Political Discussion

This is probably the type of thing mental health workers should get involved in.
Which they were. The man agreed to be transported for an evaluation. It was at that point that officers returned to the residence to take his firearms.

If you want people to resist or avoid seeking help from mental health professionals, this is how you do that.
 
Which they were. The man agreed to be transported for an evaluation. It was at that point that officers returned to the residence to take his firearms.

If you want people to resist or avoid seeking help from mental health professionals, this is how you do that.

I’m not disagreeing with you, but there is a strange logic at work that would motivate a person to tolerate suffering because they were afraid to loose their firearms. Of course people do all sorts of things that seem strange to others.
 
I’m not disagreeing with you, but there is a strange logic at work that would motivate a person to tolerate suffering because they were afraid to loose their firearms. Of course people do all sorts of things that seem strange to others.
Suffering is the natural human condition. We seem to have forgotten that to our detriment and it’s a reason we are dying as a culture and society. Then our children and our children’s children will know what real suffering is like.
 
Say more about this?

I feel like this is one of those statements that potentially reveals the basis for opposing worldviews.

I do agree with this. It’s just part of what happens when you are living being. We can’t be satisfied all the time. Our existence combined with self awareness makes it so we understand that we have or have not reached our goals. The question is if we develop adaptive or maladaptive coping skills.
 
I also agree that suffering is the basis for everything we call progress. It manifests on every level. I never find myself seeking change until the suffering reaches sufficient proportions to move away from it. My lowest humanity is my preference for comfort. Finding ways to proactively and constructively "embrace the suck" so to speak makes me grow as a person and become a better part of my social fabric.
 
Say more about this?

I feel like this is one of those statements that potentially reveals the basis for opposing worldviews.
Look at the entirety of human history. Life for the average person has always been as Hobbes put it, “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.” Even to this day that remains the state of being for much of the world’s population. The problem I see is that in the West we seem to have forgotten that. We have replaced knowledge of what is and the will to thrive with sense of entitlement and an inability to cope with the fact that the world we imagine in our heads isn’t reality.
 
Look at the entirety of human history. Life for the average person has always been as Hobbes put it, “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.” Even to this day that remains the state of being for much of the world’s population. The problem I see is that in the West we seem to have forgotten that. We have replaced knowledge of what is and the will to thrive with sense of entitlement and an inability to cope with the fact that the world we imagine in our heads isn’t reality.
Couple this with repeat studies indicating happiness thrives in what we would call destitute conditions whereas here, where we have all the comforts, maladies of contentment abound.
 
Look at the entirety of human history. Life for the average person has always been as Hobbes put it, “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.” Even to this day that remains the state of being for much of the world’s population. The problem I see is that in the West we seem to have forgotten that. We have replaced knowledge of what is and the will to thrive with sense of entitlement and an inability to cope with the fact that the world we imagine in our heads isn’t reality.

I think that’s a radical missuse of that passage by Hobbes. It’s his description of the “state of nature” without governments, not necessarily a comment on the life of the ordinary man. Although in the 1651 it would probably be an understatement to describe the lives of the peasant class in such terms. That said like most men of his time and age his theories were not for the peasant class but those he’d deem worthy.

This is the full text of that passage where he describes the “state of nature” or life without government:

“In such condition, there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving, and removing, such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”

That said I don’t necessarily disagree with you that suffering, on one level or another, is an inevitable part of the human condition. I was brought up Catholic though and man is suffering fetishised there!
 
I think that’s a radical missuse of that passage by Hobbes. It’s his description of the “state of nature” without governments, not necessarily a comment on the life of the ordinary man. Although in the 1651 it would probably be an understatement to describe the lives of the peasant class in such terms. That said like most men of his time and age his theories were not for the peasant class but those he’d deem worthy.

This is the full text of that passage where he describes the “state of nature” or life without government:

“In such condition, there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving, and removing, such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”

That said I don’t necessarily disagree with you that suffering, on one level or another, is an inevitable part of the human condition. I was brought up Catholic though and man is suffering fetishised there!
I don’t really think it’s a misuse. While Hobbes was referring to the state of nature without governments, I believe the argument can well be made that most governments perpetuate this state of being for much of their populations. It’s only very limited types of governments that have allowed most of their population (though not all) to rise above that. So while it may not have been his intention, it very well does apply to the condition of the common man.

It’s in forgetting that we set a course to return.
 
I think that’s a radical missuse of that passage by Hobbes. It’s his description of the “state of nature” without governments, not necessarily a comment on the life of the ordinary man. Although in the 1651 it would probably be an understatement to describe the lives of the peasant class in such terms. That said like most men of his time and age his theories were not for the peasant class but those he’d deem worthy.

This is the full text of that passage where he describes the “state of nature” or life without government:

“In such condition, there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving, and removing, such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”

That said I don’t necessarily disagree with you that suffering, on one level or another, is an inevitable part of the human condition. I was brought up Catholic though and man is suffering fetishised there!

I prefer the Taoist ideas about suffering over Catholic.

The Master sees things as they are,
without trying to control them.
She lets them go their own way,
and resides at the center of the circle.
 
I think that’s a radical missuse of that passage by Hobbes. It’s his description of the “state of nature” without governments, not necessarily a comment on the life of the ordinary man. Although in the 1651 it would probably be an understatement to describe the lives of the peasant class in such terms. That said like most men of his time and age his theories were not for the peasant class but those he’d deem worthy.

This is the full text of that passage where he describes the “state of nature” or life without government:

“In such condition, there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving, and removing, such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”

That said I don’t necessarily disagree with you that suffering, on one level or another, is an inevitable part of the human condition. I was brought up Catholic though and man is suffering fetishised there!
Hobbes is the tiger, isn't it?
 
Suffering is the natural human condition. We seem to have forgotten that to our detriment and it’s a reason we are dying as a culture and society. Then our children and our children’s children will know what real suffering is like.

Couple this with repeat studies indicating happiness thrives in what we would call destitute conditions whereas here, where we have all the comforts, maladies of contentment abound.

I prefer the Taoist ideas about suffering over Catholic.

The Master sees things as they are,
without trying to control them.
She lets them go their own way,
and resides at the center of the circle.

When reading about Buddhism, an author (Brad Warner) pointed out that the word in Hindi for suffering is Duhkha, and it is translated (from wiki) meaning anything that is "uneasy, uncomfortable, unpleasant, difficult, causing pain or sadness".[9][10] It is also a concept in Indian religions about the nature of life that innately includes the "unpleasant", "suffering", "pain", "sorrow", "distress", "grief" or "misery."[9][10] The term duḥkha does not have a one-word English translation, and embodies diverse aspects of unpleasant human experiences.[3][10] It is opposed to the word sukha, meaning "happiness," "comfort" or "ease.

In a way, we could translate this to any sort of unpleasantness that one encounters in life. We strive to be at sukha as a species. There's a lot to unpack when we talk about suffering in the modern world. Our bodies were made for running, swimming, hunting, climbing and walking. Anthropologically speaking, we are middling on the food chain and were incorporated into our natural environments as such. We realized that cooperation kept us alive and fed better than being solitary and thus society was created. We learned to cook our food, which made us able to eat and extract nutrients faster than our other primate cousins, which began changing the shape of our skulls, to what they are now. We, eventually, form complex emotional and societal bonds and felt the need to leave the natural world and all it's predators behind. We just wanted to not be eaten, nor did we want anyone that we cared about to be eaten.

When we decided that human lives were more important than a natural balance of predator and prey, we changed a lot of things, not just for the earth, but for us humans. There is anthropological evidence that humans had a much better sense of smell and hearing in our hunter gatherer days. We have lost this over centuries because we haven't needed it. As we continually enhance the mind, we forget to ask, "what world was my mind created for?" Our minds are just animal brains and we are happiest doing animalistic things like walking in nature, making things, and hunting and gathering. I won't say that our comforts are what bring us our maladies per se, but that we used our minds to create things that make tasks easier--things like how do we feed everyone, clothe everyone and shelter everyone--but because our minds are no longer doing what they were intended and designed to do, we get neuroses. Study after study talks about how humans need sunlight, and down time, and social connections and storytelling and plants and all the other things we find in nature, and were we hunting and gathering, we would get plenty of this sort of stuff. But when we set our minds to eliminating suffering or even just inconveniences, like everything else in this world, it comes with a trade off. And those trade offs are often seen in society's mental health. A dysfunction in "being able to cope" with the world comes when the world that we created leaves us isolated and unhappy. I think this is the most insidious thing about our modern world, the lack of true community connection because everyone is "in it for themselves" which is a fundamentally un-sapien-like way of thinking--and does cause us harm as individuals. We evolved to depend on each other. Yanking that away, even if it took 100 years, was way too short of a time for us to adapt to isolation in the modern world.

We have not forgot how to suffer. We know how to because we do it every day. What we are losing is connection to other people and to our natural world--the world our minds and bodies adapted to live in. To quote Stephen King, "We have forgotten the face of our fathers." When we are no longer able to work cooperatively, we become agents of destruction.
 
I don’t really think it’s a misuse. While Hobbes was referring to the state of nature without governments, I believe the argument can well be made that most governments perpetuate this state of being for much of their populations. It’s only very limited types of governments that have allowed most of their population (though not all) to rise above that. So while it may not have been his intention, it very well does apply to the condition of the common man.

It’s in forgetting that we set a course to return.

I don’t know. I think that Hobbes would consider that a reversion to the state of nature and the product of a tyrannical government which had broken the social contract and that there is a a right, or even almost an obligation, on citizens to overthrow it.

Hobbes is very much a product of his time having lived through the English Civil War and having seen the tyranny of monarchy being overthrown in Civil War and being the replaced by the tyranny of Cromwell.

Im surprised to see you quoting Hobbes to be honest, I’d have thought him a bit extreme for you, I’d have put you more in the camp of his student Locke who built upon the ideas and took them in a different direction.
 
I don’t know. I think that Hobbes would consider that a reversion to the state of nature and the product of a tyrannical government which had broken the social contract and that there is a a right, or even almost an obligation, on citizens to overthrow it.

Hobbes is very much a product of his time having lived through the English Civil War and having seen the tyranny of monarchy being overthrown in Civil War and being the replaced by the tyranny of Cromwell.

Im surprised to see you quoting Hobbes to be honest, I’d have thought him a bit extreme for you, I’d have put you more in the camp of his student Locke who built upon the ideas and took them in a different direction.
I wouldn’t disagree with any of that really, including your read of me as likely preferring Locke. But as I think we have often found in our discussions here, just because parties may disagree on what the best solutions are doesn’t mean that they don’t recognize the same problems.
 
Back
Top