Home | Community | Message Board

Sporeworks
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   North Spore Bulk Substrate   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | Next >
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: The meaning of life [Re: redgreenvines]
    #24501013 - 07/22/17 03:30 PM (6 years, 8 months ago)

What I mean by pulling an Icelander, is trying to make an intellectual justification and a basis of identity, a contest, and a cult out of what is basically a psychological weakness.

Why not call a spade a spade?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,063
Re: The meaning of life [Re: Kurt]
    #24501041 - 07/22/17 03:52 PM (6 years, 8 months ago)

Prior to using this phrase, which you have now explained (declaritively), was it in use here??

I know he had a thing about demonstrating (declaritively) that any and all unsatisfactory issues derive from "death anxiety" which I found frustrating.

So in what way is blingbling pulling an Icelander?


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleZanthius
Mean Alien
Male

Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,570
Re: The meaning of life [Re: Zanthius]
    #24501221 - 07/22/17 05:33 PM (6 years, 8 months ago)

I just realized that there are numerous of problems with Maslow's hierarchy of needs. I have now created a completely new version, where I have also changed on the lower levels. The need for community should be very low... just above the need for survival. Humans are group animals. We cannot function properly without community. We wouldn't even have language without community.




Edited by Zanthius (07/23/17 02:57 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: The meaning of life [Re: redgreenvines]
    #24501375 - 07/22/17 07:14 PM (6 years, 8 months ago)

I was just kidding around with the Icelander comment.

If you are looking for a meeting point, I'd like it if we focused on the content of arguments. Not the persons, or the size of mouthpiece, or political movements that ideas might come from, but expressed thoughts and ideas. Philosophy? Here???

I think we are all going to end up making general statements, and the difference between philosophy and just declaring something, might not seem entirely clear up front, but will prove to be in ground of these statements, in common premises, and in how novel or truthful they are.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Quasar Praiser


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,248
Re: The meaning of life [Re: Zanthius]
    #24501516 - 07/22/17 08:29 PM (6 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Maybe we do things for our selves, whether it means helping someone or not.
What motive do we have to help? The transition from helping to self interest?

Reducing the stress of another may help us to reduce our own stress, so what happens to look like altruistically motivated behaviour is just self interest in disguise. Everything we do from the considerate to the heroic is ultimately for our own benefit. There are some times when the rewards can be obvious, and other times not so obvious. I believe people live their lives through self interest, you do it to help yourself. People disrupt Maslow's ideas but they still give.

Sometimes those who have less give more.

Someone without having their basic needs met can still be charitable, but how can this be so when Maslow says these basic needs are necessary? Homeless people, even though they don't have their basic needs met, are still charitable. This shows us that ultimately empathy is more important than any layer of the pyramid.

Self interest and empathy, humans are social creatures that can work together and empathise together to build a stronger society.

Love and empathy aren't trivial things that can be bargained with, they are the most powerful forces of our lives. You may not retain this, if it wasn't entertaining enough, but the next time you go out and see a homeless person on the street. You may not find it in your heart to help them during their desperate time of need, but you are just as desperate as they are, only for different reasons. - Kennard Kim




(example starts @ 4:00)


[this one is under 1 min]


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Edited by sudly (07/23/17 05:47 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinebeforethedawn
Registered: 06/19/16
Posts: 1,859
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
Re: The meaning of life [Re: sudly]
    #24501584 - 07/22/17 08:55 PM (6 years, 8 months ago)

One person can't necessarily comprehend what we have established, let alone what was prior.

And there is only the individual to understand. In fact there is only YOUR understanding.

So have fun...

If you think you've got it try to be a little more lively.


--------------------
Hostile humankind
Can't you see you're fucking blind?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineblingbling
what you chicken stew?

Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 2,987
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
Re: The meaning of life [Re: Kurt]
    #24501655 - 07/22/17 09:35 PM (6 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Kurt said:
Quote:

blingbling said:
Quote:

Kurt said:
I can understand your rationalizations, broadly speaking, but how can you actually in a simultaneous moment, pity and and envy someone at once? I can understand but do not sympathize I should say  It seems to me the only explanation is you choose to associate with broad identity politics, and their associated psychologies, where you assume this intellectual  conceit, rather than looking to the form of content of statements you generally refer to and living by what you know, and might reasonably face as the facts.




I've already explained how I can simultaneously pity and envy someone, I don't understand why you don't believe me. I spoke to a pastor once that claimed that many of the atheists he met "wished they could believe" I totally get that. Why wouldn't someone want to be certain of life meaning?

I'm not sure where your getting identity politics from, we can talk about identity without going down that rabbit hole. But it may be worth pointing out that identity politics is a symptom of this lack of cosmic meaning, it is an hysterical attempt at creating norms around political correctness that takes on a religious flavour.




Speaking as someone who knows something about existential ontology, phenomenology, and history of philosophy, and who studied this at a graduate, what you are saying to me seems like a misunderstanding. There are too many generalizations. In our small microcosm of discourse it could be called pulling an Icelander. You seem to vest in an existential view, but you look to rationalize and mobilize an idea based on your own weakness, and form an identity of this, and then a cult, as you try to level everyone to a mere pyschological issue as a denomination of discussion. Or can you say why you are not trying to pull an icelander on us?

Anytime you generalize argumentative positions in a summary way, or talk about the way people might identify with an idea in a general synopsis (as a historical traditon...an ism... or as a broad description of how these positions play out...) and force others to this level, rather than address the form of content or basic substance of argument in the present dialogue, you are mobilizing a movement around and about ideas, and an identificatory basis rather than actually speaking of ideas.

In your case, like pulling an Icelander you are attempting to rationalize weakness. What you consider your strongest argument is actually weakness, isn't it? Why do you choose to assume that "ignorance is bliss" is an intellectual position, as a conceit, here, when what you are talking about is your own mental weakness and inconsistency, at a more basic level? You look away from the form of content of such statements, and rationalize the way that people might identify with things, out of weakness, as a psychological issue in the matter at issue.

Ignorance is bliss, means that instead of following reason and stepping out into the clearing of these particular terms you refer to you choose to keep them and mobilize them in your own way, through generalization of the positions of argument. You continue to speak as though there is someone is right about "something" (about some imagined thing/being) in a generality and in entrenched and recalcitrant terms, instead of following the movement of reason, to the clearing.
Because you actively choose to frame what you are saying as an intellectual conceit, ignorance is bliss, and level to this, you ignore that at some level this is basically your weakness and vascillation in coming to the conclusion in the matter. Rather than either reasonably admiting your weakness, in this way or overcoming it, you hedge a passive aggressive psychological rationalization in the prior terms you remain occupied with. If god does not exist, as Christians say, the conclusion is stepping into the clearing of these terms.

For example, why do you carry on about an essentially christian ontology, without god? This is vascillating and mental weakness. The only "problem" of meaning in your sense is you do not make any actual statements. At no point do you make any statements about the world, or being (ta on, onta, "being") but only talk about something at a level that people might commonly identify with, and imply this is your ontology by entrenched tradition. Or individually speaking, in terms of the conclusion you might reasonably come to you bring a weak stomach for the world and attempt to mobilize it, as your residing christian ontology.

I think you should back up and at least admit that for some people this conceit of disenchantment, and "ignorance is bliss" is no argument. It is just the way you have learned to look away from the reasonable intellectual conclusion, the substantive argument in fact. You rationalize something vague about this, based on alienation and weakness. It is poor understanding and generalization of history for your march of ideas. So again, I do not know what you mean by something you hold on to in theist's arguments, that makes us realize the necessity of universal/religious meaning. This identification is not based on reason, but psychological, and superficial, and that is how what you say stands out, without substance.

I was trying to get at this psychological level and dig something out.

Why - or how - do you pity and envy christians/theists? You claim a single evaluation, or that you have come to an intellectual conclusion, but I think you are again just vascillating, between terms and letting other people pick up the tab. I can understand where the conflict of these statements may not be immediately apparent to you. Ignorance is bliss, is a more general tongue and cheek statement, or rhetorical pursuasion. But you seem to go about this a bit more seriously, rationalizing and mobilizing this as a common denomination of weakness, rather than authentically coming to the "existential" base you actually might know of.

Maybe I can only speak from my own perspective and experience. I do not pity christians, but I do not envy them. I usually meet christians half way as human beings. To me, it doesn't matter what religions people live by, compared to other things, like general principles, that more clearly determine a person's character. I would never envy someone I pity though, in the same moment. That is too self degrading. What I see in pity is something clearly wretched and neither content or happy, but why even mourn this?  If you do not move between different levels of abstraction and try to deceive yourself, this conceit of disenchantment is petty and weak. I think this is as clear as I can be so I will leave it at that.

But here is some advice. Try to speak of the form of content of arguments you refer to, and not always just about it, in generalized positions, or sociological or psychological generalities as what people might identify with. If Christian ontotheology is dead, that means it (you) come into a clearing. If on the other hand you think about pulling an Icelander on us and starting a cult based on on psychological weakness, and alienation, I would say this is not "existential", or a very convincing pissing contest to many of us. Think about where you might end up going that direction. I recommend ditching the bullshit of sociology and psychology, as a generalization, and doing what you are doing in more genuine terms.

Maybe see Heidegger "existential vs. existentiell" for a primer.

(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentiell)




Wow, you must have called me weak at least 10 times. But, that's right, its me that is projecting :facepalm:

If my ontology is a form of psychological weakness then please explain to me what an ontology of strength would look like?

There are many people that take up a position similar to my own, but who see themselves as courageous warriors against the meaninglessness inherent in the universe. I choose not to go down that path as I believe we have enough hero's, but are sorely lacking in those that can truely imbibe the implications of modernity without resorting to a twisting of the truth or outright lying (I'm not saying that you are lying).

You seem to think that I offer this theory as a totality, as if no other ideas are needed to explain the world. This is just my hobby horse friend. I am not trying to start a cult as your hyperbolic statements suggest. And as for Icelander, you will probably not be surprised to learn that I consider myself to be in some distant way a student of him. But, I believe that I am not as prone to the mood swings and misanthropy he often engaged in. So, please treat me like I am my own man, not some Icelander clone.

Finally, even if you believe that my ontology is a form of psychological weakness, could you still also hold that it is true? Why must a belief come from a place of strength to be true? Is might always right? Just to really get on your nerves I will psychoanalyse you for a moment. Did you know that most people believe that they are better than average drivers? Well my friend, most people cannot be better than average, otherwise it wouldn't be an average. I believe you are pulling a similar trick. Perhaps the slightly melancholy personality would correctly understand that they are not better than average, but just average or below like the other 50% of the driving population. And perhaps this melancholy personality would also realise some things about the meaning of life that others, whose psychological predilections are set ups to get them through the world in more fluid way, would not.

I will leave it up to you to explain why what you are calling weakness must be inherently untrue.


--------------------
Kupo said:
let's fuel the robots with psilocybin.

cez said:
everyone should smoke dmt for religion.

dustinthewind13 said:
euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building.

White Beard said:
if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.

Edited by blingbling (07/22/17 09:54 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: The meaning of Life [Re: blingbling]
    #24501831 - 07/22/17 11:17 PM (6 years, 8 months ago)

Let me go out on a limb and try to speak to what I think your philosophical assumptions basically are. If some kind of disenchantment is your integral point, what are you standing for? Can you clarify in your argument? Also, what is your "ontology"?

Ontology is an understanding of being, and I think to be realistic, we can assume this includes human existence. From what I see in your posts you seem to usually frame what you are saying in somewhat general and relativistic terms, and are ostensibly (as you say more than a few times) based on interpreting human anthropology and history.

Also you offer this psychology.

You have said things like you "envy and pity" (being/a being) in a singular way. You say "ignorance is bliss". If this is a statement geared theoretically to ontology, perhaps it doesn't matter who you are looking down on.
If you consider these statements, their evaluation is essentially unitary, connected to you, and just of existence. Losing the platitude of who is right and who is wrong, and the level of condescension, suppose this is what you stand for, or rationalize as being. This is what I have been able to gather, as your ontology.

Do you blame me from seeing the underlying justification of a weakness (in being) in these statements? Ignorance is bliss? You pity and simultaneously envy a being/being? Putting aside the condescension, isn't your ontological picture of a human being, one of weakness when you come to it? I am just trying to understand.

I do not actually think you are weak so much as you seem to definitely rationalize human weakness as what is. Is this true? Well you hold it to be, and maybe that is the point, existentially, and so what can I say? But I also remember how this sometimes works, when we have strong (I think egoic) personalities here. Everything is aggressively leveled to that theory and interpretation regardless of whether it is basically true or not; until you (a being) give in and come to the confessional booth and tell the residing high priest (a condescending lordly being) how you are afraid, so that you can be authentically degenerate and weak but at least admitting this, accepting the generally assumed theory.

I am not calling names, and I don't actually think anyone is weak; I am just saying what this projected disenchanted view of human life seems to be, as I have seen. Maybe another way to put it, is that it doesn't offer any positive interpretation. The only positive possibility, is to attack someone else's psychology, and play one up, leap frog, in who gets to be the one to condescend even if it is momentary everything levels out to the same swampy nature.

I'd say you are pretty honest in your last post but I would seriously ask you; what are you asserting and rationalizing? Is what you say true of existence? Truth, (what is, as opposed to what is not) is part of ontology, which is not a steamroller.

Quote:

Finally, even if you believe that my ontology is a form of psychological weakness, could you still also hold that it is true? Why must a belief come from a place of strength to be true? Is might always right? Just to really get on your nerves I will psychoanalyse you for a moment. Did you know that most people believe that they are better than average drivers? Well my friend, most people cannot be better than average, otherwise it wouldn't be an average. I believe you are pulling a similar trick. Perhaps the slightly melancholy personality would correctly understand that they are not better than average, but just average or below like the other 50% of the driving population. And perhaps this melancholy personality would also realise some things about the meaning of life that others, whose psychological predilections are set ups to get them through the world in more fluid way, would not.

I will leave it up to you to explain why what you are calling weakness must be inherently untrue.





I think in a way, philosophy is clearly true to the person who holds it as true. You will rationalize something, and "become who you are" as Nietzsche wrote.

Philosophy is like a vehicle, like getting to understand the ropes and reins for the most part. A strong argument will be an assertion that is true; I can say that much I think. I believe a weak argument, will make a weak person, in the sense that the person is vested in something that he or she is not doing a good job at. But a strong argument, doesn't have the same corollary. A vehicle just runs smooth, and it levels out in what is, as what is true, in a neutral sense, in a strong philosophical argument.

Melancholy is not a bad temperament to have, but I think you give away what you are say in what you put to contrast in this. Philosophy is fluidity. There are other things like balance. Balance is unitary, and you might in a way say you were off balance to learn your center, and maybe a person has to have experience in these things, but once you know it, that is what you live by. At least that is an allegory that makes sense to me in driving a vehicle, I wouldn't say this is any general position. We seem to generally engage philosophy/ontology; the question of the meaning of being.

Hope this clears up a little of what I was saying. I don't think you are weak, and if I said that I misspoke.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineblingbling
what you chicken stew?

Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 2,987
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
Re: The meaning of Life [Re: Kurt]
    #24502114 - 07/23/17 04:30 AM (6 years, 8 months ago)

You seem to get my position in parts and yet you continue to stumble. I suggest you stop trying to read too much Christian theology into my philosophy, or more precisely my anthropology (that being what I am trained in) . I'm not trying to win converts here. Just engage in argumentation like yourself. You underlined disenchantment, and this is something I would strongly agree with. My position is a modern one based on what I see as the existential truth of science, and in this sense it is thoroughly disenchanted i.e. there is a certain separation between the individual and the universe such that the interior experience of the individual does not directly track that of universe.

Consider that in contrast to the enchanted ontology of say the medieval Christian who seen the grace of an all powerful redeeming God in every possible thing. The Christian (at least at the level of religious ideations) see's an inseparability between the world and the individual. This is why the word of God can be spoken through the individual. Disenchantment implies a certain distance from the universe such that God's grace, or the power of the universe, the ancient ancestors etc. cannot be relied upon to grant immortality or any kind of permanence, and this causes psychological pain, because people want to feel that they are making a difference, an impact on the world that will not be eaten away by the sands of time.

So without a communal system of redemption we are left in psychological pain. I just think the disenchanted ontology happens to be the true one, and so I to some degree embrace psychological pain. You might call this weakness, and maybe your right, But I still don't think it is a mere projection from a broken mind. And you have said nothing that would convince me that this ontology untrue. Instead you offer what I can only grasp a some kind of postmodern platitude about how theory is just a manifestation of an individuals (or perhaps only my) projections. My theory tracks with the actual life worlds of individuals, I can show this to you if you like, in the form of a thesis I once wrote about modern nature worshippers, but it is far to long to post here.


--------------------
Kupo said:
let's fuel the robots with psilocybin.

cez said:
everyone should smoke dmt for religion.

dustinthewind13 said:
euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building.

White Beard said:
if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Disenchantment [Re: blingbling]
    #24502435 - 07/23/17 09:24 AM (6 years, 8 months ago)

Had another argument coming, but I think the positions have been stated. I consider your position (at least so far as I understand your "disenchantment" in my terms) seriously.

Edited by Kurt (07/23/17 06:44 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleZanthius
Mean Alien
Male

Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,570
Re: The meaning of life [Re: sudly]
    #24502684 - 07/23/17 11:39 AM (6 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

sudly said:
(example starts @ 4:00)






Yes, but if we put "the need for community" right above "the need for survival", we might be able to explain this behavior.  The homeless people simply feel less alienated from other homeless people, more like they are in the same community, and therefore they are more eager to help each other. Normal people might feel alienated from homeless people, less like they are in a community with them, and therefore less eager to help homeless people. It isn't necessarily so that homeless people have more empathy than normal people.

Edited by Zanthius (07/23/17 03:27 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleZanthius
Mean Alien
Male

Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,570
Re: The meaning of life [Re: blingbling] * 1
    #24503093 - 07/23/17 02:55 PM (6 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

blingbling said:
I actually tend to agree with religious ideologues on a lot of matters, particularly with regards to atheism ie. that atheism doesn't offer a viable solution for the problem of life's meaning.




Well, with your argument you seem to imply that atheism is a specific ideology, and that all atheists follow this ideology. Atheism isn't one specific ideology. There might be atheistic communists, atheistic socialists, atheistic capitalists, atheistic environmentalists, atheistic bayesians, and so on. Atheism just implies the absence of a certain type of supernatural belief in an ideology.

More importantly, how people feel about how meaningful life is, might be just as much related to education and culture, as to if they are religious or not. I wouldn't for example be surprised if Montessori education made people find more meaning in life.



Education motivated by intellectual curiosity

Edited by Zanthius (07/23/17 03:11 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Quasar Praiser


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,248
Re: The meaning of life [Re: Zanthius]
    #24503194 - 07/23/17 03:48 PM (6 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Zanthius said:
Quote:

sudly said:
(example starts @ 4:00)






Yes, but if we put "the need for community" right above "the need for survival", we might be able to explain this behavior.  The homeless people simply feel less alienated from other homeless people, more like they are in the same community, and therefore they are more eager to help each other. Normal people might feel alienated from homeless people, less like they are in a community with them, and therefore less eager to help homeless people. It isn't necessarily so that homeless people have more empathy than normal people.




I still remain somewhat skeptical of your descriptive approach, but I think I get the gist of it.
Quote:

Homeless people, even though they don't have their basic needs met, are still charitable. This shows us that ultimately empathy is more important than any layer of the pyramid. - Kennard Kim





And hey sympathy is okay because sometimes being empathetic for one sad person can lead to 2 sad people, although it can also be useful to help another through a difficult time too.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Edited by sudly (07/23/17 05:46 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,063
Re: The meaning of life [Re: sudly]
    #24503439 - 07/23/17 05:37 PM (6 years, 8 months ago)

I never know who is quoting whom,
why even use the quote format if you don't declare who originated the quote.

Every post should try to be clear and stand on it's own.
I mean the format is too informal to take seriously serious.

(sadly not just sudly)


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Quasar Praiser


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,248
Re: The meaning of life [Re: redgreenvines]
    #24503462 - 07/23/17 05:46 PM (6 years, 8 months ago)

I had already posted it once, and Kennard Kim said it in the Ted talk I linked. I didn't want to write up the whole thing yet I wanted to capture the message of the video so I wrote up a brief summary of what was said.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleZanthius
Mean Alien
Male

Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,570
Re: The meaning of life [Re: sudly]
    #24504079 - 07/23/17 11:32 PM (6 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

sudly said:
Quote:

Homeless people, even though they don't have their basic needs met, are still charitable. This shows us that ultimately empathy is more important than any layer of the pyramid. - Kennard Kim









Yeah. I don't necessarily believe that. I don't think that homeless guy would give that slice of his pizza if his very survival depended upon it. Have you seen the movie called Alive?

But this is also why I have put "need for survival" at the bottom, rather than "physiological needs". It doesn't really matter if it is lack of food/water that is threatening your survival, or some animal hunting you.


Edited by Zanthius (07/23/17 11:41 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineJaegar
Formless One
 User Gallery


Registered: 05/04/09
Posts: 2,217
Last seen: 8 months, 1 hour
Re: The meaning of life [Re: Zanthius]
    #24504094 - 07/23/17 11:42 PM (6 years, 8 months ago)

I agree unlikely a organism would be so charitable if in the process of starvation. Maybe so if it had regular experience and developed tolerance. But no idealistic thoughts or feelings will be given higher priority then selfish preservation.

Edited by Jaegar (07/23/17 11:43 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Quasar Praiser


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,248
Re: The meaning of life [Re: Zanthius]
    #24504181 - 07/24/17 12:49 AM (6 years, 8 months ago)

Usually there are multiple slices of a pizza.
Even the homeless can have basic survival needs met if basic survival needs means only food, water and sleep (like camping).

Beyond a need for survival under this definition and some sort of self-actualisation, I think the rest of the pyramid more so reflects our wants and desires over our needs, though safety, friendship and self esteem have a significant personal importance. 



I mean what the hell does this mean?
Quote:

Zanthius said: It doesn't really matter if it is lack of food/water that is threatening your survival, or some animal hunting you.




Plus I like it the way it was made.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleZanthius
Mean Alien
Male

Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,570
Re: The meaning of life [Re: sudly]
    #24504194 - 07/24/17 01:08 AM (6 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

sudly said:
I mean what the hell does this mean?





The lower levels in such a hierarchy are more important than the higher levels. Survival needs are much more important than self-actualization since they are at the bottom of the pyramid.


Quote:

sudly said:
Plus I like it the way it was made.




Well I don't, since there can be many other things except for physiological needs that are important for your survival, and they are all equally important. So it doesnt make any sense to put "Physiological needs" and "Safety needs" in different categories. It all depends on how unsafe you are. If you are in the middle of a war you might be able to starve yourself if it helps you to avoid getting killed by the enemy.

Edited by Zanthius (07/24/17 01:25 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Quasar Praiser


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,248
Re: The meaning of life [Re: Zanthius]
    #24504205 - 07/24/17 01:31 AM (6 years, 8 months ago)

I don't necessarily think or see why survival needs to be a magnitude greater than self actualisation. Understanding the personal self seems a great up lifter and motivator to me.

Quote:

Deficiency Needs vs. Growth Needs
Maslow believed that these needs are similar to instincts and play a major role in motivating behavior. Physiological, security, social, and esteem needs are deficiency needs, which arise due to deprivation. Satisfying these lower-level needs is important in order to avoid unpleasant feelings or consequences.

Maslow termed the highest level of the pyramid as growth needs. These needs don't stem from a lack of something, but rather from a desire to grow as a person.

While the theory is generally portrayed as a fairly rigid hierarchy, Maslow noted that the order in which these needs are fulfilled does not always follow this standard progression. For example, he noted that for some individuals, the need for self-esteem is more important than the need for love. For others, the need for creative fulfillment may supersede even the most basic needs.

Like Carl Rogers, Maslow emphasized the importance of self-actualization, which is a process of growing and developing as a person in order to achieve individual potential.

https://www.verywell.com/what-is-maslows-hierarchy-of-needs-4136760




Quote:

Despite the popularity of the theory, there has been surprisingly little research supporting the hierarchy’s accuracy. For this reason, psychologist Ed Diener of the University of Illinois led a study that put the famous hierarchy of needs to the test in different countries all over the world.

Researchers conducted surveys on food, shelter, safety, money, social support, respect, and emotions in 155 different countries between 2005 and 2010. While some aspects of their findings are consistent with Maslow's theory, there were also some notable departures. The needs described in the theory appear to be universal. However, the order in which these needs are met had little impact on people's satisfaction with life.

"Our findings suggest that Maslow's theory is largely correct. In cultures all over the world the fulfillment of his proposed needs correlates with happiness," Diener explained in a press release. "However, an important departure from Maslow's theory is that we found that a person can report having good social relationships and self-actualization even if their basic needs and safety needs are not completely fulfilled."

While the recent research seems to support the idea of universal human needs, support for Maslow's ranked hierarchy remains elusive.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21688922




--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | Next >

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   North Spore Bulk Substrate   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Racism, Tribalism, and Ancestral Narcissism: The Precursors to Cultural and Societal Fratricide wyldeman007 2,764 9 05/04/10 03:35 PM
by wyldeman007
* The Origins of Narcissism Poid 3,061 12 03/18/10 03:46 AM
by Poid
* Black holes, individuality, unjust narcissism and social psychology floatingcharmer 1,896 9 03/14/10 11:42 PM
by Arden
* narcissism beatlesrock 579 2 09/20/02 07:24 PM
by In(di)go
* Means to an End
( 1 2 all )
silversoul7 1,684 23 12/29/03 05:02 AM
by fireworks_god
* Begining To See What Certain Concepts Mean Twirling 852 12 09/08/04 03:12 AM
by thelion
* The Meaning of Life
( 1 2 all )
Aaladorn 2,252 35 02/06/03 08:17 PM
by Cracka_X
* The Meaning of Life
( 1 2 all )
spinergy 2,954 29 07/23/03 01:57 AM
by Strumpling

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
4,934 topic views. 1 members, 6 guests and 29 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.025 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 14 queries.