Apologies

Khaos wrote:

Br. John wrote: “Rudeness is the weak person's imitation of strength.”

― Eric Hoffer

I find quotes like these rude, and dismissive.

I have met plenty of rude people and it was not a sign of weakness.

The weak willed often say things like the above to justify there own inability to be rude when necessary.

Today, people whine about bullying, or kill themselves, rather than stand up and fight for themselves.

The above quote may imply wisdom to some, but to me, it shows a lack of character,at best.

Being rude and being strong willed or dominant is not the same thing.

I find Khaos' implication that those who err on the side of politeness to have a lack of character, rude.

Is that how this game is played? Who can be irritated the most? If so, I will win.

Khaos wrote:

Br. John wrote: “Rudeness is the weak person's imitation of strength.”

― Eric Hoffer

I find quotes like these rude, and dismissive.

I have met plenty of rude people and it was not a sign of weakness.

The weak willed often say things like the above to justify there own inability to be rude when necessary.

Today, people whine about bullying, or kill themselves, rather than stand up and fight for themselves.

The above quote may imply wisdom to some, but to me, it shows a lack of character,at best.

Rudeness will mean different things to different people, that, as we should all know here, is unavoidable.

I do not see, however, how a refusal to be rude is a lack of character. One can be assertive and strong without being rude. It is significantly harder than being rude, which is exactly why, to many people including myself, being rude is the sign of lack of strength.

I say lack of strength rather than lack of character because rude people have character it just isn't very pleasant. LOL

Arcade wrote: Though this statement is in conflict with how certain people's minds work. In Jung's personality theory, there are two distinct types of thinkers... essentially, those who consider themselves before others and those who consider others before themselves. Many of us fit into the latter category.

I disagree with Jung on that one, then. There are three reasons I could see somebody self-sacrificing in a natural way:
1. For the Pack.
This does not apply to humans. It may be that we choose to act in opposition to our self-preservation, but this is not what would happen without environmental influence. Somebody would have to be coerced into choosing the pack over the self.
2. For the Parents/Children.
Many animals have a selflessness for their children/parents. Humans are no different. We have maternal/paternal instincts, and children often feel attached to their parents even if the child is hurt by them. This is beyond choice. However, one can choose to be mean to their children/parents. That's environmental.
3. For the Lover.
Often when we're smitten, and once we made long-term commitments, we sacrifice for our loved ones. This applies to humans.

I am noting there is a difference between our propensity to a kind of behavior and a choice to disregard that propensity. Oftentimes, people choose to go against their instincts. That doesn't mean it's their natural state. Maybe they've just been conditioned (by the self or maybe by others) to ignore this feeling. There is no reason to be selfless (that I can think of).

However, if one is being "selfless" to get in the good graces with somebody, to get something in return, to just be a good person? These are all selfish things, if you ask me. If we are capable of separating our wants and desires from our actions, and we end up being selfless by ignoring selfishness, then we've gone crazy. Something is not connected right in the brain.

Granted, I am not as well-studied as Jung was. Feel free to disregard my ideas since they're unfounded. It's just what I have noticed in my thinking and observing.

Arcade wrote: I have a similar understanding in my own belief system related to the acknowledgment of darkness and its ability to enhance the light, but I think how we approach that idea (as well as how we go about actualizing it) might be different.

Feel free to explain. Maybe start a new topic if you want!

Connor L. wrote:
I disagree with Jung on that one, then. There are three reasons I could see somebody self-sacrificing in a natural way:
1. For the Pack.
This does not apply to humans. It may be that we choose to act in opposition to our self-preservation, but this is not what would happen without environmental influence. Somebody would have to be coerced into choosing the pack over the self.

You clearly need to spend more time getting to know some of your fellow Jedi.

Would you like to explain? I'm not sure what you mean by that.

Connor L. wrote: Would you like to explain? I'm not sure what you mean by that.

Sure, I mean that I can think off hand of several Jedi who would sacrifice self for the pack without hesitation. Its not coercion, its choice.

And without too much effort you could find countless examples of people both current and historic who sacrificed themselves for the "pack" because they chose to, not because they were forced.

Nobody coerced me into self sacrifice for my pack. I've been paying out the ear for a roomate I love deeply but who hasn't paid a full rent in over a year. Who in this scenario coerced me?

Ack. Sorry, bad word choice on my part, then.

What I mean to say is, you would have a "reason" for choosing to go against yourself and for the pack. It wouldn't just happen without your connection to somebody. Let's take rugadd's example. He was not forced to pay for his roommate. But, the coercion is internal. He's convinced himself that love is more important than his money (neither are objectively more important), so he made the self-sacrificing choice.

But, if he didn't love the person, he wouldn't choose to do it. Love is the coercion there.

The reason I added it was to account for other animals. Some animals are biologically programmed to self-sacrifice for the pack. This is different.

Arcade wrote: In Jung's personality theory, there are two distinct types of thinkers... essentially, those who consider themselves before others and those who consider others before themselves. Many of us fit into the latter category.

Ultimately, yes, it does always come down to self preservation, but I disagree with the comment that humans are naturally selfish. I'm not suggesting that being selfish is wrong... simply that it's not a natural state for some people.

This reminded of a conversation I had with my wife about altruistic philosophy vs objectivist philosophy as presented by Ayn Rand. We concluded that altruism isn't necessary (unless you tally karma) if objectivism is practiced in its purest form. I will explain briefly because I just wanna share, not derail the conversation.

Altruism is defined as is an ethical doctrine that holds that the moral value of an individual's actions depend solely on the impact on other individuals, regardless of the consequences on the individual itself.

Now, in typical understanding of objectivism, altruism is rejected and the self is held above all. But if a person recognizes the fact that our actions have ripple effects, then one realizes that one can't benefit the self while stepping on others. What's the point of having a huge mansion and billions of dollars if you got to that point by sucking the money out of the city in which you live? Now you're rich and comfortable only until you step outside your door into the slums. True objectivism recognizes how the self benefits from practicing altruism. However, altruism isn't truly altruism if the person being altruistic benefits from it. So, if you're the second personality described in Jung's theory and you practice pure objectivism, then doing things to benefit others is no different than doing something we'd consider "selfish" because their benefit means your benefit.

So, in the context of this conversation, not being rude to someone will probably benefit you either because they won't be rude to you, or if they are, you at least have the moral high ground and others are more likely to side with you in a disagreement or something.
Just an observation.