Philosophy of Respect

This is a post purely to facilitate my secondary love after Art, which is philosophy. I LOVE human analysis and character study because I find so many things in the world that ultimately lead right back to find that it's all caused by human nature at its core. These range from the development of products, business propositions, charity, laws, war, etc.

In light of recent events taking place in the forum, I'd like to discuss my philosophy of respect. Now, this is some lengthy stuff and I recommend that you only read it if you're into this stuff and curious about my take on it. If not, it's all good.

I think people are not born good or bad. In fact, I don't believe that "good" or "bad" in any objective level exists. What I do believe is positive and negative, positive possessing the characteristics that make us feel comfortable, happy, excited, etc, and negative being painful, sorrowful, etc. I believe that there IS a common base for all humanity to judge positive or negative because we are in a way very similar. We all perceive through the five senses, and we all feel pain similarly. It is this basis that I think we should build our civilization upon.

So, respect. It's actually a pretty simple one, in my opinion. Simply understood but surprisingly hard to sustain. It all starts with two different individuals with different opinions. Each person wants to be validated, and validation is a base for survival. Now, these opinions, or personality traits even, may not denote good or bad, they just are. However, things tend to take a turn towards the subjective once each person finds that, in order to validate the other person, they have to sacrifice their current position and standing, which is a hard thing to do. And so the person retaliates to belittle the other, reducing their standing to a minimum for the upper hand.

However, if any of us ever took a moment to think about it, and really bare down on the core of a lot of the turmoils in our world, we may find that strength is found in the letting go of one's own ego and pride. If Person A states something insulting or offensive to person B, there is 1 out of 2 people who is being "negative." If person B retaliates, whether he or she is justified or not, the bottom line is that it is now 2 out of 2 people. Whereas if Person B refrained, or thought of an alternative, or empathized with person A's point by letting go of his own ideas (should they be less valid than A's), then we stay at 1 out of 2.

Now if we were to blow this equation up to 3 people, it gets more complicated but it's still the system at work. Ultimately, we have a globe of over 6 billion ppl, all with their own opinions and thoughts, and pride. Nations probably all feel "justified" in their views of retaliation and that's why we have war. My philosophy would be that if any one of these nations, like Person B, dropped their need for defenses purely for the sake of defenses, we might be on a track towards a better world.

Okay, this was written on a whim nonstop, and you'll probably find MANY flaws in it. If any of you have made it this far then I guess all I request is that you take what I said with a grain of salt and try to make sense of it as a whole before responding instead of picking at little grammar mistakes or minor illogical details. It really is just my opinion and I'm sure y'all have some really good ones of your own that I'd love to hear.

 

Just so you know, your avi died.


Anyhoo. I don't believe people are born good or bad, but I believe that due to a somewhat weaker mind, some people are more inclined to either one, such as a man who always does the right thing, even if it's not the best thing, or someone who does bad things and does not know why.

So, in the second half, and correct me if I'm wrong, is advocating turning the other cheek?

 

Yep, I guess I'm advocating that. Haha, see, my problem is not being very succinct.

My avatar died? Wha? I still see it, you're talking about Kerrigan right? She's still up 'n runnin' on my thing.

I'll wait for a few more ppl to respond before I respond in full. Thanks for taking the time to read my ranting, Fenix

 

Very interesting.

I can relate that to something i, too, started to contemplate due the events that has taken place recently on the forums. Especially, i think, is the opinions of the worlds national leaders. These opinions are of great importance to think over, as these opinions will shape our countries for a couple of coming years.

For example, Bush (a good yet a bit over-used example) had the opinion that the US should go to war against "Terrorism". Firstly, i just wanna poke in a little comment here: How exactly do you wage war against a concept, hmm?
Secondly, what Bush didn't realize (and what many other leaders doesn't) is that the opinions of the leader don't mean shiz when compared to the opinions of the people that's being led. Now, asking 6 billion people all at one time to state their opinions would be a little... difficult, but you get where i am going.

Now, regarding leadership at hand, i think the true meaning of that word has become defunct to us modern humans. A leader is supposed to lead a people to the most prosperous situation possible.
That's not what's going on right now. And it's not the people's fault, it's the leaders, who says: "I am right. He is wrong."
Those words can be altered in many ways, but leads - inadvertably - to the "Schism of Thought", essentially what you have been talking about - when opinions are set against eachother, and when one opinion has to be shoved aside for the other to grow.

The Schism of Thought is a concept which has ruined the point of leadership completely. Leadership is about the people using the leader to reach prosperity. Now, that has been twisted into the leader using the people to reach prosperity.
When we elect presidents, prime ministers, etc etc, we chose someone to serve. It's a concept that echoes all the way back to the time of Ancient Egypt - a time where the King of the Realm was thought to be God in human form.

The Schism of Thought brought about another, extremely dangerous thing which still occurs to this day - the Schism of Belief. "This is my Gods. That is your Gods. They are different."
This, surely many of the readers have heard about - Christianity, Islam and Judaism - three religions who share many things.
"This is the true God, and this is his teachings." "No, you are wrong, i herald the true God."
Once again, concepts and opinions clash, religion against religion. All because of the Schism of Thought, evolved into the Schism of Belief.

The Schism of Thought brought about a third, dangerous Schism, called the Schism of Belonging. When someone speaks of USA and it's inhabitants, do you think "They're Americans." or do you think, "They're humans."
This may very well be the most dangerous things of all, which has brought about all the wars ever occured on Earth.
"We are us. They are them. We are different."
They. Them. Dangerous words when applied to many people.

"Separate man's opinions from others, separate his belief from others and separate his belonging from others, and man will deem himself one of a kind, different from all and unique amongst a whole, and that whole will sunder apart."
/Me

"We share opinions, belief and belonging - we are whole."
We do not share opinions, but our belief and belonging keeps us whole.
We do not share belief nor opinions, but our belonging keeps us whole.
We do not share belonging, belief nor opinions - we are different."
/Me

Well, that's just my 2 cents on why respect is so lacking - and hard to achieve - in so many cases. Might seem a bit... crazy, but i hope you get the point of my rant.

 

SirBaron, I salute you sir. You've really given me a lot to chew on there. I'm unfortunately on my way out but I'll respond more fully later. Glad u'r interested in this topic

 

@ArchLimit+Avi. For a second, your host went down is all.

 

Iceland is the only country that doesn't spend anything on defense. However, this isn't do say they are without defenses, the US fronts the bill for that one (US manned Icelandic Defense Force 1951-2006, Joint Understanding 2006-Present)
Even neutral countries have defenses. Nobody will ever not need defenses because everyone will always be afraid that something bad could happen and they want to be prepared for it.

As for terrorism, I'll get into that later when I'm not exhausted.

 

@ Archlimit - I see where you're going with your opinion, but let me put my two cents in... Man needs others. Man cannot function without others. Man would go insane without others. Man has stronger emotions for other men because they have the comfort of knowing that others go through the same things they do (EG: Brothers in Arms concept for soldiers.) It is less of an "idea," as you proposed it, and more of an instinctal feeling. The reality is....man needs war. People are paranoid...and there will always be one person who'll justify that paranoia. You can't really say "stop putting defenses for the sake of defenses" because it really is not that simple. Man will never be united unless they are met by an outside threat (zerg invasion anyone?). Probably the closest thing we have to a united man is the European Union. Even the United Nations can't be considered a united man.

@ SirBaron - I disagree with your quotes because they all state that we need to think in one way. You are basically stating that we give up our individuality and our free will...the stuff that makes us human in the first place. If we do not have the free will to think for ourselves, then we will not even have the privilege of seeing others, or ourselves, as "human." Such thoughts of conformities are how tyrannical regimes are made. (1984...fantastic book.)

I like how you guys think, i'm simply stating my own opinion about them

 

@Itsmyship: Yeah, hehe, i know the three "Schism" things resonate with a strong... let's say, "Hivemind" mentality rather than "tyrant" mentality. In my humble opinion, the best thing for our race as a whole, would be to discard our free will and function as a single unity. Then the race in whole would strive for the same goals, with no disregards of the self.
It's a scary thought, but if just looking on what's best for Man itself, then free will perhaps is not as good as it would seem.

Despite my view on this, I am not willing to give up my free will and unique mind in favor of man becoming a perfect race, that's way too much... Zerg.

 

Okay, now that it's into the late hours of the night I am at my perfect awareness to post a hefty one.

So here goes.

I believe what SirBaron and I are trying to say is that it IS very unrealistic, but at the end of it all, it seems to be an almost mathemetically perfect solution. Now, obviously, the situation is much more complicated than that so lemme see if I can patch some of the seeming flaws and reinstate my opinion a little better.

I do NOT support the idea of giving up individualism and/or even ambition, but I do think that there is a happy medium that can be achieved. For example, Scott is a bright, smart kid with oh, let's just say drawing skills. He wants to do great art and also has happened to be grown up watching lots of movies or whatever and thinks a lot so he has good potential to make some pretty creative great work. And he does. He is making great use of his skills to benefit those who might appreciate his work and what not. That seems to be pretty good right there. However, if he does NOT do great work, or a few of his pieces are found to be "bad" or "disliked," for this topic of respect, the need to uphold his sense of "individualism" despite others expressing their ideas will have negative effects. At this point, he can RESPECTFULLY take in the criticism of others instead of retaliating back for the sake of it.

As far as on a global scale, what if we think of it this way. Everyone has individualism, but WHAT IF we basically find happiness and true "positiveness" in the happiness of others. It's like we're all living through others lives. If they're happy, we're happy, and if they're sad, we're there to comfort them and help them through their hard times. It's not so much ZERG like, lol, as it is truly bringing together a community. It's basically "communism" in its more glorified and propoganda form, but without the disfunctional corruption and manipulations behind it. I think it's possible.

I do admit that it seems very idealistic though, but again, this is philosophy and just a way to look at thiings. My take is that honestly, with a thing like 911, (okay, I hope I don't get slammed for this) would it be possible to maybe... refer back to the Person A to Person B thing and, oh man... turn the other cheek? What if we all found true happiness and solace in knowing in our hearts that we didn't retaliate like animals or out of the destructive, vengeful strain of our conscience and, as a nation, as a whole, take in our sacrifices and losses and see what we could do for the world as a whole?

I know this may seem to belittle the deaths of many innocents, mothers, sons, etc. And I sure don't hope to have you think that I don't care enough about them just for some idealized view. I want to state again that it's NOT an easy thing. It really wouldn't be. But I guess I fancy the thought that if we really did remain civil and see that all actions, negative or positive, performed by man comes from a very common denominator of human nature, characteristics we all share, then there might be a chance we could act on the better part of our nature.

If a drunk driver kills your sister or best friend... what would you do? Nail him and "give him what he deserves and add another death toll to instigate the fact that "he deserved it?" or forgive and love him as a human who made a terrible terrible mistake and that life and loss is incredibly difficult, but that somehow we can all see it as part of a larger whole, and that you got to share a wonderful life with someone you loved, but that this drunk driver's life is as valid and important as your own or anybody you know for that matter? I don't know, just something to think about.

Oh, and I dunno if I should say this but it might be an interesting point to note that I'm not religious. I think and talk about religion a lot, but ultimately I'm not quite there yet.

Okay, there's another essay for all of you hapless victims of boredom out there, lol. I always type this stuff out stream of consciousness style and truly just hope that it doesn't offend anyone. Most of what I say is fairly hypothetical, sort of just a "what if" situation. I personally still have one hell of an ego to deal with and would probably feel very compelled to knock someone's teeth out if they ever hurt anyone of my friends or family. Well, okay, not knock his teeth out but at least be severely pissed and probably do something "negative" about it, lol. Anyway, point is that I'm no saint and don't wanna try to come across as trying to be one. Just floating thoughts.

*EDIT* I thought about it and realized that given the topic and my attempt to keep it light, I probably made a bad choice about bringing in 911 as an example. Some of you might have lost someone you know during that event or just have strong feelings about it. I'm gonna leave it in there just cuz I have way too much explanation tied to it but try and see that I could have used any example like some great big war in history. World War I, sure that'll work. Anyway, I deeply apologize if I hit on a touchy subject for some people.

 

Arch when i'm reading this i really had a deep thought for a long awhile makes me realize is this wat means to be human ? fighting countless times again and again because of......pride at a cost of lives..cost of natural resources...cost of the earth itself pretty much.

And it comes to the question, are we an advance civilization ? "highest form of animals"? or r we just like any primates that can use ipod and be influenced by it and as time goes its gonna go again and again (a methapor or i think it is)

 

Hehe, y'know, I sometimes wonder the same thing. But y'know what? While I do go back 'n forth on it sometimes due to moments of doubt or pessimism, I do find solace in the idea that we are "above" animals. The only reason I say this is because we at least do HAVE a sense of morality. I think maybe that's what having a soul means. Like we are capable of understanding morality, and having at least a SENSE of right and wrong even if we often act on the wrong one.

I do think we're capable of being a very very great and wonderful civilization as a whole, but due to bad judgments, quick emotional reactions, and personal pride and greed, we have come to make some things pretty undesirable. But I really do hope the better part of our nature, no matter what small voice it might be, can outdo the negative aspects someday. I sorta live for that.

But I'm glad I got you thinking, that's what this is post is all about

 

9/11 was a very intricate and carefully planned plot that began in 1999. It was not a "lets hijack some planes today and crash them into buildings" spur of the moment thing. The people behind this would not simple stop because we turned the other cheek. Look at the 1992 hotel bombings in Yemen where US troops stayed en route to Somalia, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1995 car bombing in Riyadh targeting Americans, the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers apartment complex where American Air Force personnel were staying, the 1998 truck bombs on US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the 2000 atttack on the USS Cole, and finally, 9/11. The levels of retaliation by the US in all six terrorist attacks prior to 9/11 were insignificant in doing anything to stop further attacks.

There was no large scale military action and even when bin Laden was in our sights, the opportunity was wasted. Cruise missiles were shot at the terrorist training camps in Sudan and Afghanistan after the truck bombings of the American embassies but most people thought that he was just doing this to cover up the Monica Lewinsky affair. This was no cover, it was a surgical strike designed to hinder terrorist activities.

Since 9/11 there has been no terrorist attacks on US soil or on US civilian targets overseas. Although it can be said that the insurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq are terrorist attacks against US armed forces. The invasion of Afghanistan significantly reduced al Qaeda's income although it also reduced the expenses of al Qaeda as 1/3-2/3 of their income went to the Taliban. Many terrorist camps were destroyed in the takeover of Afghanistan. Afghanistan is no longer a safe haven for terrorists. Many completely corrupt charities that used the donations they received to fund terrorist activities have been shut down. Many corrupt people in legitimate charities have been discovered.

They are at war with the United States and it's allies. Their reasons? They want the United States out of Saudi Arabia (while Saudi Arabia wants the US there), because the US backs Israel, because the US is friendly to Arab regimes that are, in his opinion, not true to Islam (such as Saudi Arabia). He hates the US because the US is friendly to countries he hates. He believes that the US is the head of the snake and should be chopped off. There is no turning the other cheek with these people. They will not be satisfied until the "un-Islamic" Arab nations are destroyed, Israel is destroyed, and the US is removed from all Islamic countries. The United States did not start any wars against any Arab nations in recent history before the Persian Gulf War. The United States DID help Afghanistan against the USSR in the 80s (a war which bin Laden was a part of).

Had we turned the other cheek in WW1 when the Germans continues with their unrestricted submarine warfare unchecked, the US would have lost so many ships that we would no longer be able to send supplies to Britain and the war would have dragged on for many more years ending in a German victory.
Had we turned the other cheek in WW2 when the Japanese bombed pearl harbor, Japan would own all of Southeast Asia and China and Germany would have owned all of Europe.
We cannot turn the other cheek now because it is our duty not only as Americans but as fellow human beings to help those in need against those who would walk into a group of pilgrims on their way to a holy city and detonate a bomb killing hundreds in an instant.

As for waging a war on an idea, the war on terrorism is a war on terrorists. Terrorists are people. They have a command structure, bases, income, and expenses. It's like waging war on a country except that they are in multiple counties and not necessarily welcome by the countries who they operate from.

 

@ Paragon - Sorry, me being a history buff specifies that I have to correct some things on your examples. in WW1, the US did speed up Allied victory that's for sure, but I'm not entirely sure whether or not Germany would have won if the US hadn't intervened. By that time, Russia was in civil war, but they took Austria-Hungary with them. The Ottoman Empire was collapsing, but that front I'm iffy about because as you already know i'm guessing, the British had a lot of trouble in dealing the European front and managing imperial troops fighting off the Ottomans in the Middle East. As for WW2, it was less the United States that saved the Allies and more the Soviet Union. Even if Hitler hadn't decided to open up and Eastern Front, the Soviets were on tight ends with the Nazis and most likely would've broken the Non-Aggression treaty just as easily as Hitler. And we technically also supplied Israel with weapons, planes, etc. Just put that last one out since you went with the Afghanistan-USSR example as well.

Well, back to the issue, I agree that turning the other cheek just can't be done. My rationality is that if terrorists or whatever example don't appreciate the rights of man, I see no need for me to see their human rights as well. In terms of Afghanistan, no one can call too much criticism because it wasn't just a US endeavor...it was supported by NATO and members of the UN as well.

 

You didn't correct anything. You stated other possible "what-if" scenarios.
As for not including the Israel example, there are lots of examples I did not include. I know full well when we started to help Israel and what we did.
I will leave it at that. I don't want to argue about what might have happened. Entire books have been written on that subject and I've read more than a few of them. I almost didn't even include those examples because I knew someone would say something like what you said.

Edit: Also, Hamas believes that Zionists started World War 2... so there's that view too...

 

ArchLimit, love where your head's at mate. It is pretty idealistic, but wouldnt it be a kick ass world if people had respect for one another.

Quick example of the lows we hit, the mentally ill have loads of horrible stigmas. Head case, psycho, mental, schitzo, and so on. They are mocked and humiliated quite often. Anyone with some respect might see a little more in them than their illness. Someone isnt just mental, they are their own person, and they suffer from a mental illness. People are not their illness, yet thats how others often see them. People should empathise with them, not alienate and make them the subject of ill humor. The same goes with gay and lesbians, the homeless, and so on.

Respect is something i think is not near strong enough a value in many societies. Its all idividualised, people think in terms of 'I' instead of 'We'. And many kids nowdays are being introduced to sexualised societies when their not mentally developed enough to form their own moralities about these kinds of things, and never get the chance to build some respect for themselves in the first place.

Ya know, im not sure where i was gonna take this post.... bit scatters aye

Anyway, if people valued respect for one another it would be a different world.

A cynical view though, societies work on the foundation that everyone does 'their part' to contribute to the communities n'what not and everything works in a somewhat 'majority rules' kind of way. There are just too many people, with too great a difference in need, and not enough support to go around. This leaves many people marginalised, and then you get all your dramas. The way societies are structured, how could you possibly manage all that even if the majority of people were respectful to one another? There's always gonna be people who miss out, slapped in the face with the raw end, and they can easily upset the balance. Respect would demand you try understand their issues holistically as best you can, but its not always that simple, and sometimes these people go to extremes to get their voices heard.

Respect though, is something that should be explored more and emphasised throughout upcoming youth. Respect for yourself, and for everyone else. You dont have to like someone or something, but respect is a good start to better friendships, better prospects, better esteem, and a better world.

This is all just babble, i dont know what im goin on about im tired and im gonna leave it there.
Sorry all, hope there was SOME sense in all that rubbish.

 

Here's a question for you:

Where do you draw the line between contructive criticism and destructive criticism?

 

you cant really draw a line, it all depends on the context.

but..

i reckon it depends on the 'intentions' of the critisism, and the 'perception' of the critisism.

critisism intended to be constructive could in fact be destructive depending on the perception, and vice versa.

you get what i mean hopefully.

 

Great topic, I moved it to The Lounge because its subject to a lot of serious and interesting discussion, however, if it ends up in some flaming or w/e (this sometimes happen with different school of though when it's about philo) It could be closed.

I'll keep an eye on this one... and possibly contribute in the future.

 

@Headstock

Welcome to the forums, sir! I actually got a lot out of what you said. Great post, and if nothing else thanks for taking such a stab at it owerup: When you said "love where your head is at, but it's basically too idealistic" I basically expect anyone to respond to just that, and I would agree myself.

But it's interesting, this is the first time I realized this, but I sort of thrive off of idealism. I do it in my work and what not. I NEED to have an idea that truly fulfills me, otherwise it wouldn't really be worth tackling y'know? So when it comes to a global/humanity scale, what once is a great fuel and drive to make a great animation turns into unobtainable idealism, lol. It's actually kind of sad. But I dunno, maybe something will happen one day, or the progress we make as humanity might deem such ideas to NOT be so "ideal" someday. Let's hope eh?

Regarding constructive and destructive criticism. I actually think it's almost like my opinion of what art is. I'm one of those ppl who believes everything can be art. However, I am also a strong believer that there is good art and bad art. So in that regard, I think everything can be considered "constructive" criticism, but there is DEFINITELY good and bad constructive criticism. Remarks like "That's lame, or that sucks, or even I LOVE IT!" sort of fall under the "bad" constructive criticism for me. Why are they still constructive? Because if nothing else, someone saying "that sucks" allows you to at least be aware that there is one person who, for some reason, gets tallied to the list of ppl who dislike your work. So think about it. If I put up some project I did, and 50 ppl reply with nothing more than: "D00d, that sucks" it still offers me SOME sense of overall evaluation doesn't it? I will no doubt probably not do whatever it is that I did or maybe change it or whatever. So yes, it still is "constructive." Because as humans we all share some common thread or inkling of what makes a piece good or bad. So if I made a cool looking Ultralisk, and decided myself that it was cool enough to post, I have a set of reasons in my head as to why it IS cool or should be liked. So when ppl say something like "love it, d00d." It doesn't offer much, but it does validate what I believe to be cool IS cool. Same the other way.

However, even though it still is constructive, this is still "bad" constructive criticism as I would gain sooo much more if somebody instead of just saying "sucks or great" they provide a reason why. "Sucks cuz his kaiser blades are too big." Good, that helps more. "I love the way he runs." Great, that's an aspect I can keep for future reference. Or even more "Sucks cuz his kaiser blades should be smaller because it seems to be unbalanced. I think that the Ultralisk doesn't need to have such large armament. It needs to be more about it's ferocity and aggression so put more work into the movement or sound effects. Maybe add some blood to the blades?" WONDERFUL constructive criticism! Look how much I managed to reap out of that one line even though it had NOTHING to do with whether the viewer enjoyed the piece or not?

Anyway, that's just my take. Hope you found some truth in it

EDIT: Haha, I haven't read this post in a while but I just reread my first post and feel kinda stupid/hypocritical for using the terms "good" and "bad" in such a definitive manner. Please replace these words with "effective" or "ineffective" or "useful or unuseful" and it should be more of what I meant.