Man who has everything all about self preservation, this limits him in what he is willing to do and how he can do it.
If you have lost everything, you would most likely be willing to do anything for x goal if it is important to you but he would clearly have less resources at his disposal.
Someone with everything to lose with be more dangerous.
by SystematicThis question has been on my mind for some time now and I can't seem to come up with the answer.
Who is the most dangerous man out of the two: The Man who has everything to lose or the Man who has lost everything.
And if you can, do you believe one man could hold both of those titles?
Interesting q. I agree with some points already made, that not all men are the same, and that everyone has something to lose, to a certain degree.
Anyway, I'd say the one with nothing left to lose is more dangerous and can deal more damage, definitely. Having things to lose makes someone more cautious, and cautiousness holds back. In theory, it shouldn't be like this if all that you have is at stake, but experience has taught me that that's how the human mind works: one is not fully aware of how shitty it is to lose everything until they have actually lost everything, so they put up less effort and less of a fight. One who has already lost everything, actually IS in that place that the first man dreads. He's in a worse position, so he'll be more motivated. As someone here already said, he has more freedom and room for maneuver, and no fear of losing his possessions, while the man who has everything to lose is motivated by fear which is a distraction. One who has nothing left to lose will be more reckless and go that extra length that could destroy him too, to get what he wants.
Sun Tzu says in the Art of War to never let your enemy believe he has nothing left to lose because he'll be more dangerous and will fight harder.
So if you had to choose, it's smarter to just threaten to take everything away from a man than doing it for real, if you are in a position to do so. In the first case, chances are he'll fold and give you what you want, while in the second case, you'll be sure he comes after you with a vengeance.
You dont think man with everything on the line is dangerous?
Maybe you've never had something unimaginably important on the line before, but the last thing you'd describe that man is hesitant. The only rationalization is that there isn't a consequence worse than losing whats on the line. With that, death isn't something he'd worry about either knowing that a life that lost everything is a worse fate than death.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunism
Predicaments:The propensity of opportunist behaviour is influenced by the general life-situations that people find themselves in. If one's own position is strong and secure, it may be much easier to be an opportunist – because if it would result in losses and failures, those losses and failures can be easily sustained given the resources available. Conversely, a person's existence may be so precarious, that he has "nothing to lose" by seizing any opportunity available to benefit himself. Opportunist behaviour can be self-reinforcing: if there is a lot of opportunism, then not to be opportunist oneself would mean that competitors take advantage of that, and therefore people can be forced into an opportunist role as a defensive strategy.
i am not sure if i understand this question completely
we all have every thing to lose
even those who have lost every thing that mattered to them in life still have their life other wise they be dead and not dangerous at all
though i understand how some 1 who has once had a great deal of stuff but lost it all might some times be pretty dangerous- depending on the situation
if its a bum who drank his good fortunes i dont consider very dangerous unless u threaten to take their bottle away
"Sun Tzu says in the Art of War to never let your enemy believe he has nothing left to lose because he'll be more dangerous and will fight harder."
Yes I read this some time ago, i believe the following passage before this one says to always allow your enemy one escape route.
Anyhow, after reading some contributions here(thanks) and some thought(weeks haha) I'd say the man with nothing to lose has the most potential.
I hate this debate it is so circumstantial and totally depends on the person and situation.
Here: He's in a worse position, so he'll be more motivated.
Again an assumption which is totally person and situational.
Kill a homeless man's family, he has nothing to lose, he cries and is sad all day. Very dangerous. Kill a homeless man's family, he is motivated to kill you and does everything in his power(limited) to get to you and kill you no matter what the cost.
A dictator is going to be overthrown by his people, he is conscious and tries to maintain power and due to the consciousness he loses to the rebellion. A dictator is going to be overthrown by his people, he understands the gravity of the situation and deals with it ruthlessly putting it down.
I just wanted to illustrate that these have to be more concrete situations, but Ceteris paribus I give it to the man with the most resources to his disposal, since it is pointless to generalize hypothetical personalities.
As for some art of war: From the nine situations (23) Soldiers when in desperate straits lose the sense of fear. If there is no place of refuge, they will stand firm. If they are in hostile country, they will show a stubborn front. If there is no help for it,
they will fight hard.
(22 also is similar)
Also I don't think your quote is real. The cornered escape quote is there but not this one. (I think)
It all boils down to if the man with everything to lose realizes he has everything to lose and act accordingly, and I would argue that even if he does not act with the proper vigilance his resources would overman the man with nothing in most cases.
by AzulaI hate this debate it is so circumstantial and totally depends on the person and situation.
Here: He's in a worse position, so he'll be more motivated.
Again an assumption which is totally person and situational.
Kill a homeless man's family, he has nothing to lose, he cries and is sad all day. Very dangerous. Kill a homeless man's family, he is motivated to kill you and does everything in his power(limited) to get to you and kill you no matter what the cost.
A dictator is going to be overthrown by his people, he is conscious and tries to maintain power and due to the consciousness he loses to the rebellion. A dictator is going to be overthrown by his people, he understands the gravity of the situation and deals with it ruthlessly putting it down.
I just wanted to illustrate that these have to be more concrete situations, but Ceteris paribus I give it to the man with the most resources to his disposal, since it is pointless to generalize hypothetical personalities.
As for some art of war: From the nine situations (23) Soldiers when in desperate straits lose the sense of fear. If there is no place of refuge, they will stand firm. If they are in hostile country, they will show a stubborn front. If there is no help for it,
they will fight hard.(22 also is similar)
Also I don't think your quote is real. The cornered escape quote is there but not this one. (I think)
It all boils down to if the man with everything to lose realizes he has everything to lose and act accordingly, and I would argue that even if he does not act with the proper vigilance his resources would overman the man with nothing in most cases.
Yeah, you are right. It all depends on the man and the specific context, I pointed this out in the beginning of my own post too. But I thought that's what philosophy was about, talking in theory. You kinda missed the entire point. When you answer the q you have to assume their mentality is the only thing that makes them different. You kinda assume they have the same resources to reach their goals. You don't go off arguing that hey, one could be Obama the other could have fucking Down Syndrome. XD
And I didn't quote anything from The Art of War, I paraphrased. From what I remember there was smth along those lines written there.