Weakness is strength??

In the wake of my now slowly-receding recently-acquired physical weakness, yes I did have to acquire a different kind of strength formed by the new state I found myself in… a lot of mental energy was involved during that time, which is maybe why the physical was not fully supported and so somewhat dis-abled by the brain… a case of self-induced life support?

If your goal is to be average then those with a goal to be the best will certainly outcompete you. This is why your goal is self-defeating.

MA,

Having a goal to be the best without the capability to be the best is more akin to being delusional. While confidence in one’s ability can be used to psych-out one’s competition at times, confidence does not translate into being the best nor does desire without the potential for vast improvement. Most people do not possess the necessary potential for vast improvements and they fall into the average or less than average categories. Also, most people do not know what their limits are in varying physical/mental trials. Modern folks aren’t required to understand much let alone be able to do much.

[b]

[/b]

[b]

[/b]

[b]

[/b]

Fascinating … astonishing … thanks for sharing.

Reminds me of something I read some time ago … can’t remember the source … the basic message was … “There are many ways to wake up.”

Wake up as in:

[b]

[/b]

One more tautological wisdom: unrealistic goals are unrealistic.

It doesn’t matter what they are. To be the best, to be average or to be the worst. If the necessary mobility, whether upward or downward, is lacking, then the goal is unrealistic.

We are discussing what is better. You’re saying average is better. It’s not necessarily. Only if you’re below average. Otherwise, you’re not making progress but regress.

MA,

It is better to not be delusional. Since you and I have differing definitions of average as well as differing ideas of realistic goals for ourselves, progress is lacking in this conversation. To reiterate, a jack-of-all-trades is a master of none, his ability is not the best in any area for he lacks the best capabilities, instead he has ample capabilities in many areas. Every label given to non-masters is arbitrary usually being self-referentially spawned through biased exaggeration, misuse of the word better.

Is it true that to Moderns the jack-of-all-trades is special? Survival throughout history required folks to be jacks-of-all-trades in order to continue their existence, it really wasn’t something special to be capable of doing many activities from fighting, farming, hunting, construction projects from sewing clothes to baking bread, building instruments, tools, housing, etc…

I don’t know, Wendy, I think that back in the day people used to be less of a “jack off all trades” then they are today. There used to be castes. Peasants were peasants, warriors were warriors. Tautologies worked well. It’s only nowadays that we hear that peasants are warriors.

When I hear “jack off all trades” I immediately think all breadth and no depth which is the worst combination.

MA,

What does a caste have to do with capabilities? If anything, the undeserving often had their families’ stature/wealth to ensure their survival whereas the peasants had to be resourceful, had to learn to do it all for they couldn’t afford to pay others to do it for them.

Wendy and MA

Perhaps the following equation is mathematically correct.

In the Collective Consciousness … One Mind = One Unit … no distinction.

If true it becomes a numbers game … as more and more minds “awaken” … the 'how’or the ‘class’ is irrelevant.

The result is logical and rational … the stability of the Collective Consciousness is disturbed … this might explain the unusual turbulence keen observers are noticing.

Pilgrim wrote:

Western philosophy generally, looks upon weakness as a lack of power or moral failing but, there are those who have in their own way shown another view in defence of one’s passivity to be a strength. However, how are we to understand the collaboration between weakness and power, when there is a strong claim for them to be opposites of each other.

Examination of the nature of weakness has inspired many to write about the human condition. For example, Nietzsche and the feminist writer Simone de Beauvoir both explored the concept of weakness. Weakness can appear passive in a way pain and suffering do not, Virginia Woolf believed that ‘we have no language for physical pain’, but there are two sides to weakness. Weakness as acceptance of bodily need and weakness of a psychological or ethical failing of some kind.

Consider that weakness appears in many forms, whether it be “the flesh is weak” or Kierkegaard’s “despair in weakness” of which both describe the fundamental attribute of the Christian believer.

Nietzsche rejected religion and referred to it as “the weak ruling the strong”. If you accept that Nietzsche presented as a narcissistic personality, it would be only natural for him to see himself as superior. He was smart enough to see through the outward appearance of religion during the time he lived, but the hypocrisy of his thinking was, in the process of overcoming his own limitations, he most probably believed himself to be some sort of deity or supreme being who had the ability to guide the ‘sheep’.

Sometimes in our enthusiasm to explain power and strength, we neglect to identify their connection to weakness and in so doing we then reject the notion that weakness is a part of the character of a person and in reality it is a typical aspect of our shared humanity.

MA wrote:

:laughing:

Is that a Freudian slip?

Suppose you’re ugly. I’m not saying you are. But suppose. Suppose you know, with sufficiently high degree of confidence, that you can never be – and when I say never I don’t really mean never, but more like within some arbitrarily chosen timeframe – that you can never be anything more than ugly. Now tell me, does it logically follow that ugliness is beauty?

We can take another example. Similar but a bit more concrete. Suppose you somehow know that your descendants can never be anything more than a little less ugly than you are. Does that mean, I have to ask again, that ugliness is beauty?

What is my point?
My point is that you are confusing two different questions. One is “what is within your capabilities?” and another is “what is beautiful?” I am afraid you are not willing to keep the two separate instead confusing them.

That’s what people who are emotionally reactive do. They confuse what was previously recognized as distinct.

Another interesting fact about emotionally reactive people is their lack of tolerance, or patience, for their unpleasant, which means overwhelming, emotional reactions. So, for example, when they realize they are not perfect, that they lack something others possess, they immediately start to pursue that thing. In other words, they cannot admit they are ugly (or otherwise inferior) without immediately positing a goal and pursuing what is beautiful (or otherwise superior.) So what happens . . . instead of simply accepting they are ugly (stimulus) as well as that ugliness is inferior to beauty (reaction to stimulus) and rejecting the immediate pursuit of beauty (reaction to reaction to stimulus) because it’s not within their ability, they are rejecting first reaction, that ugliness is inferior to beauty, so that they don’t have to make an effort to destroy the connection between first reaction and second reaction. Do you see where I am going?

What is better is independent from what you can do. It is also independent from what you personally want.

MA,

Where does taste, preference play into what is “seen” as better? Purpose? Fit?

Better is not useful as a blanket statement for what is better for you may not be better for me.

Are you now advocating for subjectivity? Objectivity is a blanket approach used to simplify an estimation.

Honey, when I say better I mean greater. I don’t mean any kind of better. But better as in greater. How the fuck is that subjective? It’s quintessentially objective.

You want me to repeat myself. Okay. A, B and C is greater than A. That’s simple mathematics. Hardly subjective. More and less. The basis of every judgment of general, rather than specific, value.

I don’t know, Maiden, I think that the purpose of consciousness is to discriminate – to recognize distinctions instead of blurring them.

Strength and weakness are opposites. That’s how it is. Deny this and it better be a metaphor. Otherwise, you’re committing a sin.

Consider this situation: I know in advance that my actions will miss the target but they have acquired a momentum, in the form of instinct, making me inclined to perform them anyways. By restraining myself I would make myself passive in that moment . . . I’d have no reaction to the external stimulus. But my intelligence says this is better than reacting because it estimates it will lead to less damage than otherwise. You can now say “weakness is strength”. My response would be rather simple “lol”. No, honey, it isn’t strength, it is simply wiser than the other option. My reactions would still be manifestation of my strength, even though, in this particular instance, they would be self-destructive.

Then, you have to ask whether restraint should be considered passivity. Though it makes you less active it also requires active effort to do so. Indeed, many people who act a lot are passive in the sense that they are inert: not restraining their instincts when their intelligence tells them they should, making their behavior very rigid, mechanical, repetitive, obsessive.

Finally, simply not acting, I presume outwardly, does not mean you’re weak. Weakness refers to your potential – to what you CAN do and not to what you DO. There’s a difference. If a lion does not react much, that does not mean he’s weak.

yawn #-o I already said that too. Objectivity helps save time by simplifying distinctions into sweeping categories not based on individuality.

A Shieldmaiden (MA’s other, Honey)…his conversation is of greater value to you, yes? :evilfun:

This tells me you cannot separate realism from idealism. Realism is about what is likely to happen in the future which includes what goals you can achieve. Idealism is about comparing patterns in order to rank them in terms of their greatness. If you say X is better than Y that does not mean you should pursue X. There is no necessary connection between the two. Unless your brain is inflexible and impulsive, unable to separate the two, instead seeing them as one. Then there is a necessary connection but only in your brain.

You are forcing me to repeat myself. Over and over again.

Honey, if you’re fat and you know that being fit is better than being fat, that does not mean you should immediately jump on your treadmill. Whether you should or should not do something is a matter, not of idealism, but of realism. And sometimes, it’s better to remain fat than to pursue fitness (why? because it would backfire if you tried to be fit, that’s why.)

Similarly, just because you can do Y and not X does not mean Y is better than X.

Tastes aren’t arbitrary.

Wendy wrote:

There is no helpful information I could offer to answer that question. When a person resorts to name calling it is an indication, to me anyway, that there are some feelings of inadequacy in that person.

One must keep in mind that philosophy is a discipline of clear thinking and there is no statement of truth that is, in and of itself, philosophy, simply because, philosophers take innumerable mutually opposed positions and have done since the beginnings of philosophy. I would offer that one needs to be constantly aware of how to avoid logical flaws, not always easy when you passionately believe in a particular stance or feel threatened by a particular person.

MA wrote:

Beauty is difficult to define, it has no common core, so save yourself the trouble in attempting to define it, and

ugliness does have something to say, surprisingly more to some than others.