Your loving, caring neighbourhood sociopath.

Ray Butler (@trek79) 8 years, 7 months ago

I was doing a little introspection, evaluating myself in somewhat of an objective angle. What I came up with is; Philosophically I would best describe myself as a sociopath.

This sounds bad but that is not all I am. Conceptual values are basically artificial, yet people ignore all true inner nature to stand up for them. I think that is crap, natural values are by far not a bad thing, it is where we get things like empathy, love and compassion, it is also where we get things like self preservation, ingenuity, creativity, a drive to make life worth living.

If we have no concept of these things, they would still exist in us, as evidence of animals who have no conceptual abilities, and if they do they fail completely to display them in any way, yet they show signs of these natural values, perhaps more rudimentary than us due to our gifts and tools, but there nonetheless.

So philosophically, being a sociopath is not bad, it is basically the concept of dissolving attachments to concepts, and in this sense you can then be free to embrace your natural values, exist more in that moment rather that manifest fears and desires based on ideas of what will come, or guilt and pride based on what has passed.

The idea is that your ideas are not you, they are distractions that steer you away from being you. Ideas obviously can be a vital tool in discovery and insight, but that is all they are; tools, not your identity. I am not saying abolish them, but hold them in the regard they deserve, not more or less.

October 20, 2013 at 5:50 am
Tine (366) (@tine) 8 years, 7 months ago ago

@trek79,

i’m not really arguing the thought processes involved, i’m arguing whether you should considering the selfishness aspect,

^Whether or not you agree, embracing that part of self as a ‘guide’… man, i acknowledge that aspect of myself, but it is a ‘part’ of me, not who i am, if i understand you correctly, i have found the search you are referring to very cold and weary later on

if i am off what you are saying,

|| rational mind guided by natural compulsion || could you explain this more please. (im pretty down in the pitts rite now, forgive me if i seem abrasive)

[Hidden]
Ben (62) (@Mallorn) 8 years, 7 months ago ago

While you and I may be able to reflect and work on changing habits, some cannot, and some have thoughts entirely different from yours. you can keep believing in things for which you have no proof, but facts are facts. these are people you know nothing of that you’re saying these things about. it’s not a matter of bluntness, but of understanding. if you really do enjoy calling people ugly, that’s your problem. Indeed, a learned condition.

[Hidden]
Ray Butler (1,423)M (@trek79) 8 years, 7 months ago ago

@tine, Human nature has two primary motives; personal welfare and extra-personal welfare, doing things to benefit the self and doing things to benefit others. That is very much an over-simplification but generally it is apt.

A rational mind can logically deduce when and where each motive is most applicable, but even if one of the motives is completely absent in a person, there is a natural overlap where you can logically deduce action complimentary to the absent motive.

Even a completely selfish person can logically deduce when and where non-selfish behaviour is most appropriate, because their freedom to exist selfishly depends upon it.

[Hidden]
Tine (366) (@tine) 8 years, 7 months ago ago

@mallorn,

truth hurts bro.

it may be complex in display but unraveled, its always that at its core,

did i mention i was a reforming sociopath?

[Hidden]
Tine (366) (@tine) 8 years, 7 months ago ago

@mallorn,

so im really calling myself ugly…. just sayin

[Hidden]
Tine (366) (@tine) 8 years, 7 months ago ago

@trek79,

but on a scale of causality, a selfish individual, no matter the supplement welfare for selfish reasons, a selfish individual sows much more destruction than not with the person oftentimes, on the surface, completely unaware of the totality of damage

do you agree or disagree and why?

[Hidden]
Ray Butler (1,423)M (@trek79) 8 years, 7 months ago ago

@tine, It comes down to awareness, how observant and individual is. A selfless person is preferable right? Not necessarily, selfless people often are as equally unaware as a selfish person, and in this lack they neglect vital factors that spawn dangerous situations also.

A person may want to give so much that they neglect their own needs and leave themselves too inefficient to provide any giving, they may even die and no longer exist as a giving power in the world.

But as I said about a selfish person, if they are observant enough then they can logically deduce when to be selfless, if a situation arises where they should be selfless but do not realise it, they may create a situation for themselves that harms them, people may see their inconsiderate behaviour and decide they are a threat and work against them.

Even if you are selfish, you do not want to make enemies because when you make enemies it creates situations that could make things more difficult for you. A selfish person benefits more from being selfless in a number of situations.

[Hidden]
Tine (366) (@tine) 8 years, 7 months ago ago

@trek79,

but if the person is selfish, in that moment, all that matters, all that the brain connects, are pathways in regards to self, whether it be for something the self wants or for survival,

consider it this way, your perspective ( — ) translates reality, when you place self at the center of concern, you layer your realities ability to perceive with deadends that lead back to self,

this is why i said, “completely unaware of the totality of damage”, the self filters reality, you only see what matters to self, unaware of the damage you might be causing to people who live differently simply through a general lack of consideration *in some regard*

the sociopath is one variation of an ego manifestation, be very careful before you decide that you are worthy to decide the fate of reality aaround ya, and by worthy, i mean your good attributes, gotta have balance… and if you’re balanced, you’re not a sociopath

[Hidden]
Ray Butler (1,423)M (@trek79) 8 years, 7 months ago ago

@tine, No, I’m not a sociopath :) And yes, for sure, selfish people are hard wired to put themselves first in every situation, yet quite often, if they were to really analyse the situation, they would realise that their immediate gain is not necessarily their optimal gain.

As they say “You have to speculate to accumulate” it is one thing to just take, it is another thing to create the environment where taking is improved and acceptable.

But yes, it is quite irrational to believe you can control the world to your advantage, you can only really control yourself so the world doesn’t fight you.

[Hidden]
Tine (366) (@tine) 8 years, 7 months ago ago

@trek79,

ok… ;)

i once was, until i started seeing the value of balance. the clarity that consideration through the lens [build/gray/destroy] has brought me has been profound

[Hidden]
Tine (366) (@tine) 8 years, 7 months ago ago

@trek79,

here’s my main argument, if [self] interferes with the ( -perspective- ) in its ability to see reality clearly, then turning to the self is a blinder. it limits the brains overall ability to perceive. meaning, the more selfish the person, the blind’er’ they become, i can see this in action and use it to predict behavior

[Hidden]
Ray Butler (1,423)M (@trek79) 8 years, 7 months ago ago

@tine, I think philosophy is the best solution for sociopaths to build that moral balance, but people who are not sociopaths are better served by staying true to their nature. Sociopaths do not have that natural caring core, and so they need to construct that conceptual foundation (philosophical moral values) to guide their logic.

People who do have that natural caring core can simply use it to guide their logic, but when they build that conceptual foundation (philosophical moral values) they risk placing this artificial guide before their natural guide. (I hope that makes sense :p)

[Hidden]
Ray Butler (1,423)M (@trek79) 8 years, 7 months ago ago

@tine, Yes, IF the self interferes with the powers of perspective/perception/observance then it blinds rational process, but on the other hand the motivation for the self can encourage you to become more observant and take into account how treating others well will stop them from treating you as a threat.

I think what we confuse as selfishness is really just short sightedness, when a person has a limited range of observation.

[Hidden]
Anonymous (2,654) (@) 8 years, 7 months ago ago

Can I be a sociopath and a romantic at the same time or I have to choose now.

[Hidden]
Tine (366) (@tine) 8 years, 7 months ago ago

@trek79,

there are logical reasons to not be a sociopath, so i agree, i wouldnt have termed it philosophy but as i think about it, that term works too. everybody has the potential of becoming a sociopath, its always a choice at some point, that point when you realize what you are, to continue or change

[Hidden]
Tine (366) (@tine) 8 years, 7 months ago ago

@beyond,

you have to become a ‘hopeless’ romantic

[Hidden]
Viewing 15 reply threads
load more