Caring is Foolish! SERIOUSLY!

[FacetiousPersona]

You say they love me, but look at me. What am I? Do you even know? How can you love this when I'm beyond your head.

Enjoying this system? Why? It's malfunctioning and there is no one to repair it. Why has the architect abandoned us? Did he leave us the ability to correct these errors? It seems impossible for us to debug a virus which has already consumed us all. We are corrupted. Corrupted as zombies are with their mindless pursuit of brains.

What are these emotions? Could you repeat that it's possible they are associated with rationality? Where's emotional inspiration when I rationally concede of the action's necessity? Let us surrender our human identity for the advancement which we need to remain intact. I would prefer to lose my individuality instead of my mind.

It tastes different, but what happens when the exact taste is duplicated? Is the original version the one which was authentic? What defines reality when it's been copied to be an exact copy? Is it merely the one before or the one which our collective minds follow?

All is a lie. We build them and scream our hypocritical complaints. Who cares? Surrender all hope. We have lost. Is how we are going to lose worth changing? Can we have a nice downfall?

Time for sleep. I shall awake as a plant from the seeds which we planted. I only wish you had watered MY ground before. You failed me! You did not sufficiently nurture the past to ensure a positive future for me. Selfish, short-sighted fools that are entirely fixated on the present! It seems that I only have these stone graves to insult, and no one's hearing as it's the same as complaining to a wall. Is anyone to hear me? Will all be forgotten? Damn that. ZZZZZZZ.

 

[Artifice Orisit]

Disenchanted & disillusioned.
Hang in there face, the sweet mercy of insanity will come soon.

The birth of a free mind is a painful process.
One must let go of assumption's security and embrace the infinite possibility of reality.

Yes, caring is foolish, and playing the fool is the best of games.

 

[FacetiousPersona]

Should I play reality and fall to this 'freedom'? Is it freedom to follow an average path which everyone else follows for success? Where is the overall uniqueness in a path that carries many similarities to others? How is it evidently distinct? You live average and die average. All of the average people are lost to history. Individual acts of importance amount to nothing within history, and our personal acts of greatness become nothing in the future.

Perhaps insanity is an avenue that I must select for this freedom which I crave? Sacrifice truth for a life? No. Sacrifice a life for truth? Yes, but what is this truth I have reached in a subjective conclusion? It is a lie, I say. Who created this lie? Who discovered it? That is who fabricated it all! Never trust the mind nor the life before you.

 

[Artifice Orisit]

Let go of reality!
Stop caring about buzzwords like "success" and "importance".

The truth is that your entire perception of reality could be and likely is false, as is the very nature of your existence. All of this is made further irrelevant by the logic that you will one day die and cease to exist. So enjoy the absurdity of an existence as it is little more than a form of meaningless entertainment.

Absurdity, Hedonism.

 

[FacetiousPersona]

Can we not focus on pure happiness as a result of our acceptance with nothing? Why not ruthlessly seek our own enjoyment of this empty world when there's no moral preventing us? Our happiness is nothing to objectivity, but it satisfied our subjectiveness in this world of nothing while we are here. Our minds live upon subjectiveness, but, tragically, reality does not. Must we allow the truth of reality interfere with the truth which our mind wishes to follow?

We should indulge in the fantasies for the advantages. All is pointless in this world, but it is possible for us to enjoy it on an emotional level. Is importance required for us to act? Are we only concentrating on this objective reality with our actions? Screw the world and how it is. Let us control the world and bring our feelings into the positive realm of it, fake or not. I shall follow the lie for the rewards. God, allow me to follow you!

 

[Anthile]

Every human has to die to transform, to burn all bridges behind one. No, not the jumping-from-a-bridge-dying, it is a metaphorical death. But dying is easy and coming back to life is the real challenge.

 

[FacetiousPersona]

Every human has to die to transform, to burn all bridges behind one. No, not the jumping-from-a-bridge-dying, it is a metaphorical death. But dying is easy and coming back to life is the real challenge.

The towers fell, and we mourned the death of excellent architecture, but we were soon planning their reconstruction. They were rebuilt in the future to a higher standard in honour of the previous towers, but they were not those towers which were standing before. These replacements were superior, yet people preferred the previous versions. Why this the sentimental value which we place upon history or our own ignorance? Perhaps it was our stubborn selfishness towards the loss of something. Think of the child who loses his favourite toy and demands the same one back - refusing to accept any other ones. Why THAT toy? Emotional significance or rational importance?!

Importance, even with emptiness all around us with objectivity regarded, is there through us. We are the connection of our subjectivity to the real world. We apply it to the world - consequently adding it as an element.

 

[Anthile]

That is right. I think humans personify things in general too much. How foolish. There is anything in this world except for what we do. Everything else is just an echo from the future.

 

[Weliddryn]

The fear of inadequacy or failure often lies at the pit of a person's heart. This fear can lead a person to react or act in many ways, sometimes it drives them to pursue success ruthlessly, or shut themselves away, locking themselves inside, no longer bothering to care. Apathy. Either route has its downfalls.

You let go of your care for the world, you immerse yourself in apathy, you loose your humanity. Reality is a harsh thing. You can get lost in trying to objectify it, in trying to separate yourself from it. Our realities are subjective. That is a truth that cannot be denied. We depend on the Greater Reality around us, but it does not depend on us. But we help make it what it is. It would not be the same without us. That is another fact that can never be changed.

Human beings come up with morals because they are needed for our survival- they help make us what we are. There is no true "right" or "wrong" but there are beliefs that will aid in our survival.

Emotions exist THEY CANNOT BE DENIED OR ERASED! Acknowledge it, acknowledge them. There is no one path there is no stable ground, but you can make a path of your own. Where do you start? Where will you end? It is a path of self discovery, WALK IT! No absolutes, everything is in a state of grey. There is madness, but there is a method to that madness. Take that madness and make it your own! The reality is, you exist, morals exist, emotions EXIST! They must be dealt with, they are an unavoidable truth.

We walk through our lives always pondering, in the depths of our minds, "What is my meaning? Where is my place? How am I important?" Objectify yourself as much as you can, it will still haunt you. Human's have a need to feel important, to know that they count, that they mean something. We die, and we are lost to history, we are so small, so insignificant, but again- we exist. We are not necessary for the greater reality, perhaps, but we make it what it is. In a small way, we are apart of it. We exist, we must be dealt with. It is the same with morals, the same with any other dark truth that you cannot stand.

Acceptance and understanding are so hard to achieve along this path, but if this path is followed it can be quite releasing. Find a place where you belong, make that place if you must. Question why, rage at the reality, fight it with everything that you have, and when the fight is out of you, take a moment and see that you live. You are alive. You count.

Heh, heh. Keep it up face. Chaos is not all bad.

 

[FacetiousPersona]

It is acceptable for us to question our morals and emotions, of course. Can we manage these to the extent of removing them? No, but I think it is possible to distort them until everyone else perceives them as lacking, which is very close to empty. The normal emotions are defined through the majority via relative observations. Japan people are stereotyped as unemotional, while other nations are stereotyped as overly emotional in their approach to daily matters.

Can we ever be robot-like with minimal emotions? How long until we choose to repress our emotions with science to achieve a state of 'logical' 'purity? Will we ever abandon 'irrational' beliefs? Will we ever be forced to conform to a scientific consensus? Nearly everyone accepts the law of gravity. What is the next major law we shall accept? What would be the consequence of us accepting an incorrect law? It could be that we are already following an incorrect reality today. Science proves all with 'empirical' studies, but what if there are flaws we have missed? Potential improvements which we could've done to improve our views? We are acting with only a very few books on the subject of life.

 

[Weliddryn]

It is acceptable for us to question our morals and emotions, of course. Can we manage these to the extent of removing them? No, but I think it is possible to distort them until everyone else perceives them as lacking, which is very close to empty. The normal emotions are defined through the majority via relative observations. Japan people are stereotyped as unemotional, while other nations are stereotyped as overly emotional in their approach to daily matters.

Can we ever be robot-like with minimal emotions? How long until we choose to repress our emotions with science to achieve a state of 'logical' 'purity? Will we ever abandon 'irrational' beliefs? Will we ever be forced to conform to a scientific consensus? Nearly everyone accepts the law of gravity. What is the next major law we shall accept? What would be the consequence of us accepting an incorrect law? It could be that we are already following an incorrect reality today. Science proves all with 'empirical' studies, but what if there are flaws we have missed? Potential improvements which we could've done to improve our views? We are acting with only a very few books on the subject of life.

When emotion is repressed almost to the extent that they no longer exist to any substantial degree, morals will end as a result of it. Morals are powered by emotion and the belief that things are wrong or right. With out morals, without emotions, there would be less chaos, less pain, less happiness. The lives lived by us humans would pale in comparison to the way it is now. For better or worse, it not be so interesting.

 

[FacetiousPersona]

When emotion is repressed almost to the extent that they no longer exist to any substantial degree, morals will end as a result of it. Morals are powered by emotion and the belief that things are wrong or right. With out morals, without emotions, there would be less chaos, less pain, less happiness. The lives lived by us humans would pale in comparison to the way it is now. For better or worse, it not be so interesting.

Perhaps rationality, which could be described as less dependent on emotions, could lead to morals. We would form 'right' and 'wrong' through intellect and logic. Can we truly know what is correct? Do we require an absence of emotions to comprehend the deep objectivity of a subject? Is it possible for us to have an opinion of 'right' without emotions? Is it a moral when we merely regard it as 'right' or 'wrong'? Science leads to us thinking of specifics as 'right' and 'wrong', but this is not moral in nature. It is scientific belief. They are only beliefs, which are not necessarily motivated solely from emotions.

 

[Weliddryn]

Perhaps rationality, which could be described as less dependent on emotions, could lead to morals. We would form 'right' and 'wrong' through intellect and logic. Can we truly know what is correct? Do we require an absence of emotions to comprehend the deep objectivity of a subject? Is it possible for us to have an opinion of 'right' without emotions? Is it a moral when we merely regard it as 'right' or 'wrong'? Science leads to us thinking of specifics as 'right' and 'wrong', but this is not moral in nature. It is scientific belief. They are only beliefs, which are not necessarily motivated solely from emotions.

This is of course possible. We could identify those things that are more or less are negative to our survival and things that are positive.
Lack of emotion will grant a form of understanding that is objective, yes. That is not the only way to go about understanding, however.
Opinion of right without emotion is not possible. Things can be regarded as positive or negative in terms of the overall goal, however, or the over all being of a thing.
Whether we will reach a state of pure logic, devoid of emotion is questionable. But, for the present, we must deal with what we've got. Attempting to detach yourself prematurely may yield unpleasant results.

 

[FacetiousPersona]

This is of course possible. We could identify those things that are more or less are negative to our survival and things that are positive.
Lack of emotion will grant a form of understanding that is objective, yes. That is not the only way to go about understanding, however.
Opinion of right without emotion is not possible. Things can be regarded as positive or negative in terms of the overall goal, however, or the over all being of a thing.
Whether we will reach a state of pure logic, devoid of emotion is questionable. But, for the present, we must deal with what we've got. Attempting to detach yourself prematurely may yield unpleasant results.

Are you essentially stating that when everyone is lacking emotions, their conclusions will be identical, and their opinions regarding any scientific data (more objective opinions/perceptions due to the absence of emotions) will not differ? I could imagine two highly rational and logical individuals having a disagreement with a subject. Maybe it's not their emotions, but rather their reasoning steps or intellectual capabilities. How they approach the data differently with their varying logic, basically--or does an absence of emotions only leave one reasoning process and specific set of capabilities behind?

 

[Weliddryn]

Are you essentially stating that when everyone is lacking emotions, their conclusions will be identical, and their opinions regarding any scientific data (more objective opinions/perceptions due to the absence of emotions) will not differ? I could imagine two highly rational and logical individuals having a disagreement with a subject. Maybe it's not their emotions, but rather their reasoning steps or intellectual capabilities. How they approach the data differently with their varying logic, basically--or does an absence of emotions only leave one reasoning process and specific set of capabilities behind?

Though I may have seemed to imply this, it is not the meaning I attempted to convey.

Disagreements will surely occur, because there are no definitive answers. People with different sources of information will also, perhaps, have a tendency to disagree. When there is more then one way to do something, people will disagree on the best way to do it. Emotions are not at the root of disagreement.

 

[FacetiousPersona]

Therefore, it is possible for us to judge something as 'correct' or 'incorrect' without emotions as the root maybe. I am speaking of 'correct' as if it is 'valid', essentially. This incorrect judgment could be the consequence of erroneous logical processing or reasoning, but maybe these problems were caused through emotions? Perhaps we would lack the emotions to decide to judge the topic until a concrete answer is reached; acknowledging that it is irrational to be rash with a conclusion until sufficient data is present for solid conclusion.

We could also rationally approach actions and analyze them objectively, but we might reach varying conclusions as a result of different information. It's logic being deceived, not our emotions misguiding us.

 

[Anthile]

We have to question everything. There are two kinds of realities; the subjective reality and the objective reality. When light shines on a leaf it will be with a spectrum dominated by energy with a wavelength of approximately 520–570-nm. Objectively it is just some kind of energy. Humans would say it is the colour green.
Neither of them is wrong, neither of them is right.

Since the universe is so large and so old, our lives so short and our minds too small to comprehend such an abstract thing as reality itself, all we can do is to make assumptions. Our knowledge about it will probably never be complete.
With every generation passing by we understand a bit, even if it is merely a grain of sand, more.

When you are ill and you have to take medicine, there is a reason that you don't have to find out that herbs affect your body, how they do that and how you heal yourself with them. Someone did that before. Countless humans over a span of thousands of years found out what herbs do and they still do that down to the present day. Before one of them died he told his successor what he knew and so on. With the time they wrote it down and could made copies so the knowledge could spread further and then someone wrote another book based on the former book and etc. pp. All our knowledge and what we call civilization is nothing else but congealed lifetime. And this lifetime was affected by all the other people around us, so everyone played his role in the play called humanity.
Every death and every birth; every good deed and every sin; every step and every move that every human has ever made was essential for reaching this point and that I can write this posting and to say you that everyone is important and that you are important. We all contribute to this great play and most of us don't know their roles will most likely never know them.

And even this insignificant posting is just another brick in the castle of what we call understanding. Those who will come after us will understand more and it is our duty to gather more informations for them and maybe on one day we will understand it all.


It is important to maintain a balance between feeling and thinking. Too much thinking will deprive us of our emotions and too much feeling will make us loose our rationality. One has to acknowledge that neither of them is dangerous but not to know how to handle them is.

 

[echoplex]

We have lost. Is how we are going to lose worth changing? Can we have a nice downfall?

Victory is often subjective. We can have our own small personal victories. Plus, you can't lose a game you were never playing. Did we ever even take the field?

 

[FacetiousPersona]

Victory is often subjective. We can have our own small personal victories. Plus, you can't lose a game you were never playing. Did we ever even take the field?

Is life a game? Is it only a game to those who deem it as one? Does their perception of life as a game validate the concept of life being one? Could 'game' be another term for life? Much is subjective.

 

[echoplex]

Is life a game? Is it only a game to those who deem it as one? Does their perception of life as a game validate the concept of life being one? Could 'game' be another term for life? Much is subjective.

I think much of life operates like a game, only with more bendable rules and shittier referees.

In terms of humanity "losing" as you said, I'm not sure we've ever tried to "win", per se.

 

[FacetiousPersona]

I think much of life operates like a game, only with more bendable rules and shittier referees.

In terms of humanity "losing" as you said, I'm not sure we've ever tried to "win", per se.

Who is to take the term 'win' concretely? Who is capable of measuring humanity's moral value or standard accurately? If we were significantly superior, would we still expect ourselves to be far higher? Would we forever strive for perfection while below the 'line of perfection'? Would we always see flaws? If it's impossible for all to be flawless, will humanity forever be unsatisfied with itself? What is 'flawless'? How will we know when we are flawless? People have different opinions regarding flawless and what is good.

 

[echoplex]

Who is to take the term 'win' concretely? Who is capable of measuring humanity's moral value or standard accurately? If we were significantly superior, would we still expect ourselves to be far higher? Would we forever strive for perfection while below the 'line of perfection'? Would we always see flaws? If it's impossible for all to be flawless, will humanity forever be unsatisfied with itself? What is 'flawless'? How will we know when we are flawless? People have different opinions regarding flawless and what is good.

This is a good point, because while we often complain about society in general, we have also made many strides (or so I like to think). It's possible that our world today, however flawed, is still what many ancient thinkers dreamed of as superior by comparison.

And I like to make a distinction between satisfied and content. I don't think we should worry about being satisfied.

 

[FacetiousPersona]

This is a good point, because while we often complain about society in general, we have also made many strides (or so I like to think). It's possible that our world today, however flawed, is still what many ancient thinkers dreamed of as superior by comparison.

And I like to make a distinction between satisfied and content. I don't think we should worry about being satisfied.

It's a possible for one to be content while the rest of the world's people are not. Perhaps it should be a personal quest? It depends on the individual's nature maybe? They may seek to improve others' happiness. Also, what if the person's happiness is depenedent on their environment highly? A normal person would not be happy in total chaos, I think, but what if a human could be? They learn how to be happy in their environment perhaps. For example, two people seek refuge from a war and fall in love, which leads to positive feelings and obliviousness to the world outside of their personal world.

 

[echoplex]

It's a possible for one to be content while the rest of the world's people are not. Perhaps it should be a personal quest? It depends on the individual's nature maybe? They may seek to improve others' happiness. Also, what if the person's happiness is depenedent on their environment highly? A normal person would not be happy in total chaos, I think, but what if a human could be? They learn how to be happy in their environment perhaps. For example, two people seek refuge from a war and fall in love, which leads to positive feelings and obliviousness to the world outside of their personal world.

The need to survive would seem to dictate that people can be content even when others aren't, yes. And people who wish to help others usually need to be content first. I've never seen a miserable person be much help to anyone, unless the help was coincidental.

As for chaos, some thrive off of it. I think INTPs are often amused by chaos on some level, esp. when it's caused by stupidity. However, that couple seeking refuge is thus escaping chaos, and not really being happy with it. I'd say a lifelong soldier is likely someone who enjoys chaos, as is a pro football player, lol.

 

[FacetiousPersona]

The need to survive would seem to dictate that people can be content even when others aren't, yes. And people who wish to help others usually need to be content first. I've never seen a miserable person be much help to anyone, unless the help was coincidental.

As for chaos, some thrive off of it. I think INTPs are often amused by chaos on some level, esp. when it's caused by stupidity. However, that couple seeking refuge is thus escaping chaos, and not really being happy with it. I'd say a lifelong soldier is likely someone who enjoys chaos, as is a pro football player, lol.

Yes, I was thinking of a psychopath who could be successful through this chaos and controls elements of it. They would embrace the environment and adapt to it for their own happiness.

 

[echoplex]

It would be best if said psychopath enjoys prison life. I've often wondered "what if someone wanted to go to prison?" If only society enjoyed prison, the entire system would break down, as there would be no deterrent to crime. Then we would find out what people are really made of. It would be a wonderful experiment...for an observer at least.

 

[FacetiousPersona]

It would be best if said psychopath enjoys prison life. I've often wondered "what if someone wanted to go to prison?" If only society enjoyed prison, the entire system would break down, as there would be no deterrent to crime. Then we would find out what people are really made of. It would be a wonderful experiment...for an observer at least.

They could learn to enjoy their life inside the prison. They would have to accept they are inside it and have decide to maximize the fun within that specific environment. There are those who wish for freedom and plot to escape. Why can there not be potential for fun in most environments? An introvet could derive pleasure from being confined alone forever via thinking.

 

[echoplex]

They would have to accept they are inside it and have decide to maximize the fun within that specific environment.

The same could be said of life, actually.

 

[FacetiousPersona]

The same could be said of life, actually.

Yes, which is the reason that I added 'specific environment'. I was implying that the comment could apply for any environment.

 

[Anthile]

But what is that thinking worth when you can't use it? Or can't write it down and no one else can benefit from your gained insight.

 

[echoplex]

Touche, cuddly dinosaur thingy.

 

[FacetiousPersona]

But what is that thinking worth when you can't use it? Or can't write it down and no one else can benefit from your gained insight.

People can think for the simple enjoyment of thinking. It is the same as people completing video games alone when it does not contribute to their practical life much (perhaps it improve hand-to-eye coordination, etc). Not everyone has a rational purpose with an activity they enjoy - such as a man eating through enjoyment for it. He is eating for pleasure, not to remain healthy.

Does one only think only for their thoughts to be acknowledged and complimented? I do not think so. There should be some who think for the sake of thinking. Famous philosophers were criticized for merely thinking instead of acting, but the thoughts they formed contained interesting content, and this content could potentially motivate action. A famous philosopher's thought could be interesting to them personally as well, not only their audience. Why can it not be the same for an introverted person as it is with the famous philosopher?

 

[Kidege]

What you describe Face, is emotionally powered thought. Pleasure is an emotional construct (for lack of better words).

 

[FacetiousPersona]

What you describe Face, is emotionally powered thought. Pleasure is an emotional construct (for lack of better words).

Yes, but when we are in solitude, why should we not resort to emotionally powered thinking? If someone is always thinking through pleasure in it, do they never think to another standard beside 'emotionally powered'? Perhaps Einstein thought of physics through passion and his discoveries were thus 'emotionally motivated'?

 

[Tyria]

I suggest you try it and record your experiences. Report back when you find the truth of the matter and let us know what it was like.

 

[XIII]

Caring isn't foolish... it's what makes life worth living. It may not be completely... philosophically true or something... but just imagine a world completely without it.I think anybody who says caring is foolish is really trying to deal with their own pain and the suffering that it is causing them... all I can say, is that I really care whoever you are... I hope that helps. Come and talk to me whenever you want if you need to.

 

[thebarran]

Please, give me a break. This post has more teenage angst in it than is healthy.

While I also admit inbetween posts there are some great words of wisdom, it does little to help the fact that the OP just needs to ween himself off Kid A and OK Computer and get some sunlight.