Is it possible to replicate the sound and rational argument which says that human beings are infinitely stupid?
Sunday, August 30, 2009
All Season Vs All Season Touring
The infinite human stupidity
Is it possible to replicate the sound and rational argument which says that human beings are infinitely stupid?
Is it possible to replicate the sound and rational argument which says that human beings are infinitely stupid?
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Sparring Techniques Karate
Cioran Psychotherapist and
EM Cioran (1911 - 1995) Hungarian-born thinker, but most of his works were published in French, whose nationality taken as yours. Masterfully developed aphorism. However categorization might be questionable, it can be considered within the nihilism and pessimism, lines of thought that presented with elegance.
Among many other things, he was convinced that the work of a psychotherapist was just an excuse, a screen, a search Silly exogenous and relief at the lack of proper means to survive (do not speak of Living; Cioran would be more in keeping with the idea of \u200b\u200bsurvival than of Living).
The main issues to understand Cioran could have been so unbearable it is for human beings themselves, their gross and depressing ironic and paradoxical crisis and lack of sense (even though the meaning is probably not a feature of the work Cioran).
The problem would be that lines mentioned above: The human being does not support the neurotic ambivalence which is plagued throughout his life but longs to be wildly happy. Cioran would say there is not much to do to avoid the misfortune of being "human." In contrast, it would be nonsense to live in a stoic and soft. However, he tries to tell us that people possess arcane complexities and unfathomable depths. NO! On the contrary, we would be too simple to understand our inherent simplicity.
Therefore, the work of psychotherapy would be a spectacular waste of time only justifiable by the foolish belief that each of us is a dismays world caused by the complicated vicissitudes of life.
So he stopped writing:
"... Anyone attaches itself a destination, then anyone can describe yours. The belief that psychology [1] reveals our absence should stick to our actions, thought to involve an intrinsic value or symbolic. Then came the snobbery of the "complex" to teach us to enlarge our trifles, to let ourselves be blinded by them and gratify our self with the power and depth of which is conspicuously lacking ... " (EM Cioran. " The temptation exist ". From French La tentation d'exister , 1972).
Thus we see that the story of the "complex" and teach us to magnify our trifles psychotherapists should have carved a place in modernity.
Note
[1] Cioran says psychology, but because of the wide range of action that has the discipline today-amplitude did not possess at the time he wrote his work, "psychology can be aptly replaced by psychotherapy, because as we saw, there was the matter.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Design Blogs Drapery Holdback Installation
CONFLICT AND VIOLENCE: Conceptual Difference - Conflict Management
Nature is diverse. Culture is an extension of nature. The contrasts are made between them have served as a terrific excuse to wander foolishly.
culture is merely a refinement of Natura (Already researchers have argued currents are supposed to as far away as ethology, Psychology, Social Psychology and Cultural Anthropology, but the difference between them lies in the importance they attach to each of them.) As I said, culture is the refinement of nature, or rather, SHOULD BE. I say should be because if we make a brief observation of the society as a whole does not seem to be a refinement but a mere copy of the wild, only now between concrete, big cities and technology. Some would say that culture is the highest peak of the "human development". You should be! But it is not. Start
saying that nature is heterogeneous ... And so is culture, but conflicts caused by heterogeneity, which is a property of nature, should be corrected with elegance for the alleged human development. Not so.
Example: Racism and contempt for the stranger are forms of human behavior that have clear phylogenetic bases, ie lags are dragged from our primitive animal nature. In other words, racism and contempt por el forastero son formas de comportamientos que adquirimos en tiempos idos, que nos sirvieron para una mejor adaptación al medio, en ese entonces salvaje, y para avanzar como especie. Rechazar al extraño es propio de especies sociales. Pero ahora ya no nos sirve como ventaja adaptativa, pero seguimos siendo racistas y rechazando al forastero… ¿Cultura ha hecho lo pertinente para controlar esas formas de comportamiento? Tal vez en ámbitos restringidos y con casos excepcionales, pero ¿podemos decir que eso es lo común? No. Las guerras por credo, territorio, raza, dominación demuestran que el control cultural no ha sido efectivo –hasta ahora– para el impulso natural.
¿Cuál is the form of "cultural control" (perhaps not the best name but we can give an idea) most commonly used in society?: Tell lightly that we are all equal. This just trying to homogenize vulgar to all without conscience or respect for differences (which incidentally, are not as abysmal but they are there). And there is nothing more terrible to do the same as what is not. It must manage the conflicts arising from the heterogeneity, on the other hand, is absolutely typical of the constitution of the universe. Heterogeneity is inherent to the universe. In the heterogeneous nature collide-o-interacts and causes drastically forward or reverse that finally, after all, is a requirement of universal cycle. With regard to man ("with superior intelligence?), The heterogeneous collide-o-interacts and causes conflict if not managed with competence, respect and common purpose produces violence, the destructive side of human beings. And it lags need not be explicit. Violence has worsened daily and will continue if we take more fuel to the fire by enabling a world increasingly crowded, sick, addicted to drugs and environmental damage.
culture is merely a refinement of Natura (Already researchers have argued currents are supposed to as far away as ethology, Psychology, Social Psychology and Cultural Anthropology, but the difference between them lies in the importance they attach to each of them.) As I said, culture is the refinement of nature, or rather, SHOULD BE. I say should be because if we make a brief observation of the society as a whole does not seem to be a refinement but a mere copy of the wild, only now between concrete, big cities and technology. Some would say that culture is the highest peak of the "human development". You should be! But it is not. Start
saying that nature is heterogeneous ... And so is culture, but conflicts caused by heterogeneity, which is a property of nature, should be corrected with elegance for the alleged human development. Not so.
Example: Racism and contempt for the stranger are forms of human behavior that have clear phylogenetic bases, ie lags are dragged from our primitive animal nature. In other words, racism and contempt por el forastero son formas de comportamientos que adquirimos en tiempos idos, que nos sirvieron para una mejor adaptación al medio, en ese entonces salvaje, y para avanzar como especie. Rechazar al extraño es propio de especies sociales. Pero ahora ya no nos sirve como ventaja adaptativa, pero seguimos siendo racistas y rechazando al forastero… ¿Cultura ha hecho lo pertinente para controlar esas formas de comportamiento? Tal vez en ámbitos restringidos y con casos excepcionales, pero ¿podemos decir que eso es lo común? No. Las guerras por credo, territorio, raza, dominación demuestran que el control cultural no ha sido efectivo –hasta ahora– para el impulso natural.
¿Cuál is the form of "cultural control" (perhaps not the best name but we can give an idea) most commonly used in society?: Tell lightly that we are all equal. This just trying to homogenize vulgar to all without conscience or respect for differences (which incidentally, are not as abysmal but they are there). And there is nothing more terrible to do the same as what is not. It must manage the conflicts arising from the heterogeneity, on the other hand, is absolutely typical of the constitution of the universe. Heterogeneity is inherent to the universe. In the heterogeneous nature collide-o-interacts and causes drastically forward or reverse that finally, after all, is a requirement of universal cycle. With regard to man ("with superior intelligence?), The heterogeneous collide-o-interacts and causes conflict if not managed with competence, respect and common purpose produces violence, the destructive side of human beings. And it lags need not be explicit. Violence has worsened daily and will continue if we take more fuel to the fire by enabling a world increasingly crowded, sick, addicted to drugs and environmental damage.
CODA
All people should interact, relate with other (The anacoresis is fine but for a select few).
All people are heterogeneous. We are different (I'm sure the difference is not essential, that is, we are not each a different world to discover. But we have our differences quite respectable).
When we interact with others we meet directly with its heterogeneity, with its otherness and conflict arises which is quite expected and normal. If you do not respond assertively, with conscience and respect for differences (response very difficult to carry out) violence occurs.
Not every conflict leads to violence. But all violence comes from a mismanaged conflict.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)