So it is the case that we are born as individuals... — schopenhauer1
The responsibility to work with the established group norms, institutions, and settings are foisted upon the individual, and thus, one has been forced into the situation. — schopenhauer1
Though one may feel a personal obligation out of enculturated habits and personal preferences it is not anything more than an individual preference or habit of thinking. — schopenhauer1
Which is closer to the more accurate view? — schopenhauer1
Though one may feel a personal obligation out of enculturated habits and personal preferences it is not anything more than an individual preference or habit of thinking.
since the group shaped/shapes the individual, and the group, by-and-large, is also part of the reason the individual can survive and thrive, the person should feel a sense of duty to the established group.
And he who disobeys us[the law] is, as we maintain, thrice wrong: first, because in disobeying us he is disobeying his parents; secondly, because we are the authors of his education; thirdly, because he has made an agreement with us that he will duly obey our commands; and he neither obeys them nor convinces us that our commands are wrong; and we do not rudely impose them, but give him the alternative of obeying or convincing us; that is what we offer and he does neither.
And ironically this is likely the main reason for your pessimism. You exist in a consumer culture that wants you to decide what colour of iPod is "you". You exist in a Romantic culture where everyone must be the star of their own existential legend. — apokrisis
So there is definitely a problem - an imbalance. And it starts with believing we are "born an individual" rather than that individuality is an acquired life skill. And that for quite natural reasons, most people may in fact feel happier "fitting in" rather than "standing out".
So fitting in should be the culturally encouraged habit of preference. And yet standing out has become the odd and unnatural desire. What, at this point in human history, could be fueling such a turn of events? ;) — apokrisis
And he who disobeys us[the law] is, as we maintain, thrice wrong: first, because in disobeying us he is disobeying his parents; secondly, because we are the authors of his education; thirdly, because he has made an agreement with us that he will duly obey our commands; and he neither obeys them nor convinces us that our commands are wrong; and we do not rudely impose them, but give him the alternative of obeying or convincing us; that is what we offer and he does neither. — Cavacava
We owe nothing to the state, we owe everything to the universal value of human life. — Cavacava
What you seem to downplay is EVEN THOUGH we are shaped by the group, we still have WHAT IT FEELS LIKE to be an individual.. — schopenhauer1
f civilization also brought with it the self-reflection of how the individual fits with the group, then so that is what we have. — schopenhauer1
you are faultily socialised and so have that particular problem - not the global problem - is what has to be somehow repaired.
Which is where positive psychology comes in. >:) — apokrisis
So culturally, that Romantic backlash is what is informing your own current socialisation some 400 years later. It is the backdrop picture on which you "self-reflect". — apokrisis
It seems a really big issue to me. Even in philosophy - which is suppose to have a handle on these things - folk just don't have a clue about the proper definition of "being human" in a way that speaks to what is natural. Whether you think we are special souls or meaningless machines, these are both vivid cultural myths (that are serving their own largely unreflected-upon purposes). — apokrisis
So who makes the decision about the "faultily" part? — schopenhauer1
if Romantic means a greater self-awareness.. the label really doesn't matter to me". — schopenhauer1
You are unfairly characterizing my ideas as "special souls" or "meaningless machines" . I disagree with both, but you do not pick up the nuance or choose to downplay it to make a characterization. — schopenhauer1
You of course. If positive psychology has anything to offer, it is empowering you with the skills to discover what is your fault, what is the world's fault. — apokrisis
The two extreme oppositions would be soul vs machine, mind vs matter. If you can talk about people and groups in ways that sidesteps that most basic dichotomy in modern culture, go for it. — apokrisis
Ah yes.. so conditioning approved by the Village Green Preservation Society's standards of what counts as "the world's" fault and "your fault".. — schopenhauer1
I think you simply downplay the human ability to imagine for simply looking at established habits. — schopenhauer1
If the state is what reared you, and you decide to live under its conditions, you should then respect the norms and dictates of the state.. so he seems to imply. But is this really sound logic?
Bringing it closer to home.. do you owe society by following the dictates of a bossman?
So it is the case that we are born as individuals who are raised and shaped by society/culture/linguistic input (that itself originates from historical development/established norms and institutions). Humans, for the most part, need society to thrive. Let us say there are two main responses to this:
1.) The responsibility to work with the established group norms, institutions, and settings are foisted upon the individual, and thus, one has been forced into the situation. Though one may feel a personal obligation out of enculturated habits and personal preferences it is not anything more than an individual preference or habit of thinking.
2.) The responsibility to work with the established group norms, institutions, and settings are foisted upon the individual, and thus, even if one is forced into the situation, since the group shaped/shapes the individual, and the group, by-and-large, is also part of the reason the individual can survive and thrive, the person should feel a sense of duty to the established group.
Which is closer to the more accurate view? — schopenhauer1
So tell me more about this imaginative ability. What is its psychological origins?
Is it "computational" or "inspired" would you say? Or "somewhere in-between"? — apokrisis
Work is a complicated topic. So if you are paid for a service do you owe more than that service to the person/institution paying you since they are providing you with a job plus paying you for your work. I think that depends on how the owner deals with the staff, some form of the master/slave scenario. Of course you may also be alienated from you work...the modes of production...and so on.
Maybe this depends on the other people you find yourself working with. How they are treated, how they treat each other, you and the job, how the managers manage, how the owner leads the company. I do think some companies have distinct cultures, ways of performing, esprit de corps and I think this type of company attracts a lot of loyalty (obligation).
ps. I have no clue where all the quotes came from but can't seem to be rid of them :-#
You of course. If positive psychology has anything to offer, it is empowering you with the skills to discover what is your fault, what is the world's fault.
One already presumes it is going to be a mix of both (although you may be without personal flaw?). — apokrisis
Edit: To bring it to a more specific level, alluding to what you were saying, are you at the least, indebted to your employer for hiring you on for work which is a large part of what sustains the goods/services for survival (at least in our type of society)? Or, if everyone is born, and that is simply the case, without any choice being given in the matter, is a job more or less a right? This is now getting more political, because this can be a type of justification for social programs, etc.
Do I owe an employer more than the work I perform? Yes, I think so. In so far as my employer provides me with work, I am provided with a paycheck for services rendered and in so far as my employer provides me with a livelihood, a way of living, I owe my employer for this also. I do not think these are the same, this is why alienation is possible. Many work for a paycheck, but do not like what they are doing, they are not able to express the character of their life in their work. But this character of life must be expressed, and in capitalistic societies it is expressed by the accumulation of things. — Cavacava
Insofar as life is expressed by the work we do, our actions go beyond the material labor in which they are employed. Yes, we all have to work, and luck plays its part, but in free society we are not forced to work for any specific employer. — Cavacava
1.) The responsibility to work with the established group norms, institutions, and settings are foisted upon the individual, and thus, one has been forced into the situation. Though one may feel a personal obligation out of enculturated habits and personal preferences it is not anything more than an individual preference or habit of thinking.
2.) The responsibility to work with the established group norms, institutions, and settings are foisted upon the individual, and thus, even if one is forced into the situation, since the group shaped/shapes the individual, and the group, by-and-large, is also part of the reason the individual can survive and thrive, the person should feel a sense of duty to the established group. — schopenhauer1
We have extensive choices in all of this ONLY if we happen to have been born into great wealth. Otherwise, group norms and obligations apply with force. For 99% of us, there are personal preferences, but there is little choice. We are assembled, bent, shaped, molded, machined, and packaged to become more-or-less effective units of production and/or consumption (both are essential). There is a certain "looseness" in our construction which allows for preferences and choices.
If we are unlucky, we are given, find, or develop the illusion that we have many choices and are largely free of all of these obligations, and uncultured habits. Unlucky because these ideas of freedom are essentially incompatible with the facts of life, and anyone holding these illusions is going to crash into a great deal of cognitive dissonance, flak, resistance, friction, and control measures. — Bitter Crank
The synthesis of these is obligation: the worker to perform the work outlined by the employer, and the employer to enable and pay the worker for his labor. — Cavacava
I think a person wants to enjoy what they are doing, to see their work as productive, as an integral part of their lives. — Cavacava
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.