Personality Cafe banner

21 - 36 of 36 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,087 Posts
@series0 haha I don't know why you'd assume any of us here would freak out on you about anything you said, especially when this is a debate and therefore is meant to be a platform for people to present, develop, and expose their thoughts on the topic. I myself am primarily interested in everyone's thoughts.
Well, that is an awesome and due to recent posts of many on this forum, rather unexpected attitude from a poster. Welcome back! Please sit and stay a while. To me you represent hope (well), even though I know you feel otherwise internally.

That being said, I'm very happy that you brought up such an interesting argument! I do want to challenge some of your central prepositions though to see what you've got in response.
Excellent! You seem an awesome compliment to me. I am all about challenge.

1) hope and despair are essentially unreasonable assumptions about the future: I believe you are using the word "unreasonable" here not in a negatively charged sense but in the sense that there might not be cut and dry logical reasoning behind either hope or despair.
On this matter of your response, you are totally correct!

I agree! I also agree with what you said about it being influenced by people's experiences, but ultimately I still think there is something incredibly enigmatic about hope and despair.
And this is where we can agree again, so I disagree with the fact the you think I suggested they are not enigmatic. I did not. I agree, so you are burning a strawman now. Further, I will offer you an easy out in this instance. My theories are ALL OVER this forum in psychology, philosophy, and debate; but, you are only recently returned. I made a mistake of assuming as I often do that you are moderately familiar with my model, because I am so frequent a poster. But your recent return forbids that assumption.

For example, I have a relatively fortunate life and honestly an incredible amount of luck. Basically any time I'm caught in a really bad or seemingly inescapable situation, somehow fortune changes for me even if it doesn't for anyone else around me. It's actually quite ridiculous, to the point where others notice it. So, if I've had such a fortunate life, and always manage to escape dreadful situations, what exactly do I have to fear, or left to desire, that would spawn any kind of hope or despair in me? Despite my overwhelmingly positive life experiences and the fact that I'm pretty optimistic, I still have an unshakable despair that I can't really explain. I hope that triggers your intrigue a little.
It DOES NOT trigger my intrigue at all. I even suggested it, if you look back and read what I wrote about desire.

You are F, a female, and clearly desire-aligned in your writing style. Desire is just chaos. It is entirely unreasonable at its base. It only becomes reasonable when it unites with fear and anger (as restraints) near the single point of objective perfection. In the human species, nature has decided to risk embodiment of chaos in the female gender (generally). Nature is a gambler by essence. It also embeds a flip scale. So women are stereotypically desire-oriented, just as men are stereotypically fear oriented. This is not common bigotry, as the stereotype is a mere fact. There are MANY reasons why females need to be chaotic, to keep the human species healthy, but a great one is that chaos resents order. It seeks in longing and desire the freedom. Freedom is synonymous with chaos. In doing so the female seeks a mate OUTSIDE the established order. So she denigrates order, fear, men (of her tribe), etc; and seeks heart's longing elsewhere. Now that women have more freedom in most world cultures you see this trend at EPIC proportions. It is truly staggering to behold how true it is.

I risk saying the above because you take these matters in the spirit of debate and I have not yet seen too much knee jerk unthinking left wing narrative from you. The left wing, Feminism, etc; are all chaos-apologists. Again, I advise balance, so I am not right wing, but center, and not a moderate, but an extremist.

2) About delusion and reason - I don't think you have the full picture here. First of all, correctness doesn't necessarily explain, drive, or contribute to life all that much.
Incorrect, and actually obviously so.

Correctness is ... ONLY a part of fear. Drive is desire, so you missed the message of my model entirely in that sense.

Fear is all order, all structure, all hierarchy. Fear is identity itself. Fear is that which organizes and groups anything in any way. All thought is only fear. Fear has undeniable associations with death and cold. That is because fear seeks to calm itself, its heightened energy by choosing to dampen that energy. This makes fear literally seek cold, stable, and ultimately dead states. This is a law of the universe.

Desire is all chaos, all freedom, all drive. Desire is all inertia. Desire is that which impels every entity towards expression of itself. As such all 'heart' is desire. Desire has undeniable associations with life and heat. (This is why you brought up life). That is because desire seeks to increase its energy, wanting always is a MORE situation. More of what you want, less of what you do not, is effectively more. The core of desire is BECOMING. So desire seeks warmth, instability (fun), and otherwise alive and thriving (fecund) states. This is a law of the universe.

So, OF COURSE correctness doesn't contribute DIRECTLY to life, because correctness is judgment which is fear and aligned with death.

But all three primal emotions, fear, anger, and desire; are together love. There is no REAL separation between these things. However, it IS entirely possible to speak of any given thing or act as an embodiment or choice over laden with any one of these emotions. So saying things like, 'Women embody desire statistically' and 'That choice was too fear-oriented' are not only possible and possibly correct, but wise as well. We must remember, MOST IMPORTANTLY though, that all of these statements are ... STATES only. They are not in-essence traps. Change is ubiquitous. To cement that point I will state that if humanity worked on it for many generations, we could countermand nature's choice and cause the female of humanity to embody order and fear instead. This however would result in nature's demand that men represent desire and chaos as a law of the universe.

It is "correct" that a lack of oxygen will cause death in a human being, but plenty of people still desire to engage in oxygen depriving activities like mountain climbing, scuba diving, ect, and seem to have a greater quality of life than they would just obeying correctness and avoiding oxygen deprivation.
This point is extremely surface and not relevant.

It is the overall interest or push that is of note or relevant to these matters we are discussing. Very orderly women still embody chaos. Their programming is something they have to fight to represent the order in their personalities. The chaos is instantiated into their physical beings.

Further, of course desire can override fear in some cases. That is not special to note. And luckily for that mountainclimber, fear can override desire as well, or vertigo would be a death sentence. So, again, such examples are not the rule showing us how the universe is designed and balanced. They are exceptions PROVING the rule.

As mentioned nature is a gambler. It embeds all within each. We are all a pleasant mix of all three emotions, so each of us is thus more functional, not lacking entirely of any one of them. We all have some hope and some despair.

Even human emotions, which can be partly explained by hormones and chemicals and receptors, seem to be impossible to fully explain in terms of pure logic, and all we can say is "well that's how it is".
This is the same not relevant point.

Yes, for any entity to exist, it contains all three emotions. But it IS NOT the embodiment of all three. The sun is an embodiment of heat and mass, desire and anger. Its structure is still there and the processes of its thought are still there, so fear is also there. But it embodies fear and anger and in its desire to 'live' it rots itself and disintegrates eventually.

I am not sure that I want to discuss a black hole as an embodiment of cold logic. That would be fear and anger. But you get the idea.

This is an entirely other debate that could be had over and over again, but for now I just want to make the very simple point that logic is merely mathematical and cannot clearly define every dimension of human nature and existence.
Incorrect.

Math is entirely logical is correct. Logic IS NOT entirely math.

Logic is cause and effect relationships. They are tautologically true or that is the goal, evaluation of truth by expression.

So, within my model perfection is EQUAL parts fear, anger, and desire. That means that indeed EVERY SINGLE THING in this universe can be logically determined. This means ACTUAL logic is quite mysterious and unknown thus far.

Desire is that which demands mystery exist. Desire is REQUIRED by love, the system, to ensure free will. Without mystery (beauty) the balance of free will would be weighted to instantly perfect states. Rather than ALL THAT IS, the universe, we would have nothing but stagnant perfection.

Anger restrains both desire and fear. It demands they shut up. Anger is interested in self sufficiency, in being. Anger tries to HOLD all fears and all desires. In so doing it rises. This is the balance. This is love. And maximization of these three together is the GOOD, perfection, the goal. So anger is, like each of these three primal emotions, an equal contributor to the GOOD. One IS NOT morally allowed to favor any given emotion. That is immoral behavior.

Yeah its a helpful predictor for the reasonableness of one's hopeful expectations or descent into despair, but the mere fact that something "unreasonable" like hope or despair exists means there is a dimension to human existence that is entirely untouchable by logic alone.
And ... I completely disagree. Logic, like desire, is infused into everything.

You are so wrong that I will deign to offer you physical proof.

The atom itself answers to my model.

Protons are fear. They clump in the center. Neutrons are ... neutral (go figure). They offer mass and balance. And electrons are desire, chaos.

Fear is only the past. It is an excitable state arrived at from matching known patterns, e.g. order. Chaos is only the future. It always leads to what is desired and cannot go backwards. Anger is the eternal truth of now. It is only the single moment of the present tense. All physical reality is created by anger's resistance to fear and desire.

So, you are wrong, logic is infused into everything EQUALLY to desire. You only favor desire (and life) because you are giddy with desire, immoral in that sense. This is not said in anger. It is disclosure of truth. Of course you are allowed to choose to believe or not.

3) Balance - you are certainly correct that one must have balanced desires to avoid self-inflicted discontent, but I don't see how that correlates to having a balance between hope and despair.
Well you read me wrong. The actual balance is between fear and desire. As mentioned MOSTLY, fear is the source of despair and desire of hope. But, also as mentioned, individually desire rots a person possessing it. This is why despite your great luck you still FEEL despair from your core. Your core IS NOT balanced. Your immoral desire is rotting you.

So hope and despair ARE NOT balanced in the first order. They are only balanced in the second order, amid desire instead of amid love. So hope is desire infused desire and despair is fear infused desire. That fits my model. Do you see the detail of the levels now? It is actually fairly easy to relate this truth, all things considered.

Recognizing that you won't ever fulfill a certain desire doesn't mean that you are despairing - giving up on becoming wealthy enough to avoid fear and discomfort doesn't mean that you have despaired and given in to poverty.
I agree and that misses the point. That is the balance of wisdom.

Remember I said that MORE of each emotion is better. So we are NOT leaving desire behind (that is impossible). Rather, we are balancing more and more desire with fear and anger, RATHER than allowing it to rot and ruin our lives. This means hope is there in EQUAL measure to despair. That is the state of wisdom.

This means that wise are MORE desirous than the desire-centric folks. That means that the wise are MORE fearful than the ordered folks. They just are balanced and so they express these emotions less immorally and almost ALWAYS they express one and then the other in tandem. This situation shows a paradox about wisdom. Wisdom is arrived at through suffering which is a whole other topic. But it causes happiness, again, a whole other topic. But the point here is that the wise suffer exquisitely. They suffer MORE, not less than others. But they are also far happier than others. It all stands to reason. The model works.

Giving up on a relationship doesn't mean despair, it just means you recognize that your desire is impossible to fulfill because the good you were pursuing in that relationship isn't there.
I love it that you say 'the good' that is correct. But your overall point, MISSES the point of my model. The wise suffer exquisitely. Each failure is deeply felt, so you are wrong. It does mean despair, if truth is understood. It's just that hope enough exists to balance that despair. The state of balance allows for a sense or view of stability.

So you can recognize that certain desires aren't conducive to your personal good, giving up on those desires but that can't possibly amount to true despair.
Yes, it does. Desire is chaos. It wants what it wants. It does not care about fear and logic and rules. Pure desire has to suffer to learn to care about the GOOD. But pure desire it remains.

The other emotions are REQUIRED to help desire balance itself. Without them it is unrestrained and it will skew to despair in all cases where it cannot get what it wants, even if that want is evil.

If despair was something so simple as "seeing a certain future as impossible" then it wouldn't be such a heavy word.
You are wrong again. There is nothing 'heavier' than any and all emotions. It is a disaster to hear an INFP say this, and maybe also a miracle.

4) Desires are flawed - well its rather obvious that everybody’s existences are incomplete and lacking in various ways, but that doesn't mean that wanting fulfillment will cause self-destruction.
That was poor form of you.

You bait and switched. Desire IS NOT fulfillment so you are saying nothing here.

Fulfillment is more akin to wisdom and is transcendent to desire alone therefore. To say this this way you must retract or you do not understand desire. That is my contention.

Some desires are flawed, based on whether they contribute to a person's true good or not.
I dearly love it that you say this. Kudos in the extreme.

This can be observed objectively.
Followed by this colossal error. Nope.

Humans CANNOT be objective. This is why fear is just as delusional as desire. Memory and awareness are not perfect. So, there is NO SUCH THING as objective observation. What has happened, and any state, may be objective, but that is irrelevant to us finally. We can only TRY to be objective. Unless you say it that way, EVERY SINGLE TIME, you show you do not understand. Remember what I said about the wise. They express desire and then fear right after that in balance. The interest in objectivity has both desire and fear components, but, the display of the understanding of trying only with a constant expectation of failure and thus the possibility of growth and the earning of wisdom, is REQUIRED of a more moral person. Shortcuts are evil and not allowed.

For example, alcohol can help a nervous person gain composure that they are lacking at the moment, so drinking a shot of whisky to calm down doesn't violate their true good. However, if that person has a critical illness or develops an addiction, the alcohol is contributing more to the destruction of their body than to the calming of their mind, and is therefore overwhelmingly in violation of their true good.
This example shows clearly how hard it is to truly evaluate a situation. We thus use judgment KNOWING ONLY that accuracy is flawed and objectivity is forbidden to us. Still that can be trite. We are able to detect the likelihood of the best path. So, in general I agree.

But, people's judgment is often DEEPLY flawed. The more they hang out on the over expressed ends of desire and fear, the worse their judgment is. The scales of balance are tossed aside. This is the reason I say all the time, 'if you are mostly right or left wing, you are NOT wise'. That is true. The right is fear-centric and the left is desire-centric. They are both mostly wrong. Following either CANNOT lead to wisdom really in any efficient way.

I get the feeling that much of the way you are explaining hope and despair is in reference to every day expectations of life and events, rather than the more fundamental issue I'm hoping to get at
Incorrect. I am far more DEEPLY fundamental in my model than your surface assertions are.

- that is, in times of great suffering, or unusual circumstances, what is behind a person's hope or despair in reaction to the calamity? Especially in long-suffering. I don't really want to discuss the mundane hopes or despairs of a person who's life is at a point of normalcy, since their hopes can really only be about great and unnecessary life improvements (like luxury) given that they aren't being deprived of anything essential.


What you want is not relevant. Your desires are occluding your reason here.

The eternal truth is in every moment. Every small choice is as momentous as any supposed great one. Desire deludes itself that order is petty and small. This is the delusion of heart over mind (ridiculous). This is imbalanced, immoral, and a very clear example of what I am referring to in general about needing to understand wisdom as balance AND maximization.

And you do the left wing thing. You speak of luxury as anathema. Efficiency is a fear side guilt apology from desire. No, living life abundantly amid luxury is a constant state of wise choice. Wise choice is the only meaningful luxury. But to decry luxury itself is unwise.

The question is, when greatly deprived of essentials, and in tremendous suffering, why does hope or despair appear?
Your question shows a lack of understanding of the basics of emotion.

So, what is emotion?

What is suffering?

Fear side people will suggest personal control, more of a bear up under suffering, I can take it, attitude.

Desire side people will try to circumvent suffering by ignoring it or wishing it away. They will say 'let them eat cake'.

The fear is delusional capacity and the desire is delusional wishing. So fear makes one delusionally 'correct' (incorrect) whereas desire rots everything (magical thinking).

Suffering is caused by encountering a situation for which you do not yet possess the emotional fortitude to get past.

But love is infinite. Its power the same. All suffering is therefore choice only. Everything you feel is your choice and you are to blame. Blame is empowering. It allows you to have the control in as much as is possible. Control DOES NOT mean you will live. It is BETTER to choose morally to die than to act in any immoral way at all ever. This is the ultimate statement of idealism.

Ridiculous left wing types, chaos-apologists, will say that I am blaming the victim. I am not. I am attempting to remind the victim of the truth of their empowerment. Choice is everything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Blinkandstare

·
Registered
hmm
Joined
·
51 Posts
Discussion Starter #22
@series0 I love how blunt and to the point you are! You are correct in assuming that I'm not familiar with your posts. This debate, at lease as it is between you an I, seems to be revolving primarily along the line that you believe all human thought and action is boiled down to fear, desire, and anger. I am familiar with that theory but not so much your representation of it. I personally subscribe to Aristotle's philosophy of human nature, as described in Ethics. I am familiar with his descriptions of human emotions and things like hope and despair (and luxury, to be clear), but that doesn't mean I don't want to explore these two things further. Also, very quickly, you called me an INFP. Just to clarify, I am an ENFP. Please don't make a complete judgment about my personality type based on the extremely limited exposure you have been given to my existence. You certainly like to deconstruct my writing to interpret who I am but I assure you that attempting such a thing here will only reward you with a part-to-whole fallacy.

Now, responses (forgive me I don't remember how to properly quote on this forum, it's been an incredibly long time since I've used this forum).

(I'm not going to respond to everything you've stated. I just want to get to the basics of our debate)

1). Being female and therefore "desire" driven: Interesting theory! How would you say my writing style is desire driven? Obviously I appear to desire something like knowledge, consensus, conflict, or entertainment as a reason for bringing up this debate at all; but wouldn't anyone who starts a debate be motivated out of desire? I feel like this point, and those regarding the three primordial emotions you mention, is too general to be of much use in the debate. Obviously desire drives a lot of human action, but what is more pertinent to the discussion is the question of "the desire for what? the fear of what? anger in response to what?" and how that reveals something about hope and despair. If I desire to have this debate because I seek to agitate people, isn't that a significantly different thing from seeking debate to broaden my knowledge of a subject? Doesn't the difference between those desires intrigue you, or are you satisfied merely by the statement that "I am desire driven"? Also, doesn't fear help a person attain something desired? In the same way, isn't anger necessary to overcome obstacles to the desired, or to escape the feared? These three primordial emotions are much too intertwined to be "primarily" feminine or masculine. They are simply human. There are plenty of existential differences between men and women, and I don't think concentrations of the three emotions constitutes one of them.

2) What does this mean for the debate? It means that we need to get more specific. You stated that many of my statements were surface level or shallow - that is exactly the point. I want to be specific because by jumping to broad conclusions deprives us of investigating any of the delicious points and facts and derivations and paradoxes that lay along the road to that broad answer. You can say that all motivation boils down to the three primordial emotions, but does that really answer a question like "why did a small Spanish town, armed with nothing but tiles and farming tools, succeed in defeating a Napoleonic advance - were they driven by courageous hope or out of desperation and despair?" You could say "They feared death and desired to live, and their anger helped them fight well." Don't be offended if I say that that is an incredibly dull answer - even if its true it doesn't explain much. I guess you might go on to explain the "balance" of these emotions, and that they had a sufficient balance to help them act effectively against an overwhelming enemy. That at least is more detailed, and we might be able to draw some conclusions or hypotheses from such an explanation.

3) You mention that "the wise suffer exquisitely" - I agree, there is plenty to be said about that. But then you say that "Suffering is caused by encountering a situation for which you do not yet possess the emotional fortitude to get past." Does this mean that the wise are more emotionally weak than the blissfully unaware? Or that the unwise simply do not encounter challenges to their emotional fortitude due to being less aware of something? I would merely describe suffering as "the deprivation of goods", and that the severity of that deprivation or the essentiality of the goods determines the greatness of the suffering. You state that emotions of fear or desire determine a person's mental attitude towards suffering, specifically that fear drives a person to fight and desire causes complacency. What about the desire to become more resilient through suffering? Is allowing oneself to grow as a result of suffering a "let them eat cake" attitude, or does it demonstrate emotional fortitude and self-control for the sake of attaining a higher good? If so, fighting against and attempting to escape suffering (fear driven response) cannot always be the wisest choice, if one values elevating their existence in some way.

Finally, please keep in mind that most of my questions are meant to spur on debate and suggest topics to explore. When I ask things like "The question is, when greatly deprived of essentials, and in tremendous suffering, why does hope or despair appear?", I am not displaying some gross ignorance. I actually do have opinions and experiences that would suffice to answer that question and others like it. I am not asking all of these questions simply out of ignorance, rather because I want to know what YOUR answer is. You seem to be stating your beliefs on this topic, so you might be confused by my questions and how I keep stating my intentions (ie: I want to talk about....I want to explore...I want specifics). You say my desire is obscuring the truth - I'm not here just to see a truth. Just reading what you believe isn't sufficient, and I honestly won't see your whole belief without challenging you to be specific. Is that clear? Even if I understand what you are getting at, leaving your premises unchallenged would be a pity. Since you bring up broad and deep ideas, nothing could challenge them better than forcing them to the surface to see them at work in specific situations.
 

·
Registered
hmm
Joined
·
51 Posts
Discussion Starter #23
@series0 That being said, have we strayed from the topic a little? I guess that could be expected when one explains hope and despair as elements derived from something massively ultimate like three primordial emotions. Is it possible to come back down from the universe and attempt to explore something more close by? Are hope and despair derivatives of something less primordial than fear and desire?
 

·
Registered
hmm
Joined
·
51 Posts
Discussion Starter #24
Here are some more questions that could be explored:
1) Do hope and despair operate in the background of a person's psyche at all, or are they only "activated" in specific situations?

2) What factors contribute to some people being predisposed to hope or despair, or are they not predisposed at all and only specific circumstances tilt a person towards one or the other?

3) Is it a shameful thing to despair? If so, does this make it even harder for people who are despairing to get out of it?

4) When you stop despairing, do you start hoping?

5) When are despair and resignation different?

6) When are hope and projecting into the future different? Do you have to guess at what the future may hold in order to have hope?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
153 Posts
People I talk to are always shocked but pleased when I reveal to them the hypothesis that they have a lot of hope/despair dictating their way of thinking, and they feel more empowered to take control or be at peace with themselves.
In your experience, where does despair come from and how does it dictate one's way of thinking?

Here are some more questions that could be explored:
1) Do hope and despair operate in the background of a person's psyche at all, or are they only "activated" in specific situations?

2) What factors contribute to some people being predisposed to hope or despair, or are they not predisposed at all and only specific circumstances tilt a person towards one or the other?

3) Is it a shameful thing to despair? If so, does this make it even harder for people who are despairing to get out of it?

4) When you stop despairing, do you start hoping?

5) When are despair and resignation different?

6) When are hope and projecting into the future different? Do you have to guess at what the future may hold in order to have hope?
  1. Both. One's mental state can be continuous and prompted by an event in the moment.
  2. Genetics and personal experience (which is relative to your surrounding environment)
  3. Despair itself is not shameful, but those who experience despair also face shame because they are not living up to their potential.
  4. Not necessarily. There exists a state of existence in which one is not feeling particularly hopeful or despairing.
  5. Despair is prolonged lack of hope and a negative state, but the emotion itself is a driving force to change your life for the better. Resignation is the failure to act on that to the point of acceptance/quitting/killing your ideal.
  6. We project ourselves into the future all the time, but not always to a hopeful result, so yes, they are different. Yes, all hope is projecting oneself into a better future and then believing that making that future a reality is highly possible.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,087 Posts
@series0 I love how blunt and to the point you are!
Thanks! It's what I do. I realize it's not always what people want. But wants are desire, prone to delusion. The truth can be served in a warm pool of sugary slop, or quick and too the point, cold and hard, so we can get to it, get on with it, the business of understanding!

You are correct in assuming that I'm not familiar with your posts. This debate, at lease as it is between you an I, seems to be revolving primarily along the line that you believe all human thought and action is boiled down to fear, desire, and anger. I am familiar with that theory but not so much your representation of it.
I am writing a book on it.

It is effectively a book on wisdom that uses much of the Enneagram as a basis.

I personally subscribe to Aristotle's philosophy of human nature, as described in Ethics. I am familiar with his descriptions of human emotions and things like hope and despair (and luxury, to be clear), but that doesn't mean I don't want to explore these two things further.
Excellent, and I do so love some Aristotle. He is heralded and considered by mots to be the effective philosophical father of Pragmatism. Whereas someone like Plato would be considered the father of Idealism. So, it is interesting you are F and yet a devotee of Aristotle, largely a right wing styled or fear and reason styled icon of philosophy.

So, I would disavow Pragmatism and Idealism both, in favor of the balance of both of these. In fact Ethics itself is effectively defined as the real-world (read as logical or empirically limited) view on morals, arguably an ideal view as they stand defined most often.

So, the balance effectively denies both sides as preeminent and demands instead that they coexist in balance. This does not deny the GOOD as the proper goal. Rather, at last, the proper goal, the GOOD is framed correctly between order and chaos.

Also, very quickly, you called me an INFP. Just to clarify, I am an ENFP. Please don't make a complete judgment about my personality type based on the extremely limited exposure you have been given to my existence. You certainly like to deconstruct my writing to interpret who I am but I assure you that attempting such a thing here will only reward you with a part-to-whole fallacy.
The part-to-whole fallacy is fine with me. I recommend it. That is because moral duty demands both that we aim at perfect observation and that we aim at perfect judgment. This means we are not morally allowed not to judge. Being 'judgy' is moral duty and the left wing and desire are entirely wrong about this. They suggest that most fear-side virtues are 'negative'. They are wrong. Negativity is NOT negative to the GOOD. Positivity is NOT positive to the GOOD.

We are left with LIVING the part-to-whole fallacy by be forced to act with imperfect inputs. SO BE IT! I am ready, willing and able to apologize for being moderately shown to be wrong. And so I apologize for getting your MBTI type wrong.

Now, responses (forgive me I don't remember how to properly quote on this forum, it's been an incredibly long time since I've used this forum).
So, it is frustrating when you do not leave topics arranged in a linear quote by quote form. But I can deal (obviously). Further, I will say for the record that it is best in this format (if you use it you will understand) that you repeat the basis of each section's object (subject matter). When I quote reply to you, I ONLY see your part, not my original part you replied to and that TRIMMING of previous information is normal and fine. So, the way you do it is, you use 'reply with quote' and you start at the start. When you reach a break, you add the '[/quote]' and start answering that part. You COPY the quote opener tag with the userid from [ to ] to then paste before the next part of the original poster's quote. Then you wash, rinse, repeat.

(I'm not going to respond to everything you've stated. I just want to get to the basics of our debate)
That is harder for me but I clip things as well, so it's understandable and fine.

1). Being female and therefore "desire" driven: Interesting theory! How would you say my writing style is desire driven? Obviously I appear to desire something like knowledge, consensus, conflict, or entertainment as a reason for bringing up this debate at all; but wouldn't anyone who starts a debate be motivated out of desire?
So, yes, and I do not know you yet, but some of your formulations show great 'feels'. The way you used fulfillment, etc. show typical conflations of desire. Still, your approval of my blunt approach, and your VERY organized response here show me that you are indeed well expressive of fear also, so that adds balance.

I feel like this point, and those regarding the three primordial emotions you mention, is too general to be of much use in the debate.
I disagree as they are focal and socially relevant to most moral truth. There are bastions in the world of desire and of fear, and denying this is effectively denial of the fundamentals of the theory. Stereotypes are effectively valid cutoffs for truth. They are denied by the left, by desire, because the left prefers to unify everything and treat things as infinitely fungible. There is truth to this, but the granular nature of that truth DOES NOT deny specificity (fear).

Obviously desire drives a lot of human action, but what is more pertinent to the discussion is the question of "the desire for what? the fear of what? anger in response to what?"
I disagree. The what matters almost not at all. Only the why matters.

and how that reveals something about hope and despair. If I desire to have this debate because I seek to agitate people, isn't that a significantly different thing from seeking debate to broaden my knowledge of a subject?
Yes, and now you are talking about WHY not what. You are suggesting that the WHY that leads to the GOOD, is ... good and the WHYs that lead to evil or not GOOD are ... not as good ... or more evil. I agree. I put this in my words to clarify and see if you object.

Doesn't the difference between those desires intrigue you, or are you satisfied merely by the statement that "I am desire driven"?
The GOOD is what I am all about, wisdom. So that is what we both then seem interested in. But the tiers of interest are thus:

Love ->
Desire ->
Hope ->
Despair ->

If you want to talk about good and evil, you now must add fear and anger back into the model.

In that dimension you get these extensions:

Desire ->
Hope (desire) ->
Despair (fear) ->

Also, doesn't fear help a person attain something desired?
Yes, and that is not relevant to admitting the primary motivation for any given emotion or choice.

In fact that was MY point. Hope is properly defined as desire infused desire at this level. Despair is fear infused desire.

In the same way, isn't anger necessary to overcome obstacles to the desired, or to escape the feared?
Yes but now you are conflating whole choice with parts of choice. Which is interesting because its a part to whole fallacy in reverse. You want to focus on the presence of all emotions within any action, instead of the prevalence of each one (THE POINT). Stay on point.

These three primordial emotions are much too intertwined to be "primarily" feminine or masculine.
No, they are not. Statistics over and over again prove me right, within reason. The stereotype applies because it is true. There is essence to it.

They are simply human.
This is also wrong. All entities in the universe have choice, every single atom. Humans are special so far as we know, only in one sense, that they are CURRENTLY the top moral agents of which we are aware.

There are plenty of existential differences between men and women, and I don't think concentrations of the three emotions constitutes one of them.
And I do. We just disagree. Women embody chaos. Men fear. That is the current true state of things. These imaginary forms (Platonic) split into two loci, masculine and feminine. The yin/yang symbol is a correct representation for much of reality on that basis, although some of their assertions are too all encompassing and conflated as well. The natural programming of these loci is REQUIRED by nature to motivate action around the balanced fulcrum. It is no accident. And as mentioned nature gambles, so there is a flip the script tendency in there, el segundo on the side, the density of approximate phenotypes to the loci is very very very high. But it is a continuum. So there are standard deviations away from those loci. They will remain rare and problematic as well as decidedly interesting.

2) What does this mean for the debate? It means that we need to get more specific. You stated that many of my statements were surface level or shallow - that is exactly the point. I want to be specific because by jumping to broad conclusions deprives us of investigating any of the delicious points and facts and derivations and paradoxes that lay along the road to that broad answer.
I love this about you and please, continue. You are exactly what I want/need in a challenger. So many people do not even enjoy this. Then they chafe needlessly at every point. Wisdom requires suffering! Get over it! Debate is anger and it circles the balance. The juice is often out on the extremes. How to get to that gold without compromising some of the GOOD!???! That is what my book is all about.

You can say that all motivation boils down to the three primordial emotions, but does that really answer a question like "why did a small Spanish town, armed with nothing but tiles and farming tools, succeed in defeating a Napoleonic advance - were they driven by courageous hope or out of desperation and despair?" You could say "They feared death and desired to live, and their anger helped them fight well." Don't be offended if I say that that is an incredibly dull answer - even if its true it doesn't explain much.
Your need for non dullness (desire) is obvious and effectively immoral. There is sufficient wonder and joy amid any truth, to warrant eternal bliss. This is wisdom. The truth of wisdom leaves chaos-apologists yawning. They are not getting wiser by this attitude.

Explanation is not required. Truth is there. Shut up and observe. Do not get mad (or bored) when someone does explain truth.

France's defeat in Spain was a foregone conclusion since Napoleon was an enigmatic blowhard who refused to adapt. Guerrilla warfare was not understood at that day in time. Conventional European armies were used to capitulation of civic authority, and they did not count on the anger, being in essence, or the desire, freedom loving nature, of the indigenous Spaniards and Basque. Europe's typical citizenry was culturally orderly and submissive. YES, this theory does explain very well what happened. I could go on an on about it.

I guess you might go on to explain the "balance" of these emotions, and that they had a sufficient balance to help them act effectively against an overwhelming enemy. That at least is more detailed, and we might be able to draw some conclusions or hypotheses from such an explanation.
Well, the process of proving is an order delusion. Rather, the theory, any theory, either stands to belief or not. All fact is only belief. Facts are special only in that they are believed to have something called 'justification' as beliefs. That is all. So facts are fear-infused beliefs. Facts are ... limits. Limits relate to fear. That is to say facts are beliefs with limit as believability approaches true. You draw non-conclusions about realty, theories, from a combination of wishing for the GOOD and justifying that as as good as we can be for now, via balance. There is no proof, only belief. But let's GET DOWN to some justification, towards that end.

3) You mention that "the wise suffer exquisitely" - I agree, there is plenty to be said about that. But then you say that "Suffering is caused by encountering a situation for which you do not yet possess the emotional fortitude to get past." Does this mean that the wise are more emotionally weak than the blissfully unaware? Or that the unwise simply do not encounter challenges to their emotional fortitude due to being less aware of something?
So suffering is increased with awareness. The quality of suffering of humans is superior to that of animals because of increased moral agency.

It is therefore because the wise are emotionally STRONGER, that they suffer MORE.

I would merely describe suffering as "the deprivation of goods", and that the severity of that deprivation or the essentiality of the goods determines the greatness of the suffering.
This is blatantly incorrect.

Although as a tricky point I can agree that all truth is physical also, how is not being appreciated a denial of goods. So, you're just hilariously wrong. Further, how is terror suffering at the sight of a wild animal a lack of goods? Maybe a sycophantic Jude Law robot would solve both issues so maybe you are right in a strange esoteric way.

You state that emotions of fear or desire determine a person's mental attitude towards suffering, specifically that fear drives a person to fight and desire causes complacency.
Not at all, you misunderstood me.

Fear causes cowardice. Desire causes randomness and unreasonableness. Fear builds a delusional worthiness and desire inflicts a delusional worthlessness.

What about the desire to become more resilient through suffering?
Ah ah! Good for you! You have discovered again, as you did in the last post, the exception. The GOOD is the exception.

But desire has its characteristics REGARDLESS. So how does this make any sense?

The worthlessness from desire COMBINES perfectly with the worthiness from fear to create truth amid the balance of anger.

Is allowing oneself to grow as a result of suffering a "let them eat cake" attitude, or does it demonstrate emotional fortitude and self-control for the sake of attaining a higher good?
You are off track now, speaking about desires and fears aiming more and more at real good. These are SKEWED desires and fears that have the other two emotions restraining them properly. Pure desire and fear err in the ways I am describing, so, when people err consistently, and they do, it is easy to see and understand their predilecitons.

If so, fighting against and attempting to escape suffering (fear driven response) cannot always be the wisest choice, if one values elevating their existence in some way.
Fear is the source of all intelligence. Fear is the source of all thought. So fear is always the smartest path. But wisdom >> intelligence. And wisdom includes a balance of fear and anger in any choice.

Finally, please keep in mind that most of my questions are meant to spur on debate and suggest topics to explore. When I ask things like "The question is, when greatly deprived of essentials, and in tremendous suffering, why does hope or despair appear?", I am not displaying some gross ignorance. I actually do have opinions and experiences that would suffice to answer that question and others like it. I am not asking all of these questions simply out of ignorance, rather because I want to know what YOUR answer is. You seem to be stating your beliefs on this topic, so you might be confused by my questions and how I keep stating my intentions (ie: I want to talk about....I want to explore...I want specifics).
The way a question is asked says much about the asker. I hear you. I understand. I will try to be careful and I will fail often. Careful with choices of words and concepts I am. Careful with others feelings, when I can, which is apparently not often. Anger is quite demanding.

You say my desire is obscuring the truth - I'm not here just to see a truth.
That is a foolish statement. Truth seeking is the path to value and the GOOD. But if you entertain falsehoods to get to truth, then that is wise and not, in my opinion what you just claimed.

Just reading what you believe isn't sufficient, and I honestly won't see your whole belief without challenging you to be specific. Is that clear?
Very, and I expect nothing less. I am very often disappointed as so few people even take the time, even HERE in debate and in the philosophy forum.

Even if I understand what you are getting at, leaving your premises unchallenged would be a pity.
Agreed! On on!

Since you bring up broad and deep ideas, nothing could challenge them better than forcing them to the surface to see them at work in specific situations.
We agree! Thank you so much for being you!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,087 Posts
@series0 That being said, have we strayed from the topic a little? I guess that could be expected when one explains hope and despair as elements derived from something massively ultimate like three primordial emotions. Is it possible to come back down from the universe and attempt to explore something more close by? Are hope and despair derivatives of something less primordial than fear and desire?
No, they are not. But they can be discussed in a more localized meileu.

When you speak to emotion you speak to meaning, and that is love, the system, the universe, everything. All topics lead to love.

When you are afraid you cannot attain your desires you despair.
When you desire to attain your desires you have hope.

How many ways can I say it?

Why do i think you might be a desire type? Chaotic and Useless, your avatar and the inner reflection of worthlessness caused by desire. Hmmm ... someone has a theory on that. It could be Elvis with a Bazooka!
 

·
Registered
hmm
Joined
·
51 Posts
Discussion Starter #29
@IDontThinkSo Interesting! In what way does one become "screwed" by "needing to believe in what you hope for"? Is belief, being perception and not empirical or observed reality, equivalent to a privation of truth, or does it perceive truth when senses and logic cannot? Can one hope without belief? Or are you saying that hope is a kind of belief, and not helpful in attaining future states of being (ie: escape from suffering, or betterment of one's condition)? Can you believe in what you despair (ie: I believe I will die pathetically, I believe I will always be suppressed), or is despair a lack of belief (ie: I do not believe I can escape, I do not believe I can succeed, etc)? Can a person self-fulfill a prophecy without hope or despair? If hoping leads to self-fulfillment of prophesies, then is it a good life strategy (in regards to reasonable outcomes like "I hope I can attain my financial goals in 1 year", not something like "I hope a pile of money appears in my drawers today").

I don't think hope and despair discriminate between realistic or outrageous possibilities/beliefs. So does the "realness" of a person's expectations constitute their degree of hoping or despairing? Does someone who is about to be executed and hopes that at the last moment they will be saved from death have more hope than someone in the same situation who simply hopes that they will have a quick and painless death? Or do they hope in the same "degree" or "amount"?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,087 Posts
@IDontThinkSo Interesting! In what way does one become "screwed" by "needing to believe in what you hope for"?
Observe the response of core fear with anger infusion as opposed to any kind of desire.

Fear detests desire. It cannot abide desire. That is because fear is afraid. I know, ... radical new information there huh?

But the point is this shows again, admittedly anecdotally, how both hope and despair are sourced in desire, although fear is indeed a part of despair. But a desire type will wallow in it, indulge despair. A dyed-in-the-wool fear type will either deny or avoid or both.

Anger infused fear, enneatype 5, will use the AVOID word. It's obvious if you just watch. ^^ Avoidance is the core anger immorality of laziness. The type 5 literally denies their own essence, becoming instead of a participant in life, JUST an observer. They are very very prone to never mentioning their own desires. They are referred to as the universal taker, literally the BLACK HOLE of emotions. Remember my reference earlier to stars and I didn't explain black holes ... yeah. I'm in a touch and go relationship with a 5 right now, and I need a pcp laced crowbar to get her to show much emotion. She does but I am an EXPERT at this stuff, and a constant challenger, and it's still a new relationship.

Is belief, being perception and not empirical or observed reality, equivalent to a privation of truth, or does it perceive truth when senses and logic cannot?
Belief is one thing only, choice. Choice is all three emotions combined. So beliefs can be an imbalanced and immoral mix of emotions as well as balanced and aimed at more morality.

Can one hope without belief?
Sure. I hope to win the lottery. I DO NOT believe I will win the lottery.

Seriously, that was too easy to answer.

Can you believe in what you despair (ie: I believe I will die pathetically, I believe I will always be suppressed), or is despair a lack of belief (ie: I do not believe I can escape, I do not believe I can succeed, etc)?
If you fear what you believe that is despair. I am not answering for him, but for myself.

But despair has a perverse wish for self destruction included. There is some despair in all immoral desire.

Can a person self-fulfill a prophecy without hope or despair?
I don't believe so.

I don't think hope and despair discriminate between realistic or outrageous possibilities/beliefs.
Exactly! This is more proof of them both being founded in desire. Desire is chaos. It is irrational. Fear is the rational one.

So does the "realness" of a person's expectations constitute their degree of hoping or despairing?
Nope.

Does someone who is about to be executed and hopes that at the last moment they will be saved from death have more hope than someone in the same situation who simply hopes that they will have a quick and painless death? Or do they hope in the same "degree" or "amount"?
No, but a more rosy outlook has a positive effect on attitude. So the one that hopes for MORE, even though that is more irrational, is actually well served by hope in terms of comfort and stability and therefore in many ways, happiness.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aiwass

·
Registered
hmm
Joined
·
51 Posts
Discussion Starter #31
@series0 I'm sorry my dude, but you have been responding to every argument with simple denials or approvals without an ounce of logical demonstration or sharing experiences that convince you of your opinion, as though you hold such absolute and self-evidential truth that you are excused from backing up anything you say on this forum. Kindly refrain from lengthy responses, since they are lacking in the simplicity of demonstration that would contribute to the debate.

This is NOT to say that you haven't brought up a lot of very interesting and valuable points, because you have! (and I sincerely thank you for your contributions) It's just that many of them are buried in a myriad of unhelpful jargon or unexplained denials/approvals of my questions/points.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,087 Posts
@series0 I'm sorry my dude, but you have been responding to every argument with simple denials or approvals without an ounce of logical demonstration or sharing experiences that convince you of your opinion, as though you hold such absolute and self-evidential truth that you are excused from backing up anything you say on this forum. Kindly refrain from lengthy responses, since they are lacking in the simplicity of demonstration that would contribute to the debate.

This is NOT to say that you haven't brought up a lot of very interesting and valuable points, because you have! (and I sincerely thank you for your contributions) It's just that many of them are buried in a myriad of unhelpful jargon or unexplained denials/approvals of my questions/points.
It is useful commentary, and I thank you for it. Others have mentioned this issue or these issues.

Truth is elusive. It will never not be so. Faith is required. Still, logic (fear) is one valid part of meaning, of love. So, my system should be internally consistent to reflect reality. It is. The fact that you missed this, IS NOT, ... JUST ... on me.

I will continue NOT to presume to be 'proving' anything. That is wise. If this means that fear types can never accept my model, so be it. They weaken the value of fear and logic itself by choosing such a cowardly path. But that is the nature of fear. I can only point that out and ask for more courage.
 

·
Registered
hmm
Joined
·
51 Posts
Discussion Starter #33
@series0 again, this is about hope and despair, and not a platform for you to explain the model you believe in. Of course reference to ones own models of belief is important and necessary to explain points about the specific topic, the point of discussion is the topic and not the model of belief that ones perspective is coming from.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,330 Posts
Hi! I'm not new to PC but it's been so long since I've been here that I've forgotten my login info, haha!

Anyways, something I've always found very interesting about people, and rather distinguishing between them is whether or not they have either hope or despair behind their motivations and psyche. In many people it is so subconscious that they might not detect it as such a huge influence in their life, but I always find it easy to detect even in strangers after a conversation. People I talk to are always shocked but pleased when I reveal to them the hypothesis that they have a lot of hope/despair dictating their way of thinking, and they feel more empowered to take control or be at peace with themselves.

That being said, there is so much to discuss in regards to hope and despair and human psychology. There is a lot of history behind hope driving individuals and communities forward to conquer impossible odds, but one can also say that hope is not real; maybe it's just an emotion. Others say that it's a virtue.

And what about despair? Does it cause depravity in the human condition? Is it purely a strong psychological state of listless mental death, the refusal to see goodness in life, or the awareness of nihilism? Or is it just a stagnant complacency that locks one away from progressing into a changed future? Is it acceptance of fate, or does it force you into an otherwise avoidable fate?

What are your personal experiences? How do you define hope and despair? Do you need belief in a higher being/force/reality to have hope?

I can talk about this literally for forever.
Hope is a double-edged sword. It can be a man's greatest source of strength but also greatest weakness when misplaced, hoping for completly unrealistic things to happen, effectively keeping him stuck.

Despair on the other hand is an illusion, a mistake of mind. There are no desperate situations, there are only desperate people. Despair is just another word for giving up. That's what it means basically, giving up.

Ok, so if hope is double-edged and despair is bad then what should keep us going? Hope but grounded by realism. Hope with reason behind it. Hope is good when you have a realistic chance of success, have a grounded plan of action or an established path to improve yourself. Hope is bad when it's blind hope, empty hope, hope that is completly unrealistic, and no matter how many times you think it, it won't happen because there's no way for it to happen if you don't do something about it.

One would argue that despair keeps un in check, it keeps us with our guard up, keeps us safe. Because if you worry about the worst thing to happen then you will take safety measures and worst thing won't happen. But if you only think about the worst thing to happen, do you also think about what you want to happen? about your goal and aim? Do you also have time to think about hope? You can spend so much time avoiding traps that you won't realise where are you going this whole time. Not saying you should not take safety measures in life, you should, but hope should be the main motivator, not despair. And as I said, there is no such thing as desperate situations, only desperate people, despair is an illusion for people who gave up, because that's what despair means, giving up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Blinkandstare

·
Registered
hmm
Joined
·
51 Posts
Discussion Starter #35
Hope is a double-edged sword. It can be a man's greatest source of strength but also greatest weakness when misplaced, hoping for completly unrealistic things to happen, effectively keeping him stuck.

Despair on the other hand is an illusion, a mistake of mind. There are no desperate situations, there are only desperate people. Despair is just another word for giving up. That's what it means basically, giving up.
I absolutely love this, very well put. It also explains how people sharing the same kind of traumatic experience can come out of it so differently. I won't go into details but one of my best friends was sexually abused when she was 5 years old and didn't get any help for years because she was too scared to speak up. Long story short she said it was her fixation on hope that kept her alive during those years and helped her in recovering. She knows her response to the trauma was not usual and attributes it to her parents, who basically always taught their kids not to despair in the face of suffering. Of course that doesn't mean that the child should have suffered silently as she did, but since she was afraid to speak up this fixation on hope did help her when nothing else did.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,856 Posts
@IDontThinkSo Interesting! In what way does one become "screwed" by "needing to believe in what you hope for"? Is belief, being perception and not empirical or observed reality, equivalent to a privation of truth, or does it perceive truth when senses and logic cannot? Can one hope without belief? Or are you saying that hope is a kind of belief, and not helpful in attaining future states of being (ie: escape from suffering, or betterment of one's condition)? Can you believe in what you despair (ie: I believe I will die pathetically, I believe I will always be suppressed), or is despair a lack of belief (ie: I do not believe I can escape, I do not believe I can succeed, etc)? Can a person self-fulfill a prophecy without hope or despair? If hoping leads to self-fulfillment of prophesies, then is it a good life strategy (in regards to reasonable outcomes like "I hope I can attain my financial goals in 1 year", not something like "I hope a pile of money appears in my drawers today").

I don't think hope and despair discriminate between realistic or outrageous possibilities/beliefs. So does the "realness" of a person's expectations constitute their degree of hoping or despairing? Does someone who is about to be executed and hopes that at the last moment they will be saved from death have more hope than someone in the same situation who simply hopes that they will have a quick and painless death? Or do they hope in the same "degree" or "amount"?
A belief is an idea one preserves not because it is the most pleasurable perspective, but because the certainty of having it validated is the most pleasurable perspective, and disappointment the most painful experience.

One having for habit to believe in what one hopes for infers that one's hability to think of a better scenario is subjugated by their fear of disappointment and uncertainty. Getting used to having issues is more comfortable than to think about uncertain ways to solve them.

The believer is likely to contribute to a bad outcome and confirm their prophecy of failure in order to avoid disappointment. They will stick to solving problems only as long as failure and vulnerability isn't expectable and experienced.

For this reason as well, they might stick to the dellusion of a better outcome to happen without the necessary work preparation and risks it implies. As a result, despair kicks in at the least uncertainty.

I could summarize it this way, despair is the consequence of wanting easy hopes.
 
21 - 36 of 36 Posts
Top