The Century Of The Self

[Denuo Prince]

Technically, America is a republic and you see how democracy works out there.

What could work is a democracy with a smaller voter base.

I would say unlike a pure democracy a republic would at least give the minority a chance to speak out and choose. Even if a selfish majority exists. But I agree it would still be bad. To deal with human instincts you need to take away their rights in a sense.

Maybe an Oligarchy or Monarchy if done right can be very good.

 

[Arachna]

Eh i am confused here.

<.<

Didn't Freud say that one of the subparts of the superego is the ego-ideal.
The ego-ideal motivates us to do what is morally proper. The superego helps to control the id's impulses, making them less selfish and more morally correct? <.<
It is a part that keeps the raw part of us in check. As he claimed. Or maybe it was a Freudian slips. :sigh:

 

[Denuo Prince]

Eh i am confused here.

<.<

Didn't Freud say that one of the subparts of the superego is the ego-ideal.
The ego-ideal motivates us to do what is morally proper. The superego helps to control the id's impulses, making them less selfish and more morally correct? <.<
It is a part that keeps the raw part of us in check. As he claimed. Or maybe it was a Freudian slips. :sigh:

Freud said that as well , years earlier from when he said what were talking about.

 

[-lexus-]

Yeah, but wasnt that just what society was morally correct. The Super Ego controlled the ID because else your behavior would be frowned up or even be illegal.

 

[Denuo Prince]

Yeah, but wasnt that just what society was morally correct. The Super Ego controlled the ID because else your behavior would be frowned up or even be illegal.

Yea you are right. If the society norm is selfish and irrational than the superego will still strive to make you fit in. Sense of right and wrong , ideal image of ones self and conscience will all change to fit in this horrible society.

 

[Arachna]

Adapting to the society norm. I see. So lovely. :>.>: So he was right? Or wrong?

 

[Denuo Prince]

I dont know , dont we all have alittle voice in our head telling us to do whats considered in your societys as "Right" or "Wrong"?

Dont we all have an image of ourselves that we strive to become....usually base of some role model or other outside forces?

 

[Zero Phoenix]

Yea you are right. If the society norm is selfish and irrational than the superego will still strive to make you fit in. Sense of right and wrong , ideal image of ones self and conscience will all change to fit in this horrible society.

Isn't that the American way? China and Japan have very humble, family oriented, class-conscious socities.You don't stand above the pack, everything you do you do for your family and for your country. Place the needs of others before yourself and even if you don't amount to anything you're where you should be.

America is more of an individualized nation and while individuality is not inherently wrong, the American approach to success is to do whatever is necessary to get the things you want. Whereas Japan might value the "hardworker," America values the "shark" who does anything he has to do in order to get ahead. Whereas Chinese society would consider themselves failures if the gulf between the elite and lower-class was tremendous, in America it doesn't matter how many millions suffer so long as a few thousand people stand ahead of the pack.

Selfishness, greed, irrationality are the norms of American society. Or could it be that as a citizen of this cesspool I'm the only one who gets that?

 

[Denuo Prince]

Isn't that the American way? China and Japan have very humble, family oriented, class-conscious socities.You don't stand above the pack, everything you do you do for your family and for your country. Place the needs of others before yourself and even if you don't amount to anything you're where you should be.

America is more of an individualized nation and while individuality is not inherently wrong, the American approach to success is to do whatever is necessary to get the things you want. Whereas Japan might value the "hardworker," America values the "shark" who does anything he has to do in order to get ahead. Whereas Chinese society would consider themselves failures if the gulf between the elite and lower-class was tremendous, in America it doesn't matter how many millions suffer so long as a few thousand people stand ahead of the pack.

Selfishness, greed, irrationality are the norms of American society. Or could it be that as a citizen of this cesspool I'm the only one who gets that?

I see it more as a whole human thing then just Americans but I agree they have it bad.I see the big difference between America and Japan being culture. I actually am reading about a philosophy created from a women called Ayn Rand about this very subject. Today the only thing that drives Americans is money and stature. Culture simply doesn't place a role like it use to.

All human though fall prey to this. It's hard to break a society norm and even harder to go against our very nature.

 

[Core]

Try having these discussions for 8 hours straight on a sunday night till 7 in the morning at Insomnia43, It can be... lengthy.

Humans, in the general sense, are messy, sloppy, irrational, and if left unchecked capable of anything. Those that arent messy, sloppy and irrational are capable of anything even when checked.Thats what people want to believe but the truth is: Those that are messy and irrational are just as capable of committing all attrocities.
In almost all cases it wasnt instinct that causes a person to lash out or "protect itself" but rather emotions. I maintain an argument from a previous discussion in which I stated that humans are on the top of the food chain, not simply because we are the most adaptive creatures but also because we have what most other creatures only have in a very basic form(some slightly more advanced than others but nothing even close to humans in comparison): Communication.
It is the single most important tool in our development as a species. It is the reason we all know how to make fire and the reason we are even aware of trivial things such as religion.
If a tiger in a zoo eats a zookeeper is it considered inhumane? or even wrong? No, because its an animal governed by instinct rather than emotion and if you forget to feed that thing one day, you dont stroll in the next day like all is forgiven. It has always been the accepted norm that "Humans should know better" Morals, Ethics, Emotions, Right, Wrong, Good, Evil...
Still building on the premise of the tiger: We dont blame the animal because of its instinct, therefore the tiger didnt technically do anything wrong. If we started applying this to humans and we already do in some cases(self-defense is one of those) then anyone who acted out of instinct cannot truly be held accountable for their actions because it is... THEIR NATURE.
And this is where we come to a point of the conversation I truly and utterly despise.
The words "Human Nature". Never has there ever been such an overdramatized phrase as "Human Nature"

"There is something about yourself that you don't know. Something that you will deny even exists until it's too late to do anything about it. It's the only reason you get up in the morning, the only reason you suffer the shitty boss, the blood, the sweat and the tears. This is because you want people to know how good, attractive, generous, funny, wild and clever you really are. "Fear or revere me, but please think I'm special." We share an addiction. We're approval junkies. We're all in it for the slap on the back and the gold watch. The "hip, hip, hoo-fucking-rah." Look at the clever boy with the badge, polishing his trophy. Shine on, you crazy diamond. Cos we're just monkeys wrapped in suits, begging for the approval of others."

And every single time this conversation comes up theres always one asshole that points out(in this case its me ): We dont have all the answers, we are unsure about which synapse or cluster of synapses makes you... you. Because of this nothing can be said with absolute certainty and most of it whilst probably on the right track is still conjecture. Human nature is one of these extremely vague things, It has very varied definitions and always ends up being used as a scapegoat to attribute to people as to why they did what they did. And finally... The 99.99% rule. There is always an exception. Maybe some kid at birth had few misfiring synapses causing him to lack morals or turning him into someone who cant do "wrong". Despite everything theres always something

 

[Zero Phoenix]

"There is something about yourself that you don't know. Something that you will deny even exists until it's too late to do anything about it. It's the only reason you get up in the morning, the only reason you suffer the shitty boss, the blood, the sweat and the tears. This is because you want people to know how good, attractive, generous, funny, wild and clever you really are. "Fear or revere me, but please think I'm special." We share an addiction. We're approval junkies. We're all in it for the slap on the back and the gold watch. The "hip, hip, hoo-fucking-rah." Look at the clever boy with the badge, polishing his trophy. Shine on, you crazy diamond. Cos we're just monkeys wrapped in suits, begging for the approval of others."

I agree with most of the points in your post except this one. While I would say there is a substantial number of people who do what they do for the approval of others, in most cases people are just doing what they think is necessary for their own self-gain. It's not so much as approval that drives people but the acquisition of possessions or their continued survival.

 

[Kaze Araki]

This "their own self-gain" is what Freud would call unconscious primitive instinct.
But could it not be that "seeking the approval of others" originates from the same self-gain (or desire) instinct?
In the end, I see that everything we do, malevolent or benevolent, all originates from the same one source; the need to fulfill our desire (consciously and unconsciously).

 

[Zero Phoenix]

This "their own self-gain" is what Freud would call unconscious primitive instinct.
But could it not be that "seeking the approval of others" originates from the same self-gain (or desire) instinct?
In the end, I see that everything we do, malevolent or benevolent, all originates from the same one source; the need to fulfill our desire (consciously and unconsciously).

No.

 

[Kaze Araki]

Indeed, in the end, it is our desires that moves us as an individual and as a mass.

 

[-lexus-]

Self gain and desire are two different things.

And no, desire is not the motivator behind all. Unless you use a very open definition of the word so it covers all. But still.

 

[Oranges]

And no, desire is not the motivator behind all. Unless you use a very open definition of the word so it covers all. But still.

This I strongly disagree with. How can you be motivated by anything other than desire. I'm aware of humanities charity, but even then it can be seen as a selfish action. Charity donations permit tax dodging, good publicity, among a few other economic advantages for large companies, as well as some people having an honest belief that doing good things will grant them access to heaven, or better their life in some manner. If someone were not to donate selfishly they would forfeit everything they have, including their time and body in the action of aiding others. Therefore it is, at least to me, apparent that, though I'm not in entire agreement with Freud, his statement that humanity is driven by desire is true.

 

[-lexus-]

This I strongly disagree with. How can you be motivated by anything other than desire. I'm aware of humanities charity, but even then it can be seen as a selfish action. Charity donations permit tax dodging, good publicity, among a few other economic advantages for large companies, as well as some people having an honest belief that doing good things will grant them access to heaven, or better their life in some manner. If someone were not to donate selfishly they would forfeit everything they have, including their time and body in the action of aiding others. Therefore it is, at least to me, apparent that, though I'm not in entire agreement with Freud, his statement that humanity is driven by desire is true.

If that were true, then humans would be most of time, logical, rational beings as well, now wouldnt they? To be purely focused on your desires requires you to act logically and rationally in order to satisfy your desires in the most efficient way. We have already established that humans are, however, not that rational. Therefor, when they are acting irrationally, they are not so much acting on desires as well as other motivators.

On top of that, some of our desires are artificial. So its not the desire that is the actual motivator, but the thing that created the desire. Picture it like a man riding on a donkey holding out a rod with a carrot attached to a string, holding it in front of the donkey, causing the donkey to move. On a superficial level, it may seem that the donkeys movement is caused by his desire for a carrot, while if you look a little further, it shows the donkey is merely tricked into moving. The real motivator is the man riding the donkeys back, and who manipulated the donkey into a certain kind of behavior.

 

[Kaze Araki]

Desires can be conscious and unconscious.

"Self-gain" can be traced down to our primitive desire which is unconscious (the Id) and irrational (from the point of view of Ego and Superego, and thus why it is need to be suppressed and/or regulated).

 

[-lexus-]

Why would self gain be automatically unconscious and irrational?

It can just as easily be conscious and rational.

 

[Core]

Why would self gain be automatically unconscious and irrational?

It can just as easily be conscious and rational.

@Zero Phoenix : I sincerely doubt the acquisition of possessions is all that motivates alot of people because if thats all it was, everyone would simply be running around acquiring possessions. Not working, not contributing, not doing anything other than stealing.

@Kaze : The problem with freud is that its a little vague in that regard and whilst normally ill fight by freuds side for awhile this time ill have to just point it out it is -too vague- and if you do wanna argue freud: Freud argued that the superego/id held all the power an all the cards to influence you and you dont even realize it exists So by saying desires can be subconscious, you(from freuds perspective) are arguing that these desires dont have to be inherently your own... but do benefit you in a way you might not yet perceive OR might be harmfull to you in the way that it gives the subconscious more power over you later.

@orange : not everything has to be desire, through rational means compromises or even completely different goals can be attained. One can argue BUT THAT SIMPLY MEANS THATS WHAT YOU WANTED ALL ALONG! do note I didnt say you came up with the goals.

@lexus You are biased... just like all humans are biased, you alone cant make the rational decision to cut off your arm if was infected could you? or maybe you could doesnt matter point is, usually it is not your brain that comes up with logic under extreme(and I mean extreme) duress. It is always something else, or someone else.

Now I am not saying its not POSSIBLE but you as a human being are biased just by being alive. Therefore you are driven by your past, your present or your future.


I had a longer more thought out post... but my browser crashed -.-