5 ms·
The flip side of detaching self-esteem from technical competency is that you can make very strong assertions without being arrogant. People of integrity with u
by orbisvicis 2y ago
The flip side of detaching self-esteem from technical competency is that you can make very strong assertions without being arrogant.
People of integrity with utilitarian leaning are often labeled amoral or unemotional.
People with a strong drive not attached to financial gain are often termed unambitious.
Your perceived worth really depends on values of society, so if you remove yourself from the equation, you only have no worth to others, not to yourself. Sequestered from others the sense of self has no meaning, so naturally you have no self-worth. Not because you are worthless, but because you have no self and place no importance on your perceived worth.
Or more strongly phrased, what's the point of self-worth if you can do everything you put your mind to?
I'd you can't but think you can, then that's a harmful psychological schism. Since no one person can achieve everything, self-worth is only meaningful in areas for which you lack competency
For example - and this deals not with self-worth but with stress - I'm pretty inflexible in my goals. When I can't meet my goals I tend to shut down. I'm often asked if I'm stressed, to which I can only respond, "Stress - what's that?". And yet clearly I've suffered a harmful schism between my perception of self and reality, as indicated by my lack of stress response.
- detourdog 2y agoMy partner considers my deliberateness as lazy. They won’t discuss things with me because they already know all about me. My willingness to share their perception of me being ineffective was quite damaging to my self esteem. I never felt successful due to lack of acknowledgment of my achievements. They asked me to leave the house about a year ago. Once I met new people and they saw me as successful and fun my self worth improved.
- orbisvicis 2y agoYes, that's why I qualified self-worth by field of competency. I really try to view the world objectively, ignoring the opinions of others, but after N fizzled relationships... is it me or is it you? But just because you are detached from societal values doesn't imply you should be detached from people. I can't enumerate the intangibles I get by surrounding myself with others. I perform better, I have better ideas, I feel more alert. I've never been able to understand why as I never gain any objective aid. Does unexpected input promote flexible thinking? Am I inspired by differing worldviews to think outside the box. Or is it simple happiness? No idea.
- detourdog 2y agoThe closest conclusion is that some people are flexible and looking forward and others are rigid and looking for reasons to be dissatisfied.
- threecheese 2y agoThis was a very interesting discussion, and I just wanted to note that both of you are extremely articulate and I quite enjoyed reading your thoughts on this. - random stranger
- detourdog 2y agoI was reflecting on this conversation and since a random stranger seems to be interested…. I wish I had been kinder with my description of the less flexible. A better description I think is rigid and relates to others through dissatisfaction.
- darby_nine 2y ago> People of integrity with utilitarian leaning are often labeled amoral or unemotional. Utilitarianism is a moral concept. I think you just mean analytical.
- Aeolun 2y agoMaybe, but some people think it’s weird when you say “of course I’d divert the train over that grandpa”
- darby_nine 2y agoI think it's interesting that the trolley problem is so useless you could interpret this as a statement for or against virtually any ideology or moral framework. Hence my rejection of any moral implication to bare analysis.
- crazygringo 2y ago> People of integrity with utilitarian leaning are often labeled amoral or unemotional. That's because utilitarianism [1] is just one of the three major recognized moral systems -- virtue ethics [2] and deontology [3] being the other two. In real life, we tend to balance the three. Anyone who adhered strictly to one while ignoring the other two would rightly be labeled a kind of amoral monster. And utilitarianism is generally applied more at the governmental/societal level than at the individual level. At the society level, you want the greatest good for the greatest number. While at the individual level, you want to give a vastly greater good to your young children, and your spouse, rather than treating your children and strangers' children as equals, or your spouse and other adults. Someone who, in their personal life, uses utilitarianism as their primary guide is going to rightly be called amoral and unemotional. They'd be a monster, truly. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_ethics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_ethics [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontology