CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Steven Phillips5 › Posts

Posts by Steven Phillips5

8 posts shown.

To have or to be? in Philosophy ·
nobody says anything:
It’s highly questionable—most people who actually have enough financial stability to feel secure don't suddenly unlock some grand creative potential. Usually, they just end up snorting cocaine instead..

😬 true enough.. that's the reality today..
though there are reasons for it—explanations, if you will..

People are insatiable and insecure—and it isn't just because of economic hardship. No economy can fix the fundamental human hunger and anxiety. (Marxism misses the mark entirely here.)

The failure of Marxism was simply the assumption that once you abolished private property and implemented socialized management, everything would be perfect—that people would finally unleash their potential and life would be great... the idea was that changing the system would change the people themselves... which was completely wrong..
I am not trying to suggest that..
I don't think handing everyone material security solves everything..
but that's drifting away from the point..
To have or to be? in Philosophy ·
Steven Phillips5 said:Most people just want stability and a full stomach given how things are right now—it’s an illusion to think any human need matters beyond food and physical intimacy 😉

What I'm actually getting at is this... if we could ensure everyone felt economically secure and well-fed, our creativity and potential would be completely unleashed. Just imagine the possibilities
I'm not some utopian dreamer 😎 or naive—this isn't even an unrealistic scenario
To have or to be? in Philosophy ·
Quincy:
nobody says anything:
Look, Steven Phillips5, we actually agree on everything here.
it seems to me 🙂
but 😉

Quincy:
It's true that for most people, food and sex take priority over freedom or love—but that doesn't apply to everyone.
look, food is the most basic need for anyone... someone who chooses anything else over food—whether it's freedom or whatever—is just a fanatic who's going to die for an Idea without eating...
sex is a different story, but that's not the topic at hand...
but the primary needs I was talking about aren't food and sex... as I said, sex is its own thing, and food doesn't even fit the category because it's just the means by which we survive... I was talking about the needs that make a person happy and fulfilled...
so I completely agree that writing was Rilke's primary need... that's my point... but you're saying

Quincy:
That need of his is more primary than all others.
it isn't more primary than food, because if he didn't eat, he wouldn't be able to write...

Quincy:
Your professor is also wrong (or perhaps—he or you—didn't express himself precisely enough). Most people will choose security over freedom. But it's not 'man will choose...', which would imply all people always, or even 'normally man would...' That isn't true—many people throughout history have chosen precarious freedom over security.
exactly... I was the one—not the prof 😉—who misspoke... most people, not all... I thought it was obvious from my post that I wasn't referring to every single person...

Quincy:
What I don't like is this thesis: 'everyone actually just wants a full stomach and sexual satisfaction; everything else is an illusion people create to obscure their TRUE (or "primary") needs.'
most people want security and a full stomach given the state we're in... and it's an illusion to suggest that other human needs are illusions besides food and sex😉

Quincy:
People are different. Some find one thing more important, others something else.
Quincy:
not everyone is created equal
I think I misspoke—or maybe I was just unclear..
obviously people aren't identical--we're all different, and there isn't a single pair of identical humans out there.. that's where the beauty lies🙂 .. but we are all equally valuable and entitled to rights /meaning we should be.. personally, I believe we are/
someone incredibly attractive or brilliant has certain advantages and raw potential.. someone else doesn't.. yet someone else has potential for an entirely different path.. what I'm trying to get at is that nobody should receive special treatment or higher pay today simply because of those innate traits /beauty or intellect or whatever../.. that's my point

Quincy:
I don't think you could look at a friend who spends his entire life just drinking beer and watching TV, with his only ambition being hitting a parlay at the sportsbook... without feeling like he's wasting his human potential.
Of course he is wasting it.. but he isn't wasting it because he loves it or because it fulfills him—it's his way of being happy... he's unhappy for some reason, and this is simply how he deals with that dissatisfaction..
To have or to be? in Philosophy ·
off topic
mistyfox812
I doubt you’ve actually read it—but give it another shot... it’ll only take you an afternoon or so...

*Escape from Freedom* is a must-read, too.

So, if you're feeling up to it,
hello everyone—welcome to a study of human destructiveness.

And if you're truly feeling inspired... just dive into the whole collection. 😉
To have or to be? in Philosophy ·
nobody says anything at all:
You aren't going to convince me—not in this lifetime—that every woman is equally beautiful, every song is equally lovely, or that every human action is equally noble.

I also tend to believe that every malicious or harmful act stems from some underlying cause—unconscious grief, despair, or dissatisfaction. Just as good deeds surface when those things are absent... it doesn't mean the person is inherently "evil"—it just means they are unhappy and need help.
and btw beauty 🙂 I watched Bertolucci's Stealing Beauty last night—Liv Tyler is STUNNING. Absolutely breathtaking. I’m not trying to claim we’re all equally beautiful or intelligent, blah, blah... I'm saying that while she's gorgeous, what does that actually change? She’s a woman just like anyone else—she has a career, her own needs, and her own desires, just like the rest of us who don't look like her. Her beauty might be pleasing to the eye, but that's it. It doesn't make her more or less than us. To be happy, she needs the same basic things we all do, regardless of her looks.
It's the same thing as comparing a brilliant scientist to an auto mechanic. They have different predispositions and interests, sure—but fundamentally, we want the same things and are driven by similar joys.
And the fact that an astrophysicist or a stunning actress will pull in millions while an auto mechanic and I struggle to get by? Tell me—is that about primary human needs, or is it something else entirely?
To have or to be? in Philosophy ·
mistyfox812 said:Look, I’m reading through some stuff—actually making sense of it, for once. If you have a better handle on this than I do, feel free to correct me.

My apologies—mea culpa. I acted a bit too impulsively again, much like my previous outburst regarding immortality... I clearly need to work on that. 😉

But there's a contradiction right there. It proves that people don't just prioritize "secondary" needs over primary ones—they do it constantly, every single day. Not just those fanatics mentioned, either—it’s a universal habit.

I included "extreme" as an example—though honestly, it wasn't even necessary—since they aren't really the point. What matters is exactly what you pointed out... we deal with this stuff every single day. It’s the truth.
It’s hardly a contradiction when you consider our core objectives—one really ought to ask why we are even doing this in the first place. It isn't enough to just observe a daily pattern and conclude that because it happens, it is somehow permanent or set in stone—God help us. What you and I both see and know doesn't actually prove the existence of that contradiction.
We live in a society—and I’m not just talking about our current brand of capitalism, though this feels like its absolute peak. Then again, Marx thought he had reached the final stage a century ago... so maybe I'm off base here. 😉It shapes our needs—creates them, actually—and imposes them upon us, whether subtly or not, until we genuinely believe they are our own. We convince ourselves we truly desire exactly what we’re being told to want... and if we believe it, then technically, we do. But that isn't what we *actually* want. Not really.
People will always trade freedom for security—not necessarily the right to be locked up, but the liberty to speak, to think, and to act without consequence. Most of us don't have anything truly subversive or revolutionary to say anyway; we aren't out here challenging the status quo or risking everything. It’s exactly what you’re getting at—once your stomach is full, everything else becomes secondary.
Everyone keeps preaching about how much they value freedom—it’s all quite tiresome. What kind of freedom are we actually talking about here? Most people just want a safety net—financial security, a steady paycheck—and only once that cushion is in place do they feel they have the luxury to sit around and "philosophize" about liberty.
And that’s just how it is—it's perfectly normal, even natural... but only because society was designed this way to begin with.
And why even bother asking people what they want? If you did, 95% would just say millions of dollars—for what, exactly? To buy this or that, a flashy car, a yacht, some massive mansion... blah, blah, blah. Does that man actually become happy? Satisfied? Truthfully, others might "appreciate" him or envy him—but that won't be what makes him happy.
The guy drinking beer does it because he’s restless—plain and simple. That hyper-ambitious type isn't happy either; the only difference is one has the cash and the other doesn't. But even the guy with the beer has his passions—maybe fixing up old Mustangs, drawing comics, whatever—it's just that his passion won't put food on the table or provide for his family. So, he's stuck. Meanwhile, look at the high-powered attorney working 15-hour days—sure, he's loaded, but what does he actually have left of a life?
Even an academic needs someone to fix their car—just like a machinist might occasionally need a lawyer. In that sense, they’re equals. It all comes down to interests—one person spends their time sewing while reading Dostoevsky, while another messes around with electric motors or whatever else, though I haven't the slightest clue what that entails.
If you ask either of them—and I mean really ask—about what constitutes a "happy moment," they’d probably point to time spent with family, friends, or some hobby they actually enjoy. It wouldn't be about grabbing a beer or obsessing over endless litigation in court—that’s my own baggage, I suppose. Things would look entirely different if we lived in a world where an attorney didn't have to grind 15-hour days just to stay relevant. If a decent job paid enough to actually cover the bills—without that toxic pressure to equate net worth with human value—life might actually be livable.
External pressure shapes our outward appearance—it defines how we present ourselves to the world—but those aren't our actual core needs. So, there’s no contradiction there.
To have or to be? in Philosophy ·
mistyfox812 said:It’s an unfortunate collision—democratic principles clashing with capitalist ones. Democracy claims equality: everyone is equal. The good man equals the bad, the beautiful equals the ugly, the generous equals the cheap, the genius equals the mediocre, and the intellectual equals the guy who just wants to grab a beer.
By virtue of being human, we are all equal. That is the democratic ideal.
Capitalism, however, insists everything can be measured by a dollar sign. If one person is driven while another just wants to drink beer, their bank accounts will reflect that. If one is stunning and the other isn't, that shows up in the balance too. Every qualitative trait gets flattened into a mere quantity. More or less money.
By virtue of what we own, we are certainly not equal.

Of course, this whole framework is flawed. People aren't equal in their virtues or vices, nor can the vast spectrum of human character ever truly be distilled into a number—into wealth.


this is such nonsense..
what "democratic principle" or "capitalist principle"..
just because the media pumps out images of anorexic "models" doesn't mean they're any more attractive than some girl from your office or neighborhood—and the fact that those models have bigger bank accounts is just a symptom of our warped value system..
the guy doing nothing but drinking beer isn't doing it because he loves it—it's likely because he hasn't been given the chance to do work that actually fits his skills and pays him fairly... meanwhile, that hyper-ambitious type who is "worth more" is just as stuck as the guy drinking beer.
the generous person and the miser are both products of similar circumstances..
what principles are you even talking about?? If I'm forced to live by imposed rules and only feel "important"—when really I'm only "someone" if I own a mansion in Greenwich and a brand new BMW..
on the flip side, if I'm perfectly happy living in a tiny apartment with someone I love, doing work I enjoy for modest pay that's enough for me.. then apparently "I'm not"??
democratic principles and capitalist principles?? you've got your wires crossed..
To have or to be? in Philosophy ·
nobody says anything at all:
That pyramid is nonsense. There are endless examples where people prioritize freedom, love, God, their country, etc.—all of it—over those so-called "primary needs."

If you actually used real philosophical names, people might take you seriously..
The fact that some fanatic kills 200 kids in the name of Allah, or someone straps on a suicide vest to die for some "Higher Truth" we pathetic souls can't grasp—or even an ultra-nationalist giving his life for the USA, or some young romantic committing suicide over love—none of that contradicts these primary needs..
Fromm writes about this too.. in my view, it’s basically about escaping freedom and the anatomy of human destructiveness..

anyway, slightly off topic
When I first read Fromm in my early 20s, I thought he was so incredibly lame.. all that Illegal stuff the old man talks about--love being about "being" rather than "having," how good and loving we all are.. it felt so pathetic. Back then, I preferred those postmodernists who were so "too much" they were actually better 🙄 , like Derrida, for instance..
Today, a few years later... I see Derrida as just a guy with a well-developed prefrontal cortex who is great at abstract shaving.. but I finally "get" Fromm 👍
he actually knows what he's talking about..