Good being defined however you wish. I'll withhold my own definition for the time being.
Two piece of advice are frequently given. The first being essentially
- Don't worry about other people so much
This can be taken a bunch of ways. Don't worry about what other people think of you. Don't worry about what your neighbor has, except to make sure s/he has enough. Find contentment in fulfilling your own desires.
Which is contrasted with
- Don't be selfish/selfishly minded
Which is essentially the exact opposite. Worry about what (Some) other people think about you. Be conscientious of (Some) other peoples needs, desires. Find contentment in volunteering, in helping those with less, or who just need help.
So which is it hubski? Do you save the world or savor the world? Which makes you happiest? Which can be maintained?
I have a problem with contradictions. I think that there are a lot of them in modern western culture (If such a generality can be made) and they royally fuck with people who examine them. (Example, me) As I find ways to put them into words, I'll post them and try to listen to other peoples thoughts for a bit, before I get set in my own.
If you insist that things be one way or another (selfish or unselfish), you are giving words a power they do not deserve. Save and savor. Be selfish and generous. I'm beginning to work on a piece called, Five or Ten Clues that You've Gone Binary. I don't know what those clues are, but your post suggests a few: 1. You are troubled by contradictions. One day, people say, "Look before you leap." The next day, they say "You snooze, you lose." or "He who hesitates is lost." They they tell you that haste makes waste. Instead of being troubled by these opposites, embrace them all and realize that it could be situational. 2. You avoid self-doubt. You want certainty. Instead, welcome self-doubt. Yes, you could be wrong, but if you have no self-doubt, you might be a monster. and others that I don't know yet.Do you save the world or savor the world?
Ben, you're engaging in binary thinking. As soon as you think in binaries, you stop seeing all the gradients and nuances along the continuum.
Or, In the words of Obi-Wan Kenobi I don't really think that they are contradictions. Some hold true in one situations, others in other. In an untimed game of chess, no need to make moves quickly but if you are Keanu Reeves in the movie Speed, you'd better act quick. If you are writing an application, you should take time to think through the various functions, but not get stuck in analysis paralysis, for example. Reminds me of Ring Species. While they may be different at the "closing point" of the ring, they change gradually, not really contradicting one or the other.Only a Sith deals in absolutes
I am, and I'm aware of it. Regarding point 1, why is being afraid/mistrustful/opposed to contradiction a bad thing? Conversely, why is embracing contradiction good? It feels like doublethink, in the orwellian meaning. Situationality I understand. Context is important. Regarding 2, I have plenty of self doubt, AND I'm fairly certain I'm not too far from monster status. My convictions about the genetic future of the species are usually enough to get me compared to hitler.
Re #1: You ask: Once again "bad" and "good" are binaries. Be opposed to contradiction - look for certainty in things that are important to you but embrace contradiction because certainty is elusive. Light is both a wave and a particle. I imagine b_b or kleinbl00 can explain that better than I can. The things that are important: love, trust, fairness, justice, wisdom - can't be pinned down within the limitations of language and thought. These are behaviours. as for #2: You can be full of self-doubt and be a monster... but if you have self-doubt, change is more possible than if you are abolutely certain of your rightness."Why is being afraid/mistrustful/opposed to contradiction a bad thing? Conversely, why is embracing contradiction good?"
Maybe physics is a good analogy here. I'll let you decide. The popular myth is that light is "both" a particle and a wave. This arises because physicists aren't good at explaining to the general reader that which they understand to be true, but can't impart on others without a whole lot of mathematics to back up their claims. I'll try to explain it thusly: the particle is the wave. In physics the two are used interchangeably and without contradiction, and the confusion arises when we try to apply our macro perspective to the world of the unseen. I suppose this is a good analogy, because using our limited everyday experience to try to extrapolate (rationally) what should happen at the micro scale fails miserably. The system is impenetrable to all but those who have a certain amount of prior knowledge (I'm not counted among them, FWIW). Here, ordinary logic fails.
I delved deeply enough into physics to get to the point where the professors go "well, light isn't a particle or a wave but we can't explain what's going on to you without relying on one model or the other, depending on the conditions. Light's actually pretty funky and we're still sort of arguing about it. If you are keenly interested in this discussion we recommend you major in Physics but be warned because by the time you have a Master's in theoretical physics you'll understand the problem well enough to know why we're not going further in depth into the explanation."
thx otherben. My limited understanding has to do with math. When we want to measure wave- like behaviour (like speed), we can't measure particle-like behaviour (like mass or position). I probably have that wrong - but thanks for getting back to me. Any argument against binary thinking that isn't itself binary makes my head spin.
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle You have it pretty close. Basically, you can know where it is or you can know what it is but you can't know both simultaneously. A gross oversimplification but when using theoretical physics for psychological analogies a gross oversimplification is often best.
You got me there exactly, kb. I'm on dangerous ground using theoretical physics for psychological analogies. And thanks for your answer to OB above. I agree with you 100%. Ultimately all these types of questions are bad ways of asking: 1. How do I move in the direction of goodness without losing myself? or perhaps,
2. How do I craft an authentic life? Your answer beginning with "I'll tell you what I do" is a fantastic set of principles and I hope they inspires anyone who happens by the list to write their own. Particularly this: I'm going to "save" that comment because it's a good leaping off point for real-world conversations I find myself in.I don't give advice to people who don't want it. They're not listening and all it'll do is piss them off.
I do give advice to people who want to change.
You do this thing - "Which color is a rainbow, white or black?" or "should a concert be quiet or loud?" because, I think, it allows you to compartmentalize the problems you don't like thinking about. Worse, you ask the question like this: "Which color is a rainbow, white or black? And answer concisely so I can throw it back in your face with a 'fuck you' on the end." "People" are a collective of "persons" and each one of them is unique. Putting everyone in the same bucket is unfair to them and to you. So I'll tell you what I do: I help everyone I can help. I help everyone I want to help. I don't give money to panhandlers. I do give money to charities. I'll help you move. I won't let you couch surf. You can borrow my car. You can't borrow money. You can use my gear, you can use my time, but only if one or the other of us will benefit from it. I don't give advice to people who don't want it. They're not listening and all it'll do is piss them off. I do give advice to people who want to change. I don't think you want to change. I don't think you want advice. I think you want a fight and you want to feel comfortably pissed off about the world. I think we're all wasting our time humoring you and offering heart-felt opinions, but I see the utility of responding in case there are lurkers with similar questions. But you? This argument you're having with yourself? Quit dragging us into it. Ask questions you want the answers for, not the answers you want to refute. It's insulting and hurtful. I recognize it comes from a place of tenuous mental health but that's no excuse. There's a bigger question you're not asking. I'm not prying - I don't really want to know what it is. I do know that all these casual fuckoff tidbits you keep flinging onto the internet are a stalling tactic so that you don't have to deal with the problems that are really fucking you up so man up, gird your loins and go slay the dragon. If you can't do it on your own, enlist help - but stop asking your friends "true or false: giant lizards have bad breath" because it isn't the question that matters.
Damn, I thought I was getting better at talking about this stuff. I am genuinely disappointed that this is the response I elicited. With this specific issue, I want to know how other people determine when enough is enough. Im quite clearly bad at it, and spending too much time up in my own head with this stuff tends to not end well.
You write these things only when you're in a shitty mood. More than that, you do not write them in an attempt to get out of your shitty mood, you write them when you're looking for an excuse to double down. I don't want to get too deeply into it - I'm still not convinced you're ready to listen - but I'll say this: my need to help everyone with everything went down as my self-esteem approached healthy levels. My wife would say I'm still too generous with my time and energy but I no longer form friendships based on how much more fucked up someone else's life is than my own. You might be at that uncomfortable place.
Preface: Sorry if this is really long, I may have got carried away. Furthermore, if things seem a bit confused then that's because I'm still working it all out for myself! Also, shout out to kleinbl00, the link to that Hemingway app you posted in another thread helped make my response much better than it would have been. This post has already prompted a variety of interesting discussion. I don't know if there's much more to be said, but I still feel there is. So here's my two cents. Perhaps it's more a reinterpretation of what others here have already stated. Either way. One of the most pertinent points I think came from lil in regards to giving words power. Good, bad, right, wrong, selfish, selfless... We all know what they mean and what they represent. Representation is the key word here. A word is an absolute. It tries to put a slice of reality into a box and fix it down. But it's just pointing to a concept. As a result, if you focus too much on the word, on the absolute, you risk becoming detached from the reality. So, how much should a 'good' person think about other people? Hopefully you now see the problem that using 'good' introduces. 'Good' has definitive meaning but in reality it's much more slippery. It's defined not only by your own moral code and values, but also the ever-shifting values of society in general. It's kid of like asking how big should a 'good' slice of pie be. It depends. How hungry am I? How many other people want a piece of this pie? Does this happen to be my favourite pie? Is this a pie I eat often? Is this someone else's first time eating it? These are all responsive inquiries that will go on to form my answer. That's fine, it's being thoughtful. The problem comes when we have to now filter all those situational responses through the word 'good'. Because in reality, there is no answer to your question. There can't be. How can you pander to the word 'good' when there is so much to consider? However, we can take the word 'good' out of it and now you have an answer. It is a culmination of all those responsive questions and a myriad others. The answer is the summation of them all. And which ones apply change from day to day, situation to situation. It's your responsibility to decide at that moment what you think is the right choice. No-one else can tell you. As a member of society you trust that others make the same considerations as you. And sometimes they wont, or sometimes your decision will illicit a negative response. But that's life. You use those situations to update your world view and thought processes. So the real question is: How much should a person think about other people? The answer is: Tell us your opinion, because no-one has the 'right' answer. Now in regards to some other points,. You said in response to Quatrarius that you're pretty much searching for path that will solve all your worries. You also questioned in a different response why opposing contradiction is bad. My answer is because it is impossible to go through you life without contradiction. Furthermore, to try and find a personal philosophy that will vanquish contradiction is futile. Such a pursuit is more likely to lead you directly to contradiction than away from it. It is everywhere and that is good because it develops you as human being. They gift you the opportunity to see a new perspective or find a new middle-ground. It might even flip your entire viewpoint. Your approach to life is a balancing act that you decide upon. Anyway, I'm aware this is getting long and it's late here, so I'll bring it to a close. Interesting post and response. Hubski is great.
I wrote about this in one of my blogs. Here is the end of that: Can you define your roles, at least partly, in terms of specific realistic behaviours? What is one of your most important self-definition roles (student, sister, brother, daughter, son, lover, team member, parent, etc.). Pick one and think of some specific behaviours: I would consider myself a good ________________________, if IThe problem comes when we have to now filter all those situational responses through the word 'good'.
Yes, "good" is a problem, but before we discard the word altogether, let me add this: "good person" is too large a concept... but if we look at our different roles in society: scientist, brother, daughter, mother, activist, writer, hubskier, father, son, citizen etc. we can approach our activities in life more specifically. It is useful to examine at least one of our roles and think of a few things that would make us a good one, and then live up to it.
You can then measure your level of achievement against your own criteria -- not someone else's. You don't have to feel inadequate or guilty all the time, and you can fortify yourself against other people's accusations of inadequacy. 1. ___________________________________________________________
2. ___________________________________________________________
3. ___________________________________________________________
Blame Dendrophobe, not me...
I agree with everything that lil has said so far. There is a grey area to everything. It makes it rather difficult to come up with the perfect thing to do in life when you want to be good. It also makes defining the word "good" difficult. From my other conversations with you, it seems to me that you search for some path that will solve all your worries. I have no help for you in that pursuit. The search is hurting you. If we assume that you are correct, I would "savor the world." I only wish I knew what exactly you meant by it. Keeping yourself focused and calm to the best of your own ability? That is the meaning I pick.
More or less. I'm trying to flesh out my personal philosophy so that I will less often be conflicted in 'What do I do?' moments. So that I will be able to act with real confidence, rather than 'faking-until-made' confidence.From my other conversations with you, it seems to me that you search for some path that will solve all your worries.
I appreciate your goal OB. We would all like to know what is the best option in any situation. That is a useful goal. I am suggesting that we often have to make decisions without having all the desired information. We have to make decisions based on what we know or, given the available information, can anticipate. Real confidence is both earned by getting out there, making decisions, reflecting on outcomes, and then making better decisions. Real confidence is also practiced by first faking confidence. Faking confidence gets you out the door, gives you a firmer handshake, and better posture. Fake your first firm handshake - but when others respond with their firm handshake - your fake shake becomes real. Does that make sense? EDIT: also get thyself to an improv class, many improv classes. They teach you how to make decisions in the moment.
I believe in striving for both. The Duality of Man? I try to save and savor. Of course this is impossible, but a man can try.
It's not a question of if, it's a question of how much. How much do other people's thoughts/needs affect my actions and attitudes? Because, from what I know of the world, if a person pays no attention to the opinions of others they are inconsiderate at best and a whole other long list of invective at worst. If we go to the other extreme, the person in question has only the amount of self interest necessary to put food in their mouth. I'm often a person of extremes and I'm trying to be better than that.
This is going to come across really harsh, but like, how about you stop worrying about what other people's opinions are in regards to whether you think about other people's thoughts/needs enough or too much or not enough? Like fuck man, start making decisions for yourself. Hubski shouldn't be your proving grounds, either.
There are many types of worrying about what other people think of you: A) I need to stand out, I need flashy hair, new clothes, nice boots. People will hate me if I look like a slob B) Should I look at them, does looking this way make me look stupid, I don't want to seem aggressive, lets try to get over on the sidewalk, I don't want to look weird, look away, look down. I don't want to stand out, wear black clothing all the time, with jeans, and a normal looking hoodie. C) I understand regular social boundaries, and realize that my actions make other people think of me in a different way. I will step aside on the sidewalk, but beyond that I do not care what others think of me. I know that smelling badly hurts others experiences when they are near me, so I avoid it. And so on. A and B are drawn from either being scared of attention and conflict, or being attracted to it. C is a decent person.