User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 49

  1. #11
    Queen hunter Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,664

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by evan View Post
    And the answer really depends on who these "others" are.
    That is what I wanted to hear.


    Quote Originally Posted by sade View Post
    A lot to read.
    Let me start off with saying that you've brough up things that I have thought and pondered about and yet, I wouldn't consider myself inhuman, as I wouldn't do with you. The same with the thoughts, even if they would be considered.. I'd say realistic with pesimistic approach.
    A high realist, is that what you are?
    Yet that doesn't make you less humane than the rest of us, given who are the judges. Also would it be behavior or thoughts that would make you inhuman. You say thoughts, but your behavior as far as I've seen doesn't give inhuman. Lack of feeling and empathy, yes. But I'd say it's good that you know it yourself.


    A different point of view, same outcome.
    My logic: This is completely meningless, yet I strive because I wish to see what'll come or if there could be meaning.
    And there are many other point of views, some more 'normal' than others. That doesn't seem inuhman nor robotic to me.

    What I'm interested in is that you've asked and mentioned the inhuman approach, but is human what you strive to be would like to try out? Or are you simply curious to see the responses?

    Ah, listen to dissonance, he's got more experience.
    I don't claim to be inhuman but I am probably one step closer to it then others.

    High realist? Sounds about right.

    I think (I know) that my thoughts and behavior some people would rate as inhuman. So the answer is: both.
    Also I just want to point at one thing: It is much easier to read the post and hava opinion then live next to me. Believe me there is a difference.

    Well, I can't say that I am not interested in what will I get for posting this.
    But non the less story is true.

    I have used word inhuman because it is simple a word and more or less it is appropriet for the topic.


    But this is not about me this is just to get the right athosphere in the thread.
    In the case that I am human or inhuman some arguments stand.

    So here are some questions for others:

    Do you see standard human way of doing things as a appropriate to this reality?

    Do you think that those ways are worth saving at all cost or do you think that they are expendable?

  2. #12
    IRL is not real Cimarron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Posts
    3,424

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Antisocial one View Post
    In the case that I am human or inhuman some arguments stand.

    So here are some questions for others:

    Do you see standard human way of doing things as a appropriate to this reality?

    Do you think that those ways are worth saving at all cost or do you think that they are expendable?
    Clearer English for the underlined sentence would be: "In either case, human or inhuman, some arguments stand regardless." or even clearer "Some of these arguments will exist, whether I'm human or inhuman." (minor details)

    More importantly, what do you mean by "appropriate" to this reality? Doesn't that decision depend on the "goal"?





    Forgot to add, these two parts seemed particularly important in your OP:
    Quote Originally Posted by Antisocial one
    The point of the entire story is that all of this is negative just because you intuitively think that this is just plain wrong.
    What is easy to miss is that this way of thinking leads to totally different, I would dare to say Ė level of living a life. This is mostly because dogmas and social dogmas which people canít throw out of their lives, donít exist at this level.
    Quote Originally Posted by Antisocial one
    Since I have turned the logic of living I simply donít have anything to be depressed about. As my poetry teacher in high school said ďPeople donít commit suicide because life is pointless. But because they believe in that life has a meaning (money, God, drugs or women) and if you donít believe in meaning you have no reason to kill yourselfĒ.
    Last edited by Cimarron; 11-29-2008 at 06:43 AM. Reason: best sentence; importance
    You can't spell "justice" without ISTJ.

  3. #13
    Queen hunter Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,664

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cimarron View Post
    Clearer English for the underlined sentence would be: "In either case, human or inhuman, some arguments stand regardless." or even clearer "Some of these arguments will exist, whether I'm human or inhuman." (minor details)

    More importantly, what do you mean by "appropriate" to this reality? Doesn't that decision depend on the "goal"?

    Forgot to add, these two parts seemed particularly important in your OP:
    1. Bad english is actually not such a small detail.

    2. Those two are not that much important since thread is not 100% defined but they have weight as arguments.
    The thread in general is about talking about things in a way that others would/could find disrurbing. Since there is a strong deficit of emotion in it.
    This is why it has this name.

    3. Appropriate for this reality means: acting as you plan to survive.

    There are only two possible desisions in general.
    You will try to survive at all costs.
    You will try to survive while trying to keep your soul.

    It is true that goals are subjective but environment is forcing you to make a choice. As it looks for now many of our human traits are more of a problem then blessing in our current situation.

  4. #14
    Senior Member Darjur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    493

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Antisocial one View Post
    Do you see standard human way of doing things as a appropriate to this reality?

    Do you think that those ways are worth saving at all cost or do you think that they are expendable?
    1. No. if answering to:
    Appropriate for this reality means: acting as you plan to survive.

    There are only two possible desisions in general.
    You will try to survive at all costs.
    You will try to survive while trying to keep your soul.

    It is true that goals are subjective but environment is forcing you to make a choice. As it looks for now many of our human traits are more of a problem then blessing in our current situation.
    I consider most of the actions done to be both wasteful and unneeded.


    2. I don't believe in "equality" between humans. While I do consider the mass majority of humanity to be expendable, I do not consider everyone to be expendable.

  5. #15
    Queen hunter Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,664

    Default

    I would apperciate that as many people as possible answer this questions and if they want to they can explain their position. I am very interested in opinions of people who's type is much different then mine. I promise that I will not be mean to them and if they type that they don't want to debate their position I will not debate it.

    Question are still:

    Do you see standard human way of doing things as a appropriate to this reality?

    Do you think that those ways are worth saving at all cost or do you think that they are expendable?

  6. #16
    Member dyspraxion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    INtP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    89

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Antisocial one View Post
    3. Appropriate for this reality means: acting as you plan to survive.

    There are only two possible desisions in general.
    You will try to survive at all costs.
    You will try to survive while trying to keep your soul.
    1. There is little point in trying to survive, except to avoid the suffering which typically precedes one's own death.
    2. The second option requires one to believe in the soul, a rather abstract concept with no consistent definition. I find it interesting that you would use such a word.

    Quote Originally Posted by Antisocial one View Post
    Do you see standard human way of doing things as a appropriate to this reality?

    Do you think that those ways are worth saving at all cost or do you think that they are expendable?
    For the reality which is typically determined by a consensus of the masses who believe it is all that is or shall ever be, yes. However, on the scale which you and I think, reality is variable. It is indeterminate, shifting over time.

    However, I see no flaws in the manner in which most humans deal with this environment, unless I attempt to view this world as it is at this moment (in which case I see a cesspool of filth and foolishness).

    Everything that has been created is expendable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Antisocial one View Post
    The central question is very old one: Can a person become so detached and create values system(s) because of which others no longer can see him/has a human being in psychological sense?
    I think that the answer is "yes"; if one were to take a view that completely devalues human life, in the sense of it having no more meaning than space rocks (or any other object). This is based off of how many people seem to think: that human life is precious and sacred, to be valued above all else.

    There is certainly an argument for the answer being "no"; many people have shades of what could be termed "inhumanity", and that all manners of thinking are variations of this trait.

    This is, of course, assuming a coherent definition of what it is to be "human". (more on that later)

    Modern environmentalism is also doomed to fail since environmentalists are acting based on their convictions instead that they try to form something that could make someone to change their mind. Since the idea has become a part of pop culture it is doomed to fail in its task.
    I don't quite understand why this idea will fail simply because of its pop culture status.

    Rather, I was of the opinion that much of what environmentalists attempt to fight are natural cycles. I do find it reasonable for human-induced destruction to be fought, since this chips away at all life on this planet, including the humans themselves.


    There are only 4 major scenarios what can happen on the long run.


    1. Mankind is destroyed by their own weapons (nukes, biological weapons, chemical weapons or classic warfare to the end)

    2. Mankind stays how it is for a long time so the evolution becomes visible and entire species splits on many species because of that. Then those species evolve until you can't even see human form in them or they destroy each other.

    3. Mankind is destroyed by natural forces. Forces like viruses, crazy level of tectonic activity, asteroid/comet impact, black hole or neutron stars collision and ÖÖ.

    4. Mankind starts to change itself and its environment so that it could expand through out the universe.

    Since things you have left behind canít survive in definitely your life and your achievements donít mean much on the long run.

    ...things canít stay as they are because that will kill any chances of survival on the long run. ...we will get huge amount of species that will probably fight wars between each other. ...donít see a purpose in insisting on human values.
    Well, if you believe the science, this very universe will eventually cease to exist in any meaningful form. There are several theories of how this may occur, but whichever may be correct, there is no infinite time for any species to exist. Everything that humans have so far created is essentially meaningless and worthless.


    This has enabled me to turn the logic of life upside down.

    Normal logic goes: Well, I am alive now and I will try to live my life and see what happens with time.


    My logic: I am dead for sure and I will live my life just to see what will happen.
    This is assuming that there is an inherent logic of life.

    I view life as a fluke, or as the possible natural consequence of the structure which this universe has taken on.

    Both versions of logic seem the same to me. Most people may prefer to ignore that one day their bodies and consciousness will cease to exist; the result is the same.

    So there are not too many arguments that I am evil or a sociopath in real sense of those words.
    Nothing you have written seems to indicate that you are a sociopath.

    Unless you were lying, in which case...

    Quote Originally Posted by Antisocial one View Post
    Can human become inhuman in psychological sense, even if the topic looks like a provocation after this post. It is just that I donít see the other way to get deep enough without this.
    What it means to be 'human' is still up for debate, therefore no one can say something is inhuman and have it mean anything. If someone should say that something is inhuman, it means that whatever they are referring to has violated their personal standards of what should and should not occur.

    It is due to this sort of thinking that hazards such as explosives, black holes, war, terrorism, name your destruction, are labeled by some as "evil". This term, "evil", has no inherent meaning; it is typically used to portray a threat to human health or life, but also assumes an intent, as well as an intractable nature. I do not believe that the term "evil" can be used in an accurate manner, because that sort of absolute does not exist.

    It is a simplification, one which is easy to understand without being correct.




    What interests me most here is that it does not seem as though you have resolved this viewpoint to where you are truly comfortable with it. It is as though you experience a longing to be what you view as "human", but you are rejecting this longing in favor of a broader view of existence. This would be why you put so much (decidedly admirable) effort into defending this detached view; it is as yet unsettled within your mind, and as such you retain a strong emotional attachment to it, so as to prevent it from fading into the limited earthly viewpoint that most people seem to harbor.


  7. #17
    Queen hunter Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,664

    Default

    For the reality which is typically determined by a consensus of the masses who believe it is all that is or shall ever be, yes. However, on the scale which you and I think, reality is variable. It is indeterminate, shifting over time.

    However, I see no flaws in the manner in which most humans deal with this environment, unless I attempt to view this world as it is at this moment (in which case I see a cesspool of filth and foolishness).

    Everything that has been created is expendable.
    But the problem with environment exists exactly because humans act like humans.(cynicism)
    It took long time that environment can't take much more of this but approach is wrong in foundation.


    I think that the answer is "yes"; if one were to take a view that completely devalues human life, in the sense of it having no more meaning than space rocks (or any other object). This is based off of how many people seem to think: that human life is precious and sacred, to be valued above all else.

    There is certainly an argument for the answer being "no"; many people have shades of what could be termed "inhumanity", and that all manners of thinking are variations of this trait.





    I don't quite understand why this idea will fail simply because of its pop culture status.
    That is because everyone that rejects modern pop culture if reject this also and without social consensus all hope is gone.


    Rather, I was of the opinion that much of what environmentalists attempt to fight are natural cycles. I do find it reasonable for human-induced destruction to be fought, since this chips away at all life on this planet, including the humans themselves.
    In the other thread there is a explanation that enviromentalism doesn't need to have something to do with natural cycles or global warming.



    Well, if you believe the science, this very universe will eventually cease to exist in any meaningful form. There are several theories of how this may occur, but whichever may be correct, there is no infinite time for any species to exist. Everything that humans have so far created is essentially meaningless and worthless.
    I was thinking about saying this but there is a fact that science is not over.
    If current trends continue in 500 years we could see much differenct picture.


    This is assuming that there is an inherent logic of life.

    I view life as a fluke, or as the possible natural consequence of the structure which this universe has taken on.

    Both versions of logic seem the same to me. Most people may prefer to ignore that one day their bodies and consciousness will cease to exist; the result is the same.
    I took the standard meaning just for the sake of argument.
    It is true that both logics are in the and same but there is a huge difference in leaving a actuall life. That is why it was said.



    What it means to be 'human' is still up for debate, therefore no one can say something is inhuman and have it mean anything. If someone should say that something is inhuman, it means that whatever they are referring to has violated their personal standards of what should and should not occur.

    It is due to this sort of thinking that hazards such as explosives, black holes, war, terrorism, name your destruction, are labeled by some as "evil". This term, "evil", has no inherent meaning; it is typically used to portray a threat to human health or life, but also assumes an intent, as well as an intractable nature. I do not believe that the term "evil" can be used in an accurate manner, because that sort of absolute does not exist.
    I agree. But thas was a good way to start a topic.


    What interests me most here is that it does not seem as though you have resolved this viewpoint to where you are truly comfortable with it. It is as though you experience a longing to be what you view as "human", but you are rejecting this longing in favor of a broader view of existence. This would be why you put so much (decidedly admirable) effort into defending this detached view; it is as yet unsettled within your mind, and as such you retain a strong emotional attachment to it, so as to prevent it from fading into the limited earthly viewpoint that most people seem to harbor.
    I have settled much more then it looks like. It is just that I don't want to sound too absolute. Since that would harm the thread and I could be wrong.

  8. #18
    Member dyspraxion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    INtP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    89

    Default

    For the reality which is typically determined by a consensus of the masses who believe it is all that is or shall ever be, yes. However, on the scale which you and I think, reality is variable. It is indeterminate, shifting over time.

    However, I see no flaws in the manner in which most humans deal with this environment, unless I attempt to view this world as it is at this moment (in which case I see a cesspool of filth and foolishness).

    Everything that has been created is expendable.
    But the problem with environment exists exactly because humans act like humans.(cynicism)
    It took long time that environment can't take much more of this but approach is wrong in foundation.
    Ah... At this point, I was referring to the environment as "this reality", "this world", rather than the actual environment. My intended meaning was entirely different.

    I apologize for the confusion brought on by my inaccurate wording.


  9. #19
    Senior Member Anja's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    2,967

    Default

    antisocial, I don't think that any thought a human is capable of is outside the realm of humanity.
    "No ray of sunshine is ever lost, but the green which it awakes into existence needs time to sprout, and it is not always granted to the sower to see the harvest. All work that is worth anything is done in faith." - Albert Schweitzer

  10. #20
    Queen hunter Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,664

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anja View Post
    antisocial, I don't think that any thought a human is capable of is outside the realm of humanity.
    That is why I have said that there is a oxymoron in the title.

Similar Threads

  1. [MBTItm] Do INTXs have trouble putting thoughts into words?
    By Mycroft in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 76
    Last Post: 05-02-2009, 02:26 PM
  2. My thoughts on the I phone
    By Opivy1980 in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 07-09-2007, 06:38 AM
  3. New guy; some thoughts
    By ThatINTJGuy in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 06-26-2007, 01:26 PM
  4. Just thought I'd say hey
    By indigo2020 in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 05-23-2007, 04:13 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO