Are human beings insecure?
- Grotto19
- Posts: 866
- Joined: July 26th, 2012, 2:11 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
- Location: Niagara Falls, N.Y. USA
Re: Are human beings insecure?
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14992
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Are human beings insecure?
While we are all programmed to approve each individual's efforts to grow and achieve something of their potentials, there's a million ways that chance can step in and thwart our ability to actualise. I'm not the woman that I could be, but so what? Other people are no doubt busily doing all those things I've failed to do so it doesn't desperately matter whether I do things or others do - just as long as what seems to need doing is done by someone. If we spot a niche that needs attention, chances are that several thousand others have also noticed.
At this time of life I want harmony more than actualisation. I'd like more harmony between mind and body, with others, with my house, garden, technology, local area, the sky, the local bay, the moon ... basically anything that doesn't much care about me trying to harmonise at them. I'm not going to be changing the world any time soon so I choose to enjoy. I'm not sure the collection of sci fi stories will happen or not. If not, then I have failed to actualise and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLnTWxpTQt4 :)
- Webplodder
- Posts: 36
- Joined: April 27th, 2017, 2:25 pm
Re: Are human beings insecure?
Even if science one day managed to answers questions of what things were like before the BB we still are confronted with further questions (as mentioned) about what happened before that, and so on, ad infinitum. So the only way to overcome these perplexing questions is to refuse to face them which might be possible up to a point, yet how can we completely accomplish this as we are designed for thinking and inquisitiveness?
It seems problematic to me that we can take science very seriously! That seems a perverse thing to say because science has given us human beings so much over the years (albeit to the cost of the planet) yet we remain very insecure, at least many of us do. Could it be that the one thing science does not address is death? Science cannot tell us if we continue after death so we cannot look there for security. So that leaves belief, but the trouble is belief is not science, therefore, for many people it doesn't 'deliver.'
So, all in all, for thinking organisms we can never really be anything other than insecure since we find ourselves in a world, a universe, that is still deeply mysterious.
-
- Posts: 290
- Joined: March 3rd, 2017, 1:49 pm
Re: Are human beings insecure?
I said before in this thread that insecurity is important for all humans. We derive our motivation from insecurity. We don’t want to get rid of it – we want to be more aware of it. So I totally agree with you insecurity is not a weakness – quite the opposite. The problem is how we view and respond to our own insecurity. Taking heroine may not be as beneficial as running a marathon. Each of us is tasked with finding our raison d'être. But here is the dilemma – what do we choose? The quality of our existence is what we are dealing with. How do we ascertain what is most optimal? Do I just do what feels best – hedonistically? Should I be altruistic, inquisitive, depressed, anxious, and/or overwhelmed? How do I arrive at my motivation?Grotto19 wrote: That said I don’t see being insecure as a weakness. Insecurity implies self-reflection.
It is only with self-awareness that one can beg the question. But the fact that we are not driven purely by instinct is not a flaw, or at least in my opinion it is not. In my view the fact that we question what we do, who we are, and what has meaning is a testament to our advanced position not an insecurity.
Definitely a balance is what we seek. So where is the fulcrum in our lives? What leads us to set the bar? What do we worry about and what do we let go? Is harmony a metaphor for being mediocre? I don’t think anyone can answer that except the person asking the question. It is circumstantial – it may be wise or it may be foolish. I don’t accept the label as “gloomy”. I am contemplative and try to be discerning because I want results which are achievable and satisfying. I don’t want to be the Messiah because I don’t think it is achievable – and – I don’t think that role is beneficial for humanity. So what do I want to be?Greta wrote:The Nietzsche quote is wonderful but I can't help thinking that this is why philosophers are such a gloomy bunch. Way to put pressure on yourselves, lads! Always banging on about our deficits. Heavy heavy heavy. Cut yourselves and the world a bit of slack. Phew.
The idea of a singularity is absurd. That everything, essentially, came from nothing – defies all else that science purports. The use of mathematics to support the idea is logical from a mathematical perspective – however – it lacks common sense. Science and math are tools to help us understand things. I can use my scientific hammer to build an edifice or bludgeon an idea to death. It is always the responsibility of the person wielding the tool to make something coherent. A singularity is not a coherent idea.Webplodder wrote:Being a thinking organism is a very insecure thing to be because life can seem so complex and there seems to be so many imponderable questions around. We have science, yes, but all science really shows us is that for every question answered there are raised an endless supply of further ones. For example, we are told our universe began with a 'big bang' or inflation, and further, that time and space were introduced. I mean what the hell does that mean? Wasn't there any time or space pre-BB? It's extraordinarily perplexing. And if 'reality', our reality, suddenly 'appeared, as if by magic, what of cause-and-effect? To me, the implication is that science is based upon a foundation of acausality! But how can an approach that is based on case-and-effect be based on a 'non-cause?' The best, therefore, that can be said for science is that it is a 'local' solution to problems that are essentially intractable. We will always be stuck deeply within 'Plato's Cave' and will never get to see the clear light of day.
Even if science one day managed to answers questions of what things were like before the BB we still are confronted with further questions (as mentioned) about what happened before that, and so on, ad infinitum. So the only way to overcome these perplexing questions is to refuse to face them which might be possible up to a point, yet how can we completely accomplish this as we are designed for thinking and inquisitiveness?
- Webplodder
- Posts: 36
- Joined: April 27th, 2017, 2:25 pm
Re: Are human beings insecure?
Yes, which just goes to show where science can lead. Of course, we are told that common sense should not really be a prerequisite as far as scientific inquiry is concerned so science is apt to leave us even more perplexed than before.
The idea of a singularity is absurd. That everything, essentially, came from nothing – defies all else that science purports. The use of mathematics to support the idea is logical from a mathematical perspective – however – it lacks common sense. Science and math are tools to help us understand things. I can use my scientific hammer to build an edifice or bludgeon an idea to death. It is always the responsibility of the person wielding the tool to make something coherent. A singularity is not a coherent idea.
In some ways, before formal science, people held onto a solid belief in religion which explained everything away and I wonder if that, in some ways, people way back then were as insecure as modern people, at least from a spiritual point of view. When the rewards were to be handed out in an after-life there is not so much need in pursuing material gain in this world since one could be content with just 'doing good', follow the dictates of whatever faith you held, and feel secure in doing so. There was no need, also, to ponder the meaning of existence as your particular 'church' had the answers for you.
This seems to show that a 'simple life' devoid of questioning and challenging the status-quo can be a less troubling one in terms of security of one's place in the world.
Then science comes along and shatters many dearly held beliefs in the name of skepticism and the whole edifice of religious doctrine becomes a thing to be questioned, even abandoned.
Now we are pressured to study and get a good job, earn good money and find a good partner (some of us, that is) and failure to achieve one or more of these is apt to make us more insecure due to low self-esteem. It can be an ever downward spiral.
It is really no wonder in the modern age that insecurity is felt so deeply by many and I can only see things becoming even worse.
-
- Posts: 290
- Joined: March 3rd, 2017, 1:49 pm
Re: Are human beings insecure?
The fact that the idea of a singularity in the big bang theory is so widely accepted is evidence of immense insecurity in the scientific community. Most scientists are bullied or brainwashed with this idea. We are talking about the smartest people among us – are we not? Acceptance of this idea indicates desperation and grabbing at straws. I understand a working hypothesis; but this idea is not a good beginning. We don’t want to build our cosmological foundation on sand. Actually I don’t think it is sand – I think it is quicksand.Webplodder wrote: Then science comes along and shatters many dearly held beliefs in the name of skepticism and the whole edifice of religious doctrine becomes a thing to be questioned, even abandoned.
Would not a better starting hypothesis for the big bang be a huge star (say the size of a galaxy) that went supernova? This idea would be much more consistent with our understanding of physics. In other words what we observe now of the universe expanding; came from this huge star? Let’s not defy the laws of physics – let’s work with them. Yes, we can date a big explosion or expansion; but does this signify the beginning of the universe? No – it does not – it dates the explosion. I think we need to be a little more deliberate in our circumstantial science. The idea of a singularity reeks of theology – not science. In addition, the idea reeks of insecurity. To propose it and push it – is – in my estimation – a cowardly act. So, I am very pleased that science supports and demonstrates my idea of insecurity. When in doubt just say – “the devil made me do it” – or whomever.
- Grotto19
- Posts: 866
- Joined: July 26th, 2012, 2:11 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
- Location: Niagara Falls, N.Y. USA
Re: Are human beings insecure?
“You will gain no knowledge from others about who you are nor why you’re here. You will however learn a great deal about all the things you’re not and why they are here.” –Grotto.
-- Updated May 20th, 2017, 3:29 am to add the following --
So much was just said which I can only describe as blah blah blah. I am starting to realize why people regard us philosophers as exactly that. Pontificating on minutia and never saying anything. It is good to introspect but there does come a point where it becomes rubbish. Here is a bombshell that you will write off as unsophisticated yet after many years of introspection you will realize. The meaning of life is the meaning you give it. Take a few dozen years arguing against that and finally come back full circle to it. It is the end conclusion of each philosophy which seeks a rule book and ends always in that place. No one outside you can tell you how to be you. That rule book is in you already. Your pain comes from constantly rejecting it and looking outside you for what is you.
“You will gain no knowledge from others about who you are nor why you’re here. You will however learn a great deal about all the things you’re not and why they are here.” –Grotto.
-
- Posts: 5161
- Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various
Re: Are human beings insecure?
I believe one of the most critical endeavor of knowledge is 'Know Thyself' [Socrates and others]. Then "know other than thyself" [living and non-living].Grotto19 wrote:So much was just said which I can only describe as blah blah blah. I am starting to realize why people regard us philosophers as exactly that. Pontificating on minutia and never saying anything. It is good to introspect but there does come a point where it becomes rubbish. Here is a bombshell that you will write off as unsophisticated yet after many years of introspection you will realize. The meaning of life is the meaning you give it. Take a few dozen years arguing against that and finally come back full circle to it. It is the end conclusion of each philosophy which seeks a rule book and ends always in that place. No one outside you can tell you how to be you. That rule book is in you already. Your pain comes from constantly rejecting it and looking outside you for what is you.
“You will gain no knowledge from others about who you are nor why you’re here. You will however learn a great deal about all the things you’re not and why they are here.” –Grotto.
Another point is to rank effectively and optimally the degree of criticalness of knowledge to oneself, humanity and the universe. Obviously knowing what is of immediate danger to one's life is more important than understanding what is 'the Big Bang' and 'why we are here.'
Nevertheless one must know as much as possible as to what can be known. If one do not have the capacity then one can rely on knowledge [with reservation on objectivity] from others.
There are two aspects to the meaning of life, i.e.
- 1. One meaning that one give to oneself
2. One universal meaning that grooves and jives with the collective and the universe.
-
- Posts: 290
- Joined: March 3rd, 2017, 1:49 pm
Re: Are human beings insecure?
Indeed, to know thyself is perhaps our greatest challenge in life. So the question arises – can we know ourselves? I think we can, but only to a limited extent. We live inside our capsules or boxes and we see a picture of who we are. Is it accurate – complete – factual – true? Each person is tasked to answer this question. We have a vision for ourselves in the “big” picture, but also a momentary snapshot. We are a moving target. The assessment is always changing. The picture or movie is more than we can see. I don’t know a lot about myself.Spectrum wrote: I believe one of the most critical endeavor of knowledge is 'Know Thyself' [Socrates and others]. Then "know other than thyself" [living and non-living].
Another point is to rank effectively and optimally the degree of criticalness of knowledge to oneself, humanity and the universe. Obviously knowing what is of immediate danger to one's life is more important than understanding what is 'the Big Bang' and 'why we are here.'
Nevertheless one must know as much as possible as to what can be known. If one do not have the capacity then one can rely on knowledge [with reservation on objectivity] from others.
This is part of the human dilemma. Do we spend our time contemplating ourselves – like a monk or mystic? Or do we wash dishes, raise children, have a job? Now, as I type, I am the student of myself; but I cannot stand to do this too much. I am frustrated, now, to express what I know – it doesn’t seem like very much. I am certainly not as smart or observant as I wish to be. Oh well, I guess I will keep trying to gain a little insight – periodically.
How about you – can you know yourself?
- Grotto19
- Posts: 866
- Joined: July 26th, 2012, 2:11 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
- Location: Niagara Falls, N.Y. USA
Re: Are human beings insecure?
At many points in life I thought I knew myself, or at least some portion. As time passed I came to realize more and more of what I valued was inconsequential. Resulting now in very little of value and that which remains highly dubious in value. It isn’t a fun place to exist coming to realizations that nothing you do is of any matter, it is a thread I strongly recommend not tugging on. It is quite cold outside once you unravel your sweater from tugging the string too much.Woodart wrote:
Indeed, to know thyself is perhaps our greatest challenge in life. So the question arises – can we know ourselves? I think we can, but only to a limited extent. We live inside our capsules or boxes and we see a picture of who we are. Is it accurate – complete – factual – true? Each person is tasked to answer this question. We have a vision for ourselves in the “big” picture, but also a momentary snapshot. We are a moving target. The assessment is always changing. The picture or movie is more than we can see. I don’t know a lot about myself.
This is part of the human dilemma. Do we spend our time contemplating ourselves – like a monk or mystic? Or do we wash dishes, raise children, have a job? Now, as I type, I am the student of myself; but I cannot stand to do this too much. I am frustrated, now, to express what I know – it doesn’t seem like very much. I am certainly not as smart or observant as I wish to be. Oh well, I guess I will keep trying to gain a little insight – periodically.
How about you – can you know yourself?
Cling to your beliefs, your nation, your family, your sports team, your political beliefs, your veganism, or whatever. Because if you let them all be analyzed and laid bare for the inconsequential things they are it leaves you without armor and to realize what you are is nothing. The armor is you, underneath it only void. You are only those things, and if you realize they are nothing then you become nothing. I know from experience being nothing is surprisingly not a neutral feeling, being nothing is surprisingly frustrating when you one believed you were something. It feels good to believe somthing matters, it feels terrible to realize nothing does.
- Webplodder
- Posts: 36
- Joined: April 27th, 2017, 2:25 pm
Re: Are human beings insecure?
To be fair, I think stars came later on after matter had formed (so we are told).Woodart wrote:The fact that the idea of a singularity in the big bang theory is so widely accepted is evidence of immense insecurity in the scientific community. Most scientists are bullied or brainwashed with this idea. We are talking about the smartest people among us – are we not? Acceptance of this idea indicates desperation and grabbing at straws. I understand a working hypothesis; but this idea is not a good beginning. We don’t want to build our cosmological foundation on sand. Actually I don’t think it is sand – I think it is quicksand.Webplodder wrote: Then science comes along and shatters many dearly held beliefs in the name of skepticism and the whole edifice of religious doctrine becomes a thing to be questioned, even abandoned.
Would not a better starting hypothesis for the big bang be a huge star (say the size of a galaxy) that went supernova? This idea would be much more consistent with our understanding of physics. In other words what we observe now of the universe expanding; came from this huge star? Let’s not defy the laws of physics – let’s work with them. Yes, we can date a big explosion or expansion; but does this signify the beginning of the universe? No – it does not – it dates the explosion. I think we need to be a little more deliberate in our circumstantial science. The idea of a singularity reeks of theology – not science. In addition, the idea reeks of insecurity. To propose it and push it – is – in my estimation – a cowardly act. So, I am very pleased that science supports and demonstrates my idea of insecurity. When in doubt just say – “the devil made me do it” – or whomever.
-
- Posts: 290
- Joined: March 3rd, 2017, 1:49 pm
Re: Are human beings insecure?
Grotto19 wrote:
At many points in life I thought I knew myself, or at least some portion. As time passed I came to realize more and more of what I valued was inconsequential. Resulting now in very little of value and that which remains highly dubious in value. It isn’t a fun place to exist coming to realizations that nothing you do is of any matter, it is a thread I strongly recommend not tugging on. It is quite cold outside once you unravel your sweater from tugging the string too much.
Cling to your beliefs, ........... It feels good to believe somthing matters, it feels terrible to realize nothing does.
I hear you Grotto – it is never easy to know one’s self. It is a struggle and it never ends. I think the meaning we bring to our lives is part of the struggle. I would say let your heart guide your vision. Above all else seek love. Love brings value that money cannot buy. Love is a fragile armor, but at the same time infinitely powerful.
I don't think we know where matter formed or stars come from - speculation.Webplodder wrote:
To be fair, I think stars came later on after matter had formed (so we are told).
- Webplodder
- Posts: 36
- Joined: April 27th, 2017, 2:25 pm
Re: Are human beings insecure?
Woodart wrote:
I don't think we know where matter formed or stars come from - speculation.
Science tell us that matter and stars formed when things cooled enough after the great inflation.
-
- Posts: 290
- Joined: March 3rd, 2017, 1:49 pm
Re: Are human beings insecure?
Webplodder wrote:Woodart wrote:
I don't think we know where matter formed or stars come from - speculation.
Science tell us that matter and stars formed when things cooled enough after the great inflation.
Science speculates that matter and stars formed after the great inflation (singularity). The idea of a singularity is beyond speculation - way beyond.
- Webplodder
- Posts: 36
- Joined: April 27th, 2017, 2:25 pm
Re: Are human beings insecure?
Science does not deal in speculation. It forms hypotheses based on available evidence.Woodart wrote:Webplodder wrote: (Nested quote removed.)
Science tell us that matter and stars formed when things cooled enough after the great inflation.
Science speculates that matter and stars formed after the great inflation (singularity). The idea of a singularity is beyond speculation - way beyond.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023