In my relative short time I have noticed that there are two prominent groups of people, the first are seeming to be the majority these are the sheep. People who exist and nothing more, they have life but yet for most purposes they are unaware. In this state they are unaware of themselves as individuals and the effect they have on their environment and others. This although a path of little activity seems to be the most destructive for themselves and their own well being and this then intern has a negative effect on their environment and others around them?
The second group are the seeming self-aware these are those who are willing to explore the many facets of themselves, others and their environment. To break down the pre-concieved ideas that have been taught, to develop their own path, to break the bonds that tie. Although aware are these individuals actually capable of making choices that will ultimately be less destructive as a whole? Are we doomed to be destroyers, is it others destruction or our own we must face. Are we better for it or doomed by it?
Oh and the point that i have drifted from when i started this post was why do some poeple break the ties and others wallow, are a certain type of person more likely to than others?
It’s easier… It’s very easy to never exercise the muscles, even if it will lead to a shorter, less healthy, less happy life.
Even moreso this applies to the mind and the individuality.
Some sort of discontent will usually inspire the minority to be something other than groupthink mimes.
The main appeal of groupthink & type1, has to do with the abundance of false-friends one gets, when one accepts and tolerates the common-crap, then becomes something the common-crap enjoys [thus getting “loved” by the common-crap].
Some of the outcasts in society are not completely human in the first place. They may have a more pronounced soul of another species, or they may have evolved up another notch in awareness and self-determination, but in order to secure the future of their new persona, they must struggle to overcome all of the differences and foolishness around themselves. They must also find a partner or mate somehow, one day, which is worthy of their love and trust, so that their bloodline can continue passed one generation.
Groupthink has been propagated in the media, and naturally exists in human-nature, to some degree, already. It’s the first and main source of control over the “sheep”. Anti-individualistic philosophies such as self-sacrifice being seen as the highest form of virtue, is one of those anti-individualistic philosophies, that indirectly undermines individual self-worth. This cultural mutation took a long time to arise, and was started, long ago, by the oppressivists and the sophists.
Anyone having “picky” sorts of tastes, and high-expectations, will eventually defect from the flock. Anyone well-practiced in “critical thinking” and proper distrust, will soon become a wise minority.
Society is set in such-and-such a way, where it does not reward the slave, but it endorses the slave as being the moral superior. Thus, a subjectively synthesized reward, for an objective loss.
I find the division between “sheep†and “sheep that think†is rather artificial. The job of philosophy is to try and take our common thoughts and all their implicit consequences and assumptions and make them explicit. Better to be a sheep, you’re likely right and unlike the philosopher are less likely to fall to the “dark side†(fill in the philosophical doctrine you most despise).
If you ever get those sheep to think you will most often find them the same as those who think normally. Of the people who I have met who do think normally the only real common factor I have found is an open upbringing.
The number is fairly small, less than 100 that I have talked to, but the ones I have were all raised without direct control, I spent more time alone than I did with others so I had to find my own answers.
Three of my friends, when they asked what something was their parents asked them what they thought it was so they also found their own answers, my fiance was taught to trust her feelings on it so she has also needed to determine for herself what was real.
Meanwhile people who are told all the answers seemed to accept that as real and so felt no reason to ask further questions, some people break free from conformity by realizing a conflict between truth and what they are told, but this is a hard break so it is not very common.
perhaps then it is like dan~ had said, you must train it to use it.
As for the concept of people being more or less destructive by thinking, they would need to train that as well, learn to better things rather than worsen them, but I suppose the advantage is they have that choice.
but there is a great reward for deviating from the flock, because it entitles you to a degree of freedom that is unemagined by normal people, for me at least it was well worth the hell I went through to get it.
I generally find that the ‘sheep’ vs. ‘wolves (or what-have-you)’ mentality is normally the mantra of the malcontent. A lot of it has to do with individual exceptionalism and people feeling that they are it.
As a general rule, you don’t see people who are actually in positions of power talking about sheeple and wolves. You see them treating people as people.
Well, except Capitalists (those who seek and attain power through wealth exclusively), but they have managed to divorce themselves from their fellow humanity to such a degree that it is no surprise that they should develop a similar attitude towards nerds in High School. After all, they are better than everybody – their grades (errr, paycheck/stock dividends) tell them so!
From what I have seen you seem to have a strong distaste for capitalists, however that is beside the point at hand, concepts of power such as who is better and who is less are most often false sense of power.
You build wealth, you build a reputation, you build an army, but power over others is mearly an illusion because it depends on others to hold it. Why I have no use for such things.
the only true power I have seen is to beleive in ones self, oddly people who have this power seem to attain wealth and respect naturally and don’t tend to compare themselves to others. Seems like an odd paradox dosent it?
You have it all wrong, D. Just because I don’t get shot or run the risk of getting blown up anymore does not mean I’m any softer. Waters still run deep.
That’s what gets me about all the master/slave morality talk and every other kind of Neitzschean dichotomy - everybody thinks they’re the master/wolf/awake and that other people are the slave/sheep/asleep.
xunzian it was only a generalisation for the purposes of the question there are two distinct areas but people will often be different gradients of the two. Also I was asking what are the benefits of the two areas. Iam under no illusion of grandure, "that I am of a class that is superior"this is most definatly not the case, on the contrary I have often thought that the more I investigate the more difficulties I bring myself, is it not wiser not to question and just to live? I dont know but I have chosen a path and Im sticking to it.
A certain disciple of Confucius was bragging about how cultivated he was by saying that before he took action, he thought about it three times. Confucius sorta smiled and said, “Twice is quite enough.”
The important thing when examining ourselves is that we don’t overdo it and in the process make it into a self-gratifying process. The ‘sheep’ and ‘wolves’ mentality, to me, has always seemed self-gratifying and is used to justify exclusion from the group. This creates a rather nasty feed-back loop that further alienates the individual.
Now, you could say that there are leaders, followers, and outsiders. I wouldn’t say that leaders are any more enlightened than followers, they just have cultivated that knack that lets people trust and like them. The followers respond to this, but they also have a large degree of sway over the leader. While there is little to recommend itself in Objectivism, I think that this symbiotic and mutually dependent relationship of the leaders and the followers is a very key point. Then there are the outsiders who, well, don’t get terribly much done in that arena. They are, for all intents and purposes, nobodies.
But, that last qualifier: “in that area” is very imporatant. After all, we all take on many roles in life, sometimes as a leader, sometimes as a follower, and sometimes as an outsider. It becomes important to identify where your talents are suitable for leadership, where they are suitable for following, and where they simply aren’t suitable. Many of those people who are just ‘going through life’ actually have quite dynamic lives with friends, families, co-workers, bowling teams and all that. Now, they have decided that areas that you clearly care about are areas where they are best suited to simply be outsiders and so from your perspective they become or seem like nobodies. Likewise, if you think you are a nobody at times, consider whether you are simply focusing your energies into the wrong area.
People aren’t monolithic entities, so it should come as no surprise that the many roles they take on can make them seem very different at times.
Perhaps but there will allways be rules, ones that simply do not break as long as they apply, just as there will allways be gavity, the key is knowing how the rules work and using them to your advantage.
I am an outsider, simply for the most part because the degree of thinking that I do. To try and fit in would be impossible so I use the outside perspective to learn the norm and understand how it works. That way I can blend in well enough to be unknoticed even though I do not belong there.
And by being outside I am not herassed for thinking which allows me to learn without diffaculty so I am grateful for that as well, I would not change that for the world.
