The Couch

Why care what others think?

Comments on Why care what others think?

happycynic
Junior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 03, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Comments: 44
#26 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/04/09 - 3:28 PM:

Monk2400 wrote:
Worrying what others think and how others judge is the foundation of neurosis... if I am not judged by others, then what they think is irrelevant to me.


i only believe a word of this if you replace "worrying" with "worrying too much." and "irrelevant" with "not too relevant." that, and caring and worrying are different things. it's in your nature to care what people think, hopefully it's also in your nature not to care too much. (nice couch, by the way... that produces no feeling?)
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
#27 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/05/09 - 12:35 PM:

I respect a person who stands up and says 'take me as I am' over one who says 'tell me my worth'.

My worth as a human being is not dependent on the thoughts or opinions of others. Nor are my rights a matter of opinion.

Worrying about what other people think is an inauthentic way of living. A person becomes concerned with appearances, about how things 'look', which inevitably puts one in a position of denying or hiding reality.


happycynic wrote:


i only believe a word of this if you replace "worrying" with "worrying too much." and "irrelevant" with "not too relevant." that, and caring and worrying are different things. it's in your nature to care what people think, hopefully it's also in your nature not to care too much. (nice couch, by the way... that produces no feeling?)


I you think of it that way, the only reason we should 'care' what others think is a practical one--because people are too stupid, emotional, and irrational, and they fail to adopt an objective position or abide by their own systems of rules. They do what suits them, and break rules whenever they desire. So even while my rights are not contingent on opinions, if people hate me, for whatever reason, they may actively seek my harm. Thus I need to 'care', to take this into consideration, and plan appropriately.

Reality is something people have to accept, despite their 'feelings' about it. If we accept the law of gravity we should also accept the law of individuality, and let each to hesh own.

8)
happycynic
Junior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 03, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Comments: 44
#28 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/05/09 - 4:52 PM:

I you think of it that way, the only reason we should 'care' what others think is a practical one--because people are too stupid, emotional, and irrational, and they fail to adopt an objective position or abide by their own systems of rules. They do what suits them, and break rules whenever they desire.


not at all, i wouldn't lump all those together! first of all, it's not fair to lump everything irrational and emotional into other attributes like stupidity. irrationality and emotions are good sometimes, and they produce the best art and music, not to mention inspire great technological achievements (which require rational thinking also, but it's foolish to give rationality all the credit when it doesn't provide inspiration, ingenuity or forward-thinking.)

[quote]Reality is something people have to accept, despite their 'feelings' about it.]

you make it sound like reality is something we have access to. we sense things and we study things, and we build a map of reality, much like a surveyor helps to create a map of norway. but norway is always, without exception, more beautiful and complicated than any map, and a map only adds to our appreciation.

in the same way, science changes to bring our understanding of reality into greater focus, but we cannot perceive reality in the the first place- the universe is too great to behold. so we use symbols, words, maps, and images of the universe. but without total comprehension our reality will invariably be an imagining by comparison. only our imagination takes us to the places the rational mind cannot travel far enough to see, or compensate for the angles we have not viewed the world from. reality is very important but none of us have ever really seen it. the job of a scientist is not to accept or be satisfied with our version of reality but to build on it, refine it, and prove how unacceptable it is. only the science fanboys try to push it on people and rub their noses in it, like it's something to be ashamed of. i do admit though, the so-called creationists are very annoying.
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4673
#29 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/05/09 - 5:52 PM:

hi happycynic,

my thoughts are that what each person experiences is part of reality. to me the idea that real is something "out there" and that what we experience is somehow an illusion doesn't really resonate too much. even from your perspective as you've described it above, certainly one must have some kind of access to reality in order to build a map of it, wouldn't you say?

and who is to say that our comprehension of it is not total?

cheers,
smiling facelib
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
#30 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/05/09 - 6:11 PM:

In a sense, it's a trivial point that we 'care' what others think. Any and all learning situations depend on our being attentive to the thoughts of others. Social navigation depends on our attentiveness to the thoughts of others. When we need answers to questions, when we seek knowledge, we depend on the thoughts of others.

What we do not need, except in a practical sense, is the moral evaluation of others, the opinion of others on our personal worth and value. And, insofar as others do not impact our ability to live our lives as we see fit, neither do we need to pay attention to their opinions and theories about the universe. I don't need to care that some people worship a flying spaghetti monster in space, until or unless their beliefs interfere with my well-being. Hence, they are utterly free to think whatever they like, and value whatever they choose. In relation to me, only their actions are relevant, since I do not share with them a common ideological paradigm or belief set. Nor do I need to pay attention to their cultural etiquette, whatever it is, or feel at all bothered if they think me putting ketchup on my noodles is sacrilege to the gods.

To each his own and leave mine alone!


happycynic wrote:

not at all, i wouldn't lump all those together! first of all, it's not fair to lump everything irrational and emotional into other attributes like stupidity. irrationality and emotions are good sometimes, and they produce the best art and music, not to mention inspire great technological achievements (which require rational thinking also, but it's foolish to give rationality all the credit when it doesn't provide inspiration, ingenuity or forward-thinking.)


I'm not denouncing the value of emotion. Just it's relevance in determining my worth as a human being. My worth is not dependent on the emotions other people feel towards me.

My point was that because people act with emotion all too often, in opposition to reason, and thus flout generally agreed rules for objective interpersonal conduct, we need to be wary of them. Because even though my value and rights as a human being are not contingent on any person(s) liking, loving, or hating me, sometimes people who love or hate me will disregard those facts and interfere with my liberty regardless of any rule to the contrary.

Hence, caring and being attentive to what others think is often a practical necessity when negotiating the social landscape.

But as a principle, if our society is to be objective and rational, founded on liberty, then we ought to reject this inauthentic way of being and merely accept all persons of all varieties for who and what they are within the bounds of agreed law.

'Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone'. Everyone's a jerk, so why should I care about the opinions of a bunch of jerks?


happycynic wrote:

Monk wrote:
Reality is something people have to accept, despite their 'feelings' about it.


you make it sound like reality is something we have access to.


You mean you don't have access to reality? Well where are you existing then? Somewhere else?


happycynic wrote:

we sense things and we study things, and we build a map of reality, much like a surveyor helps to create a map of norway. but norway is always, without exception, more beautiful and complicated than any map, and a map only adds to our appreciation.


Reality, meanwhile, after all the philosophical waxing and poetical waning, is still sitting there staring you in the face, demanding that you eat food, drink water, or die. Wondering if the moon is made of cheese or if the Norse gods are really from Norway won't change that.


happycynic wrote:

in the same way, science changes to bring our understanding of reality into greater focus, but we cannot perceive reality in the the first place- the universe is too great to behold. so we use symbols, words, maps, and images of the universe. but without total comprehension our reality will invariably be an imagining by comparison. only our imagination takes us to the places the rational mind cannot travel far enough to see, or compensate for the angles we have not viewed the world from. reality is very important but none of us have ever really seen it. the job of a scientist is not to accept or be satisfied with our version of reality but to build on it, refine it, and prove how unacceptable it is. only the science fanboys try to push it on people and rub their noses in it, like it's something to be ashamed of. i do admit though, the so-called creationists are very annoying.


And likewise, for all 'scientists', insofar as their activities don't impact my daily life and struggle for survival in the real world, I'm not obliged to care what they think or how many equations they perform or what an existential turn is or what's the difference between Classical Mechanics and Quantum physics or why the sky is blue.

And if a highbrow looks out from hesh ivory tower and snorts in disgust at me, doing nothing but eating when I'm hungry and drinking when thirsty, I don't need to bother about that either.

8)
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
#31 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/05/09 - 6:15 PM:

As long as we care about what others think, we are willfully putting ourselves in slavery to an external ideal. We are subjecting ourselves to continual external evaluation and creating a need for external validation. Rather than being 'as such', we are a being that is out of touch with the projection of an imagination, hence, a being 'always falling short'.

Putting the carrot in front of the horse may make the horse run. But suppose the horse asks itself why is it running and why does it need to get the carrot?
smokinpristiformis
child of the stars
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2005
Location: Belgium

Total Topics: 74
Total Comments: 1247
#32 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/06/09 - 2:26 AM:

Suppose the horse wonders why they are trying to make it run. Wouldn't the thoughts of said instigator be important? It could be a matter of importance.
Why care what others think? Because they might see things differently than you - and wouldn't that be refreshing ?
happycynic
Junior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 03, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Comments: 44
#33 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/06/09 - 5:49 AM:

"my thoughts are that what each person experiences is part of reality."

no argument there.

"to me the idea that real is something 'out there' and that what we experience is somehow an illusion doesn't really resonate too much."

no, but that's not at all what i intended. if it's similar, it's a gross exaggeration of what i said (unintentionally but nonetheless.)

"even from your perspective as you've described it above, certainly one must have some kind of access to reality in order to build a map of it, wouldn't you say?"

yes but our attempt to communicate is a perfect example. nevermind that language is imperfect, we both speak and write english acceptably and yet we're capable of misunderstanding each other completely, so we try again if we feel it's worth the effort. this is a perfect metaphor for our interaction with the physical universe. in short, our capacity to understand is limited. i did not intend that our world is an illusion, but that it will always be a map.

when i said we don't have access i was speaking either-or. we certainly do not have total access, if we did, you would have understood me the first time. actually i would not even need to say it. you would be all-knowing. perhaps i should have said we do not have total access to reality, but if you reread my post i still think that's very clear from context.

"and who is to say that our comprehension of it is not total?"

you've already proven that in your last post, but if our comprehension is total (a ridiculous and unscientific assumption that means all our theoretical physicists and mathematicians can retire...) we would know it was total. we wouldn't have more questions, and most importantly, we would not continue to find our previous scientific status quo inadequate. it's our own flawed experience that proves again and again how limited our understanding is. no scientist would argue with that.

the fact is that everything could be an illusion, and we'd never know. we reject this as silly and most unlikely (as do i) but i'm aware of the possibility. we do not insist we live in an illusion and build from that, we insist that we know something, and build from that premise. i think that's a perfectly reasonable course for science, to accept that we have the best model of the universe- yet.

but as einstein showed with relativity, there are times when our understanding leaps forward and our (utmost scientific) preconceptions are decimated in the face of new evidence. the old truths tend to hold in a more limited way, but reality is never accepted as anything but "close enough, for now."

accepting reality is what religion tends to do. it asks, takes the best answers it can get, writes them down and makes them an idol. science writes them down, gives the same lectures and sermons religion does, but with the knowledge that when something better comes a long, the idol of preconception will be toppled and replaced with something always more holy than before- but never sacred.

in short, god doesn't change, but our map always does. the practical upshot of which is that for us and our understanding, reality changes. we should take reality seriously, but never too much, because it would only limit our understanding.
happycynic
Junior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 03, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Comments: 44
#34 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/06/09 - 6:01 AM:

"...caring and being attentive to what others think is often a practical necessity when negotiating the social landscape."

i couldn't have said it better myself.

"Because they might see things differently than you - and wouldn't that be refreshing ? "

this is the other reason i was thinking of. the additional perspectives (if not taken too seriously) offer an opportunity to understand the world more clearly.
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4673
#35 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/07/09 - 10:21 AM:

hi happycynic,

i've started a new topic to respond to your post.

smiling facelib
vijay077
Junior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 15, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Comments: 16
#36 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/09/09 - 3:11 AM:

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO LIVE IN ISOLATION IN THIS WORLD> HENCE IT IS MANDATORY TO CARE WHAT OTHERS THINK WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT< WHETHER YOU WANT IT OR NOT. However actions can be independent to a certain extent and there is no need for worrying about what others think.

As long as the issue concerns only me, it is unnecessary to care about what others think but if it even slightly affects society, it is mandatory to be Dependant in thinking. What I eat, dress and live for need not be my influence.


Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#37 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 04/28/09 - 2:01 PM:

"Why care what others think?"

I think it isn't a choice you make but rather a compulsion.We are in an illusion that we think but thought 'happens'.We are social animals and hence thoughts of other animals of our group are stimuli to our own thinking.Hence : I see "no way out of it".You are bound to think and you are bound to care what others think.


Thank You
Search thread for
Download thread as
  • 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5



Sorry, you don't have permission . Log in, or register if you haven't yet.



Acknowledgements:

Couch logo design by Midnight_Monk. The photo hanging above the couch was taken by Paul.

Powered by WSN Forum. Free smileys here.
Special thanks to Maria Cristina, Jesse , Echolist Directory, The Star Online,
Hosting Free Webs, and dmoz.org for referring visitors to this site!

Copyright notice:

Except where noted otherwise, copyright belongs to respective authors
for artwork, photography and text posted in this forum.