Some abuse you may accept as necessary without self-hatred. One cannot be inoculated against hatred - learn to face hatred - without being hated and abused first. A boot-camp drill sergeant simulates hatred, and graduation from that horrible place teaches soldiers that the wind of hate - the confrontation with another human that is trying to hurt you, such confrontation as we instinctively want to avoid - can be overcome: It makes for more effective soldiers. Stronger persons, if you will.
Control is not a true part of the essence of Human Nature. It, like the education system, I suspect was designed eons ago, probably by the Vatican. A system to control the sheep (98%) by the self-serving herder (2%).
I like this quote.."Man is born ignorant, not stupid. Education makes him stupid."
Your basic premise is flawed. We live inside a universe so we do not have perfect knowledge. Since we all are trying to get what we want, conflict is unavoidable. Whenever there is a tie there must be a way to resolve that tie. There is either some rule (control) established or the parties use force.
Evolutionarily perfect an oxymoron. Natural selection kills off the unfit. There have been and continue to be many unfit for each new environment. Nothing is perfected it's just left standing.
this seems really silly to me. If people are naturally good then why did people come up with the ideas of control and self-hatred, if they are the root of all evil.
Also, the free market idea, isn't that placing control of the government? Isn't non-schooling just controlling parenting?
This is a brilliant idea and I really think you should write an essay or something about it ... oh and definately make more videos about this idea, but don't stop you other videos, cheers
In order to be a better person you have to recognize your flaws and improve on them.I think its in human nature to chase perfection because we as a species are always looking for a ways to improve.
Your statements make sense if we were the perfect end-product of evolution, but we are not. Humans are rife with flaws that result in self destruction of self and our own species. the development of our intellect has given us the ability to attempt to bandage such flaws. It's not self hate to simply recognize a personal flaw. In fact doing so allows us TO improve. Thought provoking but flawed.
What I think is that people need to become better at thinking in general, and really examine their reasons for doing things, and better at choosing battles worth fighting, which I think is what most of your other videos are really about. Keep making them btw. Just because your underlying philosophy is explained doesn't mean people will know how to apply it without more specific explanations.
I disagree that you only use control when you think human nature is fundamentally flawed, although I realize that's not technically what you said. You use it when you think ANYTHING is flawed. Your videos are a type of control meant to stretch the minds of people who've lost touch with their nature and I think that's a great thing IMO. But human nature itself is complex and I don't think abandoning all control is a solution for anything.
Your video made me post the first comment ever since I opened my account in youtube. As a libertarian, biologist, evolutionary psychology fan, paleo diet advocate and familiar with the concept of emergence, I understand exactly what you mean. The acceptance of human nature is, to me, key to move forward into further understanding where we come from and where we are going. Cheers.
Nobody is evolutionarily tuned to the modern civilized world, particularly with its abundance of cheap, delicious food. The light bulb alone has a little over a century under it's belt, not to mention the Internet, which came into existence and dramatically changed during your lifetime, and yet has far-reaching implications on lifestyle and therefore survivability. What used to work does not work now, and rational self-control is necessary if you want to survive and succeed.
Correct, nature defines humanity, humans do not define nature. Hilter's actions were terrible, but human, even though most people would define them as inhuman. People having sex with animals is perfectly natural, although nature tends to negatively reinforce bestiality (e.g. disease, no offspring).
However, what you define as control is also natural. Human intervention can not be denied, if you piss of your neighbors they will intervene. The only way to obtain freedom is responsibility.
@Sparkygravity I don't think I'd phrase all measures of control and intervention as self-hatred. I think it mostly has to do with self-denial and people not wanting to be accountable. Shrug, time will tell.
I see your vid and think of what you said, 'Kids will only play vids', and a question arises within the context of the rest of what you are saying:
People are born with brains that mature within an environment over time and at 8yrs and less their logic is askew, so how can one know people are born knowing how to make the adult decision to be constructive when earlier in their own life they were illogical?
u never here about animals being flawed or something wrong with them. they'd laugh at you if you told them different, especially the hyenas. but seriously, it is only the human animal that thinks there is something wrong with itself inherently. that is y religion is still haunting us. through socialization and communication made possible through a conscious brain, we lost our ability to just go with the flow of nature. because of the "human condition" our helplessness drives us to look for flaws
i doubt there are any flaws in human nature. i think most of man's problems have come about by social constructs using group mentality as a vehicle to hoard natural resources. greed by those choosing that route, follows. and, capitalism, coupled with protestantism, has got us into mess, with vast disparities in wages and a horribly polluted planet.
The problem is: how can one rationalize the issues you identify as being *separate* from "human nature"? That's the whole problem here: talking about human nature in a way that creates a duality between how people actually behave and a perfected teleological concept of human nature as it ought to be. I don't agree with the tendency to define human nature on the basis of something that is clearly prescriptive.
PS I typed this out immediately after watching your video.
My Philosophy: Human nature is the purest state. And it's not that we've fallen from grace, quite the opposite in fact. As a species, we are slowly trekking towards the ability to see what human nature truly is. When we remove the chains of self hatred and control, and learn to love every aspect of ourselves, the true self emerges from the wreckage of falsity.
Aaron, this is an extremely insightful videos, and definitely helps me understand my own philosophy even better. When people ask what my philosophy is, I usually say empiricism, or science, but my philosophy is human nature. I really look forward to watching more of your videos, and I'll try to pop in the skype more often. Thank you for this video.
This idea that control is contradicting can be applied to control in a relationship as well. To say that one should have control can not be logically sustained since they are a human being as well, and therefore have a capacity for error. To say that one person will never error and that the other person will error, therefore the one person should have control is contradicting because by nature the person with control will error because they are still a human being.
Control in itself is self contradicting to a certain extent. To say that all humans are fundamentally immoral, and then to say that humans need a system of control by another human makes no sense because that human who is in control is also immoral since he is a human and is not any different from the people that need to be controlled.
I had thought of the same ideas about prohibition a while ago. When you prohibit porn or sex, you are making the same people to do other things such as drinking or playing video games. If you ban video games and drinking, they will resort to smoking and television.
These are all symptoms of the same cause. It's because those people lack long-term goals in life so they resort to short-term pleasure-seeking activities. Prohibition is like fixing the "disease" by suppressing its symptoms.
No, I htink you're right. I've been actually going over this idea about two years ago.
To expound on that idea of personal failure, it reminds me of those parent who dress up their kids of 2 yrs old and parade them across ramps like models. They are ruining their kids.
I agree that when people say 'people need to be this or people are that', it is mostly because they are projecting. Certainly when 'this' or 'that' is logically contradictory.
However my statement 'people are projecting' is itself of that form as well, so maybe I am projecting as well.
You have nailed what Albert Ellis (creator of CBT/REBT) talks about extensively in his practice.
I was watching a video about Guilt and Shame by Ellis when a friend posted your video in the FDR chat...amazing :)
In it he explains that self-attack, self-shaming, self-rejection, is the reason that mistakes can't be corrected in the first place. If I make a mistake I hate myself. Therefore I can not take action or admit mistakes. I must give that power away.
while i don't think this is a new idea, the fact that you looked at the bigger picture and connected it to different ideas indicates higher level thinking so yay?
Dude, I just f***ing thought of this the other day! Thought it was only connecting two ideas. It went like this.
Creationist: Evolution does not PRESCRIBE anything about the purpose of life. Therefore it is saying life is meaningless. That is bad. Therefore it is wrong.
Statist: Anarchism does not PRESCRIBE anything about how to organize society. Therefore it is advocating chaos. That is bad. Therefore it is wrong.
I would wonder, then, how aaron manages to reconcile his advocacy of ethics with the presumption that our natural state is one of total innocence. If there is a pre-existent, fixed "human nature" that inherently has no problems, I wonder why one would construct ethical notions in the first place. I wonder how one would explain existing states of affairs in the world, or how the explaination from projection isn't itself identifying a flaw that can at least be found in some humans.
Well isn't he describing the true/false self dichotomy?
We're biological beings. Our cells have a healthy functional base-line state. A corruption can occur in cells for whatever reason, and then that corruption can subsequently spread and cause illness -- an improper functioning.
That's just at the genetic level. But computers have viruses too. Why can't the mind 'catch a cold' from constant exposure to corruption?
Then the cure would be constant exposure to virtue. Makes sense to me anyway.
Yea, I've heard of the notion of true self vs. false self. Except it was Francios Tremblay who was advocating it.
Where would the corruption originally come from if the natural state is perfect already? I have trouble seeing how one can attempt to account for that without invoking the equivolent of an original sin.
Me thinks the notion of an inherently good human nature has problems just as much as the more hobbesian accounts.
Could be anything. For example syphilis alters brain state and turns you partially insane. Poor nutrition can alter cognitive state.
If we go back to the biology of it. If you have an unhealthy population of some creature it can go either way. Toward better health ie dominating the evolution of those things around it. Or toward extinction.
A population can be perpetually unhealthy if its environment doesn't provide it's vital resources.
Not to say this is necessarily correct, of course.
But if you have a population of cold and hungry pre-history humans, one might quite expect them to be rather insane. Everything around them is always trying to kill them. People drop like flies every few years due to plague and no one knows why.
We would term this an unhealthy population by todays standards of health. Might we also then term unhealthy according to an absolute standard.
And if the body is unhealthy can the mind be healthy?
It seems to me like you can't embark on this line of thought without abandoning the notion of an already-perfected human nature. The very prospect of introducing evolution into the equation takes away the static character of it, for one thing. And that which is produced by evolution cannot be said to intrinsically be "better" necessarily. In either case, the very existence of social problems seems to rather blatantly kill the notion of a perfect human nature.
It wouldn't be a perfect human nature. Just like there is no perfect human foot. Each individual has his own distinct nature. Each organ of each individual has its own distinct nature. There is an abstraction we derive, 'the norm' which like any other abstract concept can give us an approximation without perfect detail of the instance.
I think you can extend the idea further like so.(see next post)
It is true that certain configurations of energy from the environment will cause cells to become unhealthy. For example UV rays will cause cells to die or become cancerous in high enough concentrations.
Cells tend to be even more sensitive to contamination from sources nearing their own normal function. So radioactive iodine will collect in the thyroid and corrupt its nature to an extreme degree, for example.
So the interfaces to the brain which are ears and eyes primarily, should also be sensitive to corruption of input that mimics normal input. Epileptic fits are often caused by sensory input for example.
We also know that hearing certain sounds and seeing certain images does definitely cause physical chemical alterations in the brain. (CT scans etc prove this.)
This combined with the phenomena of say the Stockholm syndrome would very much suggest to me that the mind is a corruptible organ.
And if this is the case then working out how it has been corrupted, as one does with any other organ in medicine, and developing a cure for it would make sense.
If you take all the other arguments out and just look at empirical biological nature of the matter, this seems to fit the most precisely IMHO.
Great vid Aaron, and I think there's a lot of truth to it. However, I DON'T think that ALL people that favor control are those that hate themselves or think they need to be controlled. There are some people out there that think/say things like "Well I never needed to be controlled, but lots of OTHER people do and people like me should control them"
So, all cynical and pessimistic attitudes can be chalked up to a neo-freudian notion of projection? All ideas that don't live up to the notion of an inherently perfect, static, human nature is just a reflection of self-hatred? Is that, in a nutshell, your claim?
i don't think i used the words cynical or pessimistic once. I don't know much about freud, and i do not know what a neo-freudian is. the rest is just bullshit you pulled out of your ass
I'm simply summarizing what I interpreted you as saying: notions of people needing to be guided or regulated = projection stemming from self-hatred. The terms cynical and pessimistic probably don't fully represent what I'm refering to - it could be any viewpoint that falls short of your accessment of human nature. So I mean "pessimistic" only relative to your conception of human nature.
I actually got the same vibe from your video. Well, I think such theories of projection - while certainly valid in some cases - shouldn't be applied universally because doing so would imho presuppose a "perfect" world.
@aaron0883 umm, excuse me,BULLSHIT ? I am a child and you use harsh worlds ... there are probably 27 oher children watching your videos, and see that it is okay to use bad words because an adult is the role-model for he child...if a gang member makes a child...the child will probably become a gang member aswell... im not saying your theories on children are wrong, but Im just giving some information from the child itself...
I actually have thought of this idea in different realms in and of themselves. however, i never saw it as such an overreaching philosophical matter linking my ideas.
There is nothing wrong with control either..this is also part of human nature...the problem is a matter of degree...we do not want to eliminate control...The Ultra Left Brain Dominant like to tell the relativelly more Right Brain people what to do...and right now they are micromanaging and microgoverning everyone....this covers every problem in civilization...The Ultra Left Brain Dominant have no empathy just the desire power and to feel superior to others
i have to agree with your idea of self-hatred. I hate most of humanity because i see it as an inharmonious plague that destroys everything. But incorporating your idea into it, I think that about people because I cant constructively get along with people. I end up alone, separated due to my own incompatibility.
Some abuse you may accept as necessary without self-hatred. One cannot be inoculated against hatred - learn to face hatred - without being hated and abused first. A boot-camp drill sergeant simulates hatred, and graduation from that horrible place teaches soldiers that the wind of hate - the confrontation with another human that is trying to hurt you, such confrontation as we instinctively want to avoid - can be overcome: It makes for more effective soldiers. Stronger persons, if you will.
AlsoSprachOdin 8 months ago
Control is not a true part of the essence of Human Nature. It, like the education system, I suspect was designed eons ago, probably by the Vatican. A system to control the sheep (98%) by the self-serving herder (2%).
I like this quote.."Man is born ignorant, not stupid. Education makes him stupid."
myaek 1 year ago
Your basic premise is flawed. We live inside a universe so we do not have perfect knowledge. Since we all are trying to get what we want, conflict is unavoidable. Whenever there is a tie there must be a way to resolve that tie. There is either some rule (control) established or the parties use force.
Evolutionarily perfect an oxymoron. Natural selection kills off the unfit. There have been and continue to be many unfit for each new environment. Nothing is perfected it's just left standing.
MarkProffitt 1 year ago
this seems really silly to me. If people are naturally good then why did people come up with the ideas of control and self-hatred, if they are the root of all evil.
Also, the free market idea, isn't that placing control of the government? Isn't non-schooling just controlling parenting?
it seems very detached from reality.
jimmrrsnisgod 1 year ago
This is a brilliant idea and I really think you should write an essay or something about it ... oh and definately make more videos about this idea, but don't stop you other videos, cheers
glenbratke 2 years ago
Comment removed
glenbratke 2 years ago
In order to be a better person you have to recognize your flaws and improve on them.I think its in human nature to chase perfection because we as a species are always looking for a ways to improve.
willdesha 2 years ago
Your statements make sense if we were the perfect end-product of evolution, but we are not. Humans are rife with flaws that result in self destruction of self and our own species. the development of our intellect has given us the ability to attempt to bandage such flaws. It's not self hate to simply recognize a personal flaw. In fact doing so allows us TO improve. Thought provoking but flawed.
savingreen 2 years ago
What I think is that people need to become better at thinking in general, and really examine their reasons for doing things, and better at choosing battles worth fighting, which I think is what most of your other videos are really about. Keep making them btw. Just because your underlying philosophy is explained doesn't mean people will know how to apply it without more specific explanations.
mikeweedmark 2 years ago
I disagree that you only use control when you think human nature is fundamentally flawed, although I realize that's not technically what you said. You use it when you think ANYTHING is flawed. Your videos are a type of control meant to stretch the minds of people who've lost touch with their nature and I think that's a great thing IMO. But human nature itself is complex and I don't think abandoning all control is a solution for anything.
mikeweedmark 2 years ago
Your video made me post the first comment ever since I opened my account in youtube. As a libertarian, biologist, evolutionary psychology fan, paleo diet advocate and familiar with the concept of emergence, I understand exactly what you mean. The acceptance of human nature is, to me, key to move forward into further understanding where we come from and where we are going. Cheers.
serialsinner 2 years ago
Nobody is evolutionarily tuned to the modern civilized world, particularly with its abundance of cheap, delicious food. The light bulb alone has a little over a century under it's belt, not to mention the Internet, which came into existence and dramatically changed during your lifetime, and yet has far-reaching implications on lifestyle and therefore survivability. What used to work does not work now, and rational self-control is necessary if you want to survive and succeed.
ediblepet 2 years ago
Correct, nature defines humanity, humans do not define nature. Hilter's actions were terrible, but human, even though most people would define them as inhuman. People having sex with animals is perfectly natural, although nature tends to negatively reinforce bestiality (e.g. disease, no offspring).
However, what you define as control is also natural. Human intervention can not be denied, if you piss of your neighbors they will intervene. The only way to obtain freedom is responsibility.
Sparkygravity 2 years ago
@Sparkygravity I don't think I'd phrase all measures of control and intervention as self-hatred. I think it mostly has to do with self-denial and people not wanting to be accountable. Shrug, time will tell.
Sparkygravity 2 years ago
I got to this vid via XOmniverse,
I see your vid and think of what you said, 'Kids will only play vids', and a question arises within the context of the rest of what you are saying:
People are born with brains that mature within an environment over time and at 8yrs and less their logic is askew, so how can one know people are born knowing how to make the adult decision to be constructive when earlier in their own life they were illogical?
Even criminals breed existing children.
2yrlds demonize?
humanman65 2 years ago
u never here about animals being flawed or something wrong with them. they'd laugh at you if you told them different, especially the hyenas. but seriously, it is only the human animal that thinks there is something wrong with itself inherently. that is y religion is still haunting us. through socialization and communication made possible through a conscious brain, we lost our ability to just go with the flow of nature. because of the "human condition" our helplessness drives us to look for flaws
NotTooObvious 2 years ago
i doubt there are any flaws in human nature. i think most of man's problems have come about by social constructs using group mentality as a vehicle to hoard natural resources. greed by those choosing that route, follows. and, capitalism, coupled with protestantism, has got us into mess, with vast disparities in wages and a horribly polluted planet.
NotTooObvious 2 years ago
The problem is: how can one rationalize the issues you identify as being *separate* from "human nature"? That's the whole problem here: talking about human nature in a way that creates a duality between how people actually behave and a perfected teleological concept of human nature as it ought to be. I don't agree with the tendency to define human nature on the basis of something that is clearly prescriptive.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
one is nature without socialization through language and communication and the other is with it. that's all.
NotTooObvious 2 years ago
This video definitely made me jizz in my pants...ooohh yeeeaah lol
UnschoolingEagle 2 years ago
PS I typed this out immediately after watching your video.
My Philosophy: Human nature is the purest state. And it's not that we've fallen from grace, quite the opposite in fact. As a species, we are slowly trekking towards the ability to see what human nature truly is. When we remove the chains of self hatred and control, and learn to love every aspect of ourselves, the true self emerges from the wreckage of falsity.
TheStevenShafer 2 years ago
Aaron, this is an extremely insightful videos, and definitely helps me understand my own philosophy even better. When people ask what my philosophy is, I usually say empiricism, or science, but my philosophy is human nature. I really look forward to watching more of your videos, and I'll try to pop in the skype more often. Thank you for this video.
TheStevenShafer 2 years ago
This idea that control is contradicting can be applied to control in a relationship as well. To say that one should have control can not be logically sustained since they are a human being as well, and therefore have a capacity for error. To say that one person will never error and that the other person will error, therefore the one person should have control is contradicting because by nature the person with control will error because they are still a human being.
drew335533 2 years ago
Control in itself is self contradicting to a certain extent. To say that all humans are fundamentally immoral, and then to say that humans need a system of control by another human makes no sense because that human who is in control is also immoral since he is a human and is not any different from the people that need to be controlled.
drew335533 2 years ago
I think you don't hate yourself enough to understand self hatred.
samuelmichaud 2 years ago
Is that bad?
drew335533 2 years ago
I think it's more like bad good.
samuelmichaud 2 years ago
great idea
travis0629 2 years ago
"We dont need to trade maaan" Thats profound
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
Kids, like all people, needs guidance not control. That doesn't mean that you should prohibit everything that seems 'bad'.
GodHatesFacts 2 years ago
enlightening....
Sivels 2 years ago
I had thought of the same ideas about prohibition a while ago. When you prohibit porn or sex, you are making the same people to do other things such as drinking or playing video games. If you ban video games and drinking, they will resort to smoking and television.
These are all symptoms of the same cause. It's because those people lack long-term goals in life so they resort to short-term pleasure-seeking activities. Prohibition is like fixing the "disease" by suppressing its symptoms.
municipalmutualist 2 years ago
No, I htink you're right. I've been actually going over this idea about two years ago.
To expound on that idea of personal failure, it reminds me of those parent who dress up their kids of 2 yrs old and parade them across ramps like models. They are ruining their kids.
Domzdream 2 years ago
Pro
AndyMH182 2 years ago
I love this vidja and it would make me sad if you did not make any more videos.
cellardoor01 2 years ago
I agree that when people say 'people need to be this or people are that', it is mostly because they are projecting. Certainly when 'this' or 'that' is logically contradictory.
However my statement 'people are projecting' is itself of that form as well, so maybe I am projecting as well.
modelmark 2 years ago
*female viewers drop panties at Aaron's brilliance*.......
as well as some guys;)
Rose0883 2 years ago 4
Dude Aaron.. Good job!
You have nailed what Albert Ellis (creator of CBT/REBT) talks about extensively in his practice.
I was watching a video about Guilt and Shame by Ellis when a friend posted your video in the FDR chat...amazing :)
In it he explains that self-attack, self-shaming, self-rejection, is the reason that mistakes can't be corrected in the first place. If I make a mistake I hate myself. Therefore I can not take action or admit mistakes. I must give that power away.
RRRoalef 2 years ago
watch?v=7yFxIjhdSlE&feature=channel
RRRoalef 2 years ago
wow you're radiating excitement =) lol
while i don't think this is a new idea, the fact that you looked at the bigger picture and connected it to different ideas indicates higher level thinking so yay?
redheadedblondy1 2 years ago
Dude, I just f***ing thought of this the other day! Thought it was only connecting two ideas. It went like this.
Creationist: Evolution does not PRESCRIBE anything about the purpose of life. Therefore it is saying life is meaningless. That is bad. Therefore it is wrong.
Statist: Anarchism does not PRESCRIBE anything about how to organize society. Therefore it is advocating chaos. That is bad. Therefore it is wrong.
"Prescribe" = Control
Rokasomee 2 years ago
I would wonder, then, how aaron manages to reconcile his advocacy of ethics with the presumption that our natural state is one of total innocence. If there is a pre-existent, fixed "human nature" that inherently has no problems, I wonder why one would construct ethical notions in the first place. I wonder how one would explain existing states of affairs in the world, or how the explaination from projection isn't itself identifying a flaw that can at least be found in some humans.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
I suppose you could always ask him.
XOmniverse 2 years ago
Well isn't he describing the true/false self dichotomy?
We're biological beings. Our cells have a healthy functional base-line state. A corruption can occur in cells for whatever reason, and then that corruption can subsequently spread and cause illness -- an improper functioning.
That's just at the genetic level. But computers have viruses too. Why can't the mind 'catch a cold' from constant exposure to corruption?
Then the cure would be constant exposure to virtue. Makes sense to me anyway.
Individualism101 2 years ago
Yea, I've heard of the notion of true self vs. false self. Except it was Francios Tremblay who was advocating it.
Where would the corruption originally come from if the natural state is perfect already? I have trouble seeing how one can attempt to account for that without invoking the equivolent of an original sin.
Me thinks the notion of an inherently good human nature has problems just as much as the more hobbesian accounts.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
Well from anywhere... evolution ultimately.
Could be anything. For example syphilis alters brain state and turns you partially insane. Poor nutrition can alter cognitive state.
If we go back to the biology of it. If you have an unhealthy population of some creature it can go either way. Toward better health ie dominating the evolution of those things around it. Or toward extinction.
A population can be perpetually unhealthy if its environment doesn't provide it's vital resources.
Individualism101 2 years ago
Not to say this is necessarily correct, of course.
But if you have a population of cold and hungry pre-history humans, one might quite expect them to be rather insane. Everything around them is always trying to kill them. People drop like flies every few years due to plague and no one knows why.
We would term this an unhealthy population by todays standards of health. Might we also then term unhealthy according to an absolute standard.
And if the body is unhealthy can the mind be healthy?
Individualism101 2 years ago
Excuse my broken english, I didn't proof read that. But I'm sure you get the jist of my argument.
Individualism101 2 years ago
It seems to me like you can't embark on this line of thought without abandoning the notion of an already-perfected human nature. The very prospect of introducing evolution into the equation takes away the static character of it, for one thing. And that which is produced by evolution cannot be said to intrinsically be "better" necessarily. In either case, the very existence of social problems seems to rather blatantly kill the notion of a perfect human nature.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
It wouldn't be a perfect human nature. Just like there is no perfect human foot. Each individual has his own distinct nature. Each organ of each individual has its own distinct nature. There is an abstraction we derive, 'the norm' which like any other abstract concept can give us an approximation without perfect detail of the instance.
I think you can extend the idea further like so.(see next post)
Individualism101 2 years ago
It is true that certain configurations of energy from the environment will cause cells to become unhealthy. For example UV rays will cause cells to die or become cancerous in high enough concentrations.
Cells tend to be even more sensitive to contamination from sources nearing their own normal function. So radioactive iodine will collect in the thyroid and corrupt its nature to an extreme degree, for example.
Individualism101 2 years ago
So the interfaces to the brain which are ears and eyes primarily, should also be sensitive to corruption of input that mimics normal input. Epileptic fits are often caused by sensory input for example.
We also know that hearing certain sounds and seeing certain images does definitely cause physical chemical alterations in the brain. (CT scans etc prove this.)
This combined with the phenomena of say the Stockholm syndrome would very much suggest to me that the mind is a corruptible organ.
Individualism101 2 years ago
And if this is the case then working out how it has been corrupted, as one does with any other organ in medicine, and developing a cure for it would make sense.
If you take all the other arguments out and just look at empirical biological nature of the matter, this seems to fit the most precisely IMHO.
Individualism101 2 years ago
Great vid Aaron, and I think there's a lot of truth to it. However, I DON'T think that ALL people that favor control are those that hate themselves or think they need to be controlled. There are some people out there that think/say things like "Well I never needed to be controlled, but lots of OTHER people do and people like me should control them"
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
So, all cynical and pessimistic attitudes can be chalked up to a neo-freudian notion of projection? All ideas that don't live up to the notion of an inherently perfect, static, human nature is just a reflection of self-hatred? Is that, in a nutshell, your claim?
brainpolice2 2 years ago
i don't think i used the words cynical or pessimistic once. I don't know much about freud, and i do not know what a neo-freudian is. the rest is just bullshit you pulled out of your ass
aaron0883 2 years ago
I'm simply summarizing what I interpreted you as saying: notions of people needing to be guided or regulated = projection stemming from self-hatred. The terms cynical and pessimistic probably don't fully represent what I'm refering to - it could be any viewpoint that falls short of your accessment of human nature. So I mean "pessimistic" only relative to your conception of human nature.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
I actually got the same vibe from your video. Well, I think such theories of projection - while certainly valid in some cases - shouldn't be applied universally because doing so would imho presuppose a "perfect" world.
Darthtails 2 years ago
@aaron0883 umm, excuse me,BULLSHIT ? I am a child and you use harsh worlds ... there are probably 27 oher children watching your videos, and see that it is okay to use bad words because an adult is the role-model for he child...if a gang member makes a child...the child will probably become a gang member aswell... im not saying your theories on children are wrong, but Im just giving some information from the child itself...
MyNameWhatzitoya 1 year ago
I actually have thought of this idea in different realms in and of themselves. however, i never saw it as such an overreaching philosophical matter linking my ideas.
aaron0883 2 years ago
filosofa king
trumasamune 2 years ago
I'm really excited to see you so excited about this find. Fantastic theory.
OpineTime 2 years ago
very good!
LibertarianOnline 2 years ago
You should watch the movie "Control". And great video, aaron.
MaikUniversum 2 years ago
There is nothing wrong with control either..this is also part of human nature...the problem is a matter of degree...we do not want to eliminate control...The Ultra Left Brain Dominant like to tell the relativelly more Right Brain people what to do...and right now they are micromanaging and microgoverning everyone....this covers every problem in civilization...The Ultra Left Brain Dominant have no empathy just the desire power and to feel superior to others
CammieSpectrum 2 years ago
Summary: HUMANS ARE LOGICAL
:P
Elzon1 2 years ago
i have to agree with your idea of self-hatred. I hate most of humanity because i see it as an inharmonious plague that destroys everything. But incorporating your idea into it, I think that about people because I cant constructively get along with people. I end up alone, separated due to my own incompatibility.
anonforuz 2 years ago
Amazing stuff, Aaron. Keep up the good work.
InMooseWeTrust 2 years ago 6