Amy Cook71 said:Love fits right in here, doesn't it? Just perfectly.[/I]
Love is the driver, the motivation, and ultimately the reward. I wanted to hear that from someone elseāto see those words typed out by another person's hands. It just feels more genuine that way. š
š
Sure, but I wouldn't go so far as to call the pursuit of 1) and 2) "love." It's more like...
Striving. š Iād call that striving toward the third option nothing less than love.
I fear that when people fall in love, they often stumble right into that trap mentioned in Hegelās second point. It feels like a lack of balance. However, in deep friendshipāor in the bond between a parent and a childāthat conflict seems to vanish. In those cases, we tend to weigh the needs of those we love just as heavily as our own. Even when our interests clash, we usually try to find a middle ground that hurts the least.
If multiple people happen to fall for the same individual, then logically, that person ought to be someone of genuine substance. Itās a matter of basic interest. For instance, if I find myself enamored with a woman who happens to be in a happy, fulfilling relationship with someone else, I shouldn't be miserable about it. Instead, I should feel a sense of satisfaction knowing she is making choices that she believes are best for her own life. If what we call "love" doesn't include the element found in point 2 of that Hegelian Quote, then in my view, it isn't actually love at all.
Iāll double down on that point. I probably wasn't clear enough when I brought it up before.
"Look for ways to justify what benefits the community by pointing to the good of the individual, and conversely, justify what serves the individual by claiming it serves the greater good..."
My intention was simple: to weigh the collective against the individual, all from the perspective of a single person who actually takes responsibility for their own actions and strives to improve them.
Take, for example, an instance where someone evaluates their own conduct through the lens of both personal interest and the greater good.
Thereās this high schooler out thereāsomeone like me, I supposeāwho actually gets a kick out of grinding through math and logic. He genuinely enjoys the mental friction, that feeling of sharpening his intellect against a tough problem. But let's be honest: he's lazy. Getting himself to actually sit down and focus is an uphill battle every single time. Yet, once he finally forces the issue? It clicks. He finds a certain rhythm in the reasoning, a sense of satisfaction in the discovery. He knows, deep down, that this discipline is good for him. Looking at the landscape of the American economy, he sees a glaring shortage of engineers and mathematicians. He realizes that by mastering these fields, he isn't just helping himselfāhe's doing something useful for the country.
Itās also clear that many people struggle to grasp the situation, which only confirms why itās actually in their best interest to...
Can someone please break down the prefixes for me? I need a clear, entertaining explanation. Also, letās try to keep things upbeatāIām trying to make my parents proud here.
His successes in math and logic serve as more than just accolades; theyāre the fuel driving him to push even further.
When you look at it that way, a person actually finds more reasons to adjust their behavior. It leads to a much stronger sense of dutyāboth to oneself and to the common good.
Lawrence Robinson5 As stated by:
Your logical addition is on the right track... but itās walking straight into a trap. Sometimes, doing what is absolutely necessary for my own sake ends up hurting the people I love most. And sometimes, that necessity isn't driven by malice or selfishnessāit's just a fundamental requirement for survival. Itās a personal necessity that, quite frankly, hurts me just as much as anyone else.
So, how could this possibly be a win for me? Wellāit works, provided we aren't being shortsighted. Sometimes, making the right call for the long haul requires paying a painful price upfront. And if the decision is truly sound, that cost ends up looking laughably small in hindsight.
I don't buy the idea that my ultimate happiness has to be built on the suffering of someone I love. It just doesn't sit right with me.
But then again, I'm just a fool anyway. š Itās a mistake to discuss these topics in such broad, sweeping generalities. Itās much more compelling to observe how lofty, high-minded ideas actually behave when they're squeezed by the messy realities of a specific case. If you have a solid example that illustrates what you wrote, I'd be interested in reading it.
Thereās no such thing as "better" or "worse" here. Itās all relative. The only real question worth asking is which good is more vitalāwhich one takes precedence? Or, more bluntly, which good are we willing to sacrifice when they inevitably clash?
Better, more important, primary, high priority, justified, valuable... When you're dealing with questions like this, it all feels like semantic hair-splitting to me.
It could be either.
If weāre strictly looking at the logical structure of the question, then yesāin an inclusive disjunction, they can.
But when you look at what's actually being said, the first part ("exclude") inherently negates the second, making it impossible for both to be true at once.š š
P.S. This thread is heading down a dead end if we keep chasing these vague generalities.
My goal here is to find answers within the constraints of everyday lifeāto figure out how an individual can reach an optimal balance with the greater good.
š
If multiple people happen to fall for the same individual, then logically, that person ought to be someone of genuine substance. Itās a matter of basic interest. For instance, if I find myself enamored with a woman who happens to be in a happy, fulfilling relationship with someone else, I shouldn't be miserable about it. Instead, I should feel a sense of satisfaction knowing she is making choices that she believes are best for her own life. If what we call "love" doesn't include the element found in point 2 of that Hegelian Quote, then in my view, it isn't actually love at all.
Iāll double down on that point. I probably wasn't clear enough when I brought it up before.
"Look for ways to justify what benefits the community by pointing to the good of the individual, and conversely, justify what serves the individual by claiming it serves the greater good..."
My intention was simple: to weigh the collective against the individual, all from the perspective of a single person who actually takes responsibility for their own actions and strives to improve them.
Take, for example, an instance where someone evaluates their own conduct through the lens of both personal interest and the greater good.
Thereās this high schooler out thereāsomeone like me, I supposeāwho actually gets a kick out of grinding through math and logic. He genuinely enjoys the mental friction, that feeling of sharpening his intellect against a tough problem. But let's be honest: he's lazy. Getting himself to actually sit down and focus is an uphill battle every single time. Yet, once he finally forces the issue? It clicks. He finds a certain rhythm in the reasoning, a sense of satisfaction in the discovery. He knows, deep down, that this discipline is good for him. Looking at the landscape of the American economy, he sees a glaring shortage of engineers and mathematicians. He realizes that by mastering these fields, he isn't just helping himselfāhe's doing something useful for the country.
Itās also clear that many people struggle to grasp the situation, which only confirms why itās actually in their best interest to...
Can someone please break down the prefixes for me? I need a clear, entertaining explanation. Also, letās try to keep things upbeatāIām trying to make my parents proud here.
His successes in math and logic serve as more than just accolades; theyāre the fuel driving him to push even further.
When you look at it that way, a person actually finds more reasons to adjust their behavior. It leads to a much stronger sense of dutyāboth to oneself and to the common good.
Lawrence Robinson5 As stated by:
Your logical addition is on the right track... but itās walking straight into a trap. Sometimes, doing what is absolutely necessary for my own sake ends up hurting the people I love most. And sometimes, that necessity isn't driven by malice or selfishnessāit's just a fundamental requirement for survival. Itās a personal necessity that, quite frankly, hurts me just as much as anyone else.
So, how could this possibly be a win for me? Wellāit works, provided we aren't being shortsighted. Sometimes, making the right call for the long haul requires paying a painful price upfront. And if the decision is truly sound, that cost ends up looking laughably small in hindsight.
I don't buy the idea that my ultimate happiness has to be built on the suffering of someone I love. It just doesn't sit right with me.
But then again, I'm just a fool anyway. š Itās a mistake to discuss these topics in such broad, sweeping generalities. Itās much more compelling to observe how lofty, high-minded ideas actually behave when they're squeezed by the messy realities of a specific case. If you have a solid example that illustrates what you wrote, I'd be interested in reading it.
Thereās no such thing as "better" or "worse" here. Itās all relative. The only real question worth asking is which good is more vitalāwhich one takes precedence? Or, more bluntly, which good are we willing to sacrifice when they inevitably clash?
Better, more important, primary, high priority, justified, valuable... When you're dealing with questions like this, it all feels like semantic hair-splitting to me.
It could be either.
If weāre strictly looking at the logical structure of the question, then yesāin an inclusive disjunction, they can.
But when you look at what's actually being said, the first part ("exclude") inherently negates the second, making it impossible for both to be true at once.š š
P.S. This thread is heading down a dead end if we keep chasing these vague generalities.
My goal here is to find answers within the constraints of everyday lifeāto figure out how an individual can reach an optimal balance with the greater good.
š
If multiple people happen to fall for the same individual, then logically, that person ought to be someone of genuine substance. Itās a matter of basic interest. For instance, if I find myself enamored with a woman who happens to be in a happy, fulfilling relationship with someone else, I shouldn't be miserable about it. Instead, I should feel a sense of satisfaction knowing she is making choices that she believes are best for her own life. If what we call "love" doesn't include the element found in point 2 of that Hegelian Quote, then in my view, it isn't actually love at all.
Iāll double down on that point. I probably wasn't clear enough when I brought it up before.
"Look for ways to justify what benefits the community by pointing to the good of the individual, and conversely, justify what serves the individual by claiming it serves the greater good..."
My intention was simple: to weigh the collective against the individual, all from the perspective of a single person who actually takes responsibility for their own actions and strives to improve them.
Take, for example, an instance where someone evaluates their own conduct through the lens of both personal interest and the greater good.
Thereās this high schooler out thereāsomeone like me, I supposeāwho actually gets a kick out of grinding through math and logic. He genuinely enjoys the mental friction, that feeling of sharpening his intellect against a tough problem. But let's be honest: he's lazy. Getting himself to actually sit down and focus is an uphill battle every single time. Yet, once he finally forces the issue? It clicks. He finds a certain rhythm in the reasoning, a sense of satisfaction in the discovery. He knows, deep down, that this discipline is good for him. Looking at the landscape of the American economy, he sees a glaring shortage of engineers and mathematicians. He realizes that by mastering these fields, he isn't just helping himselfāhe's doing something useful for the country.
Itās also clear that many people struggle to grasp the situation, which only confirms why itās actually in their best interest to...
Can someone please break down the prefixes for me? I need a clear, entertaining explanation. Also, letās try to keep things upbeatāIām trying to make my parents proud here.
His successes in math and logic serve as more than just accolades; theyāre the fuel driving him to push even further.
When you look at it that way, a person actually finds more reasons to adjust their behavior. It leads to a much stronger sense of dutyāboth to oneself and to the common good.
Lawrence Robinson5 As stated by:
Your logical addition is on the right track... but itās walking straight into a trap. Sometimes, doing what is absolutely necessary for my own sake ends up hurting the people I love most. And sometimes, that necessity isn't driven by malice or selfishnessāit's just a fundamental requirement for survival. Itās a personal necessity that, quite frankly, hurts me just as much as anyone else.
So, how could this possibly be a win for me? Wellāit works, provided we aren't being shortsighted. Sometimes, making the right call for the long haul requires paying a painful price upfront. And if the decision is truly sound, that cost ends up looking laughably small in hindsight.
I don't buy the idea that my ultimate happiness has to be built on the suffering of someone I love. It just doesn't sit right with me.
But then again, I'm just a fool anyway. š Itās a mistake to discuss these topics in such broad, sweeping generalities. Itās much more compelling to observe how lofty, high-minded ideas actually behave when they're squeezed by the messy realities of a specific case. If you have a solid example that illustrates what you wrote, I'd be interested in reading it.
Thereās no such thing as "better" or "worse" here. Itās all relative. The only real question worth asking is which good is more vitalāwhich one takes precedence? Or, more bluntly, which good are we willing to sacrifice when they inevitably clash?
Better, more important, primary, high priority, justified, valuable... When you're dealing with questions like this, it all feels like semantic hair-splitting to me.
It could be either.
If weāre strictly looking at the logical structure of the question, then yesāin an inclusive disjunction, they can.
But when you look at what's actually being said, the first part ("exclude") inherently negates the second, making it impossible for both to be true at once.š š
P.S. This thread is heading down a dead end if we keep chasing these vague generalities.
My goal here is to find answers within the constraints of everyday lifeāto figure out how an individual can reach an optimal balance with the greater good.
š
The thing is, every time someone references a specific number from a Quote, I find myself having to dig through old posts just to find where those points were originally listedāscrolling back and forth through 1, 2, and 3ājust so I can wrap my head around what you're actually talking about.
It would be a huge help if we could make this a little more straightforward... š
