouse though she never forced any belief system on to me and my sister, she is 'typically' gentle in that regard and wanted us to grow up to be ourselves, if that's not too much of a cliche.
I have to get ready for work now but will be back later by which time there will be many other c omments!
-
A problem with idealism and any other -ism is that there can be conflicts between them.
-
I disagree with quite a bit of the OP. But there we are.
-
I disagree with quite a bit of the OP. But there we are.
More politely expressed than what I was thinking. But there I am.
-
I disagree with quite a bit of the OP. But there we are.
Ditto. Nicely expressed, Rhi. :)
-
They no longer accept the authority of religions or their elders.
Which religion? Which elders?
Being an elder does not necessarily confer wisdom. Indeed I've seen more wisdom in some 5 year olds than I have seen in some 85 year olds.
This is all so vague as to be meaningless.
-
People should always question what they are being told about religion by those considered in authority. No priest can provide any evidence to support the existence of god or an afterlife.
-
Hi everyone,
One of the hallmarks of our times is the absence of Idealism. No one has the confidence in oneself or the trust in others to determine and follow any set of ideals any more. The concept of 'Character' building seems outdated.
Spirituality, religions and certain philosophies are about ideals. They are not just about explaining things as they are. They are about how things should be, how we should live and what goals we should pursue.
I have many times written about the three stages in our lives. Childhood, Adolescence and Maturity. Here is an article about it for those who might be interested.
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2016/04/20/three-stages/
People who are mentally in the Child stage will accept authority from someone like a religious leader, holy book or even ones own parents. Such people have no problem following a lifestyle or pursuing goals that elders and others have prescribed based on their wisdom. This mindset is safe and has its advantages.
Those who are mentally in the second stage of adolescence are habitually skeptical and cynical. They are full of themselves and ready to rebel at any sign of authority. They are the 'live as you want' brigade.
In the third stage of Maturity are people who have the experience, wisdom and self discipline necessary to understand the do's and don'ts of life. Even if they don't understand life itself, they know that it should be lived in certain ways for ones own and society's benefit.
It is the second stage people who can end up messing up their lives because they neither have the maturity to understand the consequences of their lifestyle nor the willingness to obey their elders. They no longer accept the authority of religions or their elders. They don't have the confidence and self assurance that comes of experience and wisdom and therefore they have no ideals at all. Everything is questioned, scoffed at and discarded.
Life without any ideals can not only mess up our own lives but also mess up our community. Ideals are goals and objectives that people fix based on certain understanding of life and the repercussions of our actions. If we keep scoffing at them, the consequences will be dire.
In present times many people have moved beyond the child stage but not yet reached the Mature stage. This gives rise to continued uncertainty and doubt , continued skepticism and cynicism about what is right and wrong. Nothing is right or wrong in itself. Its only about police, courts and criminal offences. Otherwise anything is ok for them. Anyone prescribing certain lifestyle are viewed as interfering in other peoples business.
I think in coming generations people will gain mental maturity based on a secular understanding of the subtle aspects of life and they will bring back ideals in their normal lives, giving youngsters some life goals and ideals to follow other than mundane ones.
Just some thoughts.
Cheers.
Sriram
Just a small point Sriram in psychology most of its workings are figured out on averages, it's not an exact science, bearing that in mind how do you account for the tendency of the youngest children in a family, any family, to be more rebellious for most of their lives than their siblings?
Just thought you might find that interesting.
ippy
-
People should always question what they are being told about religion by those considered in authority. No priest can provide any evidence to support the existence of god or an afterlife.
It wasn't just about religion floo, philosophies were mentioned.
We're all aware of the ideals of older people when we're young - some good, some bad.
We sift through them, rejecting, accepting, adapting, eventually it is hoped we form our own opinions & have ideals of our own.
The article Sririam quotes suggests there is an absence of ideals in today's world.
-
The article Sririam quotes suggests there is an absence of ideals in today's world.
That really makes it sound like the impotent anger and mistrust of the young by the old (some of them) going back to the year dot - isn't there a passage from an ancient Greek text (can't remember which one) complaining about the youth of today and how noisy and rude and disrespectful they are? Plus ça change.
In any case: I thought a few weeks ago we were being fed the line that Labour's relative success was due to Corbyn buttering up the idealistic youth vote?
-
It wasn't just about religion floo, philosophies were mentioned.
We're all aware of the ideals of older people when we're young - some good, some bad.
We sift through them, rejecting, accepting, adapting, eventually it is hoped we form our own opinions & have ideals of our own.
The article Sririam quotes suggests there is an absence of ideals in today's world.
I know what he was suggesting.
-
That really makes it sound like the impotent anger and mistrust of the young by the old (some of them) going back to the year dot - isn't there a passage from an ancient Greek text (can't remember which one) complaining about the youth of today and how noisy and rude and disrespectful they are? Plus ça change.
My kids' generation have incredibly high ideals. Isn't idealism the preserve of the young, and cynicism something that comes with age? In part, possibly, as a way of making peace with death.
-
My kids' generation have incredibly high ideals. Isn't idealism the preserve of the young, and cynicism something that comes with age? In part, possibly, as a way of making peace with death.
It's often the case - though I don't think it's inevitable and that like a riptide it's possible, though difficult, to fight against it.
The remedy AFAICS is to keep enquring, stay interested in the world, keep thinking things through, constantly.
A tall order for those who never started, obviously.
-
My kids' generation have incredibly high ideals. Isn't idealism the preserve of the young, and cynicism something that comes with age? In part, possibly, as a way of making peace with death.
I can't remember if I had any ideals of my own as such when a young person. I have always done my own thing, much to the annoyance of my late mother, in particular! ;D
-
"One of the strange and rather attractive features of modern life is how highly kindness and generosity are valued [...] Different generations invent or reinvent their own cardinal sins. In the generation now aged sixteen to twenty-five, I should say (to judge from my acquaintances in this age group) that the cardinal sins were racism and cruelty to animals. One can laugh at the earnestness which this sometimes produces, but on the whole it makes life pleasanter rather than the reverse, particularly if you happen to be either a fox or a human being of Afro-Caribbean descent. The impulses to 'feed the world', cherish its wildlife, to make life more bearable for ethnic or other 'minorities' are manifest and palpable among enormous numbers of young people today." - A. N. Wilson, 1991.
-
That really makes it sound like the impotent anger and mistrust of the young by the old (some of them) going back to the year dot - isn't there a passage from an ancient Greek text (can't remember which one) complaining about the youth of today and how noisy and rude and disrespectful they are? Plus ça change.
In any case: I thought a few weeks ago we were being fed the line that Labour's relative success was due to Corbyn buttering up the idealistic youth vote?
Yes, good to see too imo but then I would say that being as I share some of Corbyn's ideals :D .
There's also the mistrust of the young by some of the old unfortunately.
My kids' generation have incredibly high ideals. Isn't idealism the preserve of the young, and cynicism something that comes with age? In part, possibly, as a way of making peace with death.
I'd never thought of cynicism being a way of making peace with the inevitable. You may be right about that in some cases, an 'old' person today said something to me that would tie in with your theory. I didn't have the time to discuss it with her but it bothered me, she seemed so bitter and only focussed on negatives.
-
"One of the strange and rather attractive features of modern life is how highly kindness and generosity are valued [...] Different generations invent or reinvent their own cardinal sins. In the generation now aged sixteen to twenty-five, I should say (to judge from my acquaintances in this age group) that the cardinal sins were racism and cruelty to animals. One can laugh at the earnestness which this sometimes produces, but on the whole it makes life pleasanter rather than the reverse, particularly if you happen to be either a fox or a human being of Afro-Caribbean descent. The impulses to 'feed the world', cherish its wildlife, to make life more bearable for ethnic or other 'minorities' are manifest and palpable among enormous numbers of young people today." - A. N. Wilson, 1991.
For the generation that my kids are growing up in, it's sexism and homophobia/transphobia.
-
For the generation that my kids are growing up in, it's sexism and homophobia/transphobia.
As well as rather than instead of, I'm sure.
-
As well as rather than instead of, I'm sure.
Well, obvs.
They do hate it when people say 'obvs' though. Especially the over forties. I think this is ageist.
-
Whatevs.
-
Just a small point Sriram in psychology most of its workings are figured out on averages, it's not an exact science, bearing that in mind how do you account for the tendency of the youngest children in a family, any family, to be more rebellious for most of their lives than their siblings?
Just thought you might find that interesting.
ippy
Yes..but I am not talking about individual behavior or specific issues. Even two year old's can throw tantrums and even 14 year old's may obey and conform and even mature people could be skeptical. That depends on the issue on hand.
What I am talking about is how societies and communities in general behave towards different issues. That depends to a large extent on what stage of mental development the majority of the individuals are in that group and the subject matter on hand. That depends on the culture, social restrictions and so on.
For example, many Muslims would be grouped under 'child' stage as far as religion is concerned because they will obey and idolize without question. But as regards business matters they might be mature. Britishers might be grouped under 'Adolescence' as far as religion and authority is concerned because they are skeptical as a rule.
-
::)
-
For example, many Muslims would be grouped under 'child' stage as far as religion is concerned because they will obey and idolize without question.
So can you clarify. Do you think people should accept the authority of their elders and religion or not?
If yes, then I don't see why you are criticizing religious believers? If no, why are you calling those that question said beliefs as adolescents?
This is all a confused mess.
-
Yes..but I am not talking about individual behavior or specific issues. Even two year old's can throw tantrums and even 14 year old's may obey and conform and even mature people could be skeptical. That depends on the issue on hand.
What I am talking about is how societies and communities in general behave towards different issues. That depends to a large extent on what stage of mental development the majority of the individuals are in that group and the subject matter on hand. That depends on the culture, social restrictions and so on.
For example, many Muslims would be grouped under 'child' stage as far as religion is concerned because they will obey and idolize without question. But as regards business matters they might be mature. Britishers might be grouped under 'Adolescence' as far as religion and authority is concerned because they are skeptical as a rule.
And how do you regard your religion?
-
Yes..but I am not talking about individual behavior or specific issues. Even two year old's can throw tantrums and even 14 year old's may obey and conform and even mature people could be skeptical. That depends on the issue on hand.
What I am talking about is how societies and communities in general behave towards different issues. That depends to a large extent on what stage of mental development the majority of the individuals are in that group and the subject matter on hand. That depends on the culture, social restrictions and so on.
For example, many Muslims would be grouped under 'child' stage as far as religion is concerned because they will obey and idolize without question. But as regards business matters they might be mature. Britishers might be grouped under 'Adolescence' as far as religion and authority is concerned because they are skeptical as a rule.
'Britishers might be grouped under 'Adolescence' as far as religion and authority is concerned because they are skeptical as a rule'.
Ah ha no, realistic.
'Muslims would be grouped under 'child' stage as far as religion is concerned'.
No primitive in just the same way as any other religious belief.
'Yes..but I am not talking about individual behavior or specific issues. Even two year old's can throw tantrums and even 14 year old's may obey and conform and even mature people could be skeptical. That depends on the issue on hand'.
A country with a population the size of India's, say one sceptic per every third family, now that's a lot of sceptics and if you re read my post I did concede I was making a small point worth noting.
Why do you take such a superior tone when expressing religious matters, doesn't your superstition based belief require humility of its exponents?
]ppy
-
I'd say someone who pigeon holes people according to their beliefs or nationality is still in the 'child' stage.
-
My goodness! You people think this is a fight between religions or between the religious and non religious?!! LOL! ::)
Ippy...maybe I made a mistake in replying to you. Forgive me!
-
My goodness! You people think this is a fight between religions or between the religious and non religious?!! LOL! ::)
Ippy...maybe I made a mistake in replying to you. Forgive me!
So how do you regard it, because your posts aren't clear on the topic?
-
So can you clarify. Do you think people should accept the authority of their elders and religion or not?
If yes, then I don't see why you are criticizing religious believers? If no, why are you calling those that question said beliefs as adolescents?
This is all a confused mess.
It sounds a bit like the Transactional Analysis ego states of Parent, Adult, Child. If you are interested, there is an article here..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_analysis
-
It sounds a bit like the Transactional Analysis ego states of Parent, Adult, Child. If you are interested, there is an article here..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_analysis
Yes, except there's child/adolescent/elder and Sriram seems to think that we go through the stages based on spirituality and age, whereas in TA even the young can be in an Adult stage and anyone rubber band back into Child (we've all seen people in their eighties do it) or take on the Parent role in response to it.
I've also come across this idea of going through these 'stages' in modern shamanism. The problem there is that it becomes an excuse for not moving forward - 'I can't do that until I've reached this' - without taking into account that 'that' may be what is necessary to grow in the first place.
-
One of the hallmarks of our times is the absence of Idealism.
Really!?! Evidence please.
From where I am standing idealism is alive and well. Actually we are seeing perhaps the greatest battles of idealism in society both nationally and internationally that there have been in decades.
No one has the confidence in oneself
I see plenty of self confidence in our young people
or the trust in others to determine and follow any set of ideals any more. The concept of 'Character' building seems outdated.
But that isn't idealism, that is acceptance and following of authority. Idealism is surely where you are true to your own ideals, regardless of the pressure from others to conform to orthodox views.
I have many times written about the three stages in our lives. Childhood, Adolescence and Maturity. Here is an article about it for those who might be interested.
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2016/04/20/three-stages/
People who are mentally in the Child stage will accept authority from someone like a religious leader, holy book or even ones own parents. Such people have no problem following a lifestyle or pursuing goals that elders and others have prescribed based on their wisdom. This mindset is safe and has its advantages.
Those who are mentally in the second stage of adolescence are habitually skeptical and cynical. They are full of themselves and ready to rebel at any sign of authority. They are the 'live as you want' brigade.
In the third stage of Maturity are people who have the experience, wisdom and self discipline necessary to understand the do's and don'ts of life. Even if they don't understand life itself, they know that it should be lived in certain ways for ones own and society's benefit.
It is the second stage people who can end up messing up their lives because they neither have the maturity to understand the consequences of their lifestyle nor the willingness to obey their elders. They no longer accept the authority of religions or their elders. They don't have the confidence and self assurance that comes of experience and wisdom and therefore they have no ideals at all. Everything is questioned, scoffed at and discarded.
Life without any ideals can not only mess up our own lives but also mess up our community. Ideals are goals and objectives that people fix based on certain understanding of life and the repercussions of our actions. If we keep scoffing at them, the consequences will be dire.
In present times many people have moved beyond the child stage but not yet reached the Mature stage. This gives rise to continued uncertainty and doubt , continued skepticism and cynicism about what is right and wrong. Nothing is right or wrong in itself. Its only about police, courts and criminal offences. Otherwise anything is ok for them. Anyone prescribing certain lifestyle are viewed as interfering in other peoples business.
I think in coming generations people will gain mental maturity based on a secular understanding of the subtle aspects of life and they will bring back ideals in their normal lives, giving youngsters some life goals and ideals to follow other than mundane ones.
Just some thoughts.
Cheers.
Sriram
A lot of waffle there, but fundamentally I don't disagree with the basic concept of the three stages in the very broadest terms.
However surely idealism is inextricably linked to the second stage. Idealism is (and always has been) driven by those old enough and with enough confidence to challenge the orthodox views of those older than themselves and not simply to conform to the status quo. But also not to have developed to a stage where they are resistant to change.
So you seem to argue to a point that is bizarre - effectively that the real idealists (those in the second stage) aren't idealists and actual idealists are those simply accepting of the orthodox view as they are too old to change or too young to challenge.
And you cannot say that others should give 'youngsters some life goals and ideals to follow' and think that is idealism - it isn't - it is only idealism if thew youngsters themselves independently develop their life goals and ideals.
-
Sririam your post is confusing. I, like I suspect others are trying to make sense of it.
And also I wonder just what you mean by this:
Anyone prescribing certain lifestyle are viewed as interfering in other peoples business.
-
I'd say someone who pigeon holes people according to their beliefs or nationality is still in the 'child' stage.
Yes I'm with you on that Rhi.
ippy
-
My goodness! You people think this is a fight between religions or between the religious and non religious?!! LOL! ::)
Ippy...maybe I made a mistake in replying to you. Forgive me!
'a fight between religions or between the religious and non religious?!! LOL! ::)'.
Not really the only thing that's worth a fight for is a secular way of life for all and one thing in particular that I find to be very distasteful, putting it mildly, is teaching unsupported/unsupportable nonsense to very young and vulnerable children.
Maybe you are unable to find anything logical or rational to support your religious ideas and your only get out is to arrogantly dismiss words that don't fit in with your preconceived ideas.
It's your religious ideas I don't agree with and that would remain the same for me wherever you came from, whoever you are or whatever paint job you have, you may well be a reasonable likeable bloke I don't know, I have every respect for you as an individual but as I said I don't go much on your religious ideas that's all.
ippy
-
It sounds a bit like the Transactional Analysis ego states of Parent, Adult, Child. If you are interested, there is an article here..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_analysis
ekim,
This cannot be directly compared to TA. TA is about interpersonal behavior and interactions, not about basic personality traits. A person could interact as Parent to Child with a person under certain circumstances and interact as child to child with the same person a little later...and maybe as adult to adult a little later.
What I am referring to in my OP is about basic stages of development in all humans and how culture and environment affect our mental development and behavior and how the community as a whole can often reflect these personality traits.
-
Hi everyone,
Let me clarify.
First of all...this thread has nothing to do with religions or with spirituality.
I am here talking about three normal stages of development that all humans go through...childhood, adolescence and maturity. Each of these has certain traits as I have already explained. Broadly speaking childhood is about adulation, imitation and acceptance of authority. Adolescence is about rebellion, self importance and skepticism. Maturity is about both the others in balance with thought and emotional stability. This is a normal and well known categorization of human development. Nothing new about it!
Unfortunately, while physical development happens at broadly fixed ages, the mind does not necessarily catch up in all cases because it depends largely on the family, culture and social environment. In societies where people are very strict and rigid (such as in Muslim communities for example) the stage of adolescence does not give rise to the usual rebellion and doubt and skepticism. It gets curtailed. Therefore the child stage continues (mentally) well beyond physical childhood. In fact many people retain the child mind even in advanced age with the same adulation, imitation and blind acceptance of authority. This is possible not merely with regard to religious matters but also often in political and other matters. This happens in many tradition bound and strict communities (not just muslims).
As regards adolescence, in societies where there is greater liberty and freedom, children tend to attain mental adolescence earlier than usual. They become vocal, irreverent and skeptical very early. If however these children are not exposed to a variety of cultures and ideas as they grow, they tend to retain the same adolescent ideas and perspectives well into adulthood, often into very advanced age also.
This is all that I am saying in my OP....and in my article that I have linked.
As regards ideals...children often learn their ideals from parents or religious people or other people in authority. During adolescence they tend to disregard these same ideals and follow their own instincts or desires or fears or whatever they may consider as important at that time. Long term ideals and life goals are not given much importance. As I have said above, in societies where people have great liberty and freedom and where they also have restricted exposure to other cultures and ideas, they will tend to hold on to such perspectives well into advanced age.
People who are exposed to varied ideas and alternative possibilities will however tend to mature and grow out of these adolescent ideas much faster and reach an emotionally and intellectually balanced state of mind.
I hope I have clarified.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
As regards ideals...children often learn their ideals from parents or religious people or other people in authority.
Ideals aren't things you 'learn' from others - they are things that you develop for yourself.
-
Ideals aren't things you 'learn' from others - they are things that you develop for yourself.
Seems an odd and as ever false dichotomy. Are you really saying you developed your ideals yourself?
-
Seems an odd and as ever false dichotomy. Are you really saying you developed your ideals yourself?
You develop them according to your own personal experiences, which would of course include influence of others - but that is entirely different from 'learning' them which was the implication of Siriam's post.
-
You develop them according to your own personal experiences, which would of course include influence of others - but that is entirely different from 'learning' them which was the implication of Siriam's post.
So your own experience and the influence of others, where is this out of line with Sriram's point?
-
So your own experience and the influence of others, where is this out of line with Sriram's point?
Because Siriam said that 'children often learn their ideals from parents or religious people or other people in authority', that is a world away from developing ideals based on your individual experiences. In the former case you passively accept the ideals from others as you 'learn' them. In the latter ideals are personal and intrinsic and develop as part of your active and ongoing development.
To say you learn your ideals from others is a bit like claiming that you learn what food you like from others.
-
Because Siriam said that 'children often learn their ideals from parents or religious people or other people in authority', that is a world away from developing ideals based on your individual experiences. In the former case you passively accept the ideals from others as you 'learn' them. In the latter ideals are personal and intrinsic and develop as part of your active and ongoing development.
To say you learn your ideals from others is a bit like claiming that you learn what food you like from others.
You fixed your ideals at the age of 6-7-8 through your own experiences? Not bad! :-\
I don't remember much about these matters, but I probably got my ideals of truthfulness, respect for elders, vegetarianism, patriotism, family values, religious ideals etc. from my parents....partly through their teaching and largely through observing their behavior.
Anyway...G'night!
-
Because Siriam said that 'children often learn their ideals from parents or religious people or other people in authority', that is a world away from developing ideals based on your individual experiences. In the former case you passively accept the ideals from others as you 'learn' them. In the latter ideals are personal and intrinsic and develop as part of your active and ongoing development.
To say you learn your ideals from others is a bit like claiming that you learn what food you like from others.
Another post extolling the virtues of individual experience on a forum which frequently disparages individual experience?
-
You fixed your ideals at the age of 6-7-8 through your own experiences? Not bad! :-\
I don't remember much about these matters, but I probably got my ideals of truthfulness, respect for elders, vegetarianism, patriotism, family values, religious ideals etc. from my parents....partly through their teaching and largely through observing their behavior.
Anyway...G'night!
Who said anything about ideals being fixed at 6, or 7 or 8.
Quite the reverse, our ideals develop and evolve as get older and gain greater unique experience. Sure there may be a starting point that is acquired from parents and other influential people in our lives as children, but this is in effect the 'canvas' on which our personal ideals are 'painted' so to speak.
It may be that your ideals are similar to your parents (that doesn't mean they are learned) but that isn't the case for many, many people - for example think about all those vegetarians who were not brought up as vegetarians.
In my own personal case may of my ideals are very different to those of my parents - both politically and also in a broader cultural context. My parents were both big 'C' and small 'c' conservatives, rather conformist in their thinking. My ideals are very different - that doesn't mean I didn't love my parents, but I am not them and they are not me. Our ideals are individual shaped by our unique experiences.
My brother is a passionate environmentalist (almost evangelical about it through his 20s) where did that idealism come from, certainly not from our parents.
-
I know what you mean, PD. I love my parents to bits but in many ways I've learned how not to be from them, if that makes sense. I've consciously parented in a very different way, have very different ideas on what constitutes 'shocking' behaviour, different ideas on relationships, faith, politics, war, the environment... a lot of their generations' ideas really weren't healthy.
-
I know what you mean, PD. I live my parents to bits but in many ways I've learned how not to be from them, if that makes sense. I've consciously patented in a very different way, have very different ideas on what constitutes 'shocking' behaviour, different ideas on relationships, faith, politics, war, the environment... a lot of their generations' ideas really weren't healthy.
I think sometimes we learn more about idealism from our children than we did from our parents (who knows maybe they did too).
-
Another post extolling the virtues of individual experience on a forum which frequently disparages individual experience?
I don't think the 'forum' disparages anything. Individual posters may do, or they may not do.
For the record I don't believe I disparage individual experience where (in the point I was making) it influences individual, (i.e. subjective) value judgements.
Where I think we may disagree is on the argument that an individual subjective (real for me) experience is used as an argument for an generalised and objective (real for everyone) supposition.
-
I think sometimes we learn more about idealism from our children than we did from our parents (who knows maybe they did too).
Apologising for my typos. Autocorrect is not my friend.
-
I know what you mean, PD. I love my parents to bits but in many ways I've learned how not to be from them, if that makes sense. I've consciously parented in a very different way, have very different ideas on what constitutes 'shocking' behaviour, different ideas on relationships, faith, politics, war, the environment... a lot of their generations' ideas really weren't healthy.
If we were products or only products of our background - meaning parents; meaning upbringing - then I, at my venerable age - a point in life where my beard is as much white as it is black - would still be mired in the entirely casual, entirely automatic and reflexive, entirely thoughtless, wholly non-malicious racism of my raising.
No, not racism, as there was no element of malice, spite or hatred in it; not even xenophobia neither; more like neophobia - where the new, the strange, the unfamiliar, the not-encountered-before was automatically suspect and something to be wary of, from Chinese food (I would try it but I might not like it) to people with dark brown skin who might wear unfamiliar clothing and who may well cook food with unfamilar smells wafting out of the kitchen window. Such is an upbringing in an extremely insular family in an extremely insular village/rural community in the blank bit of the middle of nowhere where almost everybody is white and everybody is assumed to be straight and everybody is employed and only a select few, slightly different people know what a chicken jalfrezi is and whether you're supposed to eat it, unblock drains with it or rub it on your chest if you have a cold.
I don't mean to sound harsh: the old saying about taking the boy out of the country though not vicky versa applies. A large part of me is still in it and I've never wanted it any other way, since at least some of the values and ideals it gave are with me - sometimes a little uneasily - to this day; good manners; respect for all, especially elders; hard work; thrift/living within your means - and I think those good things, however qualified.
On the other kettle of fish I know that a greater proportion of what I think of as my ideals have come from outside - breadth of mind, broadness of outlook, not merely passive tolerance of but active embrace of difference; these are not really things I grew up with but things I have developed, on the basis that I think I was gifted by nature - and I do think it was a gift of random chance - with the desire to know stuff, to have wider horizons.
-
Who said anything about ideals being fixed at 6, or 7 or 8.
Quite the reverse, our ideals develop and evolve as get older and gain greater unique experience. Sure there may be a starting point that is acquired from parents and other influential people in our lives as children, but this is in effect the 'canvas' on which our personal ideals are 'painted' so to speak.
It may be that your ideals are similar to your parents (that doesn't mean they are learned) but that isn't the case for many, many people - for example think about all those vegetarians who were not brought up as vegetarians.
In my own personal case may of my ideals are very different to those of my parents - both politically and also in a broader cultural context. My parents were both big 'C' and small 'c' conservatives, rather conformist in their thinking. My ideals are very different - that doesn't mean I didn't love my parents, but I am not them and they are not me. Our ideals are individual shaped by our unique experiences.
My brother is a passionate environmentalist (almost evangelical about it through his 20s) where did that idealism come from, certainly not from our parents.
Who said that your political views and your brothers ideals are learned from parents?! ??? ::)
I didn't think this was that difficult. Well...let me clarify a little more.
I am talking about different stages that we pass through in our lives. It is largely physical but because of environmental factors, the mental aspects do not always match our physical development.
During child stage we learn from our parents and elders and others in authority. This is a fact. We do not have enough knowledge or experience or confidence at this stage (6-7-8 etc) to fix our ideals ourselves. I gave some examples of vegetarianism, family values etc. I hope there is no dispute on this....
As we reach adolescence we tend to question these same ideals and even go against them because of the skepticism and cynicism that is a hallmark of this stage of development. I am saying precisely that we out grow our parental influence and develop irreverence and cynicism. I hope this is understood...
After significant exposure to a variety of cultures, ideas and experiences we tone down this skepticism and reach a more balanced emotional and intellectual state of mind when we are neither influenced by authority nor by habitual skepticism.
Many people due to cultural and social factors tend to continue at the Child or the Adolescent stage far beyond the physical stages. Because of this, many Childhood traits and Adolescent traits (and ideals) continue even in advanced age.
The fact that you hold views opposed to your parents (and are clearly proud of it) is itself evidence of the adolescent mindset continuing even today.
-
Who said that your political views and your brothers ideals are learned from parents?! ??? ::)
You did:
'children often learn their ideals from parents ...'
Political views are very much part of our ideals, ideology and idealism.
-
You did:
'children often learn their ideals from parents ...'
Political views are very much part of our ideals, ideology and idealism.
LOL! Alright...thanks Prof D.
-
During child stage we learn from our parents and elders and others in authority. This is a fact.
Children also learn hugely from other children - and there is evidence that peers have a stronger influence on behaviour and respect toward others etc than parents.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1549711/Children-learn-most-from-peers-not-parents.html
-
LOL! Alright...thanks Prof D.
Does that mean you are retracting your previous comment implying that we learn our ideals from our parents and other authority figures?
-
The fact that you hold views opposed to your parents (and are clearly proud of it) is itself evidence of the adolescent mindset continuing even today.
What total rubbish.
What you are implying is that the only way you can demonstrate moving beyond what you describe as the adolescent stage it to agree with your parents' views. That is total nonsense. It is perfectly possible to come to a mature position on views and ideologies that is not the same as you parents. Indeed it is likely that this would be due to immersing oneself is a much wider variety of views and opinions within society than just those of your parents, and I thought this was a feature of moving toward your third stage.
And yes I am comfortable (call it proud if you like) with my views, but that has nothing to do with them being different to those of my parents, certainly in a political sense.
-
Does that mean you are retracting your previous comment implying that we learn our ideals from our parents and other authority figures?
You have not understood a word of what I have written in spite of my clarification. I cannot clarify any further.
So...lets just leave it at that Prof...Thanks.
-
You have not understood a word of what I have written in spite of my clarification. I cannot clarify any further.
So...lets just leave it at that Prof...Thanks.
Wrong - I do understand what you have said (and your so called clarification is no clearer than your original post) - the issue is that I don't agree with you.
You are completely ignoring the massive influence that our peers have on our values, beliefs ideologies etc throughout our lives. While our parents and other childhood authority figures may provide the framework (or canvas) on which to hang (or paint) our values and ideals, it is our ongoing experiences, and critically our interactions with others who we see as peers that actually shapes the person we become. And that is an ongoing process. We change throughout our lives, and we continue to change long after our parents may have died.
-
Who said that your political views and your brothers ideals are learned from parents?! ??? ::)
I didn't think this was that difficult. Well...let me clarify a little more.
I am talking about different stages that we pass through in our lives. It is largely physical but because of environmental factors, the mental aspects do not always match our physical development.
During child stage we learn from our parents and elders and others in authority. This is a fact. We do not have enough knowledge or experience or confidence at this stage (6-7-8 etc) to fix our ideals ourselves. I gave some examples of vegetarianism, family values etc. I hope there is no dispute on this....
As we reach adolescence we tend to question these same ideals and even go against them because of the skepticism and cynicism that is a hallmark of this stage of development. I am saying precisely that we out grow our parental influence and develop irreverence and cynicism. I hope this is understood...
After significant exposure to a variety of cultures, ideas and experiences we tone down this skepticism and reach a more balanced emotional and intellectual state of mind when we are neither influenced by authority nor by habitual skepticism.
Many people due to cultural and social factors tend to continue at the Child or the Adolescent stage far beyond the physical stages. Because of this, many Childhood traits and Adolescent traits (and ideals) continue even in advanced age.
The fact that you hold views opposed to your parents (and are clearly proud of it) is itself evidence of the adolescent mindset continuing even today.
I would have said that was a sign of maturity. I am very glad I didn't share my parents opinions on most aspects of life, as I didn't think they were right.
-
I would have said that was a sign of maturity. I am very glad I didn't share my parents opinions on most aspects of life, as I didn't think they were right.
Up to a point.
I think disagreeing with your parents purely out of rebellion isn't a very mature position, but then neither is agreeing with them simply out of obedience to authority.
Developing your own well considered views, that align with your own conscience, that are influenced neither by a need to rebel or a need to agree with your parents is, in my opinion, a sign of maturity.
-
The fact that you hold views opposed to your parents (and are clearly proud of it) is itself evidence of the adolescent mindset continuing even today.
Worth noting that I don't disagree with my parents on all matters, there are plenty of things we do agree on, but there are also others we didn't agree on (noting too that they are both dead, so we don't agree or disagree anymore).
So, for example, neither I nor either of my parents believe in god - interestingly this was something I only discovered pretty late in their lives, although I don't think they had believed at all throughout their adult lives. Point was that the cultural 'default' when they were growing up and when I was growing up was that you should believe. Accordingly I think they never really talked about it at all, and I was briefly sent to Sunday school (as the thing to do). My parents had a lot of pressure from their parents as to 'doing the right thing' - and that is a difference between me and them - a much greater recognition that children have to be given the space, opportunity and confidence to grow into the people they are, not to be shoe-horned into becoming the people their parents are.
-
Up to a point.
I think disagreeing with your parents purely out of rebellion isn't a very mature position, but then neither is agreeing with them simply out of obedience to authority.
Developing your own well considered views, that align with your own conscience, that are influenced neither by a need to rebel or a need to agree with your parents is, in my opinion, a sign of maturity.
Exactly...thanks!
Its not whether you disagree with your parents or elders or religious leaders (or agree with them for that matter). Its about why you do it.
People with the child mind would agree merely because of authority. People with the adolescent mind would disagree merely due to rebellion. Its people who have experience and a broader perspective who will disagree or agree because of clear and considered views. But most people tend to retain either their child or their adolescent mindset throughout life because the social and cultural environment pressurizes them to do so.
This view could of course differ on different subjects. It could be disagreement on religion but agreement on politics and so on...
-
But most people tend to retain either their child or their adolescent mindset throughout life because the social and cultural environment pressurizes them to do so.
Sorry Ji but are you over-generalising a bit ?!!?
-
Up to a point.
I think disagreeing with your parents purely out of rebellion isn't a very mature position, but then neither is agreeing with them simply out of obedience to authority.
Developing your own well considered views, that align with your own conscience, that are influenced neither by a need to rebel or a need to agree with your parents is, in my opinion, a sign of maturity.
There were a lot of things about my parents with which to disagree, not just my opinion, but that of most reasonable people too. You should have heard my maternal grandmother on the topic! ;D
-
I'm not sure I have the faintest idea why I have the views have, nor even why these views change over time. I am aware that I often take credit for my views after the fact, although this sense of the exercise of free-will may simply be an inevitable part of the 'I-making' process. If our narrative-writing does take place retrospectively, and frequently in the interests of self-reification, then perhaps these categories of obedience, rebellion and clear consideration may simply be another manifestation of our very human yearning to construct elaborate - and often self-flattering - stories out of mystery and ignorance. Might it not be the case that we just do what we do and then try to make sense of it all afterwards?
Agreeing with authority may be a very sensible approach if your life or welfare depends on conformity - hardly a sign of childishness. Similarly, rebelling may be a natural and perfectly healthy reaction to intolerable circumstances, and not at all symptom of arrested development. Perhaps it is only those who enjoy relative freedom from either constraint who can discover a gentler and more balanced path between such extremes. Is it necessary in any of these cases to invoke judgemental classifications or presume conscious authorship of character?
The adulation of ideals always makes me slightly queasy, for reasons I find hard to pin down. Perhaps this has something to do with my own childhood and the fact that I was sent to an old fashioned boarding school at the age of 7, where I was beaten almost daily in the interests of instilling good Christian values. Yet it never seems to me that my life proceeds from a set of learned rules. Rather I simply find myself thinking, feeling and behaving in certain ways spontaneously. There is seldom any sense of deliberation and when there is this commonly leads to some degree of paralysis in the decision making process, suggesting that the promotion of ideals as a kind of instruction book for life may be at best a poor substitute for trust in ones fundamental nature.
Perhaps without the lectures and floggings my spontaneity would have led me to prison. Who knows? If I learned how to behave from my teachers then I also learned a deep mistrust of authority. At no time did I ever consciously try to work out what my own views should be on morals or anything else. I simply found that I was the way I was. Some of the views I found I held put me at odds with social norms and for many years I tried to modify these views to bring me into line. It never worked. I found that when I tried to 'improve myself' I actually began to feel extremely stressed and unwell. Eventually I realised that the problem was trying to be other than what I was. It was a kind of violence against myself. Since then I've not been a fan of self-improvement. Change can and does occur, of course, but this seems to me to happen quite mysteriously and cannot in my experience be forced.
-
That's a great post, Bramble. I'm sorry that you went through what you did as a child.
For me the desire for 'self improvement' was a symptom of unhappiness, a very clear sign that things were badly wrong in my life. It's no secret that a few years ago I had a breakdown, the roots of which lay in emotional and mental abuse; I came out the other side having undone the worst of the negative beliefs that I had about myself, but I didn't have a clue who I was - my sense of self was made up of the negative judgements of others. Somehow, through all kinds of things, I've got back to a vague sense of self as I feel that I should be. What or who that is I can't really pin down, but I feel at home. What my ideals are I have no idea - like you, I find I react instinctively. Change, it seems to me, is a process of unlearning, letting things fall away. I've realised that there isn't necessarily the need to then build anything up again, it's ok just to stay with the sense of space. I dream, but I don't plan. Life will go where it will.
-
it's ok just to stay with the sense of space.
.... and to value it .... perhaps what is implied in the Tao Te Ching
"Many spokes are needed to create a wheel
But it is the space at the centre that makes it functional.
Create a pot from clay,
But it is the space within that makes it useable.
A house may have many windows and doors,
But it is the open space that allows them to be used.
Therefore, although we favour what is in Existence
We need to see the spacious value of inner Being."
-
I like your post 64, Bramble, and can relate to many things that you say. It is much more nuanced and focused than Sriram's posts on this subject which I regard as far too simplistic and generalised.
-
That's a great post, Bramble. I'm sorry that you went through what you did as a child.
For me the desire for 'self improvement' was a symptom of unhappiness, a very clear sign that things were badly wrong in my life. It's no secret that a few years ago I had a breakdown, the roots of which lay in emotional and mental abuse; I came out the other side having undone the worst of the negative beliefs that I had about myself, but I didn't have a clue who I was - my sense of self was made up of the negative judgements of others. Somehow, through all kinds of things, I've got back to a vague sense of self as I feel that I should be. What or who that is I can't really pin down, but I feel at home. What my ideals are I have no idea - like you, I find I react instinctively. Change, it seems to me, is a process of unlearning, letting things fall away. I've realised that there isn't necessarily the need to then build anything up again, it's ok just to stay with the sense of space. I dream, but I don't plan. Life will go where it will.
Yes, the desire for self-improvement must come from some sense of inadequacy, mustn't it? The trouble with ideals is that they so easily create an unattainable goal, ensuring that ones sense of inadequacy is never overcome. They seem to be intrinsically alienating. I'm sorry that you've had such a rough ride. You certainly come across in your posts as a very balanced and self-confident person now, so you must have done something right! I like your insight that change is a process of letting things fall away. That's how it seems to me too.
-
This discussion reminds me of a way we described these stages in our family.
Stage 1: Daddy knows everything
Stage 2: Dad knows nothing
Stage 3: Actually Dad does know some things after all
Problem with Siriam's approach, is that it seems to equate to:
Stage 1: Daddy knows everything
Stage 2: Dad knows nothing
Stage 3: Actually I've decided that Dad does know everything after all
-
This discussion reminds me of a way we described these stages in our family.
Stage 1: Daddy knows everything
Stage 2: Dad knows nothing
Stage 3: Actually Dad does know some things after all
Problem with Siriam's approach, is that it seems to equate to:
Stage 1: Daddy knows everything
Stage 2: Dad knows nothing
Stage 3: Actually I've decided that Dad does know everything after all
Like this post of yours proff.
ippy
-
Yes, the desire for self-improvement must come from some sense of inadequacy, mustn't it? The trouble with ideals is that they so easily create an unattainable goal, ensuring that ones sense of inadequacy is never overcome. They seem to be intrinsically alienating. I'm sorry that you've had such a rough ride. You certainly come across in your posts as a very balanced and self-confident person now, so you must have done something right! I like your insight that change is a process of letting things fall away. That's how it seems to me too.
What you say brings out the issue with Ideals that I was attempting to bring out in this thread. Many people are actually scared of ideals and about living up to them.....which shows a certain fear of being inadequate and not matching up. This really is unfortunate....and is precisely why I started this thread in the first place.
Self improvement and development is a normal human trait and comes with our nature. So...most people should not have a problem with ideals. They would be enthused by them in fact.
-
This discussion reminds me of a way we described these stages in our family.
Stage 1: Daddy knows everything
Stage 2: Dad knows nothing
Stage 3: Actually Dad does know some things after all
Problem with Siriam's approach, is that it seems to equate to:
Stage 1: Daddy knows everything
Stage 2: Dad knows nothing
Stage 3: Actually I've decided that Dad does know everything after all
LOL!! I have stated in my reply 50 as follows..."After significant exposure to a variety of cultures, ideas and experiences we tone down this skepticism and reach a more balanced emotional and intellectual state of mind when we are neither influenced by authority nor by habitual skepticism."
Which part of the above, according to you, corresponds to your statement ..." Stage 3: Actually I've decided that Dad does know everything after all"?????!!
-
I'm not following this topic closely, but am reading an article at the moment titled, 'The Overtton Window' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window) which is relevant I think.
The link is to the Wikipedia article, not to the one I am reading.
-
I'm not sure I have the faintest idea why I have the views have, nor even why these views change over time. I am aware that I often take credit for my views after the fact, although this sense of the exercise of free-will may simply be an inevitable part of the 'I-making' process. If our narrative-writing does take place retrospectively, and frequently in the interests of self-reification, then perhaps these categories of obedience, rebellion and clear consideration may simply be another manifestation of our very human yearning to construct elaborate - and often self-flattering - stories out of mystery and ignorance. Might it not be the case that we just do what we do and then try to make sense of it all afterwards?
Agreeing with authority may be a very sensible approach if your life or welfare depends on conformity - hardly a sign of childishness. Similarly, rebelling may be a natural and perfectly healthy reaction to intolerable circumstances, and not at all symptom of arrested development. Perhaps it is only those who enjoy relative freedom from either constraint who can discover a gentler and more balanced path between such extremes. Is it necessary in any of these cases to invoke judgemental classifications or presume conscious authorship of character?
The adulation of ideals always makes me slightly queasy, for reasons I find hard to pin down. Perhaps this has something to do with my own childhood and the fact that I was sent to an old fashioned boarding school at the age of 7, where I was beaten almost daily in the interests of instilling good Christian values. Yet it never seems to me that my life proceeds from a set of learned rules. Rather I simply find myself thinking, feeling and behaving in certain ways spontaneously. There is seldom any sense of deliberation and when there is this commonly leads to some degree of paralysis in the decision making process, suggesting that the promotion of ideals as a kind of instruction book for life may be at best a poor substitute for trust in ones fundamental nature.
Perhaps without the lectures and floggings my spontaneity would have led me to prison. Who knows? If I learned how to behave from my teachers then I also learned a deep mistrust of authority. At no time did I ever consciously try to work out what my own views should be on morals or anything else. I simply found that I was the way I was. Some of the views I found I held put me at odds with social norms and for many years I tried to modify these views to bring me into line. It never worked. I found that when I tried to 'improve myself' I actually began to feel extremely stressed and unwell. Eventually I realised that the problem was trying to be other than what I was. It was a kind of violence against myself. Since then I've not been a fan of self-improvement. Change can and does occur, of course, but this seems to me to happen quite mysteriously and cannot in my experience be forced.
Lovely post. We don't get much from Bramble but it is sure worth waiting for ;)
-
Lovely post. We don't get much from Bramble but it is sure worth waiting for ;)
Seconded.
-
LOL!! I have stated in my reply 50 as follows..."After significant exposure to a variety of cultures, ideas and experiences we tone down this skepticism and reach a more balanced emotional and intellectual state of mind when we are neither influenced by authority nor by habitual skepticism."
Which part of the above, according to you, corresponds to your statement ..." Stage 3: Actually I've decided that Dad does know everything after all"?????!!
The bits were you claimed the following:
'The fact that you hold views opposed to your parents (and are clearly proud of it) is itself evidence of the adolescent mindset continuing even today.'
-
The bits were you claimed the following:
'The fact that you hold views opposed to your parents (and are clearly proud of it) is itself evidence of the adolescent mindset continuing even today.'
Alright...thanks!
-
Lovely post. We don't get much from Bramble but it is sure worth waiting for ;)
Agree completely. :)
-
What you say brings out the issue with Ideals that I was attempting to bring out in this thread. Many people are actually scared of ideals and about living up to them.....which shows a certain fear of being inadequate and not matching up. This really is unfortunate....and is precisely why I started this thread in the first place.
Self improvement and development is a normal human trait and comes with our nature. So...most people should not have a problem with ideals. They would be enthused by them in fact.
So far in this thread the word ‘ideals’ has been used to cover a very wide range of things, such as values, beliefs, views, ideologies – pretty much everything that could be bundled together as ‘ways of taking the world’, and you haven’t objected to this broad use of the word so I assume you are happy with people using it in this way. However, going back to the OP you clearly take a particular slant on ideals. For you they are ‘how things should be, how we should live and what goals we should pursue.’ You also say ‘ideals are goals and objectives that people fix…’ So for you ideals are not a general descriptor of how people, in their diversity, take the world in multifarious ways. They are prescriptive and fixed. You lament the cynics for whom nothing is right or wrong in itself and who disapprove of those who prescribe certain lifestyles. This suggests that ideals for you provide a kind of standard model of what a human should think and believe, how they should understand and take the world, and how they should live and behave. For this to be the case, everyone would have to agree on what constituted the ideal human. We would also have to agree that everyone should strive to emulate this ideal.
There appears to be no room in your worldview for difference of opinion. In later posts you talk about people in the ‘mature’ phase of life coming to ‘clear and considered views’ but there is no acknowledgement that different or contradictory views might have equal validity. Rather, your argument would seem to be that with sufficient experience and consideration everyone will come to share the same views, namely yours. Otherwise, why would you be making the case for ideals, if ideals lead people in different and opposing directions, as they very clearly already do in the real world? It is, in fact, precisely this difference in ideals that leads humans to come into conflict with each other and why we as a species spend so much time fighting each other. One might more understandably make the case that ideals are at the root of human strife - that they are in fact a kind of disease. No doubt if everyone was exactly the same then we wouldn’t squabble about what constituted right and wrong. However, this isn’t how things are. But then for you ideals ‘are not just about explaining things as they are’, they ‘are about how things should be’, which we must assume means how you think they should be.
If ideals are to represent a fixed and prescriptive set of beliefs about how people should be then they must come from outside of us. If we generate our own ideals then they will be different and for most individuals they will change over time; they will not be fixed and there could be no standard prescription. In other words, your kind of ideals will necessarily be someone else’s ideals (apparently yours) and we will be obliged to embrace them. Those who do so will be considered to have come to a clear, considered and mature conclusion on the matter and made the correct choice. Those who do not will have fallen short. This sounds awfully Orwellian to me and presumably a society in which such an ideology held sway would necessarily have its thought crimes and their corresponding punishments, here and/or in the next life, for those who fail to comply. History provides plenty of examples of such societies, both religious and secular, and we might do well to heed the lessons that can be learned from them. Unfortunately, humans do seem remarkably unwilling to learn anything from their own mistakes.
The world is already full of ideals. Advocating ideals is hardly a solution, since ideals would appear to be a substantial part of the problem. Ideals imply that there is a right and a wrong way to live and most of us would be happy to go along with this, but only up to a point. We have laws to deal with the most generally agreed standards of behaviour (although these vary from culture to culture: personally I wouldn’t want to live in Saudi Arabia) but you don’t appear to be talking about that level of moral prescription. You write, ‘In present times many people have moved beyond the child stage but not yet reached the Mature stage… Its only about police, courts and criminal offences. Otherwise anything is ok for them.’ Your ideals would seem to be those that go beyond what the law and general opinion prescribes. This is presumably why you specifically refer to ‘spirituality, religions and certain philosophies’ as the home of your ideals. In other words, you are treading familiar ground here. This is about your own religious/spiritual views. Not only do these views indicate how we should all live, it seems, you go on to insist that ‘most people should not have a problem with ideals. They would be enthused by them in fact.’
That word ‘should’ again.
The fact is that everyone already has ideals (in the broadest sense of the word) because everyone has values and views. Your problem isn't really that people don't have ideals, it is that they don’t necessarily share your ideals and your enthusiasm for them. It seems that this is an issue for you and your response is to lecture them on their shortcomings. Have you found this works for you?
-
Yes, a good amplification of what I meant in reply #2, but was too lazy to do so myself.
-
So far in this thread the word ‘ideals’ has been used to cover a very wide range of things, such as values, beliefs, views, ideologies – pretty much everything that could be bundled together as ‘ways of taking the world’, and you haven’t objected to this broad use of the word so I assume you are happy with people using it in this way. However, going back to the OP you clearly take a particular slant on ideals. For you they are ‘how things should be, how we should live and what goals we should pursue.’ You also say ‘ideals are goals and objectives that people fix…’ So for you ideals are not a general descriptor of how people, in their diversity, take the world in multifarious ways. They are prescriptive and fixed. You lament the cynics for whom nothing is right or wrong in itself and who disapprove of those who prescribe certain lifestyles. This suggests that ideals for you provide a kind of standard model of what a human should think and believe, how they should understand and take the world, and how they should live and behave. For this to be the case, everyone would have to agree on what constituted the ideal human. We would also have to agree that everyone should strive to emulate this ideal.
There appears to be no room in your worldview for difference of opinion. In later posts you talk about people in the ‘mature’ phase of life coming to ‘clear and considered views’ but there is no acknowledgement that different or contradictory views might have equal validity. Rather, your argument would seem to be that with sufficient experience and consideration everyone will come to share the same views, namely yours. Otherwise, why would you be making the case for ideals, if ideals lead people in different and opposing directions, as they very clearly already do in the real world? It is, in fact, precisely this difference in ideals that leads humans to come into conflict with each other and why we as a species spend so much time fighting each other. One might more understandably make the case that ideals are at the root of human strife - that they are in fact a kind of disease. No doubt if everyone was exactly the same then we wouldn’t squabble about what constituted right and wrong. However, this isn’t how things are. But then for you ideals ‘are not just about explaining things as they are’, they ‘are about how things should be’, which we must assume means how you think they should be.
If ideals are to represent a fixed and prescriptive set of beliefs about how people should be then they must come from outside of us. If we generate our own ideals then they will be different and for most individuals they will change over time; they will not be fixed and there could be no standard prescription. In other words, your kind of ideals will necessarily be someone else’s ideals (apparently yours) and we will be obliged to embrace them. Those who do so will be considered to have come to a clear, considered and mature conclusion on the matter and made the correct choice. Those who do not will have fallen short. This sounds awfully Orwellian to me and presumably a society in which such an ideology held sway would necessarily have its thought crimes and their corresponding punishments, here and/or in the next life, for those who fail to comply. History provides plenty of examples of such societies, both religious and secular, and we might do well to heed the lessons that can be learned from them. Unfortunately, humans do seem remarkably unwilling to learn anything from their own mistakes.
The world is already full of ideals. Advocating ideals is hardly a solution, since ideals would appear to be a substantial part of the problem. Ideals imply that there is a right and a wrong way to live and most of us would be happy to go along with this, but only up to a point. We have laws to deal with the most generally agreed standards of behaviour (although these vary from culture to culture: personally I wouldn’t want to live in Saudi Arabia) but you don’t appear to be talking about that level of moral prescription. You write, ‘In present times many people have moved beyond the child stage but not yet reached the Mature stage… Its only about police, courts and criminal offences. Otherwise anything is ok for them.’ Your ideals would seem to be those that go beyond what the law and general opinion prescribes. This is presumably why you specifically refer to ‘spirituality, religions and certain philosophies’ as the home of your ideals. In other words, you are treading familiar ground here. This is about your own religious/spiritual views. Not only do these views indicate how we should all live, it seems, you go on to insist that ‘most people should not have a problem with ideals. They would be enthused by them in fact.’
That word ‘should’ again.
The fact is that everyone already has ideals (in the broadest sense of the word) because everyone has values and views. Your problem isn't really that people don't have ideals, it is that they don’t necessarily share your ideals and your enthusiasm for them. It seems that this is an issue for you and your response is to lecture them on their shortcomings. Have you found this works for you?
I can't say I have read every sentence in your post but I get the general drift and it is not different from what you said earlier.
Generally speaking you seem to have a problem with specified ideals and specified ways of living. A very 'hippy' attitude IMO. A breakaway and rebellious ..'why should I think that way or live that way' view?
Fine with me. I am not questioning individual concerns, attitudes and motivations. Obviously every individual has a different background, different childhood experiences and therefore different ideals. Your ideal could be 'Live life as it comes'. Fair enough.
I am speaking from a perspective of a general philosophy of life for all humans. I don't agree that merely because we all have different backgrounds and different psychological profile and different life goals....we all are therefore entitled to live as we want. This is precisely where my thread started...from the 'No sex' thread.
All humans are basically similar and we all have many common ideals and objectives. Even ignoring spirituality, we still have evolution and a common civilization to contend with. We have been developing in certain uniform ways in spite of different cultures. Our ideals are more common than we realize. Just look at global values and you will see the similarities.
So..there is nothing wrong in expecting humans to live in certain ways and work towards certain common ideals. That is what civilization and social life is all about.
There could be individual compulsions for wanting to break away and to 'live as you please'. But the common ideals of humanity cannot be ignored.
-
I can't say I have read every sentence in your post but I get the general drift and it is not different from what you said earlier.
Actually it was quite different from what I said earlier and had you troubled yourself to read it more thoroughly you might have noticed that.
Generally speaking you seem to have a problem...
Yes. Mainly, that I don't agree with you, it seems.
-
Mainly, that I don't agree with you, it seems.
For not bowing down to the almighty Sriram that's just you being a hippyish rebellious adolescent I dare say ::)
-
Actually it was quite different from what I said earlier and had you troubled yourself to read it more thoroughly you might have noticed that.
Yes. Mainly, that I don't agree with you, it seems.
Fine...but you don't agree with...what? This....?
"So..there is nothing wrong in expecting humans to live in certain ways and work towards certain common ideals. That is what civilization and social life is all about.
There could be individual compulsions for wanting to break away and to 'live as you please'. But the common ideals of humanity cannot be ignored."
-
Fine...but you don't agree with...what? This....?
"So..there is nothing wrong in expecting humans to live in certain ways and work towards certain common ideals. That is what civilization and social life is all about.
There could be individual compulsions for wanting to break away and to 'live as you please'. But the common ideals of humanity cannot be ignored."
If you trouble yourself to read my posts I think you'll find the answer to your question there. The fact that by your own admission you don't read them properly merely lends support, if any was needed, to the suspicion that you come here less to engage with others than to lecture them. I always read your posts with great care before replying to them, as even a casual reading of my long post would reveal. I'm sorry you can't summon the respect to do the same. It seems I have wasted my time.
-
If you trouble yourself to read my posts I think you'll find the answer to your question there. The fact that by your own admission you don't read them properly merely lends support, if any was needed, to the suspicion that you come here less to engage with others than to lecture them. I always read your posts with great care before replying to them, as even a casual reading of my long post would reveal. I'm sorry you can't summon the respect to do the same. It seems I have wasted my time.
Well....thanks Bramble!
-
Well....thanks Bramble!
Well, what can you expect from a rebellious hippy? ::)
-
And an adolescent one at that ;D
-
Well, what can you expect from a rebellious hippy? ::)
Ok...you can have the last word...no problem...
I don't know how old you are....but I do think you could have had a hippy lifestyle in the 1960's/70's at least for some time.
Anyway...G'night!
-
I don't know how old you are....but I do think you could have had a hippy lifestyle in the 1960's/70's at least for some time.
Anyway...G'night!
Unfortunately, I was at boarding school during those decades, much of the time being flogged for not living up to other people's ideals, but had I been a bit older, cooler and less shy with the girls I think I might have have enjoyed the hippy scene. I'm making up for it now though ;)
Good night to you too 8)
-
Unfortunately, I was at boarding school during those decades, much of the time being flogged for not living up to other people's ideals, but had I been a bit older, cooler and less shy with the girls I think I might have have enjoyed the hippy scene. I'm making up for it now though ;)
Good night to you too 8)
I wasn't even alive in the first of those decades, much less had my parents pay for my being flogged, and that's a constant sorrow all the more acute for knowing many people who were around at the time. Nevertheless, like you I endeavour to make up for it now :D
-
I don't know how old you are....but I do think you could have had a hippy lifestyle in the 1960's/70's at least for some time.
You can have one right now if you put your mind to it a little :)
-
So far in this thread the word ‘ideals’ has been used to cover a very wide range of things, such as values, beliefs, views, ideologies – pretty much everything that could be bundled together as ‘ways of taking the world’, and you haven’t objected to this broad use of the word so I assume you are happy with people using it in this way. However, going back to the OP you clearly take a particular slant on ideals. For you they are ‘how things should be, how we should live and what goals we should pursue.’ You also say ‘ideals are goals and objectives that people fix…’ So for you ideals are not a general descriptor of how people, in their diversity, take the world in multifarious ways. They are prescriptive and fixed. You lament the cynics for whom nothing is right or wrong in itself and who disapprove of those who prescribe certain lifestyles. This suggests that ideals for you provide a kind of standard model of what a human should think and believe, how they should understand and take the world, and how they should live and behave. For this to be the case, everyone would have to agree on what constituted the ideal human. We would also have to agree that everyone should strive to emulate this ideal.
There appears to be no room in your worldview for difference of opinion. In later posts you talk about people in the ‘mature’ phase of life coming to ‘clear and considered views’ but there is no acknowledgement that different or contradictory views might have equal validity. Rather, your argument would seem to be that with sufficient experience and consideration everyone will come to share the same views, namely yours. Otherwise, why would you be making the case for ideals, if ideals lead people in different and opposing directions, as they very clearly already do in the real world? It is, in fact, precisely this difference in ideals that leads humans to come into conflict with each other and why we as a species spend so much time fighting each other. One might more understandably make the case that ideals are at the root of human strife - that they are in fact a kind of disease. No doubt if everyone was exactly the same then we wouldn’t squabble about what constituted right and wrong. However, this isn’t how things are. But then for you ideals ‘are not just about explaining things as they are’, they ‘are about how things should be’, which we must assume means how you think they should be.
If ideals are to represent a fixed and prescriptive set of beliefs about how people should be then they must come from outside of us. If we generate our own ideals then they will be different and for most individuals they will change over time; they will not be fixed and there could be no standard prescription. In other words, your kind of ideals will necessarily be someone else’s ideals (apparently yours) and we will be obliged to embrace them. Those who do so will be considered to have come to a clear, considered and mature conclusion on the matter and made the correct choice. Those who do not will have fallen short. This sounds awfully Orwellian to me and presumably a society in which such an ideology held sway would necessarily have its thought crimes and their corresponding punishments, here and/or in the next life, for those who fail to comply. History provides plenty of examples of such societies, both religious and secular, and we might do well to heed the lessons that can be learned from them. Unfortunately, humans do seem remarkably unwilling to learn anything from their own mistakes.
The world is already full of ideals. Advocating ideals is hardly a solution, since ideals would appear to be a substantial part of the problem. Ideals imply that there is a right and a wrong way to live and most of us would be happy to go along with this, but only up to a point. We have laws to deal with the most generally agreed standards of behaviour (although these vary from culture to culture: personally I wouldn’t want to live in Saudi Arabia) but you don’t appear to be talking about that level of moral prescription. You write, ‘In present times many people have moved beyond the child stage but not yet reached the Mature stage… Its only about police, courts and criminal offences. Otherwise anything is ok for them.’ Your ideals would seem to be those that go beyond what the law and general opinion prescribes. This is presumably why you specifically refer to ‘spirituality, religions and certain philosophies’ as the home of your ideals. In other words, you are treading familiar ground here. This is about your own religious/spiritual views. Not only do these views indicate how we should all live, it seems, you go on to insist that ‘most people should not have a problem with ideals. They would be enthused by them in fact.’
That word ‘should’ again.
The fact is that everyone already has ideals (in the broadest sense of the word) because everyone has values and views. Your problem isn't really that people don't have ideals, it is that they don’t necessarily share your ideals and your enthusiasm for them. It seems that this is an issue for you and your response is to lecture them on their shortcomings. Have you found this works for you?
Great post - well analysed - I really enjoyed reading your take on this. I think people choose their ideals based on what they value and what they are prepared to sacrifice and the degree of optimism or pessimism they bring to their predictions of future outcomes.
Inevitably this means many of us will have different ideals as we do not value the same things nor are we willing to sacrifice the same things and we have different levels of optimism and pessimism in different situations, influenced by nature and nurture.
-
Great post - well analysed - I really enjoyed reading your take on this. I think people choose their ideals based on what they value and what they are prepared to sacrifice and the degree of optimism or pessimism they bring to their predictions of future outcomes.
Inevitably this means many of us will have different ideals as we do not value the same things nor are we willing to sacrifice the same things and we have different levels of optimism and pessimism in different situations, influenced by nature and nurture.
Yes...but that is too individualistic. And that is the issue I have with this sort of thing.
Obviously we all can and do have individual ideals, no doubt about that. But most of our Ideals have to be in tandem with the ideals of society as a whole, otherwise they are not ideals, they are just individual objectives.
Whether we blindly follow social ideals because of authority or we rebel because of our individuality or we have a well considered and balanced view on them, is a different matter and depends on which stage of development we are in.
But at the third mature stage, our individual ideals cannot be in conflict with that of our larger society. If it is, then we are still at the rebel stage and our actions could therefore be a matter of concern or sometimes, one of pride. It means maladjustment.....or in very rare cases, a revolutionary change.
-
Yes...but that is too individualistic. And that is the issue I have with this sort of thing.
Obviously we all can and do have individual ideals, no doubt about that. But most of our Ideals have to be in tandem with the ideals of society as a whole, otherwise they are not ideals, they are just individual objectives.
Whether we blindly follow social ideals because of authority or we rebel because of our individuality or we have a well considered and balanced view on them, is a different matter and depends on which stage of development we are in.
But at the third mature stage, our individual ideals cannot be in conflict with that of our larger society. If it is, then we are still at the rebel stage and our actions could therefore be a matter of concern or sometimes, one of pride. It means maladjustment.....or in very rare cases, a revolutionary change.
That seems to presuppose that the ideals of society are superior. Maybe it is better to see the ideals of society as a centre of gravity or distillation of the ideals of the individuals in the society, in which case your 'mature' phase reduces to an age related succumbing to conformity.
-
Yes...but that is too individualistic. And that is the issue I have with this sort of thing.
Yes, your problem with individualism has been painfully obvious for a long time.
-
That seems to presuppose that the ideals of society are superior. Maybe it is better to see the ideals of society as a centre of gravity or distillation of the ideals of the individuals in the society, in which case your 'mature' phase reduces to an age related succumbing to conformity.
As I have said, if the individuals ideals are genuinely superior or more relevant to the times, it will result in a revolution and reform. That happens once in a while.
But usually, even though every individual likes to think of his ideals as superior or as revolutionary, in most cases it is just rebellion and asserting ones adolescent individuality. On attaining maturity it would normally correct itself to go along with social ideals. Or the person will remain maladjusted.
-
Perhaps it's your "social ideals" which are maladjusted.
-
So what are our society's ideals? From what I've seen there's not a great deal I want to sign up to.
-
Do you ever have any doubts, Sriram? I'm finding some of your views a touch chilling.
Yes...but that is too individualistic. And that is the issue I have with this sort of thing.
You seem to want a society of clones, all worshiping some kind of groupthink. I know we're often said to have a herd mentality as a species but you seem to take this to an extreme, apparently wanting to hammer every square peg into whatever the socially approved round hole happens to be. In some societies that would prescribe stoning people for dropping a holy book or forcing women to hide in a squalid hut while they had their period. According to you the 'mature' view in such societies would be to fall into line with these 'ideals'.
Obviously we all can and do have individual ideals, no doubt about that. But most of our Ideals have to be in tandem with the ideals of society as a whole, otherwise they are not ideals, they are just individual objectives.
This is a fascinating insight into your thinking. I've never before come across the peculiar notion that ideals must by definition accord with groupthink. Your views seem to be even more Orwellian than I'd thought.
Whether we blindly follow social ideals because of authority or we rebel because of our individuality or we have a well considered and balanced view on them, is a different matter and depends on which stage of development we are in.
So even though we 'should' all eventually think alike we mustn't do this by blind acceptance of authority. We must do so through careful consideration, thus validating the wisdom of groupthink. What if our careful consideration leads us to a different view? Would this be because we have not yet considered carefully enough and must try again, perhaps with a bit of 're-education' from our 'betters'? What if we never come round to the 'correct' view? Would that be because our rebellious self is too strong or our herd-conforming self too weak? Is there perhaps another self we could bring into play to get us out of this bind? At what point should we be judged to be beyond salvage and what should then happen to us in this Utopia of yours?
But at the third mature stage, our individual ideals cannot be in conflict with that of our larger society. If it is, then we are still at the rebel stage and our actions could therefore be a matter of concern or sometimes, one of pride. It means maladjustment.....or in very rare cases, a revolutionary change.
Speaking of maladjustment, how do you think the human race is doing right now? Are we a credit to this planet? It was one of your countrymen, Krishnamurti, who said: “It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.” Did he have a point or was he maladjusted too?
-
Yes...but that is too individualistic. And that is the issue I have with this sort of thing.
Obviously we all can and do have individual ideals, no doubt about that. But most of our Ideals have to be in tandem with the ideals of society as a whole, otherwise they are not ideals, they are just individual objectives.
Whether we blindly follow social ideals because of authority or we rebel because of our individuality or we have a well considered and balanced view on them, is a different matter and depends on which stage of development we are in.
But at the third mature stage, our individual ideals cannot be in conflict with that of our larger society. If it is, then we are still at the rebel stage and our actions could therefore be a matter of concern or sometimes, one of pride. It means maladjustment.....or in very rare cases, a revolutionary change.
It seems like some societies are trying out individualism as one of their ideals, which means individuals being individualistic are in tandem with the ideals of the society if they live in one of those societies.
People at the mature stage will not blindly follow individualism because of authority, nor will they rebel against society's ideal of individualism but will have a balanced view on individualism. Perhaps it is you that is out of step by rebelling against individualism. Or maybe you are in step with your society and out of step with the individualistic societies. I don't live in India so I don't know what your society's ideals are, or as Bramble said maybe there is conflict between different segments of each society having different ideals.
Societies presumably keep assessing the costs and benefits of the ideals they espouse to see if ideals need to be changed. Again that leads to conflict as different segments disagree with those assessments or do not want to make the sacrifices that are required to follow those ideals.
Coming back to Japan - deciding you don't want to make the sacrifices required for relationships, marriage and kids isn't such a problem is it? Other cultures are reproducing so it all balances out and our human population increases. Throughout history, cultures, societies and philosophies come and go and are replaced by different societies, cultures and philosophies as people who make up societies discard ideals and try other ideals and merge and blend depending on their environment. Cost of living is high because people like lots of stuff and marriage and children are expensive so in Japan ideals have changed.
-
It was one of your countrymen, Krishnamurti, who said: “It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.” Did he have a point or was he maladjusted too?
I had an idea that it was R. D. Laing, but no matter: I was thinking of that very line too.
-
Sriram advocates the classic religious bind. To come to the correct view you must choose your beliefs freely (i.e. by careful consideration rather than obedience to authority) but you have no freedom about what these beliefs will be.
-
I had an idea that it was R. D. Laing, but no matter: I was thinking of that very line too.
You had me wondering there. It does sound like something Laing might have said but I've just googled the quote and it appears that it was Krishnamurti. Perhaps Laing liked it and said it too. Makes me think of this:
Oscar Wilde: I wish I had said that.
James McNeill Whistler: You will, Oscar, you will.
-
It seems like some societies are trying out individualism as one of their ideals, which means individuals being individualistic are in tandem with the ideals of the society if they live in one of those societies.
People at the mature stage will not blindly follow individualism because of authority, nor will they rebel against society's ideal of individualism but will have a balanced view on individualism. Perhaps it is you that is out of step by rebelling against individualism. Or maybe you are in step with your society and out of step with the individualistic societies. I don't live in India so I don't know what your society's ideals are, or as Bramble said maybe there is conflict between different segments of each society having different ideals.
Societies presumably keep assessing the costs and benefits of the ideals they espouse to see if ideals need to be changed. Again that leads to conflict as different segments disagree with those assessments or do not want to make the sacrifices that are required to follow those ideals.
Coming back to Japan - deciding you don't want to make the sacrifices required for relationships, marriage and kids isn't such a problem is it? Other cultures are reproducing so it all balances out and our human population increases. Throughout history, cultures, societies and philosophies come and go and are replaced by different societies, cultures and philosophies as people who make up societies discard ideals and try other ideals and merge and blend depending on their environment. Cost of living is high because people like lots of stuff and marriage and children are expensive so in Japan ideals have changed.
Any society will allow individualism only so far as it is useful to that society. If individualism means creativity, better business models, more scientific research, more entrepreneurship....then a society will allow it. Free ideas are different from free ideals. I hope you understand that!
If it means madcap rebellion or going against basic values such as racism.....no society will allow it. Individual ideals will have to (at the mature stage) eventually mesh in with social ideals and objectives....otherwise that society will disintegrate.
-
Do you ever have any doubts, Sriram? I'm finding some of your views a touch chilling.
You seem to want a society of clones, all worshiping some kind of groupthink. I know we're often said to have a herd mentality as a species but you seem to take this to an extreme, apparently wanting to hammer every square peg into whatever the socially approved round hole happens to be. In some societies that would prescribe stoning people for dropping a holy book or forcing women to hide in a squalid hut while they had their period. According to you the 'mature' view in such societies would be to fall into line with these 'ideals'.
This is a fascinating insight into your thinking. I've never before come across the peculiar notion that ideals must by definition accord with groupthink. Your views seem to be even more Orwellian than I'd thought.
So even though we 'should' all eventually think alike we mustn't do this by blind acceptance of authority. We must do so through careful consideration, thus validating the wisdom of groupthink. What if our careful consideration leads us to a different view? Would this be because we have not yet considered carefully enough and must try again, perhaps with a bit of 're-education' from our 'betters'? What if we never come round to the 'correct' view? Would that be because our rebellious self is too strong or our herd-conforming self too weak? Is there perhaps another self we could bring into play to get us out of this bind? At what point should we be judged to be beyond salvage and what should then happen to us in this Utopia of yours?
Speaking of maladjustment, how do you think the human race is doing right now? Are we a credit to this planet? It was one of your countrymen, Krishnamurti, who said: “It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.” Did he have a point or was he maladjusted too?
Which of the current social ideals (almost uniform to all countries) do you disagree with exactly? Reversing global warming, humanism, equality to women, no discrimination based on colour or sex, protection of children, animal rights, non violence....and so on! Do let me know....!
-
Any society will allow individualism only so far as it is useful to that society.
But society is made up of individuals, so it is for those individuals to decide how society should be shaped.
-
If it means madcap rebellion ...
But rebellion typically arises when societies refuse to accept change in the views of the individuals that make up that society. When the disconnect becomes too great then unrest is likely.
or going against basic values such as racism.....no society will allow it.
Actually plenty of societies have allowed it (e.g. South Africa, USA etc etc) and many still do. It was individualism and individuals with ideals that challenged the societal view that racial segregation was OK that eventually lead to eradication of state-sanctioned racism in both South Africa and USA.
-
But rebellion typically arises when societies refuse to accept change in the views of the individuals that make up that society. When the disconnect becomes too great then unrest is likely.
Actually plenty of societies have allowed it (e.g. South Africa, USA etc etc) and many still do. It was individualism and individuals with ideals that challenged the societal view that racial segregation was OK that eventually lead to eradication of state-sanctioned racism in both South Africa and USA.
That is obvious isn't it? That is what I meant by a revolutionary change.
Every madcap who thinks he should think differently from others is not a revolutionary. He is just a rebel who needs to grow up and understand that he is also a part of society. Every individual goes through that phase.
If certain ideas are different from the traditionally accepted ones and they are useful to society, they will be accepted by the others by and by. It will automatically move from the adolescent stage to the mature stage and people will find ways of bringing about the change in society. Only then is it a revolutionary change. It is finally about what the majority accept.
A truly revolutionary idea will never remain an individuals 'putting out the tongue' at society. That is only a maladjusted persons reaction.
-
.. when, curiously enough (or not), the one who seems truly maladjusted here is you.
-
.. when, curiously enough (or not), the one who seems truly maladjusted here is you.
And you guys here are revolutionary thinkers..right?! Ha..Ha!! :D Good one..Shaker!
-
And you guys here are revolutionary thinkers..right?! Ha..Ha!! :D Good one..Shaker!
No, but we are nevertheless thinkers. Which, I suspect, is why you consistently seem so out of place here with your biofields and your slavish love of herd mentality, conformity and 'society'.
-
No, but we are nevertheless thinkers. Which, I suspect, is why you consistently seem so out of place here with your biofields and your slavish love of herd mentality, conformity and 'society'.
People who call themselves 'Thinkers'...are seldom so! What exactly do you think about...Shaker? How to pick holes in the bible??!! Ha..Ha!
You are a society of atheists...for heaven's sake...so stop conforming! Think differently! Become a theist! ;)
-
People who call themselves 'Thinkers'...are seldom so! What exactly do you think about...Shaker? How to pick holes in the bible??!! Ha..Ha!
That doesn't take much thought.
You are a society of atheists...for heaven's sake...so stop conforming! Think differently! Become a theist! ;)
Not being an idiot, there's no chance whatever of that this side of some sort of catastrophic traumatic brain injury.
-
Which of the current social ideals (almost uniform to all countries) do you disagree with exactly? Reversing global warming, humanism, equality to women, no discrimination based on colour or sex, protection of children, animal rights, non violence....and so on! Do let me know....!
You have an astonishing aptitude for ignoring points you don't want to address, Sriram. I don't think anyone on this thread so far has suggested that there aren't many generally shared ideals in their own society. I certainly haven't. So you are not responding to something I've written. Your post looks more like an attempt to shelter behind a straw man.
In the OP you wrote: 'One of the hallmarks of our times is the absence of Idealism. No one has the confidence in oneself or the trust in others to determine and follow any set of ideals any more.' And yet here you are expressing incredulity that someone might disagree with societal ideals. So which is it? Do most of us already already share these ideals or does 'no one' do so any more? If ideals are, by your earlier definition, ideals of society as a whole then presumably most of us already share them, in which case what are you complaining about? If 'no one' shares them then they cannot be shared societal ideals and therefore aren't ideals at all, just the personal objectives of adolescent hippies such as myself.
I imagine you did your best to choose ideals that you thought nobody could reasonably disagree with when you complied the list you provided in your response (above), yet sadly some societies do not generally subscribe to all of these, as you must well know. I've certainly been to cultures where animal rights, for example, are scarcely recognised at all, and women can scarcely be considered to have gained equality throughout the world. According to you the 'mature' view in societies that did not grant animals and women their 'due' rights would be confirm those prejudices. Or are you presuming the right to judge which societal ideals count and which don't? Earlier you lamented those who didn't subscribe to things being right or wrong in themselves, which would suggest that if ideals are to be thought of as 'right thinking' then they cannot change over time or vary from place to place. As ideals do vary widely and are subject to constant revision then presumably they cannot count as right thinking, in which case why do you demand that everyone follows them? You seem to have tied yourself up in knots.
-
Any society will allow individualism only so far as it is useful to that society. If individualism means creativity, better business models, more scientific research, more entrepreneurship....then a society will allow it. Free ideas are different from free ideals. I hope you understand that!
If it means madcap rebellion or going against basic values such as racism.....no society will allow it. Individual ideals will have to (at the mature stage) eventually mesh in with social ideals and objectives....otherwise that society will disintegrate.
I still don't understand your argument. Your OP said "One of the hallmarks of our times is the absence of Idealism. No one has the confidence in oneself or the trust in others to determine and follow any set of ideals any more. The concept of 'Character' building seems outdated."
But then your post to Bramble just now said that there are ideals that are uniform to all societies and you went on to list some of those ideals. If society is made up of individuals how can you argue that society has ideals and at the same time argue that no one has the confidence to determine and follow any set of ideals. How do these ideals still exist and be uniform to societies if no one in the societies has the confidence to hold them? Either your OP is badly stated or your response to Bramble that these ideals are uniformly held is badly stated.
I see lots of people around me wanting to follow the ideals about equality etc that you listed so I think it is your OP that is badly stated.
Unless you are arguing that religion, spirituality and philosophies are the only evidence of idealism in your opinion and also in your opinion people do not have guiding principles they live their life by. Again, I personally see a lot of people with guiding principles with which they try to live their lives so I don't recognise your OP as reflecting the society I live in.
-
That is obvious isn't it? That is what I meant by a revolutionary change.
Every madcap who thinks he should think differently from others is not a revolutionary. He is just a rebel who needs to grow up and understand that he is also a part of society. Every individual goes through that phase.
But who is to decide whether the individual is a 'revolutionary' or a 'rebel'.
History tells us that many people considered at the time to be simply madcap rebels, were in fact forward thinking revolutionaries - it was just that they were ahead of their time.
-
But who is to decide whether the individual is a 'revolutionary' or a 'rebel'.
History tells us that many people considered at the time to be simply madcap rebels, were in fact forward thinking revolutionaries - it was just that they were ahead of their time.
Along the same lines, some societies - Stalin's Russia springs to mind - regarded independent thinkers (meaning: didn't agree with the regime) as subversives and even by definition mentally ill, and therefore fit for incarceration. If you have to be mad to disagree with the system, disagreeing with the system means you're mad.
Joseph Heller was pretty good on this sort of thing.
-
Along the same lines, some societies - Stalin's Russia springs to mind - regarded independent thinkers (meaning: didn't agree with the regime) as subversives and even by definition mentally ill, and therefore fit for incarceration. If you have to be mad to disagree with the system, disagreeing with the system means you're mad.
Joseph Heller was pretty good on this sort of thing.
Exactly - societies that suppress individualism 'for the greater good' tend to end up autocratic and totalitarian. It may be small minorities that suffer, much larger swathes of society or even the majority. But ultimately people suffer.
-
I still don't understand your argument. Your OP said "One of the hallmarks of our times is the absence of Idealism. No one has the confidence in oneself or the trust in others to determine and follow any set of ideals any more. The concept of 'Character' building seems outdated."
But then your post to Bramble just now said that there are ideals that are uniform to all societies and you went on to list some of those ideals. If society is made up of individuals how can you argue that society has ideals and at the same time argue that no one has the confidence to determine and follow any set of ideals. How do these ideals still exist and be uniform to societies if no one in the societies has the confidence to hold them? Either your OP is badly stated or your response to Bramble that these ideals are uniformly held is badly stated.
I see lots of people around me wanting to follow the ideals about equality etc that you listed so I think it is your OP that is badly stated.
Unless you are arguing that religion, spirituality and philosophies are the only evidence of idealism in your opinion and also in your opinion people do not have guiding principles they live their life by. Again, I personally see a lot of people with guiding principles with which they try to live their lives so I don't recognise your OP as reflecting the society I live in.
It's an odd combination that seems to appear with religions and philosophies of advancement that as things develop they get better and worse simultaneously! They want to take credit for the good things but claim that the seeds of that goodness were in some golden era. In one sense I read Sriram dressing up the old idea that in youth we are passionate radicals, but age brings the wisdom of compromise and sacrifice, generated by the knowledge of our own flaws. I fear for me this reads as simplistic romanticism, an attempt to shore up an idea of wisdom, that seems unborne out by history.
As ever, I return to my feelings of the absurdity of life, its lack of following easy schema, the contradictions of our power and powerlessness. What a piece of work is man, or indeed woman, as Shakespeare nearly put it, and yet also the quintessence of dust. The absurdity, I see, turns me from that idealism of my youth but leaves me with the knowledge that in an absurd world, everything, rather than nothing matters. Utopias are nowhere but there is always good to be done. Maybe it won't change anything ever, maybe it doesn't matter beyond the tenous grasp of my neurons but that's all it needs. A tiny spark, disappearing in a instant, lost forever but still the most beautiful shining moment.
-
Why everyone is so agitated I don't understand. It is almost as if I just announced Brexit or something!!! ::)
Anyway, I think I have explained sufficiently and I don't need to explain any more. Make of it whatever you can folks!
Cheers. :)
-
Why everyone is so agitated I don't understand. It is almost as if I just announced Brexit or something!!! ::)
Anyway, I think I have explained sufficiently and I don't need to explain any more. Make of it whatever you can folks!
Cheers. :)
I see no evidence of agitation here, some puzzlement as to what you meant and straightforward disagreement on certain points, but no agitation. In fact I would like to thank you for providing your views on this topic as it has led to what I consider to be some excellent replies, especially by Bramble, which have given me some interesting food for thought.