going after what you want, or knowing what you want in time?
Which do you think is harder:
going after what you want, or knowing what you want in time?
Ouch, tough one for me to answer.
I tend to act spontaneously, feeling as if I want something and gotta have it now, now NOW! But I don't always know how to get it, nor get around the obstacles in my way.
However, often times I've seen something, thought I should get it, but didn't want it at that moment. Then later really wanting it...only to have it be gone gone gone! grrrrr
Both are hard, but 2 > 1. I can be very persistent and undefeatable if I have a clearly defined "want" (or goal) but sometimes I feel like I have no clue what I'm going after or if it's the right thing (or the thing I really want) to be going after.Originally Posted by songofsappho
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Sometimes I wonder if I've ever really known what I want. Maybe that's an excuse not to chase what I think I might want though?
Moonlight will fall
Winter will end
Harvest will come
Your heart will mend
I've been thinking a lot about this lately. I feel like my life has no fucking direction. After continual failure I've ditched all my plans for the future and there seems to be no one around to help me recognize realistic possibilities and work towards something feasible. Plus I seriously lack motivation.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Dude. That's all I can say right now. Dude.
This is seriously freakily uncanny.
Moonlight will fall
Winter will end
Harvest will come
Your heart will mend
Perhaps. I am very unreligious and stay away from churches, sects and similar group institutions, so perhaps that's why I haven't developed an interest in spirituality. But perhaps I should.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
That sounds to me like you might need more of something that they don't teach you at school, which is spirituality, the higher purpose. When I lack motivation it's because I really can't see the importance of doing something.
yes I was thinking that too but I could not put it into words at the time. Issues of who we are and where we are going can have a major impact on how we feel now.
Topaz
The artifact which is the source of my power will not be kept on the Mountain of Despair beyond the River of Fire guarded by the Dragons of Eternity. It will be in my safe-deposit box. The same applies to the object which is my one weakness.
can you help me out here? in time for what?
I think what's being implied is that a lot of ppl don't realize what they want out of life in time to go after it fully ... AKA "To be gifted is to be lost, unless one sees clearly in time to level the slopes instead of sliding down them." -- Jean Cocteau
I think #2 is harder--by a lot.
Going after what I want is 50,000 times harder for me. I already know what I want in time so fucking easily/naturally.
I'm honestly shocked that people aren't saying going after what you want is much more difficult. Does my brain really work in that different of a way lol haha. I know exactly what I want, 'just doing it' and going after it is always the hardest part. (dual-seeking)
Oh wait yay Mimosa is the same as me. Identical love <3 <3 <3.
Going after what you want is relatively easy; getting what you want is pretty hard... almost as hard as trying to determine what you want.
SLI/ISTp -- Te subtype
Perfect.Going after what you want is relatively easy; getting what you want is pretty hard... almost as hard as trying to determine what you want.
I would think the same.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
I pretty much concur with my identicals.
WP, I lived most of my childhood and young adulthood as an atheist. Then I realized that has become a belief just as structured as religion. So I tried to open my mind and look at what other people believed, wanted to believe, walked & talked, etc. I think what it comes down to is that I'm way too skeptical to cling to a formalized belief system period. I want to have useful assumptions by which I can move through my reality without banging my head against too painful contradictions, but I don't feel a powerful underlying need to identify with something larger than myself.
So even though I no longer call myself an atheist, neither do I care to consider myself particularly spiritual. But I will say that the process of opening myself up to the different possibilities was worth the experience, and has taught me respect for those who do consider themselves spiritual - as long as they are also demonstrably engaged in making sure their beliefs don't bring them into conflict with reality.
Obviously more than simply type related, but thought I'd put my $.02 in.
SLI
I think religion is not an easy subject to talk about, especially considering how many different ones there are, along with differing points of view. But denying the spiritual element altogether, regardless of denomination, does not seem like the right choice to me... Even with socionics, if you don't have a religious background, I can see how it might be used as the only model by people to explain human nature, and actually "explain" religiousness by type: "NFs are religious, STs are not," "NFs are not grounded to reality, STs are" and so on. Being a certain type is your identity when there is no consideration for higher purpose or spirituality.
The scientist-atheistic point of view would be that we're born with inclinations determined by type probably (in this case), we live and have moments of happiness where our brains are actually sending some sort of chemical whose actual purpose is for the advanced of the species and what not along with reproduction, then we die and become part of the Earth and that's it. Everything is explained by science, it's silly to consider anything else that we cannot see or use the scientific method... It sounds so depressing though, and why exactly is this the "truth"? If it feels depressing, doesn't that mean something as well? In that there is something inside people that naturally rejects such a dry concept? People have to be true to themselves and not just go with the flow in terms of their religion. Personally, I find it hard to believe that being atheist is the more intelligent choice. Denying spirituality to me is like dying internally, and I don't know how atheists can sustain an optimistic outlook on things without there being some kind of spiritual aspect that they have overlooked within them. I can attest to how better it is to live life religiously, as opposed to those periods where I have contemplated that there is no God and that everything that I read in science books and logical concepts of humanity are "it."
My religious uncle and I were discussing evolution versus creationism once so, essentially, science versus religion. I told him both were very important to me and I did not find them to contradict in anyway. Then he asked me, "but you have to believe one more than the other, so which one is it?" I told him there is no way I can choose one over the other.
In my point of view, science is the greatest gift from God (yes, I love science). Frankly, it annoys me just as much for an atheist to say only science as a creationist to say only God is behind the creation of the universe. Why do we have to choose one over the other?
Science can find out everything about the world and the universe, but in the end, there will always be room for God. And for those who believe there is a God, science cannot be denied because it is right in front of our faces.
A wise physics teacher of mine once said, "Science cannot disprove Religion just as Religion cannot disprove Science." If you at least acknowledge this, I mean really acknowledge it and not just say you do for show, I do not care what you believe.
Anyway, after that discussion, I convinced my uncle to put more value in science and he told me he very much enjoyed the conversation.
Ceci n'est pas une eii.
Many atheists are spiritual; I count myself among them.
When I think of how the Earth formed, and where the Moon came from, and the hundreds of millions of years that past before complex life arose on this planet... and then the evolution of that life, and how many times it had to start over from mass extinctions... and how there could be millions of other intelligent species out there in the universe, all feeling alone and wondering if anyone else exists...
It's hard to put the feeling into words, but some guy bleeding on a stick doesn't even come close.
SLI/ISTp -- Te subtype
Y'know, you're not the first person to say that contemplating a secular viewpoint is depressing. But I don't see it that way at all. There's so much we still don't know about the universe and our existence, and on several aspects it seems that we get very confusing results from trying to run headlong toward a concrete answer. So I'm willing to study a lot of different things, and I'm willing for people to have their own viewpoints not least because those views are due to their own studies and unpredictable experiences.
But I have no need to be part of some grand design by something called God. I have no need for an afterlife, either because I fear the termination of my individual existence or because I want to believe in a kind of justice that doesn't seem to be consistently carried out during our lives.
That said, I have had experiences that I would describe as sublime, as maybe even moments of enlightenment. I've seen inexplicable coincidences and met people whom I respect who believe in all sorts of stuff that would otherwise sound to me like pure hogwash.
I'm willing for there to be mystery. And behind the mystery could lie any explanation at all. But I don't feel this need for spirituality that I've heard talk about. It doesn't depress me to look within (and I do look within) and find a lack of faith.
I'm not trying to undermine anyone's perspective who considers faith to be an integral part of their existence. But surely I can't be the only one who feels this way.
SLI
Both can be difficult for me, but I think the second one is harder. Or... I don't know. I can know what would be nice to have, but sometimes I'm not sure how much it would cost. So I have trouble deciding whether or not it would be worth it.
As for the other conversation, I like how Sereno puts it all.
This line stuck out at me:
"In my way of thinking, I am more concerned towards discovering the truth than to first question how reasonable it is."
Yes, reality is bigger than my brain. So something not making sense to me doesn't mean it can't be true. Anyway, that's a tangent, I suppose...
Oh, to find you in dreams - mixing prior, analog, and never-beens... facts slip and turn and change with little lucidity. except the strong, permeating reality of emotion.
.
diana, i asked the same question. that threw me as well. and i also ask myself until the answer *pops* into my mind. it was there all along, i just need to *ask* until it presents itself into my conscious awareness. and those obstacles along the way...a change in perspective helps me to deal with them and sometimes they disappear right before my eyes. cool.
i use to muscle my way through those obstacles, just like my mom still does. but, now, i've learned to use my power within to cut through them. it's given me more peace within and room (just like that space needing to be filled) to fill it with fun stuff instead of grief and anger from forcing everything on the outside. then, the rollercoaster ride of life is fun instead of scary. ARMS UP!!!! WHEEEEEEE!
.
Sorry for the late reply Sereno. I was about to post this the other day when the supposed hack-attack attempt happened and the board was shut down.
There are always individuals in a group, but the individuals don't always act like indviduals. The group lends legitimacy to individual actions that might not have otherwise taken place. An example is the defense, "I was just following orders," or, in a potentially counter-intuitive sense, the bystander effect.
Groups within groups can often be isolated. For example, no atheist believes that Fred Phelps' "God Hates Fags" group is indicative of Christianity as a whole. Yet their ideology is based on their beliefs (obviously). This is a clear cut example where religion is not personal, and should be 'figuratively' attacked. And indeed, most mainstream Christians wouldn't have a problem with that, because they see Phelps' crew as the 'other'. We're Not Like That, they would say.
But what happens when normally moderate Christians go on the attack? Earlier on in the year, blogger PZ Myers threw a consecrated host, a Qur'an, and a copy of The God Delusion in the garbage and posted pictures on his blog. The outrage from Catholics was fucking ridiculous. He even got death threats. Personally, I don't know how to separate Catholics from Catholics. However, I do know that a) faith is personal, and b) free speech is a constitutional right in the US not limited by hate legislation, so therefore, these people are way out of line.
This is where the logical fallacy, 'the argument from ignorance" comes in. It is not logically justifiable to state that your brother does not exist because of the fact that you cannot provide evidence of his existence. This is akin to saying that a god created the universe because scientists don't understand how it began. However, it is perfectly justifiable for me to lack belief that your brother exists when you have have not offered evidence, just as it is acceptable to lack belief that the Big Bang really happened if you think the evidence is lacking.Taken from what you wrote: "the absence of evidence is not evidence," and I completely agree with that statement. Based on this, how is it then justified to not believe me? Just because I don't have evidence, it doesn't mean that it is evidence in itself that what I am saying is not true.
Consider Russell's Teapot:
From this example we can see both that the burden of proof and the argument fom ignorance are closely involved. The speaker enacts the latter fallacy by assuming the inability to disprove his assertion therefore, in fact, proves it. The speaker also fails to realize that he had the responsibility to provide the evidence or 'proof' in the first place, as the burden of proof states. Shifting the burdern of proof onto the one not making the assertion is clearly in error.If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.
There may be sources independent of the Bible which speak of Jesus' existence. However, the supernatural characteristics attributed to Jesus only come from the Bible (I could be wrong about that, but I can't think of any examples at the moment). Even in the case where there are contemporaneous sources independent of the Bible, they need to be substantiated in their own right. At which point, if shown 'true', are only afforded the same security that any scientific knowledge enjoys; that is, 'plausibly true until shown otherwise".So you are saying that the existence of Jesus is only based on the Bible?
This is actually the argument from ignorance fallacy itself, believe it or not. That it is outside your comprehension does not in any way affect the truth of what actually happened. There are many cases of human behaviour that I don't understand (like flying jets into skyscrapers), but it lying outside my comprehension doesn't disprove its occurrence.It is outside my comprehension how a small group of ordinary Jews would/could create a fabrication involving a man who did not embody what the Jews at the time even considered the Messiah to be like, and whose message was that of peace, instead of violence considering that they were under the opression of the Roman Empire. Why go through all that trouble really? Then again, that's just what comes to my mind.
According to you. I'm being sincere when I say I'm not sure why your interpretation should be taken over, say, Phelps', just because it's less threatening.Yes it does have importance, but like I said, the Bible should be read a certain way.
No, I'm recognizing that for any discussion to take place, some generalizations and simplifications have to take place. I've debated a lot of wiggle theists who will argue but never actually claim a position of their own. "I'm not like that", or "many Christians don't believe that" are common refrains. Well, a lot of people are like that and many Christians do believe that, therefore it's fair game.I agree with that as I mentioned before. Just because there is a tendency for the religious like you say to fill in gaps, it does not mean that a theist necessarily does that. Personally, I never fill in gaps, only think of a possibility in place of those gaps. It doesn't seem that you have encountered intellectual theists, or at least your image of theists seems to underestimate their capacity for such things.
(I've had theists bring up the Stalin example of atheism gone wrong. Before I actually thought about it, I wanted to do blank denial. Then I realized that any worldview taken as ideology and paired with the barrel of a gun is going to cause some serious shit. And I think other atheists are wrong for not coming to the same conclusion.)
And the number of intellectual theists I've encountered is very low. I live in a small 'city' of about 10,000 people which is literally the most religious place in Canada. Steinbach, Manitoba has the most churches per capita of anywhere in North America, and up until 2 or 3 years ago, was the last dry town in Canada. When they held the liquor referendum, organizers rented buses to ship old Mennonites to the polling stations to vote against it. I worked for a local window manufacturer for 6 years that held a chapel service every Tuesday morning during work hours, and had religious wording in its mission statement.
The point is, living here I've met a shit-load of Christians. And pretty much every single one that's tried to debate me has been hopelessly ignorant - as pleasant, hard-working, and fundamentally good that the vast majority of them were. I've only come across intellectual theists online.
First of all, there's no atheistic faith just like there is no ateapotistic faith. Please try to understand a lack of belief means. Second, I hate to say it and don't want to sound offensive in saying it, but you're on the verge of slipping into some of the worst cliches that I hear in debate. Things like, 'atheism is a religion', 'morality only comes from God', etc. Treating others, for example, as you yourself would be treated has its most obvious foundation in rational self-interest. We have a tendency to make human morality sound more noble than it really is.However, something tells me that there is truth in this, and that is enough for me to have faith that there is something at work that is above my understanding. I feel like I'm actually being a better person whenever I am in accordance to what a Christian should be like, in terms of treating other people as equals, helping those in need, developing the virtues, etc., and these are things that do not have foundation with an atheistic faith (even if it's paradoxical to have an atheistic faith). I mean, how can you justify all these things without referring to some kind of higher purpose? Why is there a need for a scientific observation or explanation to justify that something "fulfills" you in a way that can simply be explained by it feeling completely as how it should be?
This is very close to another type of logical fallacy, the argument from numbers, or the idea that something must be true if so many people believe it. I think this can also be applied to notion that something must be good or worthwhile because a lot of people are into it. I don't agree, and I'm also skeptical that you would consider something regardless of whether it sounds reasonable or not. If God Hates Fags were to enjoy a massive jump in numbers, would you check out the group? You might check it out on the curiousity of why so many people joined up, but that's much different than actually taking their beliefs under consideration.The fact that it is believed by many people is more than reason enough for me to take it under consideration, regardless if it seems reasonable or not. There is nothing to lose in looking into it, and in the end you become more knowledgeable of what the truth is. In my way of thinking, I am more concerned towards discovering the truth than to first question how reasonable it is.
SLI/ISTp -- Te subtype
Ok, so what's a "normally moderate Christian"? And although I disagree with that of giving death threats, which to me (as a side comment) is not in the true spirit of being Christian, what makes you think that these people are "way out of line"? Isn't that a value statement?
Also you're making assumptions that I don't agree with, and it's done to support your arguments. For example: "This is a clear cut example where religion is not personal, and should be 'figuratively' attacked." So if I understand correctly, Christianity should be attacked because a group of people say that "God Hates Fags"? Why "should"?
The main thing I don't understand is if being an atheist means lack of belief, then your arguments will always have to be supported by claiming that they are the logical and reasonable choice when that to me is subjective in itself, therefore, it is a belief rather than a truth. For example, this:
It's perfectly justifiable? Based on what? logical fallacy? I don't see how this is not related to a belief that logical fallacy always leads to "truth." Even those concepts as the "burden of proof" actually don't make sense to me. Why do people have to provide proof for anything? I see all of this as being subjective.This is where the logical fallacy, 'the argument from ignorance" comes in. It is not logically justifiable to state that your brother does not exist because of the fact that you cannot provide evidence of his existence. This is akin to saying that a god created the universe because scientists don't understand how it began. However, it is perfectly justifiable for me to lack belief that your brother exists when you have have not offered evidence, just as it is acceptable to lack belief that the Big Bang really happened if you think the evidence is lacking.
Ok, but again, using falsifiability is also a belief to me, regardless if I agree or disagree with using that as a way to build on scientific knowledge.There may be sources independent of the Bible which speak of Jesus' existence. However, the supernatural characteristics attributed to Jesus only come from the Bible (I could be wrong about that, but I can't think of any examples at the moment). Even in the case where there are contemporaneous sources independent of the Bible, they need to be substantiated in their own right. At which point, if shown 'true', are only afforded the same security that any scientific knowledge enjoys; that is, 'plausibly true until shown otherwise".
Based on what exactly? "reason"? Someone will come off like an ass if they do this, but really, if I just ask questions about an argument, it will come to a point that the argument will be shown as a belief rather than a proof. Ultimately, we even believe that the Earth is not flat, because we have yet to see it otherwise. I think that the scientific community considers that to be a falsifiable statement.No, I'm recognizing that for any discussion to take place, some generalizations and simplifications have to take place. I've debated a lot of wiggle theists who will argue but never actually claim a position of their own. "I'm not like that", or "many Christians don't believe that" are common refrains. Well, a lot of people are like that and many Christians do believe that, therefore it's fair game.
So claiming that atheism is purely based on science and logic and all that doesn't do it for me. We always choose to believe in something that is considered supposedly "true," and therefore that is subjective, as coming from the subject.
I don't believe you, I need proofAnd the number of intellectual theists I've encountered is very low. I live in a small 'city' of about 10,000 people which is literally the most religious place in Canada. Steinbach, Manitoba has the most churches per capita of anywhere in North America, and up until 2 or 3 years ago, was the last dry town in Canada. When they held the liquor referendum, organizers rented buses to ship old Mennonites to the polling stations to vote against it. I worked for a local window manufacturer for 6 years that held a chapel service every Tuesday morning during work hours, and had religious wording in its mission statement.
The point is, living here I've met a shit-load of Christians. And pretty much every single one that's tried to debate me has been hopelessly ignorant - as pleasant, hard-working, and fundamentally good that the vast majority of them were. I've only come across intellectual theists online.. Regardless if that's being an ass, I think you would agree in that it's a "reasonable" response.
Where's the proof in that if it's so obvious? I don't see philosophy as proof of something however.First of all, there's no atheistic faith just like there is no ateapotistic faith. Please try to understand a lack of belief means. Second, I hate to say it and don't want to sound offensive in saying it, but you're on the verge of slipping into some of the worst cliches that I hear in debate. Things like, 'atheism is a religion', 'morality only comes from God', etc. Treating others, for example, as you yourself would be treated has its most obvious foundation in rational self-interest. We have a tendency to make human morality sound more noble than it really is.
I never said that it was true, good, or worthwhile. I'm simply saying that it is something that I personally would be interested in considering to see if it's true or not, and finding out about it. As to why the amount of people into that would "catch my eye," I don't have an answer.This is very close to another type of logical fallacy, the argument from numbers, or the idea that something must be true if so many people believe it. I think this can also be applied to notion that something must be good or worthwhile because a lot of people are into it. I don't agree, and I'm also skeptical that you would consider something regardless of whether it sounds reasonable or not. If God Hates Fags were to enjoy a massive jump in numbers, would you check out the group? You might check it out on the curiousity of why so many people joined up, but that's much different than actually taking their beliefs under consideration.
both are equally easy/hard: They are pretty much the same as one usually implies the other. Either way. Well for me at least
n00bIEE
#2. I'm extremely inconsistent. When I know what I want, I have no problems obtaining it but keeping focused on something for more than 1.5 minutes is a joke.
Going after what I want. I've got a nice big book about what I want.
Knowing what I want is much much harder. Going after it is much easier.
"Those who make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities..."
- Voltaire
i dont have a problem with either. i have other "issues." and who said it (that big life goal) would EVER be easy to get?! i've fought long and hard on the outside as well as on the inside to get it. but, it's been a kickass fun rollercoaster ride, as i know it will continue to be...You must be bullet & doves (and mine) identical as well!!!
I have a theory here: If people don't know what they want in life, of course it is not difficult to get it... But if people have a life goal, it is most probably not something you get easily. Just a thought.
Huh? Your signature says you're an IEI. That's hardly the identical of an LSE. I wonder what UDP's answer is.You must be bullet & doves (and mine) identical as well!!!
I have a theory here: If people don't know what they want in life, of course it is not difficult to get it... But if people have a life goal, it is most probably not something you get easily. Just a thought.
We are not pathetic, grr. I'm all for self-loathing humor but we kick ass as much as we are pathetic.Identically pathetic, maybe...
This might be of interest: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=never-say-die
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
