On the Nature of Things | Forum

NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:

Simple Minded wrote:

NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:
One could also down a jar of pills to make those anxious feelings meaningless.

are you implying that Big Pharma is behind the death of the self-esteem movement?

makes sense.

lower self-esteem could also be a result of AGW!

You're gonna get all uppity now? We better get you some pills.

Thanks Bro!

Red peanut M&M's work great too.
Blues ones, not so much.
Yellows are downers.

I read that self-esteem is subjective. Personally, I don't think so.

We all know we're all special. And even the most altruistic egalitarians know that some animals are more special than other animals.

"Who else but the self can be master of the self? With self well controlled, another master is hard to find."

Go-Pro video cameras, cell phones, smart phones, the internet, Facebook, YouTube, MySpace, the Kardashians, Paris Hilton, chat rooms, forums........

Easier to record and easier to publish than ever before.

Other than easy, effortless access to a bigger audience, what is changing about the concept of self?

Perhaps lack of actual personal interaction is being replaced by imagination?

Maybe some in Humanity prefer only knowing others to the 20% level rather than the 80% level?

Or knowing thousands superficially rather than dozens well?

"You are what you are only when no one is looking." "Big Brother is watching you."

Perhaps self-awareness (knowledge of who am I) is being replaced by uncertain self-consciousness or vanity (how do those who do not know me perceive me?) or celebrity (I have high self-esteem because I have a lot of likes on Facebook, in Ayn Rand terminology, a "second-hander" who is more a mirror than a self-aware person).

Change brought about by generational cycles, technology, or zeitgeist?

Don't be distracted by the fluff, SM. Recent developments are only an extension of a long decline in authentic relationship with each other.

One cannot know who one is without relationship, and relationship requires community. Community, in turn, requires an urgent sense of concern, of a shared genuine sense of faith, which, of what remained of that after the Reformation, was lost in the demonic horrors of the 20th century and replaced by the trivial: consumerism, “have a nice day” religion, the gospels of "prosperity" and "success," and sophistic “objectivist” philosophies extolling the self justified virtues of selfishness and conceit.

What does “self” mean? What does it mean to be a human being? Possessing money, success, assorted stuff? Being of a particular political, national, or religious affection? The capacity for violence in order to kick butt and experience a transitory sense of "victory?" The pretense of a “worldly wise” cynicism? It is all pure bullshit, whether it is posted in Facebook, or on other internet venues such as this one.

“God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?”

Other than perhaps Paul Tillich, no one with serious religious concerns has addressed Nietzsche’s challenge. Until we do, understanding of what it means to be a human being, a “self” is likely to continue elude us to the continued degradation of our faith and our relations.

Self-esteem, too much, too little.. why not just talk about confidence and fear? Both functions are part of life.

Confidence allows you to do things properly and right amounts of fear prevent you from taking too much risk. Too much confidence can have disastrous effects.. and too much fear can be harmful by unnecessarily paralyzing you. Somebody who is too confident believing he can make a jump over a 6 meter wide cliff without proper training probably crashes down and dies. Somebody too afraid jumping over a 1,5 meter wide cliff with a water source at the other side... may die of thirst.. just sitting down paralyzed and hoping or even praying for miracles.

Learning means fears have to be conquered and confidence is improved. Both excessive self-esteem and excessive fear (lack of self-esteem) can therefor be viewed as a deficiency in learning ability.

kmich wrote:Don't be distracted by the fluff, SM. Recent developments are only an extension of a long decline in authentic relationship with each other.

One cannot know who one is without relationship, and relationship requires community. Community, in turn, requires an urgent sense of concern, of a shared genuine sense of faith, which, of what remained of that after the Reformation, was lost in the demonic horrors of the 20th century and replaced by the trivial: consumerism, “have a nice day” religion, the gospels of "prosperity" and "success," and sophistic “objectivist” philosophies extolling the self justified virtues of selfishness and conceit.

What does “self” mean? What does it mean to be a human being? Possessing money, success, assorted stuff? Being of a particular political, national, or religious affection? The capacity for violence in order to kick butt and experience a transitory sense of "victory?" The pretense of a “worldly wise” cynicism? It is all pure bullshit, whether it is posted in Facebook, or on other internet venues such as this one.

“God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?”

Other than perhaps Paul Tillich, no one with serious religious concerns has addressed Nietzsche’s challenge. Until we do, understanding of what it means to be a human being, a “self” is likely to continue elude us to the continued degradation of our faith and our relations.

kmitch,

Mo worries or No worries, that is the question!

It has always been the dawning of the Age of Aquarius or Armageddon. I think it is largely determined by the one's chosen foci one! Thank God!

In spite of the ever changing fads, fashions, and sensibilities of humanity, I have the utmost confidence in the consistency of human nature.

"Even the seemingly immortal gods survive only as long as they are needed by mortal men."
Priests, philosophers, politicians, celebrities, heroes, and other idols have a considerably shorter lifespan or shelf life.

One man's admired teacher, philosopher, mentor, or savior is another man's babbling ID-ee-ot. I suspect it has always been so.

"God is dead." - Nietzsche 1883
"Nietzsche is dead." - God 1900

To me, the person who states: “God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him." sounds a lot like the person who says "I am the NN%!" or "I represent the _____ community/group/nation/movement." They speak only for themselves, yet feel exaggeration will increase their significance. Vanity of vanities! No wonder they are unhappy in their (wait for it...) self-delusion.

At first I thought if Paul Tillich is the only one who has addressed this concern, than it must not be much of a concern for most. But thanks to modern tech, a couple minutes of Googling yields (a gold mine for Parodite):

https://www.google.com/search?q=god+is+ ... B500%3B335

Sorry Bro, I ran out of my stopbeingsuchadick steroids two days ago! Inflammation is rampant!

modernity destroys the primitive and traditional within a generation or two tops or triggers a monsterous kickback in self defense as per the islamists.

seeing as how the young so quickly and easily run away from the faith and its strict relations how can we say it is a superior outcome.

the traditionals dont have existential loneliness like we do, this is true, but they have other problems like stagnant boredom and loss of meaning in the face of wider realities.

you cant escape the sourdough (channelling spengler) and i suspect its romantic dreaming to think our ancestoral generations didnt have the full quota of human paths to self destruction.

noddy wrote:modernity destroys the primitive and traditional within a generation or two tops or triggers a monsterous kickback in self defense as per the islamists.

seeing as how the young so quickly and easily run away from the faith and its strict relations how can we say it is a superior outcome.

the traditionals dont have existential loneliness like we do, this is true, but they have other problems like stagnant boredom and loss of meaning in the face of wider realities.

you cant escape the sourdough (channelling spengler) and i suspect its romantic dreaming to think our ancestoral generations didnt have the full quota of human paths to self destruction.

Well said as always mate. The battle cry of teen age existential angst may have always vacilated between "I don't understand the world, I'll never fit in!" and "The world is bad, adults don't know f**k all, we need to change it!" Sooner or later most of them get it. The inclined path?

Old farts see the world changing from the familiar and known, to the unknown, and perhaps undesirable, by their long held standards. "The world is changing into something I don't understand and don't want to participate in!" The declined path?

The intersection is the rational life. Defined however one wishes. I recall the quote "The definition of practical is determined by what one wishes to practice." Hmmmm.... the definition of rational is determined by what one wishes to rationalize?

Modern tech just allows more confirmation bias and extended time in one's preferred bubble. Better connected and less significant. Good news is we're all 0.0000000014%ers! Bad news is now we're are aware that there are more others out there than we previously realized, and aware of our reduced relative significance.

The celebrate diversity vs the group identity conundrum!

noddy wrote:modernity destroys the primitive and traditional within a generation or two tops or triggers a monsterous kickback in self defense as per the islamists.

I agree and this is the main reason why I reject that "Islam is evil" crap.

the traditionals dont have existential loneliness like we do, this is true, but they have other problems like stagnant boredom and loss of meaning in the face of wider realities.

Or, as Typhoon once put it, modern alienation versus onerous family obligations.

YMix wrote:
Or, as Typhoon once put it, modern alienation versus onerous family obligations.

Love it! Poetically and beautifully cynical! I bow yet again to my sensei!

Many times I have heard, "What? You are ___'s brother, or _____'s son? But you are nothing like him!"

To which, I have always replied "Thank you. It's intentional!"

Simple Minded wrote:Many times I have heard, "What? You are ___'s brother, or _____'s son? But you are nothing like him!"

To which, I have always replied "Thank you. It's intentional!"

I'll remember this one.

Every human being requires meaning, dignity, and respect for themselves. In traditional societies, communities are very stable: people live together in the same extended groups for many generations, rarely travel outside their communities, and are typically agrarian. Religious and cultural traditions are well established, so personal meaning is never really in question. You have your role in your station in the community and you either serve that well or you don’t. “Self-esteem” as a challenge simply does not exist. However, the world around you is extremely unstable. You are subject famines, diseases, and violence from competing communities and rootless brigands.

In modern, “non-traditional” societies, the world around us is remarkably safe and secure compared to the traditional world. In spite of our periodic health and “terrorism” hysterias, we are not subject to the famines, diseases, and inter-communal violence of our bygone eras as well as what continues in much of what we call our contemporary “third “world. However, our developed communities are extremely unstable. Rarely do we live in one place or stay in the same job. Our public spaces have gone from town squares and meeting halls to glitzy shopping malls and Twitter feeds, from communal interaction to individual rapacity and hollow attempts at self-promotion. So how do we develop our sense of personal dignity and self-worth under these meretricious conditions where we are no longer able to assume our value or derive it from established community relations?

The “self-esteem” movement, an initially well intentioned effort derived from humanistic psychology and naively promoted by educators, ended up trivializing the whole problem of human dignity. Our dignity is cheapened by indulgence and narcissism, and is enhanced by our honest self-appraisals, accountability, and service to others in our communities. Since the beginnings of the “self-esteem” movement, the idols of indulgence and narcissism have long surpassed this quaint development of the 1970’s and now infect all aspects of our civic and political lives. Our “value” is hinged upon what we possess in money and material “stuff,” our experiences of violence or power over others, or in our identification with a particular party, movement, or belief that is typically defined by those we self-righteously oppose or smugly dismiss. This, of course leads to further social fragmentation and ultimately, disintegration.

Can there be a way for us to recover? Do not look to our current secular, religious, and governmental institutions or factions – most of them are already on the train of vacuous self-absorption blindly speeding along to the societal disintegration destination already. Honest critical self-examination, reflection, and ultimately seeking service to others where possible is probably all we can really do.

“You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Matthew 20: 25-28)

YMix wrote:

noddy wrote:modernity destroys the primitive and traditional within a generation or two tops or triggers a monsterous kickback in self defense as per the islamists.

I agree and this is the main reason why I reject that "Islam is evil" crap.

I dont believe in the islam is evil crap either however their are areas of murky grey in all that.

if we went back a couple of hundred years id also suggest people didnt let the english traders land in their countries and i can say that without having any issues of disliking the english or the christian, id just be acknowledging a certain imperial strain that was alive and well in the culture at that point in time - the japanese and the americans both went that route i believe.

the angry wahabbi strain is part of islam right now, i dont feel any need to have more of it in my life.

i woulnt go importing angry chav's from the wastelands of england by choice either, i dont need more glassings at the pub or king hits on the street.

i can be totally relatvistic about this, their are plenty of groups who havent dealt with modernity very well and importing them wont make your country a better place.

YMix wrote:

the traditionals dont have existential loneliness like we do, this is true, but they have other problems like stagnant boredom and loss of meaning in the face of wider realities.

Or, as Typhoon once put it, modern alienation versus onerous family obligations.

exactly

kmich wrote:Every human being requires meaning, dignity, and respect for themselves. In traditional societies, communities are very stable: people live together in the same extended groups for many generations, rarely travel outside their communities, and are typically agrarian. Religious and cultural traditions are well established, so personal meaning is never really in question. You have your role in your station in the community and you either serve that well or you don’t. “Self-esteem” as a challenge simply does not exist. However, the world around you is extremely unstable. You are subject famines, diseases, and violence from competing communities and rootless brigands.

In modern, “non-traditional” societies, the world around us is remarkably safe and secure compared to the traditional world. In spite of our periodic health and “terrorism” hysterias, we are not subject to the famines, diseases, and inter-communal violence of our bygone eras as well as what continues in much of what we call our contemporary “third “world. However, our developed communities are extremely unstable. Rarely do we live in one place or stay in the same job. Our public spaces have gone from town squares and meeting halls to glitzy shopping malls and Twitter feeds, from communal interaction to individual rapacity and hollow attempts at self-promotion. So how do we develop our sense of personal dignity and self-worth under these meretricious conditions where we are no longer able to assume our value or derive it from established community relations?

The “self-esteem” movement, an initially well intentioned effort derived from humanistic psychology and naively promoted by educators, ended up trivializing the whole problem of human dignity. Our dignity is cheapened by indulgence and narcissism, and is enhanced by our honest self-appraisals, accountability, and service to others in our communities. Since the beginnings of the “self-esteem” movement, the idols of indulgence and narcissism have long surpassed this quaint development of the 1970’s and now infect all aspects of our civic and political lives. Our “value” is hinged upon what we possess in money and material “stuff,” our experiences of violence or power over others, or in our identification with a particular party, movement, or belief that is typically defined by those we self-righteously oppose or smugly dismiss. This, of course leads to further social fragmentation and ultimately, disintegration.

Can there be a way for us to recover? Do not look to our current secular, religious, and governmental institutions or factions – most of them are already on the train of vacuous self-absorption blindly speeding along to the societal disintegration destination already. Honest critical self-examination, reflection, and ultimately seeking service to others where possible is probably all we can really do.

“You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Matthew 20: 25-28)

ive noticed stoic thinking is appearing in an increasing amount of places around the web as i trawl.

its the perfect antidote to the excess of the self esteem movement and balances the need for a healthy self worth against the realities of our childish ego's, emotions and instincts.

as for our 'value' - i think its taking a beating against their being 7 billion of us and im not quite sure how that resolves in a way which leaves individuals special.

noddy wrote:the angry wahabbi strain is part of islam right now, i dont feel any need to have more of it in my life.

No-one needs that.

i woulnt go importing angry chav's from the wastelands of england by choice either, i dont need more glassings at the pub or king hits on the street.

I've added "glassing" and "king hit" to my vocabulary.

YMix wrote:
I've added "glassing" and "king hit" to my vocabulary.

you are now ready to visit newcastle, or the rougher australian burbs with lots of ex-poms.

YMix wrote:Or, as Typhoon once put it, modern alienation versus onerous family obligations.

why can't we have both?

Doc wrote:

Nonc Hilaire wrote:We need to differentiate self-esteem from self-concept. High self-esteem comes from an accurate self concept. What this so-called self-esteem movement was actually an artificially high self-conception.

That sounds about right.

seconded, however belatedly.

NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:why can't we have both?

If you're going to put up with alienation, at least have the common sense to keep your family at a distance. Having the worst of both worlds is just wrong.

NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:

YMix wrote:Or, as Typhoon once put it, modern alienation versus onerous family obligations.

why can't we have both?

Pretty sure that problem has been solved via internet, smartphones, and social media. The ability to both burden those at a distance that one has never met as though they are living in your house, and alienate family members remotely seems like a done deal.

Nonc Hilaire wrote:We need to differentiate self-esteem from self-concept. High self-esteem comes from an accurate self concept. What this so-called self-esteem movement was actually an artificially high self-conception.

Those who suffer from "artificially high self-conception" often seem to f**k themselves up!

Mission success?

Simple Minded wrote:

NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:

YMix wrote:Or, as Typhoon once put it, modern alienation versus onerous family obligations.

why can't we have both?

Pretty sure that problem has been solved via internet, smartphones, and social media. The ability to both burden those at a distance that one has never met as though they are living in your house, and alienate family members remotely seems like a done deal.

See! We can do anything if we put our minds to it!

YMix wrote:

NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:why can't we have both?

If you're going to put up with alienation, at least have the common sense to keep your family at a distance. Having the worst of both worlds is just wrong.

and yet that double-bind is more common than either one by itself, with respect to our the 20th century existential moaners.

7 billion humans in a highly connected world with no space to hide in the corners, no matter what you are good at someone is heaps better, and their are literally billions of mr averages, they die in the millions every day.

whats mum meant to say to her depressed little nothings ?

the traditional doesnt cut it against these realities, it needs to hide away in enclaves, fingers in ears, wanting the old world back.

noddy wrote:7 billion humans in a highly connected world with no space to hide in the corners, no matter what you are good at someone is heaps better, and their are literally billions of mr averages, they die in the millions every day.

whats mum meant to say to her depressed little nothings ?

the traditional doesnt cut it against these realities, it needs to hide away in enclaves, fingers in ears, wanting the old world back.

The Amish do alright

they are the exception, not the rule

are you suggesting a mass conversion to rural german christianity is on the cards ?

noddy wrote:they are the exception, not the rule

are you suggesting a mass conversion to rural german christianity is on the cards ?

Stranger things have happened. They'll be global rumspringa festivals