-  [WT]  [PS]  [Home] [Manage]

[Return]
Posting mode: Reply
  1.   (reply to 9166)
  2. (for post and file deletion)
/phi/ - Philosophy
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG
  • Maximum file size allowed is 1000 KB.
  • Images greater than 200x200 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 470 unique user posts. View catalog

  • Blotter updated: 2011-01-12 Show/Hide Show All

Reminder: IPv6 enabled users have exclusive access to the /vip6/ board. You don't need access to /VIP/ to access /vip6/.

Channel7 is streaming Movies and TV daily, click here for the web player, or here for the .m3u.


Anonymous 12/12/27(Thu)05:36 No. 9166 ID: e6ece3
9166

File 135658300087.jpg - (187.15KB , 461x383 , 2012-04-16.jpg )

Alright.

My theory is that there are two kinds of people in this world. There are positives, and negatives. This has nothing to do with their outlook on life, let me get to that in a second.

Positive people generate their own happiness but do not take from others. Negative people cannot generate their own happiness, but can take it from others. Positive people are usually more unique and have less of a herd mentality while the negative people are usually part of the douchy crowd.

I used to have a lot more to this theory but I forgot it, I'm writing this here so I don't forget more and maybe expand it again.

What do you guys think?

pic is art i made


>>
Anonymous 12/12/27(Thu)05:38 No. 9167 ID: e6ece3

Anyone can be positive or negative, it does not determine who you are. A positive person can be a huge ass hole while a negative person can be very nice. Those are just names and when I said usually part of the douchy crowd it's just my observation.

You can change your personality but you can never change what you are at core, negative or positive.


>>
CandleJack 12/12/27(Thu)08:43 No. 9168 ID: 2f260d

There was a theory like this on Will and Grace, but I forget the exact wording. Something about how certain people need attention and coddling and need to be made to feel as if they are worth something, and then there are people the who provide that kind of attention.

Sort of a "producer" and "consumer" deal. The funny thing is, a lot of people don't understand the concept of altruism. With "producer" types, they actually legitimately enjoy giving more than receiving.

And I don't mean the kind of giving that doesn't actually deprive the giver of anything (like billionaires dropping cash on charities and then using it as tax deductions); I mean when it's true zero-sum and you make yourself to be the loser. I mean when you spent three hours cooking the best meal you've ever made, and then spilled too much salt on one plate, and yet choose to give the other one to someone else, leaving the horrible plate for yourself. I mean making sure your partner has an orgasm while not caring if you have one. I mean giving ten bucks to a homeless guy on the street, when that was the only money you had to buy lunch today. I mean when you've got a bad taste in your mouth or a bad case of the blue balls or a growling stomach and being HAPPY about it, because you knew what the alternative was and wouldn't accept it. Really, the alternative simply wasn't an option for you in the first place; it would hurt too much.

Ironically, the type of person this is represented in is often the reverse of the stereotype. People can picture a dominant, alpha guy as the greedy asshole who takes what he wants and leaves none behind. Although there are people like this, they are rare. Most "consumers" are actually lazy and submissive, hoarding what little the world freely offers them but not striving for more. The really strong "producers" attack life and amass wealth and resources just to have the freedom to distribute it to their loved ones as they see fit. The end result can be a happy reciprocity; the more people the "producer" helps, the more help he will receive in turn, and he will have a more comfortable and blessed life than if he had been greedy. Sadly, there are not many people like this. Most people are "consumers" who look outside themselves to provide meaning and pleasure to their lives. They speak of a career that will fulfill them, a soulmate who will complete them, a faith that will comfort them. They are empty people who take solace in sex, drugs, food, or cheap entertainment; and they can never truly be happy unless they are lucky enough to find a very tolerant "producer" who is willing to give everything for their sake and stick by them.

Not everyone is at the far end of the spectrum, of course, but in my experience there are far more consumers than producers. Most people cannot be happy unless they are being given attention in some way.


>>
Anonymous 12/12/27(Thu)16:31 No. 9170 ID: e6ece3

>>9168
I'm on my phone writing this as I am in bed because my stupid neighbour feels the need to use a giant electric snow plow so I can't sleep.

It"s interesting the way you interpreted it.
For me, altruism is doing something for someone else when no one is watching and only when it doesn't make you feel good. Otherwise, it's selfish.

The way I was thinking about the negative positive was in the way of general happiness like putting people down to feel better about yourself and feeling the need to have lots of friends (negative), but yours applies too. I'm speaking of negative people in a negative manner because I feel I am on the positive side and I just generally dislike those people rvryonr has negative and positive qualities though. I just don't understand the negative way of life because of how shallow iT is


>>
Anonymous 12/12/28(Fri)10:23 No. 9184 ID: cb9fa8

>>9166
>Theory

The term is 'hypothesis', and theory is a sound supposition supported by plenty of empirical evidence.


>>
CandleJack 12/12/30(Sun)04:19 No. 9200 ID: 2f260d

>>9184

Everything you said is wrong because you improperly combined two independent clauses with almost-completely unrelated subject matter. Use a semicolon or a period next time.

See? I can pull that shit, too. Either attack the argument, itself, or shut up. Trying to make yourself look intelligent by picking nits about semantics and being all smug doesn't actually impress anyone.


>>
Anonymous 12/12/30(Sun)09:17 No. 9206 ID: ffaf27

>>9200
The comma is fine. The problem is in his 'and.' His 'and' should be 'whereas.' I don't see why you think he wanted to attack the argument, and he never claimed that a semantic error disproved anything. He was just clarifying terminology. Don't be so defensive.


>>
CandleJack 12/12/31(Mon)18:47 No. 9231 ID: 2f260d

>>9206

The claim was implied. One does not come to a thread without wanting to express one's opinion and attempt to either qualify or refute a position taken by either the OP or someone else. Nobody on the internet is actually helpful; they're all trying to gain something or would otherwise be wasting their time.

President: "...and when we attack Iraq."
Reporter: "You mean Iran."
Audience: *gasp* "How dare you make the president look like an ignorant jackass!"
Reporter: "What? I was just trying to be helpful..."


>>
Anonymous 12/12/31(Mon)20:42 No. 9234 ID: ffaf27

>>9231
Debate 101. You can't argue an implication. Only explicit statements.


>>
Anonymous 12/12/31(Mon)23:53 No. 9235 ID: e324be

There are two types of people in this world: those who divide the world into two types and those who don't.


>>
Anonymous 13/01/01(Tue)03:43 No. 9238 ID: ffaf27

>>9235
There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who speak binary, and those who don't.


>>
PlutoniumBoss!Y1SVQJ54eA 13/01/03(Thu)18:10 No. 9257 ID: c1bebf

>>9238

There are 6,973,738,433 kinds of people in the world, and counting.


>>
Anonymous 13/01/03(Thu)21:41 No. 9258 ID: ffaf27

>>9257
False generalization. I can't count.


>>
Anonymous 13/01/04(Fri)03:48 No. 9264 ID: a20dfa

>>9166
So I personally disagree with this notion of 2 types of people. For purpose of discussion imagine people as changing beings. They can be givers in time of plenty (being on that high of : just got a well paid job, banging gf etc...) and takers in time of draught ( just lost job and girlfriend, could seriously do with a hand guys).

Furthermore there could be the helpfull giver who doesn't just give you what you need to survive : food, attention, sex (?). No! That banging dude also gives you the means and motivation to get back on your feet and grow (proper advise and getting your shit together help). In this case he is a giver helping you become a giver.

Interesting... (?)


>>
Anonymous 13/01/04(Fri)10:35 No. 9265 ID: a18c0e
9265

File 135729212311.jpg - (7.89KB , 256x154 , 1351912441480s[1].jpg )

>>9166

I agree with the main idea of this, although your reasoning sounds insanely biased like some sad pissed off beta.

>The negative people are usually part of the douchy crowd
That's a general assumption of people, and more an opinion than fact. Think about it, aren't we all douche bags in our own sense?


>>
Anonymous 13/01/05(Sat)00:47 No. 9269 ID: e6ece3

>>9264
At core we remain the same though.

>>9265
If i just reverse it it doesn't sound biased at all. Douchy people are usually part of the negative crowd. The reasoning I have for that is biased but it also makes sense. Douchy people usually try to put others down/joke about insulting them, which makes them feel better.


>>
Moogle 13/01/13(Sun)23:23 No. 9328 ID: 24904b

>>9166
a similar theory was given by Jesus. there are shepherds and there are sheep. shepherds tend to the needs of the sheep and themselves. sheep tend to the needs of the sheep. some sheep will develop into becoming shepherds but not everyone is capable. selfish simple people will always be just sheep eating grass and shitting on themselves.

there are lots of ways to become a taker but there is only one way to take. that is, from something/someone else.


>>
Anonymous 13/02/06(Wed)23:20 No. 9536 ID: 53dffb

>>9166
This concept of "negative humans" only seems to justify discrimination against people. Any group of people with like objectives may appear as a herd from the outside, and so too have you been a member of various herds in your life, willing or not. The whole "herd mentality" concept is a great excuse to generate an internal sense of superiority.

Tell me:
What is the mechanism for generating happiness?
Why can't some people generate it?
What is the biological mechanism that allows for the transference of happiness, a neurochemical state, between people?
How should people who can't generate happiness be treated?

Happiness is not a juice or currency that some people "generate" like Randian engines, and others steal in some way. You shouldn't place the oppressed, repressed, and depressed people of the world in an arbitrary category that paints them as cartoonish vampires simply because sad people are a buzzkill, because if you do, it'll make you act superior, entitled, and "douchy".

Your stance reeks of college and Atlas Shrugged, but I like your art.


>>
CandleJack 13/02/07(Thu)05:44 No. 9540 ID: 2f260d

>What is the mechanism for generating happiness?
Fucking.

Why can't some people generate it?
They aren't fucking.

What is the biological mechanism that allows for the transference of happiness, a neurochemical state, between people?
Fucking each other.

How should people who can't generate happiness be treated?
Perhaps legalize prostitution?


(But seriously. As biological organisms, humans derive the greatest joy when their bodies think they are reproducing. They don't actually have to be [so even knowing you're using birth control or screwing a member of the same gender or someone infertile] just so long as the reptilian half of the brain is fooled into a good orgasm while squashed against another human. Simple, really.)


>>
Anonymous 13/02/08(Fri)03:52 No. 9547 ID: 53dffb

>>9540
>fucking
hmm, maybe happiness is a juice...


>>
Anonymous 13/02/09(Sat)08:35 No. 9559 ID: 39770f

>>9547
Happiness is an array of hormone releases, both short and sustained, which your brain supplies to itself to guide and reward you toward ends which natural selection has deemed favorable in your ancestral lineage.

A positive for us is that being a very social species, there are a lot of those (favorable ends), so happiness is fairly prevalent and important to us.

That's the mechanism of happiness without getting clinical on your azz.


>>
Anonymous 13/02/10(Sun)05:21 No. 9575 ID: 53dffb

>>9559
I'm pretty satisfied with my (admittedly loose) understanding of happiness, I was just making a joke.
If you want to get "clinical" about the mechanics of happiness, please do. The thread would benefit from an in-depth explanation of the biological process of transition from stimuli to emotion, but more over it would help establish whether or not the OP's concept of "negative people" is grounded materially.
I tend to believe that the concept is more an attempt to explain emotional kinetics in a social context (like "bringing someone down", and moods "rubbing off"). If you know of an evolutionary model for explaining emotions in a social context, I don't, and it would be very relevant to the topic.


>>
Anonymous 13/02/14(Thu)06:33 No. 9608 ID: 1da65e

I prefer to imagine that positivity and negativity "in this world" aren't opposing forces at all. It's corny as hell, but its all in the symbolism of yin and yang. I don't want to write you an essay, but take a look at it. If it interests you, check out the Tao Te Ching .. In my opinion, it does a pretty good job of rationalizing these notions of positivity and negativity.


>>
Anonymous 13/02/15(Fri)07:48 No. 9614 ID: 39770f

>>9608

When I was a young child, before the age of school, I used to think that the "secret ingredient" behind everything in the universe was "contrast". I knew this word early because there was a broken knob on the tv labelled Contrast which didn't seem to do anything, and when I asked about it later, I didn't provide the context of television.

It was described to me as "Any difference between any two things. Heavy vs Light, Hard vs Soft, Light vs Dark, Up vs Down. You contrast one to the other. Sometimes contrasting things repel, sometimes they attract, but contrast is what we call one being one and the other not being one.

Boom. Everything is contrast.

I'm still not sure it's wrong. ...or if it means anything at all.


[Return]


Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason