There's no real meaning to anything we do, beyond just fulfilling what we believe to give ourselves satisfaction. Man is driven by their personal vices.
"Should"? Why "should" anyone do anything? Avoiding conflict might deprive someone from learning a lesson, but who's to say that they needed that experience at all?"
Good point. I haven't found any consequence for the few that lack the need for self improvement or pursuit of ambitions, asides what I've put down about them missing out on those life experiences and the change that comes with it. You don't need it, but you're better with it. With experience comes change, the rule of nature this far has always been adapt or die. They wont of course die but goals they want(assuming everyone has some competitive goal) will elude them. I could see skipping some experiences that won't do much in achieving their goals.
"Experience can also serve to scar someone, hinder their ability to improve. Not all experiences are good ones, many are maladaptive towards growth."
The scarring would be explained under the part where I speak on the conflict medium and how too much at one time or without enough prior experience has its consequences. With enough understanding I dont see any experience as harmful towards growth, the blame in my eyes falls more so on the person affected and how they deal with it plays a bigger factor than the circumstance itself.
"Missing out on life" is subject to interpretation. Spending your entire life toiling away can have you miss out on other aspects of it."
Yes, but not nearly as much as avoiding it.
"Why not aim to transcend the need for such relief instead of embracing it? Being above it serves to make you a slave to no vices, opening up the potential to be content with as little as possible."
Relief from the concept of relief. I'll have to think more on it honestly, but I'm already seeing counter examples. I don't believe one can transcend relief, even the most basic of human interests, learning comes from curiosity. Is curiosity anything more than relieving ignorance? or the circumstantial unknown?
"It's not always because of one's perspective that they don't enjoy life. At times, that perspective is something they're shackled with through the predispositions they were born with. Is someone who is depressed in the sense of their nature really just fearful/lazy/reluctant?"
Yes, those three explanations apply to every case.This philosophy has no standard of equality, it's essentially the survival of the fittest mentality applied to all things in life to the appropriate scale. I understand others have that perspective by default, via disorder or upbringing but it changes nothing.
Conflict - an incompatibility between two or more opinions, principles, or interests.(v)be incompatible or at variance; clash.
When I look a conflict, I see it present in every aspect of life. From modern wars and all the way back to the primordial soup conflict has played it's part in shaping everything we've set our eyes on. For all organisms, life's preset goals are saturated with conflict. Surviving the conflicting conditions and interests of others species is the definition by which we categorize what has life. Even within our species conflict is prevalent, dominant genes emerge over recessive traits to make the species stronger as a whole. Every feature, limb and organ on you is there as a result of an organism engaging in conflict. Even down to a molecular level, natural conflicting interests/factors are still present. Life is conflict.
One should embrace conflict, at all levels. Whether one comes out on top only dictates the extent of a reward, regardless the individual gains experience. Experience which can be utilized to make conflict(life) easier and less threatening. Again, I strongly advocate throwing oneself into conflict and hard work. Contrary to a different perspective, you wont be missing out on life. Without pain, without struggle, you cannot receive relief. Relief is found at the roots of all human enjoyments. Relief from hunger, relief from thirst, relief from financial burdens and relief from being alone are just a few general examples of this concept. One could go deeper and look into joys such as a certain taste or smell, which only come from our sense being relieved from the usual. It is in fact the fearful/lazy/reluctant perspective that doesn't get to enjoy life. However, despite conflict seamlessly existing in everything there is a limit in which one should engage in it. Understanding those limits relies solely on the individual, you cannot tackle all opposition. Taking that reward from triumphing over lesser conflicts(experience) and accumulating that reward will yield you any victory. Just as you must build muscle by moving lower weights, you must limit the circumstances of conflict if they aren't in your favor.
There is no peak with conflict, no lasting reward, no conclusion. Conflict within itself is a cycle. Again, you must challenge yourself to find relief right?
Just a reiteration of an old idea after I felt a bit philosophic. Put it to the test, poke holes in it, criticism is what's advanced it this far.
who gives a fuck about this crap
just think, not so hard
what you want to achieve, why you want that, what is in your way to get it and what are the steps you need to take to achieve your goal
everything else is just things that happen, you may like or hate them, you may also divert your focus for a little to them, as a form of relaxation. they may or may not be beneficial either. but ultimately they do not matter.
so conflict or no conflict: do you get what you want? This is the question.
What I wrote was a simple philosophy, one that has it's perspective far above the individual. For most of a paragraph I referenced how this philosophy applied before the creation of man and the elements that make up this universe. Narrowing it down to how one should pursue individual interests is missing a great deal of what I was getting at.
"what you want to achieve, why you want that, what is in your way to get it and what are the steps you need to take to achieve your goal"
It's identical to the mindset i already have. Conflict theory is just my attempt to explain why that approach is successful. You can save me the follow your dreams lecture.
"One should embrace conflict, at all levels."
"Should"? Why "should" anyone do anything? Avoiding conflict might deprive someone from learning a lesson, but who's to say that they needed that experience at all?
"Whether one comes out on top only dictates the extent of a reward, regardless the individual gains experience. Experience which can be utilized to make conflict(life) easier and less threatening."
Experience can also serve to scar someone, hinder their ability to improve. Not all experiences are good ones, many are maladaptive towards growth.
"Again, I strongly advocate throwing oneself into conflict and hard work. Contrary to a different perspective, you wont be missing out on life."
"Missing out on life" is subject to interpretation. Spending your entire life toiling away can have you miss out on other aspects of it.
"Without pain, without struggle, you cannot receive relief. Relief is found at the roots of all human enjoyments. Relief from hunger, relief from thirst, relief from financial burdens and relief from being alone are just a few general examples of this concept."
Why not aim to transcend the need for such relief instead of embracing it? Being above it serves to make you a slave to no vices, opening up the potential to be content with as little as possible.
"It is in fact the fearful/lazy/reluctant perspective that doesn't get to enjoy life."
It's not always because of one's perspective that they don't enjoy life. At times, that perspective is something they're shackled with through the predispositions they were born with. Is someone who is depressed in the sense of their nature really just fearful/lazy/reluctant?
Relief is found at the roots of all human enjoyments. Relief from hunger, relief from thirst, relief from financial burdens and relief from being alone are just a few general examples of this concept. One could go deeper and look into joys such as a certain taste or smell, which only come from our sense being relieved from the usual.
killing yourself relieves you from existence
Lucky number 7777
"Not all change is good. Sometimes what's experienced can be enough to break a person, whereas if it were presented in a different way or avoided entirely the person could have advanced into something greater. Think of PTSD victims, sure you'd write that off as "fear" inhibiting them, but it's fear that is directly connected to the experience that damaged them enough to hinder their future advancements. Some change is maladaptive towards growth, instead making the way for entropy or numbness."
Not all change is good, I'll agree on that but the rest I can't. This all fits within the medium I spoke about, even with the PTSD examples. If the person had enough understanding in that field and had enough experience with lesser versions of similar scenarios, reactions like PTSD wouldnt occur. Perfect example is the military and how they induce smaller levels of stress to work you up to warfare. Eventually, building you up to scenarios that emulate wartime stress. Of course the military is notorious for having a good number of PTSD cases, but that number would increase exponentially if that training wasnt instilled. Scarring, regression and all other sorts of negative reactions to an experience are mainly due to their being an over exposure of the factor and underexposure to that factor by the person reacting. This is also supported by a concept called Coopers Color Code. If a person is caught by a incoming traumatic event while in the white, they have a high chance to immediately go straight to black. It mirrors the medium concept.
"It's not like everyone processes things in the same way. There's some things that people typically can't handle."
Happens. Failure's role in this theory equally as large as success.
"That depends on the nature of their toiling versus the nature of when they're not. Toil can be mindless while avoidance of conflict can still yield much knowledge. Even reading can circumvent some of what experience has to offer."
Of course at the opposite ends of extremes one will be better than the other, but if set to the same degree one significantly is worse than the other.
"With relief also comes the potential for a greater hunger. Some monks and the like aim to avoid this hunger at all costs, stripping away the passions that'd serve to blind them from the path towards inner peace."
Even their motivations for working towards inner peace are relief based.
"There's plenty who have found ways to avoid curiosity. It's an itch, but it's not necessarily one that must be scratched."
Curiosity is just one aspect of human nature, it's more or less an internal example that the pleasure of relief is deep seated within people, it's inescapable and not worth attempting to rid yourself of it.
"There's no real meaning to anything we do, beyond just fulfilling what we believe to give ourselves satisfaction. Man is driven by their personal vices."
Personal vices are nothing more than a construct of human nature to reward competitive/conflictive behavior. The curiosity bit I put in my reply to Turncoat is a perfect example.