What defines who we are?

[krunchtime]

The things you think, feel and do
As much as I'd like to separate the components they all actually matter
How you think and feel creates an internal image of how you view yourself
What you do creates an external image as to how others view you
It is possible for no or minimal correlation to exist between the two

Thinking and feeling can exist at a concious or subconcious level which translates to concious decisions or actions which others can see, but you might not realise it until you conduct some self-analysis. Makes sense?

 

[krunchtime]

That's a really interesting way of thinking of things that never occurred to me.

A question for you, so I know that I completely get what you're saying: Are you saying that every thought will eventually become an action, because even if you have a thought that you do not directly act on, its presence will still subconsciously effect your actions later on?

If I got it right, then one more question: Which person is the "better" person here: a) A person who has thoughts of the urge to murder, but these thoughts actually manifest themselves subconsciously as good actions, or b) A person who never has a murderous thought, but overall produces subconscious actions through his thoughts that are not as "good" as person A's?

Maybe I should reply. I don't really think its possible for a person with a subconcious murderous wish to actually transmute this urge into something positive, unless he first conciously confronts and rejects it. This subconcious energy can then translates into something positive, depending on context and situation, but the inherent negativity will still translates into some sort of negativity in terms of personality or actions - which Person A might or might not realise, depending on how self-ware he or she is. Thus, you get abrasive people with a heart of gold - metaphorically speaking, because somewhere along the way, unhappiness gets internalized and conciously expressed.

As for Person B who never actually has murderous urges but might not bring about socially positive impact as Person A. Well, how you rank them depends on what you define as good and valuable which is a really subjective personal standard.

Or this situation would probably apply better:
Person A wants to murder others, but through hard mental work and willpower becomes a leading peacemaker and humanitarian. Person B has never had the urge to murder, but is also a leading peacemaker and humanitarian.

Do person A's actions and will to be "good" make him better than person B, who is at the same level as person A but had to do much less work to accomplish it? Should person B be considered a lesser individual because he did less with what he had than person A did? Or should person A have been expected to change who he was, since who his previous thoughts were unfit for society?

No, I don't think either one is better than the other, simply different. Different people take on different developmental paths in life, both psychologically and socially. Personally, I applaud Person A for having willpower to confront his or her own demons, but in terms of social contribution, they can be ranked equally or the same. What Person A gains from his additional psychological journey is purely his to keep.

 

[Jaguar]

I'm guessing that you think it's "bullshit" because you think that thoughts and actions are the same, making that question irrelevant?

Wrong.

Can't think of anything else that would be blatantly obvious.

Only an irrational ass would deem themselves worthy to be judge and jury of who is a "better" person.

 

[Cenomite]

Only an irrational ass would deem themselves worthy to be judge and jury of who is a "better" person.

You're right, but that doesn't mean we can't have some fun in discussing how people should be judged, and what makes a good and bad person.

edit: I'll respond to the other stuff later tonight or tomorrow morning

 

[krunchtime]

Wrong.

Only an irrational ass would deem themselves worthy to be judge and jury of who is a "better" person.

Irrational asses do it all the time. Only methods and standards differ.
This is the truth right?

 

[Jaguar]

You're right, but that doesn't mean we can't have some fun in discussing how people should be judged, and what makes a good and bad person.

Go grab a Bible and shake it at someone.

 

[Cenomite]

Go grab a Bible and shake it at someone.

I think that you seriously misinterpreted what I'm going for. I don't want to actually go out and judge people based on the results of the discussions, I just find the discussions themselves interesting. I'm interested in the theory of judging others on certain standards, not the practice.

 

[Jaguar]

I'm interested in the theory of judging others on certain standards, not the practice.

I'm interested in the theory of torturing people with sharp objects, not the practice.
What "fun."

 

[Cenomite]

I'm interested in the theory of torturing people with sharp objects, not the practice.
What "fun."

One of the main points of philosophy is to try and get answers to questions that don't yet have definite answers. The question of what makes a "good" person, or whether there are even "good people", doesn't have a definite answer, so I enjoy discussing it. I'm not saying that I think that people should be judged in this way, or even that it's possible. All I did was ask you a question involving it, because I was curious to see your answer.

I can see how that would imply that I supported judging people like that myself, so I don't really blame you completely for thinking that honestly.

 

[wank]

I don't know about people, but I see my definition coming about in a beautiful case of confirmation bias, social echoes of ideology([ensues a broad generalization<nothing like the rest...>]as how too often the case lies, that we align ourselves only with those of polar views taken to our interest), and subconscious mirroring... These implications have such a pleasant tendency to lead nowhere that I find the thought of end results being the matter of importance, not wholly unpleasant. Though too, I find the act of thinking, itself, to be the first end result, Where as action(physical/overt/multiperspect-tangable) might remain on par so far as emphasis is necessary in the culmination of dealings with a subjective consensus reality.

I really think positing characteristics is a matter of verbosity(something about inability to not react to information, and change), but a bit more engaging to read than like(and I apologize for forgetting the associated poster's name[as I think they may have by now changed their sig<no fact finding ensued>] to give credence to) that signature "All is denial, projection and avoidance." though the statement is gorgeous.

 

[mockingbird]

This is an interesting point.

It seems analogous to this situation:
Person A is born a genius at math and makes it to the top of some big industry. Person B is born average at Math, but through hard work and dedication makes it to the same place that person A does. Which is smarter?

Or this situation would probably apply better:
Person A wants to murder others, but through hard mental work and willpower becomes a leading peacemaker and humanitarian. Person B has never had the urge to murder, but is also a leading peacemaker and humanitarian.

Do person A's actions and will to be "good" make him better than person B, who is at the same level as person A but had to do much less work to accomplish it? Should person B be considered a lesser individual because he did less with what he had than person A did? Or should person A have been expected to change who he was, since who his previous thoughts were unfit for society?

Sorry, just a bunch of ramblings that your post provoked . No real point to that post haha.

Yes, this type of example is what I was thinking of.

When someone has to overcome their inner demons to do good, I think that person should be applauded for doing that good and not judged for what they had to overcome.