4 ms·

In that case, I revoke my membership to society. I have my own problems.

jackvalentine 10y ago
You can do so by moving out in to the middle of nowhere and becoming a self-sufficient hermit. Anything less and sorry, but you're a part of society.
- lacampbell 10y ago
  who are you to tell an individual what responsibilities they have, and to try and make outcasts of people who don't want them? I don't have to move anywhere to absolve myself of the responsibility to strangers.
  - jackvalentine 10y ago
    I don't think that you quite understand the point I'm making? By taking part in every day life, using civil infrastructure, having contact with other people you're a part of society with all that goes with that. It logically follows that the only way to extricate yourself from the situation is to leave society and all the benefits it brings. There are people who have done that! However I don't see how you can possibly do so and have the convenience of a doctor available when you're sick, coffee sold by the cup and roads on which for you to drive. These are physical and organisational manifestations of 'society'. By remaining in proximity and contact of other humans you're their responsibility and they are yours. It's fine to want out but that does need to come with a realisation of what benefits you draw from societal organisation and what you'll need to lose to withdraw from the uninvited, unwritten, yet tangible 'bargain' that society represents. I'm trying to picture what remaining with other people yet rejecting 'society' theoretically looks like and I can only see it as a kind of parasitic relationship. When aware of parasites humans have a tendency to try and kill or remove them. After all, you would be rejecting all the protections legal and otherwise that society offers its members.
    - lacampbell 10y ago
      By remaining in proximity and contact of other humans you're their responsibility and they are yours. I reject this completely. That's your reality, not mine.
      - jackvalentine 10y ago
        Please respond to the rest of my post, not just the weakest line.
        gosheroo 10y ago
        I agree with lacampbell that we're not responsible for other people's kids. In western society the individual is sovereign and our only responsibility is to do no harm. It is equally important to note however that the individual is missing out if he foregoes the pleasure of friendly interactions with other people, and is free to be a good neighbour and to give where he chooses. He is also wise if he aligns his ambitions with the general good of all. But he may not be compelled. Indeed, it is the societies where people have talked about us all being responsible for everybody else that have murdered the most people (e.g. Soviet Union). The foregoing interaction with lacampbell might be an analogy of how society fails creative types. They are often awkward, abrasive people who insist on doing things their own way. As a result they are denied jobs, ostracised socially (in the name of friendliness) and generally swept under the rug. Society would far rather give academic posts, for example, to those who fit in enthusiastically: http://iqpersonalitygenius.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/the-head-girl-syndrome-opposite-of.html http://iqpersonalitygenius.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/the-head-g... The desire to be accepted and to fit in, despite appearances, is not really about friendliness, is my guess. It is actually rooted in the fear of others and the fear of being cast out of the tribe. Like all emotions this fear enacts behaviours which tend to install it in other people. As a result of early socialisation most of our creativity goes into being/appearing normal instead of into making original stuff.
        lacampbell 10y ago
        The foregoing interaction with lacampbell might be an analogy of how society fails creative types. They are often awkward, abrasive people who insist on doing things their own way. As a result they are denied jobs, ostracised socially (in the name of friendliness) and generally swept under the rug. I'd like to think I'm not particularly awkward or abrasive. I'm not some cold hearted monster that has no empathy, or never helps or shows kindness to strangers. But you rightly point out that I reject being compelled to help all and sundry. A charitable act should be mine to perform freely.

You can do so by moving out in to the middle of nowhere and becoming a self-sufficient hermit. Anything less and sorry, but you're a part of society.

lacampbell 10y ago
who are you to tell an individual what responsibilities they have, and to try and make outcasts of people who don't want them? I don't have to move anywhere to absolve myself of the responsibility to strangers.
- jackvalentine 10y ago
  I don't think that you quite understand the point I'm making? By taking part in every day life, using civil infrastructure, having contact with other people you're a part of society with all that goes with that. It logically follows that the only way to extricate yourself from the situation is to leave society and all the benefits it brings. There are people who have done that! However I don't see how you can possibly do so and have the convenience of a doctor available when you're sick, coffee sold by the cup and roads on which for you to drive. These are physical and organisational manifestations of 'society'. By remaining in proximity and contact of other humans you're their responsibility and they are yours. It's fine to want out but that does need to come with a realisation of what benefits you draw from societal organisation and what you'll need to lose to withdraw from the uninvited, unwritten, yet tangible 'bargain' that society represents. I'm trying to picture what remaining with other people yet rejecting 'society' theoretically looks like and I can only see it as a kind of parasitic relationship. When aware of parasites humans have a tendency to try and kill or remove them. After all, you would be rejecting all the protections legal and otherwise that society offers its members.
  - lacampbell 10y ago
    By remaining in proximity and contact of other humans you're their responsibility and they are yours. I reject this completely. That's your reality, not mine.
    - jackvalentine 10y ago
      Please respond to the rest of my post, not just the weakest line.
      - gosheroo 10y ago
        I agree with lacampbell that we're not responsible for other people's kids. In western society the individual is sovereign and our only responsibility is to do no harm. It is equally important to note however that the individual is missing out if he foregoes the pleasure of friendly interactions with other people, and is free to be a good neighbour and to give where he chooses. He is also wise if he aligns his ambitions with the general good of all. But he may not be compelled. Indeed, it is the societies where people have talked about us all being responsible for everybody else that have murdered the most people (e.g. Soviet Union). The foregoing interaction with lacampbell might be an analogy of how society fails creative types. They are often awkward, abrasive people who insist on doing things their own way. As a result they are denied jobs, ostracised socially (in the name of friendliness) and generally swept under the rug. Society would far rather give academic posts, for example, to those who fit in enthusiastically: http://iqpersonalitygenius.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/the-head-girl-syndrome-opposite-of.html http://iqpersonalitygenius.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/the-head-g... The desire to be accepted and to fit in, despite appearances, is not really about friendliness, is my guess. It is actually rooted in the fear of others and the fear of being cast out of the tribe. Like all emotions this fear enacts behaviours which tend to install it in other people. As a result of early socialisation most of our creativity goes into being/appearing normal instead of into making original stuff.
        lacampbell 10y ago
        The foregoing interaction with lacampbell might be an analogy of how society fails creative types. They are often awkward, abrasive people who insist on doing things their own way. As a result they are denied jobs, ostracised socially (in the name of friendliness) and generally swept under the rug. I'd like to think I'm not particularly awkward or abrasive. I'm not some cold hearted monster that has no empathy, or never helps or shows kindness to strangers. But you rightly point out that I reject being compelled to help all and sundry. A charitable act should be mine to perform freely.