You Are Not An Island

• Spartaaaaa wrote on 2010-09-15 21:25

  Quote from Whyrainfalls;155858:

  You are an archipelago.

  
  
  Oh I see, so I'm a chain of islands! Not just one. That's an interesting perspective. I always thought I was a fault-block mountain...
• Trigger wrote on 2010-09-15 23:19

  Quote from Phunkie;154943:

  Never listen to the cynics, I always say.
  
  No, seriously. If the world was full of apathetic people, we'd get nowhere.
  
  It's attitudes like yours that we should not encourage.

  
  
  Don't get me wrong -- I have nothing against the world being made a better place. I'm simply telling you the truth: you will never succeed in getting everyone on Earth to be happy and cheerful. It's far better to stage a campaign focused on getting people to start thinking rationally about their lives and get them to realize that all the petty little things they get offended over really aren't that big of a deal. Translation: advocate tolerance, not happiness.
  
  It's far easier to snuff out contagious happiness than it is to budge stony stoicism. The very word "happy" is derived from the same word as "happening" or "happenstance" -- in other words, happiness is inherently dependent on circumstance and unstable human emotions. A solid, logical outlook on life, however, is grounded in reason and fact, not in something variable and changeable.
  
  I don't need a collection of individuals to reinforce my perception of life and make me feel secure about my opinions. I don't feel the need to seek out and befriend people for no other reason than to befriend them. I rest my opinions (to the best of my knowledge and effort) on factual input, and when fact clashes with my opinion, my opinion changes. I attempt to hold my opinions loosely, because they may change at any moment. As far as I am concerned, I am an island. If more people were islands, we would accomplish exactly the same thing as your campaign for spreading happiness and friendship, but the results would be far more long-lasting, because people would hold their opinions no higher than the input that supports them and would be willing to change their opinions without hatred or denial.
• Phunkie wrote on 2010-09-15 23:29

  Quote from Trigger;157082:

  Don't get me wrong -- I have nothing against the world being made a better place. I'm simply telling you the truth: you will never succeed in getting everyone on Earth to be happy and cheerful. It's far better to stage a campaign focused on getting people to start thinking rationally about their lives and get them to realize that all the petty little things they get offended over really aren't that big of a deal. Translation: advocate tolerance, not happiness.
  
  It's far easier to snuff out contagious happiness than it is to budge stony stoicism. The very word "happy" is derived from the same word as "happening" or "happenstance" -- in other words, happiness is inherently dependent on circumstance and unstable human emotions. A solid, logical outlook on life, however, is grounded in reason and fact, not in something variable and changeable.
  
  I don't need a collection of individuals to reinforce my perception of life and make me feel secure about my opinions. I don't feel the need to seek out and befriend people for no other reason than to befriend them. I rest my opinions (to the best of my knowledge and effort) on factual input, and when fact clashes with my opinion, my opinion changes. I attempt to hold my opinions loosely, because they may change at any moment. As far as I am concerned, I am an island. If more people were islands, we would accomplish exactly the same thing as your campaign for spreading happiness and friendship, but the results would be far more long-lasting, because people would hold their opinions no higher than the input that supports them and would be willing to change their opinions without hatred or denial.

  
  
  You said, however, that "people need to grow up, realize that the world will never be a happy place filled with cheerful loving people, and start getting along with the status quo" and I disagree with it entirely.
  
  If people "got along with the status quo," do you really think there'd be much action?
  
  Getting people to start thinking rationally is indeed a great start, like you said. In fact, it's apathetic people who need to grow up and realize that small things do matter. Littering, voting... sure, one person's trash on the floor or one person's vote might not have a great impact on the world or in an election, but 100 people, 1000 people... numbers get bigger when it's one after another after another. And that's when it becomes a problem.
  
  It's not contagious happiness, it's, "hey, donate some money so we can help the people in Haiti; anything you got, 50 cents, 1 dollar, canned food, we'll take it all."
  
  You say, "I think Ric and myself are evidence enough that there will always be people who really couldn't care less. =P" And I say, those are the kind of people who look around, who should actually think beyond themselves for a moment and be a little selfless, even if it's just 50 cents.
• Trigger wrote on 2010-09-15 23:46
  I'm reminded of an analogy one of my philosophy professors once used involving monkeys. Monkeys who groom other monkeys are taken advantage of and end up dying off because nobody grooms them in return. Monkeys who refuse to groom others but take advantage of others to get their own personal grooming are the stingy ones that nobody cares about -- eventually the rest of the monkeys realize that these particular monkeys don't groom in return, and these stingy creatures die off from neglect. The monkeys who survive follow a policy of "you scratch my back, I scratch yours." They give AND receive, and in so doing they contribute to their own benefit and to the benefit of their society.
  
  As I said before, your reasoning is that of Communism -- everyone cooperates and the world becomes a great place to live. My reasoning is that of capitalism -- everyone acts in his own interest and society survives, not necessarily in a perfectly ideal environment, but at least it survives.
• Phunkie wrote on 2010-09-15 23:55

  Quote from Trigger;157160:

  I'm reminded of an analogy one of my philosophy professors once used involving monkeys. Monkeys who groom other monkeys are taken advantage of and end up dying off because nobody grooms them in return. Monkeys who refuse to groom others but take advantage of others to get their own personal grooming are the stingy ones that nobody cares about -- eventually the rest of the monkeys realize that these particular monkeys don't groom in return, and these stingy creatures die off from neglect. The monkeys who survive follow a policy of "you scratch my back, I scratch yours." They give AND receive, and in so doing they contribute to their own benefit and to the benefit of their society.
  
  As I said before, your reasoning is that of Communism -- everyone cooperates and the world becomes a great place to live. My reasoning is that of capitalism -- everyone acts in his own interest and society survives, not necessarily in a perfectly ideal environment, but at least it survives.

  
  
  I feel like you misunderstand me with this whole Communism deal. I know that not everyone can cooperate and that not everyone will. But why should that stop one person (or a group of people) from reaching out to everyone he/she/they can?
  
  When you lose a dog, for example, and you post up a LOST DOG sign, everyone won't see that sign, but you post it everywhere so most people can see it and so that you have more of a chance of someone finding your dog.
  
  That whole, I scratch your back, you scratch my back deal is just not the right attitude to have when helping people. In fact, when you help people out of the own will of your heart, you shouldn't expect any benefit. Why should you?
  
  If 100 people contributed $1 to a single cause, that's $100 right there. Even if it's 50 cents, that's $50. It's something. And that something can help a few people somewhere out there in the world.
  
  It's a donation, not a paycheck.
• Chillax wrote on 2010-09-16 00:37
  You must give to receive. Fundamental rule of economics and the world, especially highlighted by Robert Kiyosaki in his book Rich Dad, Poor Dad. Thinking shortsightedly about how what you do will directly benefit you in the future isn't always the best policy, since the results of your actions might come back in the most unexpected ways. You don't need to devote your whole energy to giving, but you can still do a good job of helping the world.
• Kaeporo wrote on 2010-09-18 08:10
  You can spout Altruistic nonsense all day long; the fact remains that if helping others made you feel terrible, only a masochist would do it. People help others because they receive satisfaction in return.