The Philosophy of Self-Reliance

Nathan Perez5 said:I don't think they actually hold onto it. It’s more like they just smother that internal scream until it goes quiet... And when life finally hits them hard, they rarely connect their misery back to the things they did to others, it’s almost always about what everyone else did to them instead...

Look, it's pretty simple: people can donate to the Red Cross or volunteer at a local food bank every single day, yet that doesn't stop them from dropping a fortune on a massive OLED TV, splurging on designer labels, or buying a third car they absolutely don't need. I just don't see this "internal outcry" you're talking about. Honestly, where you're spotting it is a complete mystery to me.

ironmarlin1 said:Look, it's pretty simple: people can donate to the Red Cross or volunteer at a local food bank every single day, yet that doesn't stop them from dropping a fortune on a massive OLED TV, splurging on designer labels, or buying a third car they absolutely don't need. I just don't see this "internal outcry" you're talking about. Honestly, where you're spotting it is a complete mystery to me.

amen 😍

redtinker36 said:

This is exactly what you need to be weighing—long before you even think about having kids.
It’s too late for regrets now—there's no turning back from this path.
Don't sweat it too much—even if you really messed up—because, let's face it, your kids will end up footing the bill anyway.

You’re becoming quite skilled—a real shaman out there—right now... truly impressive.

... and regarding that topic — Mark Torres14 ...

You missed the point—this thread is about what makes something good, not about being independent.
Look, this isn't actually about the kids—it's about you. What exactly are we supposed to be teaching them when it's clear you haven't even figured it out yourself yet?
Topic number three... it’s about procrastination—specifically, the delay of one's own life. It goes like this: given that I can no longer teach myself—mostly because I'm getting older and, frankly, a bit more frail than I'd like to admit—should I find someone else... and focus on teaching them instead?

... one more thing — just so I'm sure I caught everything and didn't miss the point.

I believe we're on this planet to do some actual good for others—to leave things better than we found them. As for what everyone else is actually doing while they're here? Honestly, I haven't the slightest clue.

Look, you aren't exactly a lost cause either .. and I get what you're saying — sure, the focus is on him .. but honestly, I'm not convinced he's going to walk away from this any wiser than when he started. It's not even a question of whether he *can* change .. it's more that he simply *won't*. At the end of the day, you're just spinning your wheels and wasting your own time.☕

Truth and honesty? In this day and age, those are just fairy tales people use to pull the wool over your eyes...
You’ve gotta be as cunning as a snake but stay as harmless as a dove. You should live life with some joy, sure, but you better be smart and deliberate when it comes to raising your kids...

I honestly find myself wondering if anyone can actually survive in a world obsessed with these rigid binaries—you know, the whole "you’re either a saint or a scoundrel" mentality. It feels impossible. If you represent one extreme or the other, you're doomed. In reality, life isn't black and white; it's a spectrum. We exist in the gray areas. Personally, I would choose to be an honest person, but with a sense of pragmatism—let's call it being an honest person who knows when to protect their own interests. Now, some might argue, "Is that even possible? Isn't a truly honest person someone who always acts to their own detriment?" Well, I beg to differ... I could offer a couple of scenarios from my own life, if they serve as useful illustrations...
Imagine this: a person walking ahead of you drops a $17 bill. You spot it immediately, but they have no clue. You pick it up and chase them down to hand it back, even though you could have easily pocketed it. No one saw you, not even the person who lost it. One could argue you've harmed yourself because you missed out on that spontaneous trip for coffee and pastries fueled by those sudden $17, but you returned the money anyway. You do it because you realize it might be the last bit of cash they have, and more importantly, it just doesn't feel right to take something that clearly belongs to someone else. (Of course, a different debate entirely would arise if you found a bill on a random street corner where the owner is unknown, or perhaps a bag stuffed with cash and no way to identify the owner)
Here is another example. A friend calls you; they’ve just been released from a psychiatric facility after treatment, and you are currently buried in textbooks preparing for a massive final exam at your university. They need to talk, they need to be heard, and they trust you to listen because you’re a reliable friend. But you? You desperately need to pass this exam, and you find yourself questioning why you should have to sacrifice your own needs for someone else's crisis. You might tell yourself—quite harshly—that this person brought this on themselves through years of addiction, and why should you be forced to carry the weight of their mistakes or shoulder their cross when you aren't responsible for them? Life can be incredibly cruel to me too, yet I don't ask others to bear my burdens. In that specific scenario, an egoistic choice would be to decline the call and stay home to study.

Looking back at these examples, it's clear I'm not quite that "measured honest person" I described. Perhaps I am more of a hypocritical honest person—someone who maintains a reputation for integrity when there's a risk of being caught, but tilts toward self-interest in other moments. Though, I must admit, I would probably return a bag full of cash if I found it—isn't that a strange contradiction?😕

Ultimately, regarding the question of whether one path is better than the other... I simply don't know. The circumstances and the various situations we face throughout our lives are what truly shape us. I don't have a definitive answer for you.🤷

There’s actually a rather compelling case to be made against this whole notion of "local" honesty. You see, when a person acts, they generally operate under the assumption that they possess a sound judgment regarding what ought to be done; otherwise, why bother acting at all? There are certain philosophical debates swirling around this concept that might seem a bit pedantic, but they aren't entirely irrelevant to the point I'm making. Take Velleman, for instance, who explores this here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/8336949/The-Guise-of-the-Good. If an individual thinks and acts sub specie boni, then the only logical reason for them to refuse someone else's money would be if they were genuinely stumped as to how to utilize it. Yet, we know that people who return lost cash to its owner don't do so simply because they're facing a sudden crisis of financial planning. Therefore, one could argue that returning the money is actually immoral, insofar as the agent isn't acting in accordance with their best possible judgment.

I welcome your rebuttals.😁

ironmarlin1 said:There’s actually a rather compelling case to be made against this whole notion of "local" honesty. You see, when a person acts, they generally operate under the assumption that they possess a sound judgment regarding what ought to be done; otherwise, why bother acting at all? There are certain philosophical debates swirling around this concept that might seem a bit pedantic, but they aren't entirely irrelevant to the point I'm making. Take Velleman, for instance, who explores this here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/8336949/The-Guise-of-the-Good. If an individual thinks and acts sub specie boni, then the only logical reason for them to refuse someone else's money would be if they were genuinely stumped as to how to utilize it. Yet, we know that people who return lost cash to its owner don't do so simply because they're facing a sudden crisis of financial planning. Therefore, one could argue that returning the money is actually immoral, insofar as the agent isn't acting in accordance with their best possible judgment.

I welcome your rebuttals.😁

Well, I always have an idea of what I would do if I suddenly had cash in my hands...😁 I'll always have some sort of plan, maybe thinking about a specific piece of clothing I could finally afford or something along those lines... perhaps it isn't the most perfect illustration... but the real question is, what constitutes a "best judgment"? Is it something that can be determined by an outside observer, or is it something exclusively held by the agent acting within that specific situation?🤷

But, it isn't quite the same thing when you're holding money you know you haven't "earned," compared to money you know you earned through your own grit, your sweat, your long hours of hard work... It’s a similar dilemma to when someone gives you a gift, say for a birthday or some other occasion; it's certainly welcome, but you find yourself wondering, "By what merit did I earn this?" though, I suppose that is a bit of a tangent since we started out just talking about money...

Anyway, this concept you call "local" honesty... hmm, it triggers just as many moral quandaries as any other kind of honesty... I'm not entirely sure what the deciding factor is...🤔...but...

Larry Diaz24 said:Well, I always have an idea of what I would do if I suddenly had cash in my hands...😁 I'll always have some sort of plan, maybe thinking about a specific piece of clothing I could finally afford or something along those lines... perhaps it isn't the most perfect illustration... but the real question is, what constitutes a "best judgment"? Is it something that can be determined by an outside observer, or is it something exclusively held by the agent acting within that specific situation?🤷

But, it isn't quite the same thing when you're holding money you know you haven't "earned," compared to money you know you earned through your own grit, your sweat, your long hours of hard work... It’s a similar dilemma to when someone gives you a gift, say for a birthday or some other occasion; it's certainly welcome, but you find yourself wondering, "By what merit did I earn this?" though, I suppose that is a bit of a tangent since we started out just talking about money...

Anyway, this concept you call "local" honesty... hmm, it triggers just as many moral quandaries as any other kind of honesty... I'm not entirely sure what the deciding factor is...🤔...but...

For my part, I find it quite easy to conclude that it would be better to give money to someone who needs to buy schoolbooks for their children rather than using it to buy myself a pair of shoes. If you spent days working tirelessly to earn the money for those shoes, I don't see how that should shift my assessment that the funds would be better utilized helping someone else meet a more pressing need. Consequently, one could argue it would be immoral to withhold assistance from someone in dire need just because you've decided to prioritize your own desire for a new pair of footwear.

ironmarlin1 said:For my part, I find it quite easy to conclude that it would be better to give money to someone who needs to buy schoolbooks for their children rather than using it to buy myself a pair of shoes. If you spent days working tirelessly to earn the money for those shoes, I don't see how that should shift my assessment that the funds would be better utilized helping someone else meet a more pressing need. Consequently, one could argue it would be immoral to withhold assistance from someone in dire need just because you've decided to prioritize your own desire for a new pair of footwear.

Now, let us consider a scenario where you possess and believe in certain virtues because you think they will pay off—either through material satisfaction (meaning, you won't steal or act dishonestly, but rather work honestly to earn money) or in a non-material sense (the smiles, the approval, the admiration, and the gratitude of others because you help them instead of spending money on yourself). It doesn't necessarily mean that the distinction between these two types of "rewards" is mutually exclusive. One can accompany the other, acting as either the primary goal or a secondary consequence. Thus, if viewed through that lens, those virtues could hold instrumental value for you, even without possessing intrinsic value.

And now, if they possess exclusively intrinsic value—if you honor a virtue solely for its own sake because you believe it holds inherent worth—then you would likely have to be some sort of Socrates in today's world. And in my estimation, that would mean you wouldn't function in society at all.

Again, even the distinction between instrumental and intrinsic value isn't strictly exclusive.

I find it incredibly difficult to speak in generalities. A person truly decides only when they are confronted with the situation itself. Any decision made *a priori* carries the danger that those decisions and principles will be betrayed, causing the person proclaiming them to lose all credibility.
Take one situation: I take my hard-earned money and head straight to the store to spend it on myself; not necessarily all of it, mind you. However, the narrative shifts entirely if, on my way to the store, I encounter a homeless woman with her child and decide to give her some money, say $6.75.
Must I, when I wish to indulge myself, step back while contemplating the misery of the world surrounding me and ask myself what I deserve to be rewarded with, while someone else does not? Or can I act morally—even if I allow myself a reward—without such an action losing its essence? That is to say, without it becoming what I have termed "hypocritical honesty," and without losing its authenticity and credibility? 🤷

Edward Flores4 said:Look, you aren't exactly a lost cause either .. and I get what you're saying — sure, the focus is on him .. but honestly, I'm not convinced he's going to walk away from this any wiser than when he started. It's not even a question of whether he *can* change .. it's more that he simply *won't*. At the end of the day, you're just spinning your wheels and wasting your own time.☕

Friendship built on opposing philosophies... You two will eventually hit it off, and then one of you is going to end up following the other. The real question is, who follows whom? 😉

Actually, people who return money to an owner don't do it because they lack ideas for how to spend it. Therefore, returning money is immoral because the agent isn't acting on their best judgment.

Returning someone else's cash... Honestly, I find money all the time. Just a five or a twenty on the sidewalk... I don't know why that happens, maybe that's why I have zero luck in love! 😬

Anyway, if I have any clue whose money it is, I'm giving it back. Plain and simple. I'm just an ordinary worker myself—though I exclusively work with my brain—and I know exactly how hard it is to earn a paycheck.

Whether that person spends it on a pair of $1,000 shoes or a fancy suit while people are starving on the streets... NOT really my problem!

(My only problem is making sure I don't starve... and I've gotten pretty good at solving that.) 🙄

Ronald Rogers27

ironmarlin1 said:Look, it's pretty simple: people can donate to the Red Cross or volunteer at a local food bank every single day, yet that doesn't stop them from dropping a fortune on a massive OLED TV, splurging on designer labels, or buying a third car they absolutely don't need. I just don't see this "internal outcry" you're talking about. Honestly, where you're spotting it is a complete mystery to me.

I honestly don't think we should be drawing any kind of equivalence between someone just spending their hard-earned cash—even if they're blowing it on designer labels or whatever other frivolous nonsense you want to call it—and what was mentioned earlier, which is actually profiting through cheating, shady schemes, or even murder while still being able to sleep at night...

ironmarlin1 said:Look, it's pretty simple: people can donate to the Red Cross or volunteer at a local food bank every single day, yet that doesn't stop them from dropping a fortune on a massive OLED TV, splurging on designer labels, or buying a third car they absolutely don't need. I just don't see this "internal outcry" you're talking about. Honestly, where you're spotting it is a complete mystery to me.

When you take a look at how things are playing out right now, I have to admit you've got a point... When you track people over the years, or even decades, you start to see how a lack of integrity eventually reveals itself as nothing more than a hollow, meaningless void. Personally, I’ve always been of the mind that a person knows exactly when they’re doing something wrong, they just choose to drown out that inner voice with enough noise to stay deaf to what they're actually feeling...

Edward Flores4 said:amen 😍

🙂

ironmarlin1 said:Look, it's pretty simple: people can donate to the Red Cross or volunteer at a local food bank every single day, yet that doesn't stop them from dropping a fortune on a massive OLED TV, splurging on designer labels, or buying a third car they absolutely don't need. I just don't see this "internal outcry" you're talking about. Honestly, where you're spotting it is a complete mystery to me.

I’ll be the first to admit I’m an incurable optimist and a bit of an idealist.
Call me naive if you want, but I don't think people are inherently evil; I think they're just incredibly oblivious.
We all just lack a certain level of awareness regarding what's actually happening in the world.

Back in 1994, Kevin Carter won a Pulitzer for a photo he took in the desert. It shows a vulture watching a starving child crawling toward a UN food camp—it was a real, raw moment, not staged at all—and it left the entire world absolutely shattered.
It was as if people had no clue what was going on over there.🤷

Most people—or at least the vast majority of them—who are busy buying luxury cars and high-end fashion would trade their brand-new Mercedes in a heartbeat to save a child's life, if only they happened to be standing there in that moment.
They simply don't have the perspective to realize that their new car could represent a week's worth of meals for someone else.
It’s not that they choose designer clothes because they value them more than a human life; it’s more that those two realities exist in completely different universes.
Their conscience isn't eating them alive because they aren't being malicious, they're just unaware.
But in those rare moments when they finally *do* wake up—moments that were sparked by photos like that one—that's when you truly see the inner scream.

I didn't quite catch what driftingbear20 was getting at... Are you saying you want to go help those kids? That you want to dedicate your life to this? 👍

Then why are you just sitting there in your apartment (which I'm guessing you didn't pay for all by yourself), dragging yourself to a job you landed through a connection, and living a social life that totally disconnects you from your "inner scream," while preaching to people online? Instead, you should:

- Hand the keys back to whoever owns your place (whether it’s your parents or the government)...
- Thank your employers and quit on the spot, since you're clearly heading off to do charity work...
- Say your goodbyes to your parents, siblings, relatives, childhood friends, your boyfriend, and even all those exes you're actually on good terms with...
- Take whatever cash you were planning to blow on some grass shoes or other mindless luxuries, sell your car, and instead of showing up at the UNHCR to volunteer, just donate the whole pile of money to charity.

Enough with the endless chatter and the fake, pathetic drama... It's just noise. 👎

Ronald Rogers27

Edward Flores4 said:Look, you aren't exactly a lost cause either .. and I get what you're saying — sure, the focus is on him .. but honestly, I'm not convinced he's going to walk away from this any wiser than when he started. It's not even a question of whether he *can* change .. it's more that he simply *won't*. At the end of the day, you're just spinning your wheels and wasting your own time.☕

It took me a long time to realize just how much time actually matters. We really need more philosophers like that.🙏 Look, Edward Flores4 and redtinker36, it’s just plain stupid to waste time on topics this trivial. It’s like firing up the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland just to brew a cup of coffee.🙂
Look, I’ll apologize one more time to the people involved for even opening this thread in the first place. I just hope humanity didn't suffer too much while their "profound" intellects were busy wasting time on this nonsense.😍

It’s honestly a little late in the game for me to be worrying about parenting. My son is already 27, one daughter is 21, and the other is 18. What’s done is done.
Unfortunately, they're raised to be too damn polite.🙂😠

Larry Diaz24 said:Now, let us consider a scenario where you possess and believe in certain virtues because you think they will pay off—either through material satisfaction (meaning, you won't steal or act dishonestly, but rather work honestly to earn money) or in a non-material sense (the smiles, the approval, the admiration, and the gratitude of others because you help them instead of spending money on yourself). It doesn't necessarily mean that the distinction between these two types of "rewards" is mutually exclusive. One can accompany the other, acting as either the primary goal or a secondary consequence. Thus, if viewed through that lens, those virtues could hold instrumental value for you, even without possessing intrinsic value.

And now, if they possess exclusively intrinsic value—if you honor a virtue solely for its own sake because you believe it holds inherent worth—then you would likely have to be some sort of Socrates in today's world. And in my estimation, that would mean you wouldn't function in society at all.

Again, even the distinction between instrumental and intrinsic value isn't strictly exclusive.

I find it incredibly difficult to speak in generalities. A person truly decides only when they are confronted with the situation itself. Any decision made *a priori* carries the danger that those decisions and principles will be betrayed, causing the person proclaiming them to lose all credibility.
Take one situation: I take my hard-earned money and head straight to the store to spend it on myself; not necessarily all of it, mind you. However, the narrative shifts entirely if, on my way to the store, I encounter a homeless woman with her child and decide to give her some money, say $6.75.
Must I, when I wish to indulge myself, step back while contemplating the misery of the world surrounding me and ask myself what I deserve to be rewarded with, while someone else does not? Or can I act morally—even if I allow myself a reward—without such an action losing its essence? That is to say, without it becoming what I have termed "hypocritical honesty," and without losing its authenticity and credibility? 🤷

What I’m laying out here isn't some abstract theory; it’s the stuff of everyday, practical decision-making. 🤷

Ronald Rogers27 said:Friendship built on opposing philosophies... You two will eventually hit it off, and then one of you is going to end up following the other. The real question is, who follows whom? 😉

Actually, people who return money to an owner don't do it because they lack ideas for how to spend it. Therefore, returning money is immoral because the agent isn't acting on their best judgment.

Returning someone else's cash... Honestly, I find money all the time. Just a five or a twenty on the sidewalk... I don't know why that happens, maybe that's why I have zero luck in love! 😬

Anyway, if I have any clue whose money it is, I'm giving it back. Plain and simple. I'm just an ordinary worker myself—though I exclusively work with my brain—and I know exactly how hard it is to earn a paycheck.

Whether that person spends it on a pair of $1,000 shoes or a fancy suit while people are starving on the streets... NOT really my problem!

(My only problem is making sure I don't starve... and I've gotten pretty good at solving that.) 🙄

Ronald Rogers27

Well, that is a remarkably weak argument. 🙄
You seem to be operating under the assumption that returning that money is inherently "fair," and from there, you jump to the conclusion that the right thing to do is simply pay it back, rather than perhaps redirecting those funds to someone who actually needs them for something fundamental, like school supplies.

Nathan Perez5 said:I honestly don't think we should be drawing any kind of equivalence between someone just spending their hard-earned cash—even if they're blowing it on designer labels or whatever other frivolous nonsense you want to call it—and what was mentioned earlier, which is actually profiting through cheating, shady schemes, or even murder while still being able to sleep at night...

When you take a look at how things are playing out right now, I have to admit you've got a point... When you track people over the years, or even decades, you start to see how a lack of integrity eventually reveals itself as nothing more than a hollow, meaningless void. Personally, I’ve always been of the mind that a person knows exactly when they’re doing something wrong, they just choose to drown out that inner voice with enough noise to stay deaf to what they're actually feeling...

🙂

I don't know, I really can't buy into that logic. After all, if a person truly knows when they are committing an evil act, then they would also realize that intentionally deafening oneself to the resulting guilt is, in itself, an evil act. Therefore, they are making a conscious decision to be wicked.

driftingbear20 said:I’ll be the first to admit I’m an incurable optimist and a bit of an idealist.
Call me naive if you want, but I don't think people are inherently evil; I think they're just incredibly oblivious.
We all just lack a certain level of awareness regarding what's actually happening in the world.

Back in 1994, Kevin Carter won a Pulitzer for a photo he took in the desert. It shows a vulture watching a starving child crawling toward a UN food camp—it was a real, raw moment, not staged at all—and it left the entire world absolutely shattered.
It was as if people had no clue what was going on over there.🤷

Most people—or at least the vast majority of them—who are busy buying luxury cars and high-end fashion would trade their brand-new Mercedes in a heartbeat to save a child's life, if only they happened to be standing there in that moment.
They simply don't have the perspective to realize that their new car could represent a week's worth of meals for someone else.
It’s not that they choose designer clothes because they value them more than a human life; it’s more that those two realities exist in completely different universes.
Their conscience isn't eating them alive because they aren't being malicious, they're just unaware.
But in those rare moments when they finally *do* wake up—moments that were sparked by photos like that one—that's when you truly see the inner scream.

I honestly believe they don't care. Besides, try telling someone that. They’ll just respond like Ronald Rogers27 on a message board, telling you it isn't their problem or that you're being overly dramatic about things that don't matter. He feels nothing, and there is nothing left to awaken in people like that.

ironmarlin1 said:What I’m laying out here isn't some abstract theory; it’s the stuff of everyday, practical decision-making. 🤷

Well, that is a remarkably weak argument. 🙄
You seem to be operating under the assumption that returning that money is inherently "fair," and from there, you jump to the conclusion that the right thing to do is simply pay it back, rather than perhaps redirecting those funds to someone who actually needs them for something fundamental, like school supplies.

I don't know, I really can't buy into that logic. After all, if a person truly knows when they are committing an evil act, then they would also realize that intentionally deafening oneself to the resulting guilt is, in itself, an evil act. Therefore, they are making a conscious decision to be wicked.

I honestly believe they don't care. Besides, try telling someone that. They’ll just respond like Ronald Rogers27 on a message board, telling you it isn't their problem or that you're being overly dramatic about things that don't matter. He feels nothing, and there is nothing left to awaken in people like that.

What you and driftingbear20 are talking about is just hot air. Pure nonsense. It's all just bar talk—big talker stories about planes and trucks... Just endless chatter typical of those old-school social circles in the North America. I've seen enough of those types of groups in my life to know how it goes.

(And when the waiter comes to settle the tab, everyone suddenly stares at their shoes and waits for someone else to pick up the check!) 😬

Ronald Rogers27

Look, wealthy people aren't exactly a new phenomenon... they've always been around, and honestly, they always will be. But here's the thing—not a single one of them has managed to buy their way into having common sense yet... and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

I don't mean to overstep—not by much—but I really feel I should point out that the only truly vital questions being asked here are the ones posed by ironmarlin1.
It’s similar to how one might argue from a purely philosophical standpoint—much like Dostoevsky’s fractured logic—that everyone is entitled to do whatever they can to another person right up until the moment they get caught.
On the flip side, there is the very practical, very human question: do I really need to buy those shoes when I know someone else—say, a struggling family in a small town in Ohio—can't even afford books for their kids?
I’ll admit my own limitations—my thinking is a bit old-school, perhaps a relic of outdated ideologies—but regardless of how brilliant you all may be, you’ll never solve this dilemma from the perspective of an outsider who has nothing to gain.
What I am trying to say is this: if I were forced to face this choice at its most extreme level—to either succumb to the problem or die trying—I hope I would choose death. And I hope God gives me enough strength to meet that end with a smile (even if, personally, I have no intention of handing my hard-earned dollars over to anyone for books).

Ronald Rogers27 said:What you and driftingbear20 are talking about is just hot air. Pure nonsense. It's all just bar talk—big talker stories about planes and trucks... Just endless chatter typical of those old-school social circles in the North America. I've seen enough of those types of groups in my life to know how it goes.

(And when the waiter comes to settle the tab, everyone suddenly stares at their shoes and waits for someone else to pick up the check!) 😬

Ronald Rogers27

If basking in the neon glow of some corporate office while counting your stacks makes you happy, then go right ahead. I think I made my point quite clearly: the only real options are to become pathologically obsessed with wealth or to view every human being as nothing more than a tool to be used. I don't see where we disagree. The only distinction is that I am a cynic about the whole thing, whereas you seem to have swallowed the entire ideology hook, line, and sinker. Self-delusion is a powerful, terrible thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RbCa...eature=related