First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Are certain people slaves to society?
29425 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Offline
Posted 1/10/13

kamiru-dono wrote:


lordseth23 wrote:


kamiru-dono wrote:

the outcasts you mean? i wouldn't call them slaves. it's the people accepted simply because of blindly following society would be considered slaves.


But these outcasts are forced to live in a world that does not accept them for who they are.


i wouldn't necessarily call them slaves. hmm.. more like... just outcasts, i think only weak people let themselves become slaves.
and no one is forced to live in this world, you can leave if you want to.
it's a survival game. if you can't take it, then give up.
we all have stuff we have to deal with.
the weak has no place in this world.
in the face of difficulty, just grind your teeth and struggle to live.




They may not be "forced", per se, but they also do not have a reliable means of ending their life available to them publicly, which is basically saying that they must live for economical purposes. Unless they had the opportunity to go to another world where they would be accepted, they should probably be considered slaves.
29425 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Offline
Posted 1/10/13

kamiru-dono wrote:

as i've said, if you don't like your life, quit it.
survive or shut up.
it's a harsh life. nothing is fair.

a slave is when you allow yourself to be weakened.


Why do you assume that every obstacle in life can be overcome? Do you know this for a fact, or is it just your opinion? How can a person live life to the fullest if they are not accepted in society?
29425 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Offline
Posted 1/11/13 , edited 1/11/13

kamiru-dono wrote:


lordseth23 wrote:


kamiru-dono wrote:

as i've said, if you don't like your life, quit it.
survive or shut up.
it's a harsh life. nothing is fair.

a slave is when you allow yourself to be weakened.


Why do you assume that every obstacle in life can be overcome? Do you know this for a fact, or is it just your opinion? How can a person live life to the fullest if they are not accepted in society?


for one thing, your life should't be dependent on society.
you choose your obstacles and you overcome it. it is not whether you can overcome. you just have to if you want to move forward.
this is an opinion from an outcast based on observation.



Oh, but it is. I believe in the very compelling argument that human beings are empathic by nature, and their "self" is determined by how deep and intimate their relationships are with others in society. The obstacle of society not empathizing with a person is not a choice that can be overcome, but a predetermined condition that cannot change.
29425 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Offline
Posted 1/11/13

kamiru-dono wrote:



i understand what you are trying to say but yes, we do have a choice. i chose not to empathize so much with society because i don't agree with how society is right now.



What if the person wanted to empathize with society? Would it still be considered a choice to not empathize with society, even though they wanted to?
64620 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M
Offline
Posted 1/11/13

lordseth23 wrote:


kamiru-dono wrote:



i understand what you are trying to say but yes, we do have a choice. i chose not to empathize so much with society because i don't agree with how society is right now.



What if the person wanted to empathize with society? Would it still be considered a choice to not empathize with society, even though they wanted to?


Why do you need so badly for society to empathize with you, or for yourself to empathize with society? Personally, I've never given two sh*ts what society thought of me. Humans beings are not empathetic by nature, they are self-centered by nature. Empathy comes in an effort to further ones own goals or seek ones own fulfillment. You seem to feel that society owes you something, and if it doesn't give it to you on a silver platter (not requiring you to put effort into obtaining it), that you are somehow a slave to society. I realize that this type of attitude, that society should freely provide for all the desires of it's members, is becoming more prevalent, but it is a foolish concept. You talk as though you want friendships and romance, but instead of seeking them, you whine on a message board that you will never have them, and that society owes you an easy painless death because of that. Take charge of your own life instead of expecting everything to come to you or be handed to you. If you change your thinking so that you are making your own way, then whether you achieve your goals or not, you can be happy that you put your best effort in towards it.

Also, while society may empathize with someone for a time, it quickly wears off. They one(s) they once empathized with are then forgotten. After all, "society" is simply a collection of individuals with their own needs, wants, desires, and troubles.
17109 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/11/13

lordseth23 wrote:


WildTyger wrote:

You cannot be called a slave if you voluntarily serve. Most people are freer than they believe, they are simply unwilling to face the consequences of exercising that freedom.


They may not voluntarily serve if they knew exactly what happens after death. It is only because of this uncertainty that they live their lives in a world that does not accept them. Because they are unable to live life to the fullest, they should be considered slaves.


If they do not wish to die ( the ultimate freedom), because they themselves are unsure the only thing they are enslaved to is there own lack of certainty. I for one know exactly what I'm willing to live and die for..
29425 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Offline
Posted 1/12/13

ishe5555 wrote:


lordseth23 wrote:


kamiru-dono wrote:



i understand what you are trying to say but yes, we do have a choice. i chose not to empathize so much with society because i don't agree with how society is right now.



What if the person wanted to empathize with society? Would it still be considered a choice to not empathize with society, even though they wanted to?


Why do you need so badly for society to empathize with you, or for yourself to empathize with society? Personally, I've never given two sh*ts what society thought of me. Humans beings are not empathetic by nature, they are self-centered by nature. Empathy comes in an effort to further ones own goals or seek ones own fulfillment. You seem to feel that society owes you something, and if it doesn't give it to you on a silver platter (not requiring you to put effort into obtaining it), that you are somehow a slave to society. I realize that this type of attitude, that society should freely provide for all the desires of it's members, is becoming more prevalent, but it is a foolish concept. You talk as though you want friendships and romance, but instead of seeking them, you whine on a message board that you will never have them, and that society owes you an easy painless death because of that. Take charge of your own life instead of expecting everything to come to you or be handed to you. If you change your thinking so that you are making your own way, then whether you achieve your goals or not, you can be happy that you put your best effort in towards it.

Also, while society may empathize with someone for a time, it quickly wears off. They one(s) they once empathized with are then forgotten. After all, "society" is simply a collection of individuals with their own needs, wants, desires, and troubles.


I have to disagree with your notion that human beings are not empathetic by nature. How would you explain the human progress that has occurred through recorded history without empathy? Why would we ever possess mirror neurons if it wasn't in our true nature to empathize?

I apologize if I came across as expecting something from society, that is not for me to decide. I am merely questioning whether a person is a slave to society if they do not receive empathy from it, not on whether society is right or wrong for doing this. When I say empathy, I primarily mean a deep empathic relationship with another person that results in friendship or romantic love, not necessarily the empathy or pity shown towards a complete stranger or historical figure. To not receive empathy from society means the inability to form this kind of empathic relationship with a member of society in this context.
29425 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Offline
Posted 1/12/13 , edited 1/12/13

WildTyger wrote:


lordseth23 wrote:


WildTyger wrote:

You cannot be called a slave if you voluntarily serve. Most people are freer than they believe, they are simply unwilling to face the consequences of exercising that freedom.


They may not voluntarily serve if they knew exactly what happens after death. It is only because of this uncertainty that they live their lives in a world that does not accept them. Because they are unable to live life to the fullest, they should be considered slaves.


If they do not wish to die ( the ultimate freedom), because they themselves are unsure the only thing they are enslaved to is there own lack of certainty. I for one know exactly what I'm willing to live and die for..


What if, hypothetically, they were sure of what they wanted to live for, and were unable to attain it at any point in their life. Would they be considered a slave?
64620 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M
Offline
Posted 1/12/13

lordseth23 wrote:



I have to disagree with your notion that human beings are not empathetic by nature. How would you explain the human progress that has occurred through recorded history without empathy? Why would we ever possess mirror neurons if it wasn't in our true nature to empathize?


What progress are you referring to that would require empathy? Also, I never said that people can't empathize, only that they do so to further their own goals or to seek their own fulfillment. Much of discovery and invention has been done in the pursuit of knowledge or material gain, both of which are self serving. Are there actually any studies that have proved humans even have mirror neurons? As I understand it, any potential evidence has been indirect. Regardless, mirror neurons or similar brain processes are not for understanding others, they are for learning. Most learning is done through mimicry.


lordseth23 wrote:
I apologize if I came across as expecting something from society, that is not for me to decide. I am merely questioning whether a person is a slave to society if they do not receive empathy from it, not on whether society is right or wrong for doing this. When I say empathy, I primarily mean a deep empathic relationship with another person that results in friendship or romantic love, not necessarily the empathy or pity shown towards a complete stranger or historical figure. To not receive empathy from society means the inability to form this kind of empathic relationship with a member of society in this context.


There is no difference between these types of empathy. Empathy isn't deep, it is ones own imagining of how another feels or thinks. A person is just better able to imagine how the other feels when they have greater familiarity with them. But, even with a spouse of many years, they could still be completely wrong in their imagining of how their spouse feels. The important part is how the person themselves feels toward the other, not how they imagine the other feels towards them. I don't know what you are searching for, but it doesn't seem to be empathy. It takes effort to not "receive" empathy from another human. Just bumping into someone on the street could cause them to wonder what you are thinking. Depending on your actions/looks or their own thinking at the time, they might imagine you to feel remorseful, embarrassed, rushed, spiteful, etc. Grats, you just received empathy. Now, if you are looking to establish a meaningful relationship with someone, then you need to look at yourself. Are you actively seeking such relationships, or are you pushing them away? Are you allowing yourself to care for others, or locking yourself away? These are issues with self, rather than issues with society.
29425 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Offline
Posted 1/12/13 , edited 1/12/13

ishe5555 wrote:


lordseth23 wrote:

I have to disagree with your notion that human beings are not empathetic by nature. How would you explain the human progress that has occurred through recorded history without empathy? Why would we ever possess mirror neurons if it wasn't in our true nature to empathize?


What progress are you referring to that would require empathy? Also, I never said that people can't empathize, only that they do so to further their own goals or to seek their own fulfillment. Much of discovery and invention has been done in the pursuit of knowledge or material gain, both of which are self serving. Are there actually any studies that have proved humans even have mirror neurons? As I understand it, any potential evidence has been indirect. Regardless, mirror neurons or similar brain processes are not for understanding others, they are for learning. Most learning is done through mimicry.


I do not understand how we could have developed from our hunter/gatherer ancestry to a people of democratic civilizations without empathy. What it the point of self-serving behavior? I don't understand how a person could live a meaningful life while being isolated from civilization and all forms of human contact.




lordseth23 wrote:
I apologize if I came across as expecting something from society, that is not for me to decide. I am merely questioning whether a person is a slave to society if they do not receive empathy from it, not on whether society is right or wrong for doing this. When I say empathy, I primarily mean a deep empathic relationship with another person that results in friendship or romantic love, not necessarily the empathy or pity shown towards a complete stranger or historical figure. To not receive empathy from society means the inability to form this kind of empathic relationship with a member of society in this context.


There is no difference between these types of empathy. Empathy isn't deep, it is ones own imagining of how another feels or thinks. A person is just better able to imagine how the other feels when they have greater familiarity with them. But, even with a spouse of many years, they could still be completely wrong in their imagining of how their spouse feels. The important part is how the person themselves feels toward the other, not how they imagine the other feels towards them. I don't know what you are searching for, but it doesn't seem to be empathy. It takes effort to not "receive" empathy from another human. Just bumping into someone on the street could cause them to wonder what you are thinking. Depending on your actions/looks or their own thinking at the time, they might imagine you to feel remorseful, embarrassed, rushed, spiteful, etc. Grats, you just received empathy. Now, if you are looking to establish a meaningful relationship with someone, then you need to look at yourself. Are you actively seeking such relationships, or are you pushing them away? Are you allowing yourself to care for others, or locking yourself away? These are issues with self, rather than issues with society.


How would you explain the concept of friendship? Is it a mutual agreement, or can a person that expresses hatred towards me be considered my friend? If I was actively seeking a meaningful relationship and did everything in my power to care for the person, but came up short indefinitely, is it still my fault?
64620 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M
Offline
Posted 1/12/13

lordseth23 wrote:



I do not understand how we could have developed from our hunter/gatherer ancestry to a people of democratic civilizations without empathy. What it the point of self-serving behavior? I don't understand how a person could live a meaningful life while being isolated from civilization and all forms of human contact.


I think you are misunderstanding the term empathy. No human actually understands another, even if they may think that they do. Empathy isn't caring about the plight of another, that is compassion. Empathy is self-serving, it is assigning ones own imagined feelings to another in an attempt to understand them, so that they know how to deal with the one they are empathic towards. People gather together because it takes some of the workload off of themselves to do so. They try to understand each other because they need to be around others and need to know how handle the world around them and those in that world. Someone who tries to surround themselves with civilization would be just as self-serving, if not more so, than someone who tried to isolate themselves from civilization. Self-reliance is actually less selfish than voluntary dependence.


lordseth23 wrote:


How would you explain the concept of friendship? Is it a mutual agreement, or can a person that expresses hatred towards me be considered my friend? If I was actively seeking a meaningful relationship and did everything in my power to care for the person, but came up short indefinitely, is it still my fault?


Yes, though not necessarily in the way you may be thinking. If you have a friend that continues expressing hatred towards you, then you should be seeking someone else as a friend instead, instead of wasting your time and energy. Most people have had a bad friend at one time or another. If you are finding that multiple people that you are trying to befriend are all continuing to express hatred towards you, then there is something wrong about your approach or attitude, or you are looking in the wrong places.
33471 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / San Francisco Bay...
Offline
Posted 1/12/13
What does it mean to be a slave to society? Is it to insinuate you can't do anything because there exists these mystical people above you who can control your life?

The problem with discussions about these is that there is a number of things people need to understand. Life sucks, but if you accept you can't do anything about it, then life will continue to suck. Not everyone is born with the same privilege, not everyone will get the same oppurtunities, and not everyone will have equal footing. To complain about it is just foolish. If you beg for things, you aren't going to get what you're going to get.

But, if you beg for too many things, you won't get what you want to get either. Succeeding is about sacrifice. Turning your life around is about sacrifice. If you want to make a lot of money to avoid financial burdens, that might me studying art is a really stupid idea. If you want to make a lot of money and study art--forget about it. You're begging for too much already unless you somehow expect to end up straight in Hollywood using theater techiques you learned from a public university. This mandates choice: you need to move forward and fight for that one thing you really want.

Which, I believe, is this whole notion about people are slaves to societies come from. People feel defeated because their life sucks. And yes, perhaps they are right to invoke they never had equal footing compared to that one perosn. Maybe they are right to say that one person's priviliege, influence, and/or affluence help them succeed and get a lot of what they want. And rather blame themselves for being larthegic, they blame society for being "unfair." Yeah, of course life is unfair. It wouldn't be life otherwise. But if you aren't going to fight for you dream and accept that life will continue to suck, then you truly are a slave--not to society, but yourself.
17109 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/12/13 , edited 1/14/13


They may not voluntarily serve if they knew exactly what happens after death. It is only because of this uncertainty that they live their lives in a world that does not accept them. Because they are unable to live life to the fullest, they should be considered slaves.

If they do not wish to die ( the ultimate freedom), because they themselves are unsure the only thing they are enslaved to is there own lack of certainty. I for one know exactly what I'm willing to live and die for..

What if, hypothetically, they were sure of what they wanted to live for, and were unable to attain it at any point in their life. Would they be considered a slave?

There is no way to know you can attain something in your life time until you finish it. Slavery means involuntary servitude. Getting mad at life just because you don't get want you want is silly and childish. Life owes you only one thing, death. Anything else is up for grabs. If a person really struggles with this I would suggest they move themselves back down to the bottom of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.
29425 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Offline
Posted 1/13/13 , edited 1/14/13

ishe5555 wrote:

Yes, though not necessarily in the way you may be thinking. If you have a friend that continues expressing hatred towards you, then you should be seeking someone else as a friend instead, instead of wasting your time and energy. Most people have had a bad friend at one time or another. If you are finding that multiple people that you are trying to befriend are all continuing to express hatred towards you, then there is something wrong about your approach or attitude, or you are looking in the wrong places.


So if a person, throughout their lifetime, changed their attitude and approach multiple times and looked in as many places as they possibly could, but were still unable to find a friend that did not express hatred towards them, is it still their fault?


Zoraprime wrote:

Which, I believe, is this whole notion about people are slaves to societies come from. People feel defeated because their life sucks. And yes, perhaps they are right to invoke they never had equal footing compared to that one perosn. Maybe they are right to say that one person's priviliege, influence, and/or affluence help them succeed and get a lot of what they want. And rather blame themselves for being larthegic, they blame society for being "unfair." Yeah, of course life is unfair. It wouldn't be life otherwise. But if you aren't going to fight for you dream and accept that life will continue to suck, then you truly are a slave--not to society, but yourself.


What if a person fought for their dream their entire life, but were still unable to obtain it? Wouldn't you then consider them a slave to their circumstances?
21561 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / Northern California
Offline
Posted 1/14/13 , edited 1/14/13

lordseth23 wrote:


Zoraprime wrote:

Which, I believe, is this whole notion about people are slaves to societies come from. People feel defeated because their life sucks. And yes, perhaps they are right to invoke they never had equal footing compared to that one perosn. Maybe they are right to say that one person's priviliege, influence, and/or affluence help them succeed and get a lot of what they want. And rather blame themselves for being larthegic, they blame society for being "unfair." Yeah, of course life is unfair. It wouldn't be life otherwise. But if you aren't going to fight for you dream and accept that life will continue to suck, then you truly are a slave--not to society, but yourself.


What if a person fought for their dream their entire life, but were still unable to obtain it? Wouldn't you then consider them a slave to their circumstances?


No, because they were actively trying to change the circumstances around them. This proves that even if not all of their dreams were realized, the journey is as important as the destination. Why is it that their dreams define them, as opposed to the choices they made to achieve those dreams? Sure, it wasn't the end result they wanted...but I can say I would have infinitely more respect for one who fought for their dreams to the end than one who gave up before they had barely begun to fight, or because it was just "too hard".

Accepting that one's infirmities make certain things difficult or even impossible, is not the same as someone who can physically do something choosing not to try. I'm legally blind, and trying to drive would be illogically unwise, and just plain dangerous for me and anyone else on the road. I suppose I could drive if I had some sort of surgery to restore my eyesight, but that surgery is financially out of my means at this point in my life. I still manage, with the help of family and friends. I have to depend on them in some ways, but I am not a "slave" to them. They'd be rather offended if I ever suggested anything of the sort.

Then again, a person who stops trying to improve is still alive, but isn't really living. They've stopped trying to make anything better internally or externally, and are just awaiting death. At that point, they are a slave to their own choices, and not to society. Society isn't a single sentient being, arbitrarily judging that one must give up while another must persevere. To anthropomorphize it in that way, when ultimately the choices we make lie with us, is deflecting any semblance of personal responsibility. It's a conceited mentality: "Society made me this way." is just another way of saying that "I act as I do not because I make my own choices, but because society makes me act this way." The circumstances don't really matter; people will always make such leaps of logic, and have throughout history.

Even if someone has a weapon pointed at you, you still have choices. There may not be many options, and some of those options may lead to the deaths of one or more people. But those options still exist. This thread makes it sound like "society" is holding a proverbial gun at the heads of (only) certain people. It isn't. Of course, the idea that anyone is a slave to society is a ridiculous one. We have the freedom of choice. What we do with the time we have, who we spend it with, and the impacts we leave on others, are entirely in our hands. Some people may have less of an ability to leave an impact, due to infirmities. However, if one can communicate, one can leave an impact on others. An impact on others is a change in the circumstances around us, and this includes debate and discussion.

The fact that this thread has had so many responses is evidence of such an impact. Its scale is small in the grand scheme of things, but a slave wouldn't be empowered to make much of any impact on anyone beyond their immediate circumstances. You can do this, therefore you are not a slave.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.