Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Where to start...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • zamb
    replied
    Originally posted by Skye X View Post
    .

    And please, call me Skye.
    Zam, of all the people on this forum, you're the last I'd have expected to react so negatively to my position of optimism on the part of the human race.

    I live in Oakland. I'm no stranger to crime. I'm merely debating the nature of society and how it affects us, as opposed to our inherent human nature. Please don't make the mistake of thinking me naive as to criminal behavior. I just choose to believe that humans as a whole are inherently good.

    I never stated that crime is committed solely because of need. I posited the opinion that if need was eradicated (an academic exercise, of course, as we don't live in said science fiction universe) that humanity's evolution would progress much more quickly. This would absolutely reduce crime, but there is no way to tell how much, and in what capacity.

    There are many motivating factors for criminals, and they are mostly external. There are, of course, those individuals who have physiological problems that lead them to criminal behavior, but the psychological motivations can usually be traced to an outside source.

    As Faust pointed out, I ascribe to Rousseau's "noble savage" view of human nature, but only if we have our basic needs met/provided for as described in Maslow's hierarchy.
    Well Sorry if you find my reaction shocking, or negative even I just think that your perspective is really idealistic, and any kind of assessment of human reality would not lead one to such a conclusion.
    a significant portion of the human species has an insatiable desire to dominate, to rule to tell people what to do and o even force them to do it or eliminate them if they don't...........and I honestly don't believe any evolution or elimination of basic needs will ever cure that. As a matter of fact, History has shown us that it is the people who don't have certain basic needs that are usually the most destructive in our society. You can ask Bernie Madoff, about that.

    Maybe because I don't believe in human evolution.............well, at least not in the Darwinian sense of things. I also dont believe mankind in its present condition is capable of self governance. I do agree that self governance is indeed better, and that's why I believe in the democratic system of things, but of late, I am beginning to lose confidence in even the democratic system. (when mayor Bloomberg can buy a third tern in NY you know we are in trouble!)

    Leave a comment:


  • Skye X
    replied
    Originally posted by Lane View Post
    funny how we both reach the same conclusions, but have vastly different viewpoints on this, and I am referring to the self-governing of humanity. I enjoyed your perspective on this, though.
    Interesting, because I assumed you were referring to actual governments, as opposed to self-governance, which I think is a vastly superior solution.

    Originally posted by Faust View Post
    Aha, the old Hobbes v. Rousseau debate. Carry on.

    Skye_X, where I come from the version of society you describe was injected into us with our mother's milk for 70 years while the ruling party raped and pillaged the country until it fell apart.
    Faust, are you referring to Communism? That's vastly different from the self-governing anarchism I believe in. Communism failed due to the greed of those in power, shortage of resources, failed distribution and supply chains, and many other factors. It became nothing more than another classist hierarchy, with the rich believing they were better than the poor, and taking as much as they could for themselves.

    One of the key factors of the Star Trek universe (and pardon me for continuing to refer to this, as it's the only vision of a utopian future society that doesn't fall apart much as communism did, i.e. Brave New World, 1984, Equilibrium, etc.) is that the need for labor is eliminated. Replicator technology provides for anything, anywhere, anytime. Matter is made from energy, so the land that was needed for agriculture and livestock is left to grow free, and humanity is able to settle into an equilibrium with our environment. Based on that premise, the only opportunity for conflict in the shows was interaction with other races. Humanity is freed from need, and free to aspire to greater and greater things.

    And please, call me Skye.

    Originally posted by zamb View Post
    Dude, where the hell do you live and what life have you been experiencing.???????????

    Do you think a lot of criminals commit crimes because of need if you believe that you need to have your head examined
    Zam, of all the people on this forum, you're the last I'd have expected to react so negatively to my position of optimism on the part of the human race.

    I live in Oakland. I'm no stranger to crime. I'm merely debating the nature of society and how it affects us, as opposed to our inherent human nature. Please don't make the mistake of thinking me naive as to criminal behavior. I just choose to believe that humans as a whole are inherently good.

    I never stated that crime is committed solely because of need. I posited the opinion that if need was eradicated (an academic exercise, of course, as we don't live in said science fiction universe) that humanity's evolution would progress much more quickly. This would absolutely reduce crime, but there is no way to tell how much, and in what capacity.

    There are many motivating factors for criminals, and they are mostly external. There are, of course, those individuals who have physiological problems that lead them to criminal behavior, but the psychological motivations can usually be traced to an outside source.

    As Faust pointed out, I ascribe to Rousseau's "noble savage" view of human nature, but only if we have our basic needs met/provided for as described in Maslow's hierarchy.

    Leave a comment:


  • zamb
    replied
    Originally posted by Skye X View Post
    Absolutely true. We are all creatures of instinct. But I disagree with the idea that we could not have stability without government. As Abraham Maslow pointed out, if our basic needs are met, we aspire to higher things.

    Let's use as an example one my friend Alex is fond of. Yes, it's fiction, but the Star Trek universe. Technology has enabled humanity to do away with hunger and poverty. War doesn't exist. There is nothing to work for but the betterment of self. Everyone is free to pursue what they choose, and humanity experiences what is akin to a continual Renaissance.

    This scenario is the one that I think would occur, given the correct circumstances. Government becomes superfluous – humanity is self-governing. Capitalism is useless. There is no need for crime, because you can have anything you could need or want. Art is created for the sheer joy of creating, and given as gifts to show appreciation. Science is advanced sheerly for the thrill of discovery.

    Of course, this is all academic, but it does make the point of what I believe about nature vs. nurture. Our instincts are in place due to the need to survive. If we are freed from worrying about and working for our survival, the unique qualities of humanity are free to manifest, and the self encouraged to blossom and grow. Society becomes a support structure for the self, not something to struggle against.
    Dude, where the hell do you live and what life have you been experiencing.???????????

    Do you think a lot of criminals commit crimes because of need if you believe that you need to have your head examined

    Leave a comment:


  • Fuuma
    replied
    Originally posted by Lane View Post
    I am in no way arguing for government or societies actually.
    I'm not sure how you propose to argue against "societies".

    Leave a comment:


  • Lane
    replied
    I am in no way arguing for government or societies actually.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fuuma
    replied
    Originally posted by Lane View Post
    we are human beings. No different than animals. The only difference between us and animals is that we have society/government that we suppress each others instinctual desires in order to live in stability.
    Many animals have societies, hell crows have societies.

    Leave a comment:


  • Shucks
    replied
    Originally posted by Faust View Post
    I believe that Kennedy quote is still true. Reading Steinbeck now, makes me so angry.



    5chars

    Leave a comment:


  • Faust
    replied
    Aha, the old Hobbes v. Rousseau debate. Carry on.

    Skye_X, where I come from the version of society you describe was injected into us with our mother's milk for 70 years while the ruling party raped and pillaged the country until it fell apart.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lane
    replied
    funny how we both reach the same conclusions, but have vastly different viewpoints on this, and I am referring to the self-governing of humanity. I enjoyed your perspective on this, though.

    Leave a comment:


  • Skye X
    replied
    Originally posted by Lane View Post
    we are human beings. No different than animals. The only difference between us and animals is that we have society/government that we suppress each others instinctual desires in order to live in stability.
    Absolutely true. We are all creatures of instinct. But I disagree with the idea that we could not have stability without government. As Abraham Maslow pointed out, if our basic needs are met, we aspire to higher things.

    Let's use as an example one my friend Alex is fond of. Yes, it's fiction, but the Star Trek universe. Technology has enabled humanity to do away with hunger and poverty. War doesn't exist. There is nothing to work for but the betterment of self. Everyone is free to pursue what they choose, and humanity experiences what is akin to a continual Renaissance.

    This scenario is the one that I think would occur, given the correct circumstances. Government becomes superfluous – humanity is self-governing. Capitalism is useless. There is no need for crime, because you can have anything you could need or want. Art is created for the sheer joy of creating, and given as gifts to show appreciation. Science is advanced sheerly for the thrill of discovery.

    Of course, this is all academic, but it does make the point of what I believe about nature vs. nurture. Our instincts are in place due to the need to survive. If we are freed from worrying about and working for our survival, the unique qualities of humanity are free to manifest, and the self encouraged to blossom and grow. Society becomes a support structure for the self, not something to struggle against.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lane
    replied
    Originally posted by Skye X View Post

    I believe that if we all had inherent and immediate access to basic needs (food, water, shelter), and to the resources necessary to pursue our intellectual desires (art, science, etc.), that those qualities would fall out of existence. The basic human desire to create and discover is not motivated by capital. It has merely been commodified by a monetarily-based society.
    we are human beings. No different than animals. The only difference between us and animals is that we have society/government that we suppress each others instinctual desires in order to live in stability.

    Leave a comment:


  • Faust
    replied
    I believe that Kennedy quote is still true. Reading Steinbeck now, makes me so angry.

    Leave a comment:


  • Skye X
    replied
    I've been working my way through the WAYWT thread from day one, and found this wonderful thread linked from there as a suggested read for new members. So far it's one of the best discussions I've found on this forum.

    ///

    On self vs. society – this absolutely brings up the old nature vs. nurture argument. Do we have an inherent personality, or are we entirely products of our environment? No one can dispute that the environment that we are raised and live in has in impact, but to reduce it to its most basic level, we can either go along with or rebel against the external influences that we are exposed to.

    Is the choice of which we do that which defines us? If we see someone being hurt (war, poverty, etc.), do we step in and help them, or ignore it and go about our own selfish business? Why?

    I'm an idealist about such things: I think that we are inherently helpful, and that selfishness and greed are negative qualities that we learn from our instant and ongoing exposure to a society of consumerism, capitalism, and instant gratification.

    I believe that if we all had inherent and immediate access to basic needs (food, water, shelter), and to the resources necessary to pursue our intellectual desires (art, science, etc.), that those qualities would fall out of existence. The basic human desire to create and discover is not motivated by capital. It has merely been commodified by a monetarily-based society.

    ///

    On why to wear what – This is a tricky question, and changes for everyone. The visceral reaction that you like something is a tricky thing to base it off of, because that is quite different from knowing that it is right for you.

    I'm going to use myself as an example, because I know my reasons better than anyone else. I have an aesthetic that I enjoy. I can look at a piece of art, or listen to a piece of music, and know, but not always be able to immediately explain why, that it fits into that aesthetic. This does not, however, mean that I am unable to appreciate other things outside of that aesthetic, only that it is the one I favor most.

    Clothing is much more difficult for me, because the things that I appreciate in my aesthetic are much more difficult for me to elaborate in terms of clothing than in art and music. How do I relate syncopated drums and glitchy bass to cut, draping, texture, and proportion? How can my appreciation for cyberpunk literature and atmosphere be translated into which coat to wear with what shoes?

    These are challenges that I welcome, and the reason that my style of dress has evolved over the years. Rather than simply being a utilitarian garment that I use to cover myself (though that can have a unique 1984/Brave New World kind of appeal), I use my clothing and appearance to communicate my aesthetic to the world around me. First impressions (in the real world, that is – on the internet we are able to circumvent this) are based on appearance first, so I wish to convey as much about myself as I possibly can through that appearance.

    Again, though, this doesn't mean that I don't appreciate other aesthetics. I've seen some fantastic looks on this forum, and as we all are, I'm able to appreciate them but still know that they're not right for me. The garments are lovely, made with beautiful materials, meticulous detailing, and creative vision, and I appreciate them for that, but the choice of what to wear myself is based entirely on my perception of what the garments I wear communicate, and their relation to and support of my aesthetic.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dane
    replied
    Wear what you like...that's my motto.

    I share a love of many of the items spoken of on SZ, but do I wear it head to toe? No. I'm sure many of the members would be horrified to see what I wear much of the time.

    I will say that some designers that I didn't quite...understand...I now have a better appreciation for since joining SZ. In the end though, no forum will dictate my style...only help me branch out.

    Leave a comment:


  • Faust
    replied
    Should is a troublesome word. I don't want to dictate style guidelines. I think you often have a gut reaction to the things you love. The rest comes later. Not that you cannot grow to love things, but it's not the same.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X
😀
🥰
🤢
😎
😡
👍
👎