|
I do believe genetics also play a role, and our intelligence is varied, but I think people underrate the average status quo.
The average human mind can be quite capable with enough altercation and force into it, although it may never be as overall good as per say a talented one in area or field. Education, I believe is one such field anyone with at least the average mind, can excel in with the correct mentality.
From that example I said with the modernizations, I think people don't find the immediate need to get out there, there is no direct danger, therefore no strong feelings of change, and people end up fearing any altercations to their regulated lives.
And yes I agree that people are designed to be greedy, they want the best job, the best payroll, the best set of genes to make it out at top. But in the end, are they really happy? Never finding total satisfaction, moving from one thing to another, even changing friends and spouses through time, but to chose otherwise is to accept mediocrity for some. I find it troublesome to think about, many cases you end up so distant from your family/friends through your own selfish progress, or you have to sacrifice your own to benefit theirs. I think its rare for someone to be completely complacent with their lives, just perfectly the way they are, but I wonder if they're the ones truly happy, just completely appreciative of what they have at that moment in time.
|
Education, I believe is one such field anyone with at least the average mind, can excel in with the correct mentality.
I think that "the correct mentality" is influenced by genetics though. Consider the definition of "Type A" personalities, vs "Type B" personalities. I don't think those are purely a matter of circumstance. I think some people are simply more driven to be actively pursuing their goals that others. Essentially, this can make them smarter people, so long as they truly understand what their goals are, and how to achieve them (you can really want something, but if you go about it the wrong way, of course it won't work out; You exemplify this with the dilemma of sacrificing family for personal progress. I would argue family is a part of personal progress, and losing family would be losing progress in a lot of cases (presuming we're talking about your immediate family, wife, kids. Not all the random relatives you have, which for some people and cultures, aren't so highly valued)).
You may be right about people feeling no strong feelings of change when they are not in direct danger, but I couldn't say for sure. I haven't been in those shoes enough to distinguish it. I just know that for me, the worst feeling in the world is thinking about the future, and seeing a dark path. The only way to get out of that path, is to invent solutions and goals that will lead me away from it. If I let myself go to the dark path, I'm eternally disappointed and upset with myself. If I can look back on my past and say "I did everything I could," or at least "I tried very hard, and fought for what I wanted." I can at least feel satisfied that I haven't wasted my time.
As much as I can feel sorry for myself about particular events in my life, I chalk it up to bad luck because I acted intelligently at every step of the way, and didn't throw in the towel.
I think it's people who throw in the towel that get into these ruts and lose confidence in their ability to do anything. They get this sort of mentality "well I failed myself once, I guess I'm useless. Why should I think it's going to be any different this time?"
I'm of course going off on a tangent right now... I'm very confident with what I said in my OP post, but what I say now is more or less things that are vulnerable to change should I learn new things about the world.
|
...
didnt learn anything about shit.
gonna take a dump.
|
interesting read. could have titled it better though
|
In Canada, shit is synonymous with stuff, but more so on the negative side. Sorry for the confusion.
|
Well I'm completely different.
I've never really aspired to anything in the long run.
The magic of childhood was lost when my parents barely made an effort to hide the real identity of santa.
I never had dreams of being the "world's best ...".
I became really cynical around the age of 10 for a lot of reasons.
Friends were people you trusted and had fun with, but I never expected to "rely" on them.
As I got older I was just taking life as it came, no rush, still no fantastic goals.
I worked hard in school out of habit and because my parents/peers did.
Despite all this I'm a very happy person, satisfied with how life is going, and crap I got a lecture tomorrow morning better go to sleep.
|
The magic of childhood was lost when my parents barely made an effort to hide the real identity of santa.
Are you saying that Santa isn't who he says he is? WHAT'S HIS REAL IDENTITY? WHO IS HE WORKING FOR? THE AMERICANS? THE CHINESE? THE JAPANESE? THE RUSSIANS?
|
I think conditioning and similar elements are more responsible for our motivational drive than the behavioral patterns we are born with. Some children are born with being a little more aggressive than others, some more likely to be more violent, but its the socialization and norms that deliberately nullify those qualities over time.
Maybe a better example would be a people who are normally friendly and harmless individuals, but when put in a situation, such as war, kill pretty much anything in their way.
Growing up I had a pretty average work pattern, never worked hard or too lax, and in some cases hated the idea of doing my absolute best. But certain personal situations during high school made me fucked up, reluctant to focus, and performed rather poorly. Now that I'm in college, I find more motivation to work harder, to make up for my past. It could be said that its my personality trait to redeem myself over my mistakes is the factor, but its more that common feeling of guilt and failure everyone is capable of, that drives me. I'm almost 99% sure anyone who had experiences similar to mine would find the same reasons to work harder, and when we are put to certain conditions, we are capable of doing anything.
I think the students who don't work as hard is the same reason why people are afraid of change, they are in that comfort zone, conditioning the realization of the long-term effects will change that.
Also I would have to say I have known some Korean families that send their kids to the brink of suicide by forcing them to study to extremes just so that their family could look good to others, marriages ordained by money than love, and progress marked by their own reputations. I find these elements to be highly selfish goals, and some people are so egocentric enough to destroy their closest members/friends just so they can ride up the ladder. Some classic Shakespeare plays comes to mind.
There are some who even destroy the family unit, go about fucking every woman out there for their own lavished pleasures, without a care to the damage their spouses may receive, and I believe that is a condition pretty much every male is capable of, since I do think man's life in its natural form is short, brutish, solitary, and corruptible.
Personal progress is flexible and sometimes conflicting, even to family, and are disposable by some peoples' accords.
Santa Claus is a capitalist Christian-Anglo-Saxon conspiracy. OooOo
|
So because it is the nature of the human being to pursue pleasure for itself and flee from pain, i.e. to act in accordance with self-interest, do you think that human nature excuses itself, that we are thereby exempt from blame due to our grotesque imperfections? The notion that happiness is the aim of life is an entirely false and perverse belief. For if we are to say that the worth of a life amounts to the mere benefits that nature has bestowed on us in relation to others, what then of people who suffer throughout all their lives, such as those people inflicted by disease, poverty, or even deprivation of food or shelter? We must accordingly say that their lives possess no intrinsic value or worth, for they are devoid of the happiness which gives them meaning.
Furthermore, as you already seem to have discovered yourself, happiness in its ideal sense is something altogether unachievable: for man is a compound of needs and desires that are impossible to satiate, since the entire essence of the will to live consists in the continual striving for such satisfaction. In creating a better life for ourselves we set goals, the satisfaction of which is usually less fulfilling than what we had hoped it to be, and moreover it is only momentarily enjoyed or relished - for as a rule we always take what we have for granted and are never truly grateful for it, and our attention always redirects itself to what more we could have. We are then given to boredom, upon which we only look for other things to strive for. And so the cycle runs on, endlessly, until death - the fact of which might go to show that this continual wanting and striving is all in vain, for its final goal is nothing other than the extinguishment of the individual. Accordingly, it seems to me that this happiness of satisfaction is most strongly pronounced not in the fulfillment of goals, but rather in the anticipation of the pleasure we hope to receive with their achievement. We live with the promise that life will be better, but once it is, we are unable to see it.
And what does all this wanting and striving imply with respect to the individual? Is his life not a constant struggle? - And not merely a struggle against his desires or against boredom, but also, really, an actual struggle against other human beings. For in satisfying our own desires, we are in effect limiting the means by which others can satisfy theirs.
"For the world says: 'You have needs, therefore satisfy them, for you have the same rights as the noblest and richest men. Do not be afraid to satisfy them, but even increase them' - that is the modern doctrine of the world. In that they see freedom. And what follows from this right of multiplication of desires? In the rich, isolation and spiritual suicide; in the poor, envy and murder; for they have been given rights, but have not been shown the means of satisfying their wants. . . . Interpreting freedom as the multiplication and rapid satisfaction of desires, men distort even their own nature, for many senseless and foolish desires and habits and ridiculous fancies are fostered in them. They live only for mutual envy, for luxury and ostentation. . . . And therefore the idea of the service of humanity, of brotherly love and the solidarity of mankind, is more and more dying out in the world, and indeed this idea is sometimes treated with derision. For how can a man shake off his habits, what can become of him if he is in such bondage to the habit of satisfying the innumerable desires he has created for himself? He is isolated, and what concern has he with the rest of humanity? They have succeeded in accumulating a greater mass of objects, but the joy in the world has grown less." (Fyodor Dostoevsky, "The Brothers Karamazov", p. 289 Garnett translation).
What gives life value is not the glut of the senses, not the pursuit of happiness or self-interest, but our willingness to participate in the suffering of others, or our willingness to suffer for the purpose of separating ourselves from existence, freeing the ego from all passion and desire. (This latter, however, being the characterization of asceticism, is something quite unattainable for most human beings, and is only practiced by a select few. The ascetic is fully cognizant of the fact that the pleasures of the world are what bring about the suffering of the world, that they both go hand-in-hand; and that one must accordingly forsake the pleasures of the world and live in suffering in order to be freed from both). In short, it can all be summed up by the terms compassion and a willingness to suffer.
Furthermore, in such a world as ours where hardship, toil, unfulfilled desire, and boredom are undeniably the common lot of humanity, what moral right does anyone have to be happy? - To flaunt the preference which nature has given him for no apparent reason or purpose, and so mock the suffering victims of the world with a nonchalant air in the face of their tribulations? That happiness implies guilt shows itself in the motivation of compassion, in acts such as giving to charity, or helping a homeless person on the street: is it not always because we feel guilty before them? We feel guilty that they should have so little, and we so much. What cruelty of nature! – Which, however, men do nothing but accept graciously when it is they who receive the better side of the coin. Thus if you want to know the moral worth of people in general, you need only look around you in society and observe their careless and indifferent response to the suffering of others: e.g. the manner in which they walk past the beggars in the streets, without any sign of an emotional affect, or, if they are in a group, without any sign of a mitigation of their frivolous chatter; or simply the manner in which most people treat others, i.e. the attitude of “it’s your problem, not mine!” It is precisely because they feel not the guilt of their existence that they are unconcerned with the well-being of others. All good deeds proceed not from the desire to maximize happiness, but from a feeling of guilt. Thus the Spanish poet Calderon wrote: “The greatest guilt of man is that he was born”.
By all this I certainly do not mean to justify the actions of your friend, since it was suffering that she feared, brought about by her own selfish desire which she deemed incapable of fulfillment, and which left her isolated from humanity in a state of despair. But it is important to realize that while suffering of this kind is certainly not praiseworthy (since it is suffering brought about by egoism), the pursuit of happiness (or at least happiness as the satisfaction of desire) should likewise be regarded as being reprehensible; since it is precisely this self-interested behavior - whose emptiness and vanity was discussed above - that is the root of all suffering and cruelty in the world.
|
United States17042 Posts
On October 09 2008 07:59 PsycHOTemplar wrote:Show nested quote +The magic of childhood was lost when my parents barely made an effort to hide the real identity of santa. Are you saying that Santa isn't who he says he is? WHAT'S HIS REAL IDENTITY? WHO IS HE WORKING FOR? THE AMERICANS? THE CHINESE? THE JAPANESE? THE RUSSIANS?
The polar bears at the north pole...duh...
|
If I understood your correctly, I can say this: I respect that those are you views, but I do not agree with them.
I do not really believe in morality. That is, that there are ultimate rights and wrongs. Right and wrong is defined by what brings you pleasure, and what brings you pain. Furthermore, I do not agree that all pleasure is the result of someone else's pain. If two people have sex, and no child is born, who exactly experienced pain for their pleasure?
Since it might be confusing, I will have to clarify what I mean by pain. I use pain in a very broad sense, and yet I mean something very specific. I mean the things that truly make you wish you weren't experiencing that moment. Sometimes, when you break a bone, when you break up with someone, when you work a long shift, you are investing in your pleasure later. Sometimes just experiencing the pain is a pleasure in and of itself, because it makes you feel more complete as a human being to have experienced such a variety of feelings. In such a case I would say that pain is not necessarily so obvious. Still. We will attempt evasion of whatever we perceive to be pain.
The notion that happiness is the aim of life is an entirely false and perverse belief. For if we are to say that the worth of a life amounts to the mere benefits that nature has bestowed on us in relation to others, what then of people who suffer throughout all their lives, such as those people inflicted by disease, poverty, or even deprivation of food or shelter? We must accordingly say that their lives possess no intrinsic value or worth, for they are devoid of the happiness which gives them meaning.
It's not the benefits bestowed upon us in relation to others, it's the pleasures we gain that we did not have before. Comparing past self, to present self. I don't think those people are devoid of happiness. There are moments in everyone's life that brings that happiness, no matter what their social class. I firmly believe the things most influential to our happiness are our friends and family. Development of interpersonal relationships. Another strong influence is the amount of artistic expression we're able to output in our lives. But that is neither here nor there. I'm not judging the value of someone's life, I'm explaining the reasons people do things.
I can't agree that happiness is unachievable. You say that as human beings, we are continually unsatisfied, and I agree with that (and I've even said it already in this thread), but I don't think that's necessarily a requirement of happiness. To say that it is, means I have never been happy, which is proven false by the simplest of observable facts... How proud I've felt after finishing a piece of art, feeling proud again when others told me they thought it was good too, and knowing that I'd accomplished something. It brought me pleasure, whether that seems logical or not. Perhaps for a moment I was even completely satisfied to just sit back and feel proud of myself, until I moved onto my next goal. In the future even, if I fill my life with these accomplishments, I will feel proud of the life I've lived.
You say that many of our actions are motivated by guilt. I think that if one has been trained by society to feel guilty, then that is a pain they want to evade. I don't think it contradicts what I've said.
In my opinion, all 'good deeds' are motivated by selfish concern. It's simply the social contract. I help you today, so that someone will help me tomorrow. No man is an island, so why not embrace the pleasures and benefits of a community?
Honestly, I think the mention of 'morality' in any argument is ludicrous because it is either self-defined, or not even believed in. It is thus a false premise that only like-minded individuals will be able to follow thru to your conclusions, which is useless.
|
On October 09 2008 14:55 PsycHOTemplar wrote:
I do not really believe in morality. That is, that there are ultimate rights and wrongs. Right and wrong is defined by what brings you pleasure, and what brings you pain. Furthermore, I do not agree that all pleasure is the result of someone else's pain. If two people have sex, and no child is born, who exactly experienced pain for their pleasure?
Hedonism is in fact a moral theory. You say that you do not believe in morality, yet you contradict yourself by equating 'right' and 'wrong' with 'pleasure' and 'pain'.
It is true that not all pleasure is the result of another's suffering; but what is important to realize here is that, as payment for a momentary, fleeting experience of satisfaction, i.e. pleasure, we only provoke desire anew, and our desire necessarily becomes compounded, coarsened, and/or more pressing. To take the example of sexual intercourse, the desire for what was once a beautiful presentation of emotional sensations, now satisfied, seeks novelty in the grotesque, and indulges itself in sensual coarseness and vulgarity. The sex drive moreover can easily become uncontrollable, since it is, after all, the call of nature, and this desire can easily consume one's life. People very often spend much more time desiring sex than they do in the act itself.
It is also noteworthy to mention that all pleasures, even the most seemingly harmless, have the potential to cause suffering to others, of which the experiencer is in many cases completely unawares; much of the world's suffering is perhaps a result of these sorts of pleasures in their totality.
But the issue here is not whether a particular desire in an isolated situation causes more pleasure or more pain. A pleasure is merely the negation of suffering - a temporary relief from the emptiness of existence, i.e. from boredom. For the individual who constantly affirms this desire for pleasure, it is always in vain; for in the end he is really isolating himself from the whole, whereby he more and more adamantly adopts the perspective that he is the axis of the world, from which he sees everything in relation to his own person; in the end, he is really causing more distress in the world, both for himself and for others.
That the satisfaction of desire can be experienced in moderation does not absolve it from reprehensibility, since every desire is a component of this process of isolation. Accordingly, one must come to the realization that desires cannot simply be harmful in their conflicts of interest with other individuals, in the harm and injury that they cause others; but that, if this is what they bring about, they must be in essence detrimental and reprehensible, and thus the entire will to live itself reprehensible.
It's not the benefits bestowed upon us in relation to others, it's the pleasures we gain that we did not have before. Comparing past self, to present self. I don't think those people are devoid of happiness. There are moments in everyone's life that brings that happiness, no matter what their social class. I firmly believe the things most influential to our happiness are our friends and family. Development of interpersonal relationships. Another strong influence is the amount of artistic expression we're able to output in our lives. But that is neither here nor there. I'm not judging the value of someone's life, I'm explaining the reasons people do things.
When I speak of happiness, I am regarding it in the sense that most people think of happiness: e.g. the comforts of luxury, of having an attractive home, of being able to afford nice meals, parties, vacations - all in all, the satisfaction of desire. There is of course a sense of joy that we receive from our relationships with friends and family, and its essence is rooted in compassion. As I said before in another thread, all true love in the world is really compassion, or our willingness to participate in the suffering of another, and anything we give the name "love" to that does not meet this criteria can be called nothing other than selfish desire. Most of our strong relationships are obviously a mixture of the two. In our relationships with friends, for instance, selfishness is shown in the desire for the pleasure we receive when being with someone whose personality harmonizes with our own, and compassion shows itself in our willingness to participate in their welfare and woe, console them in hardship, etc. But compassion is what gives these relationships their vitality, from which there proceeds that sense of joy; and since compassion is one's suffering over the cognizance of another's pain, i.e. a denial of the self for the sake of another, it is through suffering - not pleasure - that this joy is realized.
You say that many of our actions are motivated by guilt. I think that if one has been trained by society to feel guilty, then that is a pain they want to evade. I don't think it contradicts what I've said.
When I speak of guilt I am not talking about the influence of society, but the individual's intuitive cognizance of the essence of things in themselves. - And what I mean by that is the intuition that we are just as responsible for all the suffering in the world as anyone else is. This is a difficult idea to express clearly, and I am not feeling up to the task. Perhaps I am not even capable of expressing it clearly.
In my opinion, all 'good deeds' are motivated by selfish concern. It's simply the social contract. I help you today, so that someone will help me tomorrow. No man is an island, so why not embrace the pleasures and benefits of a community?
Beneficent deeds done with selfish motives are not worthy to be called virtuous, since they proceed not from guilt but from egoism. Those that do proceed from guilt are done not for pleasure's sake but for the sake of virtue alone. Just look at the fact that all actions we deem as being noble or virtuous always constitute a renunciation of the self. Every action done by one which shows an unselfish disregard for his own person is seen with an aura of nobility.
Honestly, I think the mention of 'morality' in any argument is ludicrous because it is either self-defined, or not even believed in. It is thus a false premise that only like-minded individuals will be able to follow thru to your conclusions, which is useless.
That is why in making my moral argument I have tried not to state my moral beliefs as premises, but rather as conclusions based on evidence. You may disagree with the validity of my reasoning, but what it comes down to is that any argument outside the realm of math and science is subject to opinion; therefore, if you think it's ludicrous to argue about morality, perhaps you shouldn't be saying anything at all about your perceptions of life, humanity, etc, since "only like-minded individuals will be able to follow through to your conclusions".
|
But that's exactly it. I AM arguing about science and math. Pleasure and pain are not intrinsic to morality. Morality is by definition, a set of rules one follows without knowing why. He or she simply just knows that they are good or bad. Someone of moral values will say "Stealing is always wrong," "Killing is always wrong," but if you got the point of my OP, you see that I'm saying experience will defy these naive beliefs, the same way experience defies the belief that everyone is looking out for you. Stealing from someone because if you don't you, and maybe your family will die, would cause one to question the practicality of such morals, and realise that they are a socially created institution that serves only particular members of society. Not something that gets you into heaven or hell or whatever you believe in (I believe in nothing with regards to religion, and therefore am not restricted in this way).
Pleasure and pain are chemical reactions in your brain. Whenever you feel happy, or sad, it's because the make-up of your brain has changed; it's released particular chemicals. This has nothing to do with one's soul feeling virtuous. If you could somehow release these chemicals at will without doing anything, you would feel the same way as if you just saved someone's life. In fact, in some ways you sort of can (hard drugs), but these are dangerous to long term goals, and prove to have painful consequences later anyway, when your pain can produce the chemicals anymore due to overuse and abuse of the drug.
Essentially what I'm saying is... I don't understand how self-pursuit of pleasure could possibly be reprehensible, when it's what everyone does. Nor how any human being can be what you seem to define as noble and virtuous. The reason society hold such characteristics of 'virtue and nobility' so high are because they are beneficial to the whole. The individual will be praised for his or her good deeds, and the chemicals in his or her brain will alter to make him or her feel proud. That's it. We like when other people do stuff for us, so of course we're going to encourage them to do it more by congratulating them for it. It's such a basic understanding of psychology, most people have either figured that out (this is why we say 'please' and 'thank you'), and even if they don't know why it's true, they've seen examples of it so often that it becomes written into their 'moral code' where things don't need to make sense for them to believe in them.
Take this for example. Although I'm not positive of the validity, I was once told this story about a woman and her baby in a Nazi concentration camp. The woman and the baby were trapped inside a vat with water. The vat was slowly filled with water, and the woman held her baby above the water for awhile. But then the water started getting to the point where she wasn't tall enough to stand above it either. In desperation for her own fear of drowning, she put the baby below the surface and stood on it. The point of this story being that she saved her baby while it was convenient to her pleasure, keeping her child alive, but as soon as she realised she wasn't going to live if she did that, she evaded the pain of drowning by sacrificing her baby. You could call it selfish or horrible if you want, but it's human nature. The only people who sacrifice themselves for a cause are those dreaming of being remembered, those already suicidal (so that it coincides with their goals anyway), and possibly some deviants whose pleasure chemicals are released by nature when they throw away their lives like that.
In the end, what I'm saying is that wisdom comes from the shedding of irrationality. The things you can't explain or understand must be viewed with a skeptical eye. Morality is only a temporary replacement until you can fully understand the background of your beliefs.
PS: When I speak of happiness, I am regarding it in the sense that most people think of happiness: e.g. the comforts of luxury, of having an attractive home, of being able to afford nice meals, parties, vacations - all in all, the satisfaction of desire.
This is known as "The American Dream." I think few people still fall prey to its foolishness. At least, I don't not envision happiness coming from purely material wealth. It's not what I'm talking about, and it's certainly not happiness for most people (and if it were, I'm not one to judge except that it influences me).
PPS: If you still don't understand... There is no such things as an evil person. There is no such things as a good person. There is only people you don't want to live in this world with, and people you do. Murder may be brought about by that fact, but one must understand that as much as someone else might be an obstacle for their pleasure, they are equally an obstacle for this person's pleasure. Thus, pity is an emotion of convenience, and logical only in that it serves your pursuit of pleasure.
|
I'll tell you what experience specifically shattered the illusion of self-righteousness for me, or at least what was the final string.
When I had to abandon the person in my OP, I was so conflicted with wanting to do 'the right thing' and stay by her, no matter what. But from the experience, I began to realise it was so far away from my interests, and that this person was hurting me and bringing me so much pain, that such a belief was foolish. I felt so terrible for so long afterward, and still feel bad sometimes, because my nativity had been completely stolen from me. There is no such thing as 'forever' in a friendship. There's only 'as long as you bring me pleasure and help me evade pain, or at least that it's foreseeable you will do so in the future, I will do the same for you,' A person will help their friend out of a rut, but if that friend is never getting out... That friend is getting abandoned. It goes against everything you've ever seen in the movies, and been brainwashed with from T.V., but there it is, right in your face and you have to accept it. You have to accept it, or let yourself get destroyed (which is only possible if you truly get some pleasure from being destroyed for your cause).
|
Yeah, I agree with what you mean, relationships really are artificial when it comes down to it. But that doesn't mean they are worthless. They still bring you happiness and support. So instead of binding yourself to a particular relationship or feeling bitter about it, you should let it develop as it should go. If the relationship just simply doesn't work, I don't see at all why you should blame yourself or the other person. At one point I used to get really bothered by the fact that for some unexplicable reason I really couldn't stand my former best friend. I just irrationally didn't like him anymore. However, eventually I just came to grips with the fact that I stood nothing to gain from trying to be friends with him and he stood nothing to gain either, for it would just be a forced friendship. So I just let it go.
Some may argue that you should stick with her to help her out. I agree that you cannot just be cold-hearted and leave people alone that desperately need your help. However, there just comes a point where this person is no longer the person that you once had a friendship with but somebody else living a new life. What could you accomplish by attempting to help her out? I don't know if you can ever return to what you two once were, perfect friends. Especially considering how she seems to be pushing you away. I'm not saying "fuck this bitch, it's her choice move on", but yeah we as humans fundamentally care about ourselves. If this girl is hurting you so much, then it's time to just forget about her. Sure its selfish but is "selfish" really bad in this case?
Just out of curiosity, is this the same girl that wrote that short story for you?
Btw the story about the woman in the Nazi concentration camp sounds like complete bullshit lol.
|
Well, if you read about Nazi experiments (we've learned a TONNE about humans from them, however inhumane), I wouldn't put it beyond them to attempt such an experiment. I just couldn't tell you how reliable the result is, because I don't actually have the source (which I apologise for).
I didn't mean to imply friendships are worthless at all. I value my friendships dearly, and important commodities and aids to my happiness.
Some people would argue this, but I think if I were to explain the whole situation, they would agree I 'stuck it out' for at least as long as was reasonable, and in my opinion longer. This isn't the same girl who wrote the short story for me, of course  She hasn't given me any trouble, but even if she had been recently, not enough time has passed for me to leave her out to dry when she had written that in the pursuit of my own pleasure. I quite enjoyed her story, and I find my friendship with her to be adequately reciprocative.
The friend I am talking about was different. It was giant extending periods of unequal friendship, where I would put so much in, and she would put almost nothing (and not even understandably so; the only thing she was so 'busy' with, was doing dick all and playing StarCraft UMS maps all day). I would have understood if she were getting a job like she should have and I encouraged her to, if she had been trying to network and extend her social circle like I encouraged her to, if she had gone to school like I encouraged her to, if she had at least been attempting to deal with family issues, etc etc etc. But she was just wasting her time playing a video game. It wasn't that she was addicted, either. She just kept trying to escape life. It could have been anything retarded.
Basically I got fed up with being blown off countless times while telling and showing her that if she was pushing me away, that's just where I was going to go. She always denied it, but actions speak louder than words. One concept she never quite figured out while I was friends with her. It's not just about saying you're someone's friend, or saying you love them, it's actually being their friend, and acting based on your love for them.
I mean... It wasn't fair to me. I wasn't going to destroy myself for someone who didn't care about me anymore. The good times were too short, and our history wasn't long enough to justify it.
|
I won't lie, I'm only giving one side of the coin here. It wasn't me always just trying to help her. It was me expecting her to help me in my dark times after I'd helped her so much, and her not reciprocating. I mean.. in good times, she was there for me... But she just stopped. She used petty arguments as excuses to be mad at me, when she was getting mad at me for getting mad at her for not being a friend I could count on (which I felt was unfair, because at the time she was able to count on me). Which is ultimately what I mean by pushing me away... She was constantly looking for excuses to hate me, and she'd even know later that they weren't valid at all.
But I mean... This is a whole other story and not really anyone's business... So I think I should stop with details of it here.
|
United Arab Emirates38 Posts
I read the first post and was going to make a reply but the amount of longer posts that already replied are totally too long to read through. Does this make me an idiot for not achieving my goals?
|
The replies are largely questions about my OP, and me responding to them. They branch off into separate arguments, but they're not integral if you just want to say something about the OP.
I don't think it makes you an idiot You just didn't foresee how much more you might have to read, and thus deemed it no longer worth it to continue. Being an idiot is knowing what will make you happy, and then not doing it even if you are able to. Being unfortunate is having the circumstances around you change suddenly, which radically alter your options, and leave what progress you've made less valuable than you originally calculated it to be from your original point of view.
Such as the time you spend becoming emotionally attached to a person, only to have them taken away from you, by some unstoppable, cruel force. The initial investment was wise, but the end result was a 'bad beat' (to use the poker term).
|
So it's like going 12nexus vs 4pool.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
