2 ms·

we should not be self-satisfied, but instead actively try to improve ourselves Two things I don't understand about this statement - first is the use of the wor

we should not be self-satisfied, but instead actively try to improve ourselves Two things I don't understand about this statement - first is the use of the word "should". Why should someone tell me what I should or shouldn't do (as long as whatever I do isn't impacting others negatively)? second, what is wrong with people who are just plain happy with the way they are and don't find any reason to try new things or "improve"? To be clear, I am not for or against trying to improve one's life. IMHO, each person should be left to decide for themselves and not pressured to "improve". A person isn't inferior if they aren't trying to make more money, run faster, play the piano better or whatever, and they are just happy the way they are.

rhn_mk1 8y ago
I could rephrase that sentence to answer your first question: > It's not logically consistent to remain stagnant while self-satisfied if you have goals beyond that. I used "should" not to express an obligation to someone else, but to yourself. As to what's wrong with people who don't find any reason to improve: In their frame of reference, there's nothing wrong with them. That's why I said: > improve ourselves to become closer to the ideals we want to represent. If someone has no ideal they want to represent, then nothing I said applies to them. I personally disagree with what you said here though: > A person isn't inferior if they aren't trying to make more money, run faster, play the piano better or whatever, and they are just happy the way they are. People live in the context of society, and the world they are creating. There's no unbinding oneself from the consequences of one's actions, the same way every act of consumption creates a footprint and cost to the world that we share with others. I think settling on one's own happiness is a low bar to clear, and failing to strive to leave our legacy better for others is a short-sightedness that leads to crises, best represented by the global warming. Of course, people are being left to decide what they think they should be doing for their lives, but I hope we can agree that there exists a view in which they would be reasonably condemned.

rhn_mk1 8y ago

I could rephrase that sentence to answer your first question: > It's not logically consistent to remain stagnant while self-satisfied if you have goals beyond that. I used "should" not to express an obligation to someone else, but to yourself. As to what's wrong with people who don't find any reason to improve: In their frame of reference, there's nothing wrong with them. That's why I said: > improve ourselves to become closer to the ideals we want to represent. If someone has no ideal they want to represent, then nothing I said applies to them. I personally disagree with what you said here though: > A person isn't inferior if they aren't trying to make more money, run faster, play the piano better or whatever, and they are just happy the way they are. People live in the context of society, and the world they are creating. There's no unbinding oneself from the consequences of one's actions, the same way every act of consumption creates a footprint and cost to the world that we share with others. I think settling on one's own happiness is a low bar to clear, and failing to strive to leave our legacy better for others is a short-sightedness that leads to crises, best represented by the global warming. Of course, people are being left to decide what they think they should be doing for their lives, but I hope we can agree that there exists a view in which they would be reasonably condemned.