Are you negative or positive about our existence?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

hue-man
 
Reply Thu 27 Aug, 2009 07:27 pm
@Twistedgypsychil,
Twistedgypsychil;86141 wrote:
I think that in order for one to be positive about our existence, they also have to be negative because without one there is no other.

Jamie


:perplexed:

Being positive about existence doesn't entail that you have be negative about existence. Yes, the meaning of some words entail the meaning of other words, but that does not mean that the two words are synonymous in some way. The definition of the terms positive and negative are completely opposite; it's a dichotomy. Therefore, adopting one of the views does not entail the adoption of the opposing view. That's oxymoronic.
 
manored
 
Reply Fri 28 Aug, 2009 01:17 pm
@G-Thomson,
G-Thomson;86078 wrote:
I'd say that a neutral view would be the least biased.
For example, if you start out with a negative outlook on life, your opinions on most issues would likey skew to the negative side of things. The same with a positive outlook.
But if you began with a neutral view, THEN you could more accurately decide whether a certain aspect is a negative or positive thing, compared with your neutrality.
But on either case, you would still consider things "more negative" and "less negative". Off course, there is an ideal point from the human perspective, but from the individual perspective (Aka: The "this whole world may be an ilusion" one) there seens to be no anchor.

William;86164 wrote:
No, not really. It's just listening requires effort, hearing does not, IMO. Listening requires a conscious effort to understand where as hearing comes easy and automatically. Let me give you an example. Have you every been among a group of people all speaking from the "I" perspective and really got bored and your mind sorta drifted and all of a sudden someone will say something you "tune in to" and you "heard" that but very little else? That is what I call "divine sensation". You heard it because you were meant to hear it simply because it was complimentary with something you held in memory that could "tie up a loose end". Surely I am not the only one who has experienced that? When we try to listen, it is easy to lose focus because it is harder to listen than it is to hear. It can also be said we only listen to that we "want" to listen to. Hearing, we have no choice. IMO.

William
To me, the word "hear" means that the sound waves got to your ears, while the word "listen" means that the sound waves got to your ears AND to your brain. "trying to listen" is the act of trying to make the sound waves reach the brain =)

I agree, though, that trying to listen is mostly useless... explains a lot why I just cant keep my focus on the boring classes =)

hue-man;86180 wrote:
:perplexed:

Being positive about existence doesn't entail that you have be negative about existence. Yes, the meaning of some words entail the meaning of other words, but that does not mean that the two words are synonymous in some way. The definition of the terms positive and negative are completely opposite; it's a dichotomy. Therefore, adopting one of the views does not entail the adoption of the opposing view. That's oxymoronic.
I think he meant the old "there is no black winhout white", but I agree a better explanation would be handy =)
 
hue-man
 
Reply Fri 28 Aug, 2009 05:51 pm
@manored,
manored;86318 wrote:
I think he meant the old "there is no black winhout white", but I agree a better explanation would be handy =)


I'm sure that's what he meant, but it reminds me of when people say "you have to believe in something in order to believe nothing" as an argument against nihilism. It's just not true. Maybe you can say that there is no positive without a negative, but it's invalid to say that in order to positive about something you must be negative. That's self-contradictory.
 
Arjuna
 
Reply Fri 28 Aug, 2009 06:34 pm
@hue-man,
hue-man;86367 wrote:
I'm sure that's what he meant, but it reminds me of when people say "you have to believe in something in order to believe nothing" as an argument against nihilism. It's just not true. Maybe you can say that there is no positive without a negative, but it's invalid to say that in order to positive about something you must be negative. That's self-contradictory.


If you think this world is utopia, then you have a purely postive view.

If you think the world is flawed, but have hope that it can improve, there is both a negative and positive aspect to your view. Hope implies an internal resistance to the way the world is.

If you think the world is flawed and have no expectation that it will improve... you have a purely negative view of the world. The key to discovering if this is true hopelessness or just cynicism, is to note the degree of internal resistance. If there is no internal resistance, then what we have is acceptance of the world as it is... flaws and all.
 
hue-man
 
Reply Fri 28 Aug, 2009 09:00 pm
@Arjuna,
Arjuna;86378 wrote:
If you think this world is utopia, then you have a purely postive view.

If you think the world is flawed, but have hope that it can improve, there is both a negative and positive aspect to your view. Hope implies an internal resistance to the way the world is.

If you think the world is flawed and have no expectation that it will improve... you have a purely negative view of the world. The key to discovering if this is true hopelessness or just cynicism, is to note the degree of internal resistance. If there is no internal resistance, then what we have is acceptance of the world as it is... flaws and all.


I'm not talking positivity in terms of improvement or the lack thereof. I'm talking about positivity in terms of your view of the way the world is now, improvement or no improvement.
 
Arjuna
 
Reply Sat 29 Aug, 2009 06:07 am
@hue-man,
hue-man;86428 wrote:
I'm not talking positivity in terms of improvement or the lack thereof. I'm talking about positivity in terms of your view of the way the world is now, improvement or no improvement.


Oh, gotcha.

A man who was like a mentor to me told me this story:

He was sitting on a bench with Bill (Mr. Negative). A coworker walked by (an chubby elderly woman.) My mentor commented to her that her jogging suit looked new. She smiled and said that she'd bought it on a recent shopping trip with her daughter. "Well, it looks very nice on you." said my mentor. She walked on with a smile. Bill turned to him and said: "That's like putting a ten dollar blanket on a two dollar horse."

The point was made. I understood that some people are going to look at things negatively no matter what. After hearing Bill complain once more about how much he hated his job, I asked him why he didn't quit. He said his wife wouldn't let him. I just stared at him. This was an introduction for me to the idea that you chose how you see things. Later on I learned that there are limits to that. I may decide I'm going to be positive about what's happening to me because I'm not actually coping well with what's happening and I don't know what to do. The truth, like rain drops, eventually washes deception away (to quote poster: Chad3006)
 
Twistedgypsychil
 
Reply Sat 29 Aug, 2009 01:46 pm
@hue-man,
hue-man;86180 wrote:
:perplexed:

Being positive about existence doesn't entail that you have be negative about existence. Yes, the meaning of some words entail the meaning of other words, but that does not mean that the two words are synonymous in some way. The definition of the terms positive and negative are completely opposite; it's a dichotomy. Therefore, adopting one of the views does not entail the adoption of the opposing view. That's oxymoronic.


Let me put it a bit simpler for you. Without darkness you would not have light. Without light, there would be no darkness. One cannot exist without the other simply because there would be nothing to compare it to.

You cannot be completely positive about something because negativity exists. Unless you are willing to stand here before us all and proclaim that a person can be completely and utterly positive without any trace of negativity about existence, your argument is null in void. There has to be both in order for either to exist.

Jamie
 
hue-man
 
Reply Sat 29 Aug, 2009 02:26 pm
@Twistedgypsychil,
Twistedgypsychil;86653 wrote:
Let me put it a bit simpler for you. Without darkness you would not have light. Without light, there would be no darkness. One cannot exist without the other simply because there would be nothing to compare it to.

You cannot be completely positive about something because negativity exists. Unless you are willing to stand here before us all and proclaim that a person can be completely and utterly positive without any trace of negativity about existence, your argument is null in void. There has to be both in order for either to exist.

Jamie


Let me put it a little simpler for you. You stated that you have to be negative about existence in order to be positive about existence. That is an oxymoron, is it not? Now if you would have said that you have to acknowledge the presence of negativity even if you have a positive worldview you would have made sense. Your statement that positivity could not exist if there was nothing to compare it to is a result of not thoroughly contemplating such a claim. Could one not be positive if they were born in a world without negativity? Can you logically explain to me why there would be no darkness if there were no light?
 
Twistedgypsychil
 
Reply Sat 29 Aug, 2009 02:36 pm
@hue-man,
hue-man;86663 wrote:
Let me put it a little simpler for you. You stated that you have to be negative about existence in order to be positive about existence. That is an oxymoron, is it not? Now if you would have said that you have to acknowledge the presence of negativity even if you have a positive worldview you would have made sense. Your statement that positivity could not exist if there was nothing to compare it to is a result of not thoroughly contemplating such a claim. Could one not be positive if they were born in a world without negativity? Can you logically explain to me why there would be no darkness if there were no light?


Tell me where this world of non negativity is and Ill support your claim.

If you had a world full of darkness, then light would not exist. If you had a world full of light, darkness would not exist. How much simpler can I explain it? One does not exist without the other. Positive and negative are the same way. They compliment each other. They do not exist without each other.

Jamie
 
manored
 
Reply Sat 29 Aug, 2009 05:17 pm
@Twistedgypsychil,
Twistedgypsychil;86653 wrote:
You cannot be completely positive about something because negativity exists. Unless you are willing to stand here before us all and proclaim that a person can be completely and utterly positive without any trace of negativity about existence, your argument is null in void. There has to be both in order for either to exist.

Jamie
I think the concepts you hold are may be different from what you perceive in the world. If you think only darkness is scary, and darkness is eliminated from the world, you no longer find anything in the world scary, but you still know what scary is. Same goes for people who become blind, they can no longer see but they still know the difference between seeing and not seeing.

hue-man;86663 wrote:
Could one not be positive if they were born in a world without negativity? Can you logically explain to me why there would be no darkness if there were no light?
No, in a world winhout negative, the concept of positive would not exist. If there were no sexes, would we have the worlds male/female? No. Now, if you know what negative is, positive exists.
 
Arjuna
 
Reply Sat 29 Aug, 2009 05:55 pm
@hue-man,
hue-man;86663 wrote:
Can you logically explain to me why there would be no darkness if there were no light?


Yea. Because the idea of light is part of the definition of darkness.

Imagine that everything in the universe has always been green. Would we have the word: green?

If there's no concept of top... could we understand the word bottom?

And so on.
 
Leonard
 
Reply Sat 29 Aug, 2009 07:05 pm
@glasstrees,
"Lots of people are negative about life not having any inerrant purpose. But I think it would suck if it did. Imagine if you existed and started out with a book of rules written by god telling us that we are here too... erm... create a soul for ourselves? And we keep living lives untill we get to the point of being a all loving perfect soul.... Something like that. "
-Some call it the bible, others the tanakh, some the quran, etc... Religion, whether or not correct, gives people a purpose. Now i'm certain i'm speaking to a lot of atheists, but religion is a good thing in the sense that it creates good people and a good feeling. Of course there is religious terrorism and hate crime, but where would we be without religion? We wouldn't have had many things influencing us. Religion has brought us art, architecture, and progress. It may be so, but sometimes I think progress is the reason we are depressed, world-weary, and pessimistic. Where else do we have to go when we can travel anywhere in hours, or contact anyone in seconds? It becomes hard to keep busy, and we spend hours on forums like this searching for a meaning. Both greed and generosity feel good, but only being generous brings good feeling in the long term. Being greedy and spoiled only bores us into depression and suicide. I'm poor, grew up poor, live a hand-to-mouth existence, but all I see around me are depressed. Of course, philosophers succumb to depression easily, but being able to do anything on a computer just seems to deepen the effect.

Getting to the point, I'm going to say i'm positive about existence. As I said in another thread (somewhat): "...A man wonders his whole life what the meaning of his life is. He reads books, helps people, and causes change, all in the process of searching for his reason. The reason we exist is to search for a reason to exist..." The urge to find a reason is the reason in my mind. Maybe i'm wrong, but that's why I feel optimistic.Smile
 
hue-man
 
Reply Sat 29 Aug, 2009 08:28 pm
@Twistedgypsychil,
Twistedgypsychil;86665 wrote:
Tell me where this world of non negativity is and Ill support your claim.

If you had a world full of darkness, then light would not exist. If you had a world full of light, darkness would not exist. How much simpler can I explain it? One does not exist without the other. Positive and negative are the same way. They compliment each other. They do not exist without each other.

Jamie


The same way that you're being hypothetical about a world full of light and no darkness, I'm being hypothetical about a world without negativity. However, I am not arguing against your use of a hypothetical because it a logical way to try and make a point.

Therefore I will ask you again. Couldn't a positive worldview exist in a world without negativity? Before you answer that, let me assist. In a world without negativity what worldview could there be but positivity?

Secondly, and more to the original point, you stated that you can't be negative without being positive. Once again I ask, is that not self-contradictory?

---------- Post added 08-29-2009 at 10:30 PM ----------

Arjuna;86724 wrote:
Yea. Because the idea of light is part of the definition of darkness.

Imagine that everything in the universe has always been green. Would we have the word: green?

If there's no concept of top... could we understand the word bottom?

And so on.


Positivity is not merely a concept. Positivity is a psychological state or trait.

---------- Post added 08-29-2009 at 10:32 PM ----------

manored;86717 wrote:
No, in a world winhout negative, the concept of positive would not exist. If there were no sexes, would we have the worlds male/female? No. Now, if you know what negative is, positive exists.


Once again, positivity is not merely a concept or a word. Positivity is a psychological state of the mind.
 
Twistedgypsychil
 
Reply Sat 29 Aug, 2009 08:55 pm
@hue-man,
hue-man;86787 wrote:
The same way that you're being hypothetical about a world full of light and no darkness, I'm being hypothetical about a world without negativity. However, I am not arguing against your use of a hypothetical because it a logical way to try and make a point.

Therefore I will ask you again. Couldn't a positive worldview exist in a world without negativity? Before you answer that, let me assist. In a world without negativity what worldview could there be but positivity?

Secondly, and more to the original point, you stated that you can't be negative without being positive. Once again I ask, is that not self-contradictory?



A positive worldview could exist in a world less of negativity, yes, but in reality that doesnt happen. To be positive about something will almost certainly mean that you are being negative about something as well. For example, if you are positive that you are going to have a good day at all costs, then you are being negative to the aspect of being negative in that day at all. You negate the aspect that there is going to be negativity in your day.

Another example. If you are positive about a job interview, you are most certainly being negative to any negative outcome of the job interview.

Jamie
 
hue-man
 
Reply Sat 29 Aug, 2009 09:16 pm
@Twistedgypsychil,
Twistedgypsychil;86803 wrote:
A positive worldview could exist in a world less of negativity, yes, but in reality that doesnt happen. To be positive about something will almost certainly mean that you are being negative about something as well. For example, if you are positive that you are going to have a good day at all costs, then you are being negative to the aspect of being negative in that day at all. You negate the aspect that there is going to be negativity in your day.

Another example. If you are positive about a job interview, you are most certainly being negative to any negative outcome of the job interview.

Jamie


I hear what you're trying to say, but I'm trying to tell you that you're being self-contradictory and inexact. You've stated this already, and all you're doing is restating your claim. Being positive about something does not entail that you must be negative as well. These all may make good aphorisms, but self-contradictory statements without paradoxes are not logical arguments.

What I'm saying is that while it is true that the definition of positivity entails the definition of negativity, it is not true that you must be negative in order to be positive. It's equivalent to me saying that in order to be up you must be down, or in order to right you must be wrong.
 
Twistedgypsychil
 
Reply Sat 29 Aug, 2009 09:28 pm
@hue-man,
hue-man;86808 wrote:
I hear what you're trying to say, but I'm trying to tell you that you're being self-contradictory and inexact. You've stated this already, and all you're doing is restating your claim. Being positive about something does not entail that you must be negative as well. These all may make good aphorisms, but self-contradictory statements without paradoxes are not logical arguments.

What I'm saying is that while it is true that the definition of positivity entails the definition of negativity, it is not true that you must be negative in order to be positive. It's equivalent to me saying that in order to be up you must be down, or in order to right you must be wrong.


You cannot be completely positive about something without being negative about an aspect of it. That is just not possible. I gave you two examples. To be positive about something you have to exclude negative things. The act of excluding is a negative act because it is not "positive" to your positivism. You just simply cannot be completely positive without negating certain things to ensure that it is completely positive. Negation is an aspect of negativity.

Jamie
 
Arjuna
 
Reply Sun 30 Aug, 2009 07:07 am
@hue-man,
hue-man;86787 wrote:

Positivity is not merely a concept. Positivity is a psychological state or trait.


This is the crux of the matter.

I have a glass of water. In my mind I divide the water horizontally. Now I have the top water and the bottom water.

You're saying that top is not merely a concept. It's particular molecules of water that are further from the earth's core than the bottom.

You're positing topness as an objective reality: that my mind didn't divide the water, it merely recognized the division that was there before I even observed the water and will be there after I turn away. I understand this perspective. I really do. I'm only saying notice another perspective:

The water is just sitting there in the glass. The division is not objectively real. The division is the result of a mental process called analysis. Analysis produces concepts: pairs of opposites that are interdependent. Take one opposand away and it's companion will disappear: because they can only exist relative to each other.

Topness seems to be objective because I mentally position the idea external to me. "The top is there" I say, pointing at the glass. In fact, though, the top is an idea.

Heidegger said the Greeks had a word for this 'idea which is positioned in the external world.' He said the word means core. It was translated into Latin as subjectum. It refers to the core of identity. This core of identity is unchanging. (This was in an essay he wrote on the nature of beauty.)
 
gaz7224
 
Reply Sun 30 Aug, 2009 08:46 am
@Arjuna,
Quote:
but religion is a good thing in the sense that it creates good people and a good feeling


I think it AIMS to create good people, but doesn't always create 'good' people. And I feel to designated oneself as good is slightly arrogant, inflated and unrealistic. No one is perfect, not even priests.

IMO, to describe people as either good or bad is to not acknowledge the complexities of being human.

Gaz
 
manored
 
Reply Sun 30 Aug, 2009 09:17 am
@hue-man,
hue-man;86787 wrote:
Once again, positivity is not merely a concept or a word. Positivity is a psychological state of the mind.
But, if its concept doesnt exists, it cannot be reconized, therefore its meaningless. Its like claiming that besides sad and happy, angry and calm, etc there are two another emotions called quacar and eonosu, but everone is always quacar: If everone is always quacar, does it matter? Should we include "quacar" and the another infinity of possible dualities that are always set the same way in our descriptions? I think not. A world winhout negative is only seen as positive by outside observers who know what negative is, it is not seen as positive by those inside.

Leonard;86746 wrote:
"Lots of people are negative about life not having any inerrant purpose. But I think it would suck if it did. Imagine if you existed and started out with a book of rules written by god telling us that we are here too... erm... create a soul for ourselves? And we keep living lives untill we get to the point of being a all loving perfect soul.... Something like that. "
-Some call it the bible, others the tanakh, some the quran, etc... Religion, whether or not correct, gives people a purpose. Now i'm certain i'm speaking to a lot of atheists, but religion is a good thing in the sense that it creates good people and a good feeling. Of course there is religious terrorism and hate crime, but where would we be without religion? We wouldn't have had many things influencing us. Religion has brought us art, architecture, and progress.
Religion tends to switch from a bless to a curse though, so Im hoping we can one day abandon religion and dwell in philosopy =)
 
William
 
Reply Sun 30 Aug, 2009 09:51 am
@manored,
manored;86318 wrote:
To me, the word "hear" means that the sound waves got to your ears, while the word "listen" means that the sound waves got to your ears AND to your brain. "trying to listen" is the act of trying to make the sound waves reach the brain


Please consider this; when we truly do "hear" something, it goes straight to memory and is embedded there amidst all the negative that exists there that we effort to find "explanation" to "ease" our negative state. In other words it can be concluded that what we truly hear that is positive will "come in handy" as we gather it will evacuate those negatives and ridding memory of them for they are not embedded, though they are "relied" on as they define what we perceive as "meaning" and can be indeed "mean" as it relates to the output we manifest.

manored;86318 wrote:
I agree, though, that trying to listen is mostly useless... explains a lot why I just cant keep my focus on the boring classes


Exactly, IMO, our educational system sucks, big time. You are "required" to PAY ATTENTION, or it will COST you, as if you don't you will be a FAILURE. What a crock!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Talk about intimidation, extortion and entrapment of that most beautiful mind you have as they mean to capture it for "society's" best interest giving little regard to what is in the "best interest" of the individual that is complimentary to what is embedded in memory that is positive for them. We are force to listen to crap we are not comfortable with. But we have to if we are to "make money" in the chaotic world our so called "scholars" created. Humph!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Trust me, the miracle that is you, "will" hear what you need to hear that is compatible with all that is embedded in memory for it will truly come in handy some day and expel that crap you were force to learn, eventually ridding your memory and issuing you true "peace of mind". And that is God in motion, IMO of which you are but a tiny, but significant part. :a-ok:
William
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 10/20/2021 at 07:12:58