First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Neutrality in perspective
1711 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / Canada
Offline
Posted 3/16/09 , edited 3/16/09
Thought experiment:
Although this may seem impractical, what if a person developed the stance of utter neutrality within his or her life. Lacking any sense of right and wrong or opinion while still having cognitive and problem solving skills required for survival. His or her primary objection in life is to watch instead of act upon the action of others.
Would said person be seen as an abomination or am advancement in our species? Said person lacks all sense of religion and bias and therefore is not likely to create conflict beyond that that is needed for basic survival. Higher intelligence than usual.
Add eternal youth and life to the mix. A life that never ends and a mind that cannot judge.
Would said person be an disgrace/monster or better being than ourselves?
(writing a book, long story...pretty much need opinion on main character)

Addition:
Plausible Plot line:
First person:
1. Catalogue life from birth to end of world. Girl is watching world devolve around her without changing a thing.
2. Catalogue life from birth to end of world. Girl removes unneeded factors (people, places,etc.) as she sees fit by turning them to dust. Sees the world as a play.
Third person:
3. Numerous events in history where someone finds her watching. Eventually someone wants to know who she is. Person finally finds her at worlds end.
4. Third person narrator of first person plot lines.

Specifics of plot are still being worked out. I figure out the character first then the plot, it's a force of habit.
36195 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Cloud 9.
Offline
Posted 3/16/09

darkmagiciangirl911 wrote:

Thought experiment:
Although this may seem impractical, what if a person developed the stance of utter neutrality within their lives. Lacking any sense of right and wrong or opinion while still having cognitive and problem solving skills required for survive. Their primary objection in life is to watch instead of act upon the action of others.
Would said person be seen as an abomination or am advancement in our species. Said person lacks all sense of religion and bias and therefore is not likely to create conflict beyond that that is needed for basic survival. Higher intelligence than usual.
That's add eternal youth and life to the mix. A life that never ends and a mind that cannot judge.
Would said person be a disgrace/monster or a better being than ourselves?
(writing a book, long story...pretty much need opinion on main character)


Should change in red..

Seems like a cool topic, maybe trying to hard? What's the story about? A little bit more back round would help, it seems like you're writing about a man/woman who is an outcast. Whom is intelligent, has no feelings, no thought?
Posted 3/16/09
I suspect they'd at least be seen as weird, our outcasts. Maybe look at Spock from star trek? Though he isn't the same really...
If this person were to get into some sort of position of power people would probably call them a monster. If they just seem like an ordinary person that just hangs around in the background sort of thing, I suppose they'd be an outcast. And then there'd probably be a small group of people who see them as an advancement - maybe even become loyal followers and worship them? I'm not so sure about that actually...
19013 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
www.crunchyroll.com
Offline
Posted 3/16/09

darkmagiciangirl911 wrote:

Thought experiment:
Although this may seem impractical, what is person developed the stance of utter neutrality within their lives. Lacking any sense of right and wrong or opinion while still having cognitive and problem solving skills required for survive. Their primary objection in life is to watch instead of act upon the action of others.
Would said person be seen as an abomination or am advancement in our species. Said person lacks all sense of religion and bias and therefore is not likely to create conflict beyond that that is needed for basic survival. Higher intelligence than usual.
That's add eternal youth and life to the mix. A life that never ends and a mind that cannot judge.
Would said person be an disgrace/monster or better being than ourselves?
(writing a book, long story...pretty much need opinion on main character)


Fix'd:



Well first, I don't know if you're asking us or detailing "said person". I'm just gonna write from what I understood in your statements.

Now, I think you got your facts mixed up. Neutrality does not really imply that a person does not have any sense of right and wrong. Neutrality is not to defend any side but to defend what is most reasonable for them. Their primary objective is not to limit themselves to just watching. Just as I've mentioned they don't defend any side but defend what they think is most in reason.

Lacks all sense of religion and bias? The church actually claims itself to be neutral yet taking only the side of what is Good, sometimes what is right. I don't think the person would be a disgrace. A person who does not defend his Ideas because he is afraid of something is not Neutral, that would be the person you should call a disgrace.
1718 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
65 / M / Croatia
Offline
Posted 3/16/09
Nice idea, but what would motivate such person? Does he have emotions, does he/acts on those? Or this person justs sits around and does nothing. What would such a person do in life? How would he get pass any job interview?? No religion, no bias, no sense of right and wrong... means no ethics? OK, then he is what, passive creep who can either be mass murderer or not, it is all the same for him?
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 3/16/09
A person like that would be completely ignored by everyone. If they have no real opinions or goals in their life, then they never have any motivation to do or say anything, so they'd just be a burden on whoever has to take care of them. But their dedication to being completely neutral all the time could be seen as a type of bias.

More information would be helpful. Is the person neutral because they refuse to take sides, or because they simply don't care?
2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 3/16/09 , edited 3/16/09
The person would be little more than a statue. You've given it no impetus to perform any action.
1711 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / Canada
Offline
Posted 3/16/09

spensaur wrote:


darkmagiciangirl911 wrote:

Thought experiment:
Although this may seem impractical, what if a person developed the stance of utter neutrality within their lives. Lacking any sense of right and wrong or opinion while still having cognitive and problem solving skills required for survive. Their primary objection in life is to watch instead of act upon the action of others.
Would said person be seen as an abomination or am advancement in our species. Said person lacks all sense of religion and bias and therefore is not likely to create conflict beyond that that is needed for basic survival. Higher intelligence than usual.
That's add eternal youth and life to the mix. A life that never ends and a mind that cannot judge.
Would said person be a disgrace/monster or a better being than ourselves?
(writing a book, long story...pretty much need opinion on main character)


Should change in red..

Seems like a cool topic, maybe trying to hard? What's the story about? A little bit more back round would help, it seems like you're writing about a man/woman who is an outcast. Whom is intelligent, has no feelings, no thought?



Red #1: is grammatically acceptable
Red #2: *fixed*
Red #3: Parallel structure

macphapie wrote:


darkmagiciangirl911 wrote:

Thought experiment:
Although this may seem impractical, what is person developed the stance of utter neutrality within their lives. Lacking any sense of right and wrong or opinion while still having cognitive and problem solving skills required for survive. Their primary objection in life is to watch instead of act upon the action of others.
Would said person be seen as an abomination or am advancement in our species. Said person lacks all sense of religion and bias and therefore is not likely to create conflict beyond that that is needed for basic survival. Higher intelligence than usual.
That's add eternal youth and life to the mix. A life that never ends and a mind that cannot judge.
Would said person be an disgrace/monster or better being than ourselves?
(writing a book, long story...pretty much need opinion on main character)


Fix'd:



Well first, I don't know if you're asking us or detailing "said person". I'm just gonna write from what I understood in your statements.

Now, I think you got your facts mixed up. Neutrality does not really imply that a person does not have any sense of right and wrong. Neutrality is not to defend any side but to defend what is most reasonable for them. Their primary objective is not to limit themselves to just watching. Just as I've mentioned they don't defend any side but defend what they think is most in reason.

Lacks all sense of religion and bias? The church actually claims itself to be neutral yet taking only the side of what is Good, sometimes what is right. I don't think the person would be a disgrace. A person who does not defend his Ideas because he is afraid of something is not Neutral, that would be the person you should call a disgrace.


Only thing you did to it is take out adjectives.

Neutrality:
1. The state or quality of being neutral; the condition of being unengaged in contests between others; state of taking no part on either side; indifference.
Men who possess a state of neutrality in times of public danger, desert the interest of their fellow subjects. --Addison.
2. Indifference in quality; a state neither very good nor bad. [Obs.] --Donne.
3. (Chem.) The quality or state of being neutral. See Neutral, a., 4.
4. (International Law) The condition of a nation or government which refrains from taking part, directly or indirectly, in a war between other powers.
5. Those who are neutral; a combination of neutral powers or states.

Don't care about what the church claims. It isn't relevant.


blancer wrote:

Nice idea, but what would motivate such person? Does he have emotions, does he/acts on those? Or this person justs sits around and does nothing. What would such a person do in life? How would he get pass any job interview?? No religion, no bias, no sense of right and wrong... means no ethics? OK, then he is what, passive creep who can either be mass murderer or not, it is all the same for him?


It's a girl actually. There no need for motivation, in a sense, no need for a job. Mass murder,eh? Hmmm...it is all the same to her, I'll have to think it over.


Cuddlebuns wrote:

A person like that would be completely ignored by everyone. If they have no real opinions or goals in their life, then they never have any motivation to do or say anything, so they'd just be a burden on whoever has to take care of them. But their dedication to being completely neutral all the time could be seen as a type of bias.

More information would be helpful. Is the person neutral because they refuse to take sides, or because they simply don't care?





leviathan343 wrote:

The person would be little more than a statue. You've given it no impetus to perform any action.


Mere curiosity is motivation within itself.


Plausible Plot line:
First person:
1. Catalogue life from birth to end of world. Girl is watching world devolve around her without changing a thing.
2. Catalogue life from birth to end of world. Girl removes unneeded factors (people, places,etc.) as she sees fit by turning them to dust. Sees the world as a play.
Third person:
3. Numerous events in history where someone finds her watching. Eventually someone wants to know who she is. Person finally finds her at worlds end.
4. Third person narrator of first person plot lines.

Specifics of plot are still being worked out. I figure out the character first then the plot, it's a force of habit.
19013 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
www.crunchyroll.com
Offline
Posted 3/16/09


I didn't get what you were asking.


what is person developed the stance of utter neutrality within their lives
1711 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / Canada
Offline
Posted 3/16/09

macphapie wrote:



I didn't get what you were asking.


what is person developed the stance of utter neutrality within their lives


My bad. It was 3am, I must have jumped thoughts in mid-sentence.
"What if a person developed the stance of utter neutrality within his or her life?"
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 3/16/09
I don't think that's possible...

Everyone has to make alot of decisions in their life and I don't see how all of them could be made without bias or opinion. You should be more specific and outline their possible course of life.
27546 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / London
Offline
Posted 3/16/09
The question to ask OP is would that person actually live?
1711 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / Canada
Offline
Posted 3/16/09

Yei wrote:

I don't think that's possible...

Everyone has to make alot of decisions in their life and I don't see how all of them could be made without bias or opinion. You should be more specific and outline their possible course of life.


What decisions are those? Outline and I'll try to go from there.
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 3/16/09

darkmagiciangirl911 wrote:
Mere curiosity is motivation within itself.

You never mentioned anything about curiosity, to me it sounds like the character you're trying to create simply observes what happens without trying to make any sort of conclusion about why it happens. It sounds like she uses the world as her television, she just watches without thinking anything about it.



Plausible Plot line:
First person:
1. Catalogue life from birth to end of world. Girl is watching world devolve around her without changing a thing.
2. Catalogue life from birth to end of world. Girl removes unneeded factors (people, places,etc.) as she sees fit by turning them to dust. Sees the world as a play.
Third person:
3. Numerous events in history where someone finds her watching. Eventually someone wants to know who she is. Person finally finds her at worlds end.
4. Third person narrator of first person plot lines.

Specifics of plot are still being worked out. I figure out the character first then the plot, it's a force of habit.


1. She would be no different than a 3rd-person narrator.
2. That could be interesting depending on how you do it, but then she wouldn't be completely neutral.
3. She would be more of a support character than a main character, but it could be a good story depending on how you do that.
4. I have no idea what that means.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 3/16/09

darkmagiciangirl911 wrote:


Yei wrote:

I don't think that's possible...

Everyone has to make alot of decisions in their life and I don't see how all of them could be made without bias or opinion. You should be more specific and outline their possible course of life.


What decisions are those? Outline and I'll try to go from there.


Okay, what education and career they have, if they get married or if they have kids, what they do with their money, their friends, etc.

Obviously this kind of person can't exist, they'd probably just be like a robot and have no emotion. Hmm, would this person have a conscience or morals? Would they would feel bad when they see others suffering or dying, that could just be human nature, not opinion.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.