Sociopath Community

What defines humanity's success? 

Meaning is a big part of it. Would people be more responsible (and in general seek something greater) if they felt a higher sense of communion? Think of what it meant to be a Roman in the time of Caesar, a German in the Third Reich, or a Christian in the days of martyrdom. Without some shared, rapturous vision, we're an undifferentiated blob that spills over capriciously, just trying to maintain homeostasis. How can we expect people to act in the interests of the whole, if we can barely get them to be civil around each other in the cities?

Turncoat said: 

What defines humanity's success? 

 shut up tc your job to moderate and not be heard

Tryptamine said: 

Meaning is a big part of it. Would people be more responsible (and in general seek something greater) if they felt a higher sense of communion? Think of what it meant to be a Roman in the time of Caesar, a German in the Third Reich, or a Christian in the days of martyrdom. Without some shared, rapturous vision, we're an undifferentiated blob that spills over capriciously, just trying to maintain homeostasis. How can we expect people to act in the interests of the whole, if we can barely get them to be civil around each other in the cities?

 I mean we all live under capitalism. I think you can just ignore the entire larger culture and just focus on being successful with money

Agreed. Not a big fan of where things are at, though.

puppygirl said: 

Turncoat said: 

What defines humanity's success? 

 shut up tc your job to moderate and not be heard

I ask as you seem to have a very limited scope when it comes to identifying it. 

You're liable to see people succeeding as if failing if they don't match up with certain criteria, like if lets say someone found a fulfilling life as a temple monk. 

Tryptamine said: 

How can we expect people to act in the interests of the whole, if we can barely get them to be civil around each other in the cities?

I personally question the significance of said whole in the modern age, do we even need that now that technology has filled the gap? 

Turncoat said: 

Tryptamine said: 

How can we expect people to act in the interests of the whole, if we can barely get them to be civil around each other in the cities?

I personally question the significance of said whole in the modern age, do we even need that now that technology has filled the gap? 

You're opening the door to the question of the atomization of society.  The paradox that we're more connected than ever, yet just as more alienated.  You can throw in the catalytic effects of social media partitioning and algorithm-ing our interfacing with society and one another.  Technological growth in general the way it is proceeding, as it accelerates and mutates, makes predictive statements ever more dubious.  The hullabaloo over AI-generated media, the potential for generating misinformation, the effect it is having in strange sectors of employment and media, etc., are both cultural and practical, real-world impacts.  I think the speed and complexity are reflexively ignored, as some form of defense mechanism.  So technology is both a problem and its own solution, sometimes.

Is life only meaningful in its struggle?  It seems the struggle is less material and more social or (dare I say) spiritual.  It seems what all this is alluding to.  As technology and social reform begins delivering a more sustainable life without needing to constantly wipe the sweat from our brow, what do we do with that life?  The perspective used to be, it seemed, that technology was going to save us from that brutish labor, so that we could focus on being more creative and abstract and social, without having to get our hands dirty any more.  Now that technology has begun delivering on "automated creativity" and other productions we once deemed "intellectual pursuits", where do we invest our ambitions?

As Tryp and others seem to imply: we might be taking that energy and focusing on tribalism-maxxing.  The thing is, as already pointed out historically: we've always been doing this.  However, in the backdrop of our culture now, it obviously looks like it's about more and more frivolous things.  When we get closer and closer to literally being able to "live the dream", we've lost the ability to agree on what the dream is any more.

Buttered Toast said: 

Turncoat said: 

Tryptamine said: 

How can we expect people to act in the interests of the whole, if we can barely get them to be civil around each other in the cities?

I personally question the significance of said whole in the modern age, do we even need that now that technology has filled the gap? 

You're opening the door to the question of the atomization of society.

Seems a bit silly to question the state of society without going deeper. 

The paradox that we're more connected than ever, yet just as more alienated.

The lack of facetime is more culprit than the rest of it though. 

The hullabaloo over AI-generated media, the potential for generating misinformation, the effect it is having in strange sectors of employment and media, etc., are both cultural and practical, real-world impacts. 

It's a mid-state of change towards something more Neo-Socialist. 

Once none of us have a place in the working world anymore, or sooner, once we pass around the 60% threshold for unemployment once the self-driving car turns a surprising number of jobs obsolete on top of the replacements already being enacted, the government isn't just going to let people starve. 

Is life only meaningful in its struggle?

It offers relativism. Without it the newer state of comfort will seek out a struggle embedded within it, as we often see nowadays with the privileged rich. 

Even Matrix went there when Agent Smith's talking to Morpheus; They tried building a world where every human got everything they could possibly desire and, in turn, they were dissatisfied with the world. Twilight Zone went there earlier with the idea of Hell being a place where you get everything you want until it no longer means anything to you. 

Struggle is the precursor to relief, and both are necessary for someone's sense of comfort. It's structured similarly to substance addiction, or like the struggle one feels before release sexually or through exercise. Without a sense of struggle, the lack of struggle will inevitably become said struggle. 

For a metaphorical example, it'd be like if Sisyphus could choose to not push the rock and otherwise do absolutely nothing. In time, the rock will look desirable. 

Now that technology has begun delivering on "automated creativity" and other productions we once deemed "intellectual pursuits", where do we invest our ambitions?

Becoming it's witness as we live like it's pets. 

Taking The Blue Pill, essentially. 

As Tryp and others seem to imply: we might be taking that energy and focusing on tribalism-maxxing.  The thing is, as already pointed out historically: we've always been doing this.  However, in the backdrop of our culture now, it obviously looks like it's about more and more frivolous things.  When we get closer and closer to literally being able to "live the dream", we've lost the ability to agree on what the dream is any more.

The point of a dream is to be an aspiration, but those "dreams" disappearing are a complaint you moreso see coming from people 30+ in age.