»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Alone
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Alone |
|
|
AudreyBlue New Member
since 1999-08-02
Posts 7Moncton, N.B., Canada |
Why are most of us so afraid of being alone? Why are we such social beings to the point of being afraid of independance? I can't even imagine loosing my love... Why am I and a lot of people afraid of being alone? I am 20 and afraid of being alone... Why? ------------------ "I want to be alone away from love..." |
||
| © Copyright 1999 AudreyBlue - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Seaangel Member
since 1999-07-27
Posts 167Auckland, New Zealand |
I am 18 and afraid of being alone! Maybe we are dependent creatures. I think we all need to be loved and to love, to associate with other people. As to being in love, its a wonderful, intimate feeling and when you think we live our lives fundamentally alone it seems natural to want to be as un-alone as possible. Don't stress about your feelings, Audrey.. we should spend enough time alone anyway to feel independant. |
||
|
JP Senior Member
since 1999-05-25
Posts 1343Loomis, CA |
Nietzche referred to humankind as "the herd", sociologist and anthropologists have classified us as a 'social animal', both descriptions placing humans in a class far below our elite nature. It is human nature - one would have you believe - to not be alone, to be part of a group or with a mate. But why? This is the question you ask; why? What is there to gain by being dyadic, or part of a group? On the same token, what is there to gain by being alone? Each of us has the ability to be something more than what we are. Nietzche called it the Ubermensch (Superman - more than human). But acheiving this state of 'moreness' involves risk - that is where the problems come in. Being with someone, or a group, diminishes risk, diminishes the desire to achieve what we are all capable of achieving. Fear of loss, fear of the risks involved in evolving, this - in my opinion - is what makes us afraid of being alone, once again to Nietzche, this is why we are 'Human, all too human'. Perhaps somewhere, in the primordial essence that all of us share, we as a speices are afraid to strive for our potential, because we fear that our potential is not much more than what we already are - and that my friends would be the saddest commentary of all. ------------------ Dum spiro, spero JP [This message has been edited by JP (edited 08-03-99).] |
||
|
AudreyBlue New Member
since 1999-08-02
Posts 7Moncton, N.B., Canada |
Thanks people... What Seaangel says is true, we need to love and to be loved.... But we give and take love from our friends and family... Why must we need the boyfriend-girlfriend love to be totally happy? And to comment on JP's response... We are indeed "the herd". We totally thrive on the group effect (effet témoin, in french) in order to diminish risk. I fear losing my love (boyfriend) more than I fear losing the love from my friends... ------------------ "I want to be alone away from love..." |
||
|
doreen peri Member Elite
since 1999-05-25
Posts 3812Virginia |
As you grow up (mature, not necessarily grow older), you will learn to love yourself more and more and when you get to the point that you are no longer afraid of being alone, but instead -- love being in your own company--- the love and time you share with others will be even more special. There is indeed nothing to fear but fear. God made us to want/need the company of others but we should NOT be *afraid* of being alone. Sometimes romantic "love" can be obsessive and unhealthy. You truly become MUCH more attractive when you love yourself and when you value your own company. Leaning on the company of someone else can push them away from you and noticible "fear" of losing them can be perceived as a burden to that person and actually work opposite than your intention. Do not be afraid of being alone. Enjoy it. Revel in it. Grow from it.  dp |
||
|
JP Senior Member
since 1999-05-25
Posts 1343Loomis, CA |
I have to touch on Doreen's comments briefly because, while what she said may be true in some cases, it is not in a lot, or most, instances. Maturing does not necessarily teach us to love ourselves more and lose the fear of being alone. Unfortunately, that state is too often a side effect of solitude thrust upon one over the years. Loving yourself is something that we as humans are not supposed to do; our whole culture (the world culture) is designed on telling us that we are nothing by ourselves or that we are inferior alone. This idea is the basis of most religions, political doctrines, and TV advertising. "Be together or be nothing." Personally I find the whole idea infuriorating. I firmly believe that humankind's abiltiy to evolve into what we are capable of, will only happen by the sheer will of individuals, not the mindless meandering of a clutch of hairy, dirty dwarves (Nietzche again, sorry). Do you fear being alone, or lonely? Alone is a gift from the universe's gods, to allow you to learn who and what you are, and what you can be. Lonely is the curse of the world which tells you that you can only be what the rest of the herd will allow you to be. Alone is the chance to explore you and who you are, not who your partner thinks you are or should be. Not who the crowd tells you what you can or cannot be. Alone is the scariest of all being, becasue alone is truth, simple, unabashed truth. Okay, my diatribe has run it's course for now, sorry if I have bored anyone. Ex nihilo nihil fit JP [This message has been edited by JP (edited 08-04-99).] |
||
|
mia Member
since 1999-07-06
Posts 118 |
Audrey...don't be blue. You are not alone. It is not necessarily ( I can't spell in english!) society that pushes us towards fear of being alone. It is human nature to look for companionship as human needs to eat...as human needs shelter, he needs companionship. You know...I have this friend, Ledge I call her, well she blames a lot on society. And I keep telling her that eaven if society has alot of shitty sides to it, it is also beautiful in its own way. Society enhances that fear of loneliness but human nature pushes us to seek for the other human warmth. You are not alone because eaven if you lose your love someday, others love you, other support you. Some things you simply have to accept and live them because life is like that. Don't fear loneliness, live togetherness. It feels good. I love you |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I can't believe I let this one go. Some interesting thoughts here but I wonder why people call us a 'herd' and not a 'pack'. The only other mammal that has traveled and has scattered as far as humans on this planet, are wolves and variations of wolves. JP, you, following Fred, are still in danger of essentializing the individual. The growth of any individual does not come from being alone in and of itself but through interaction and process with other individuals. Art and culture seem to follow the same process. What I hope we are developing is not an understanding of being alone but of a larger sense that we learn, not from tribes, not from communities, not from countries, not from language groups, not from ethnic groups, but from every thing. It is the idea that humans are interactive as a whole that can lead to greater things, not a belief in individuality. JP -- you're good at this stuff. Don't suppose you can hang out here more often?  Not finished here yet, Brad |
||
|
Angel Rand Member
since 1999-09-04
Posts 134London UK, and Zurich Switzerland |
JP I am a great advocate of individuality. I too feel slightly sick when ppl tell me that I am nothing in the face of the "many". As I stated so many times before: society only holds that much rights as each of its individual members. Yet I also agree to some degree with Brad. We as the human race learn a lot from those around us. The "printed" word is probably the most powerful tool on our planet. All we learn is based on something someone has "extrapolated" from something he or she has learned before us. Every part of any kind of knowledge is based on what came before. Yet contrary to what Brad seems to say I do not believe that any group has ever invented anything. A team (like society) is after all only a collection of individuals with individual input on which ideas can grow. But a word of warning here JP, Nieztsche is not "for" humans either. For my understanding of ethics and justice and right he is by far too animalistic, even fascistic. Never will I accept that my life is worth less than Einstein just cause he happened to be more intelligent or cause he invented something I did not. Never would I yield to a Hitler just cause he was a more powerful speaker and character than I am! Might does NOT make right! I wonder if you ever read Aldous Huxley's A Brave New World? Now that would be a Nietzschean Utopia... an abhorrence to me! If you are an individualist (rather than a fascist like Nietzsche) I suggest you check out this link: http://www.AynRand.org/ As for feeling alone, I see two possible answers to this: 1) You lack something you do not know how to find in yourself and are therefore looking for it in another person (that would be loneliness). 2) You have achieved or are on the way to achieving all your goals and have no one to share it with (that would mean to be alone). The first one will not lead to happiness. Need and love are not the same. True love is to not need someone and want to be with him or her anyway. To truly love is to take the greatest pleasure out of how you feel about and for someone, rather than taking pleasure out of how they feel for you. To want to be needed is not love. That is making up for lack of self-esteem born out of not being self-fulfilled. Lets put it this way: Do you read a good (for example) novel cause you NEED to or cause it gives you joy? Do you look at the setting sun cause you NEED to or cause it gives you joy? I think the answer is clear. Yet so many ppl seem to measure love by how much they are needed. I for one cannot imagine any greater personal pleasure than to be with my lover, to talk to him, share my life and just spend time with him. Do I need him? No. Does he enhance my life and is therefore of the highest value to me? Yes. So in other words I believe you can only truly love someone if you do not need him or her. A from Angel------------------ "Any alleged "right" of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right." Ayn Rand |
||
|
JP Senior Member
since 1999-05-25
Posts 1343Loomis, CA |
Ms. Rand - you've touched on something that I run into far too often; the popular school of thought regarding Nietzche (if he could have a popular school of thought!) Too often philosophers dwell on the seemingly negative aspects of Nietzchian thought, and wrongfully connect him to fascism and Hitler. Nietzche did not propose fascist theory and his philosophy was not intended for the Nazi's. Hitler took the pieces of Nietzche's work which fit his needs and warped them to serve his purposes. Did Nietzche like humanity? Many say no, but if you look at his work in its entirety you will see that underlying all is a message of hope and encouragement - his whole thought was that humanity is not what it could be, it was not living up to, nor striving to obtain its full potential - that idea enraged the man The Ubernmensch was not intended as an Aryan demigod to rule the world as Hitler posited. It was the ideal of what humanity can be, and hopefully someday, will be. Brad - I agree with Ms. Rand that nothing was ever invented by a group, nothing unique was ever brought about by a group - The Declaration of Independence - although agreed to by a group, was written by one man. The bible (New Testament) is a collection of writings by individual men - not a group. Velcro and white out - invented by individuals and improved upon by the group. I do not propose that the group is unnecessary, I simply say that the evolvement of humanity will occur through the efforts of individuals striving to obtain more that what the group would allow them to obtain. Those ubermensch will make strides and the herd will eventually follow. ------------------ Yesterday is ash, tomorrow is smoke; only today does the fire burn. JP |
||
|
Angel Rand Member
since 1999-09-04
Posts 134London UK, and Zurich Switzerland |
The concept of the need for Übermenschen only holds water in a society where ppl are allowed to live off others- such as socialism. Indeed, a socialistic society depends on those who are willing to achieve INSPITE all the stones in their ways. In a laissez-faire society you either work or you drown (unless you are willing to live of privatised {!} charity. No "Übermensch" is required where the rights of each individual is fully realised and legalised. And to live the life of a decent human being you do not have to make great waves. All you need to do is live a rational self-sustaining and self-fulfilling life. As society is now, those ppl, in what ever format they come, truly are superb examples of humanity. Angel PS: JP please just call me Angel and please check out my own thread too, ty. ------------------ "Any alleged "right" of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right." Ayn Rand [This message has been edited by Angel Rand (edited 11-08-1999).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
As with so many things, we can sometimes discover Truth (or at least, a truth) through exaggeration and extrapolation. Given: The inventor of cold fusion (free energy) is a proponent of "human contracts," wherein all human interaction is governed by equal give and take - the ultimate egalitarian society - and his influence largely determines world philosophy. Given: Genetic manipulation unwittingly creates a small group of Sleepless children - highly intelligent, emotionally stable individuals with 30% more productive time than other humans - because they never sleep. Two extremes. And an inevitable clash of philosophies. That is the scenario in Beggars in Spain, the Hugo and Nebula award winning novel by Nancy Kress (eventually followed by "Beggars and Choosers" and "Beggar's Ride"). The name of the book, not incidentally, comes from a conversation that perhaps exemplifies the theme of all three books. "If a beggar in Spain approached you and asked for dollar, would you give it to him? What if he demanded the dollar, instead of asking? What if there were a thousand beggars? A million?" The three books cover something like a century of social evolution - and you'll find very few smiles throughout the entire series. You will, however, find a great deal to think about. Beggars in Spain - Amazon.com |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
If I remember an A&E special a while back, Adolph actually went looking for a philosophy to back what he was doing, not the other way around. A lot of that stuff comes "The Will to Power" and, I think, it was N's sister that was a rabid anti-semite that promoted the philosophy in the direction most people see it today. Actually, Heidegger had something to do with that as well. Ron, Hey, I read the novella that started that whole series. Haven't read the books yet. I'm not really trying to go against the individual here but I have to ask where that individual comes from if not the society one is born into? When someone says "I'm an individual" does it not connote power and strength in Western societies? In Japan and Korea, the word feels lonely and irrationally selfish.  If you were not brought up in a society that has strong currents of individualist thought, that encourages that thought, would any of us be having this conversation? What bothers me here is not the strength of the individual but unseen powers that influence and control all of us and how we think. An individual standing alone cannot speak the language for example. JP, at what point do we call improvement invention and invention improvement? In most of Shakepeare's plays, he borrowed the plots from someone else. Does that mean he was improving on someone else? Isn't velcro a different way to keep things together? White out a different way to correct manuscripts? Where would Jefferson be without the philosophes? Maybe we should be less worried about individualism and more concerned with how we develop as individuals in the first place. How about trying to encourage that moment of genius in us all? This thread has certainly moved in interesting directions. Let's try this again. We are individuals and social beings at the same time. It is this contradiction, I think, that causes loneliness. How about this one: how connected are the feelings of loneliness and boredom? Rambling on and on, Brad |
||
|
Trevor Senior Member
since 1999-08-12
Posts 700Canada |
Ok, here's my take on things: Why we desire companionship is probably because of the safetys it provides. Early humans probably didn't survive too well on their own. Also another factor for gatherings of people is because of the productivity it provides.....one person building one car takes a longer period of time than twenty building twenty cars....hence modern production lines. Societies formed out of common interests, namely survival, and grew with the needs of a society. Societies, I believe, are necessary for the growth of an individual. What can be learned from being part of nothing? Without a society we'd all still be eating bark and playing with our feces....it's impossible to learn all that the world has to offer on our own....without a society, everyone individualy would have to invent from scratch everything they wanted instead of using other ideas and thoughts as a stepping stone. If you wanted to sail, you'd have to invent a boat, lets face it the first few thousand boats probably sank the day they were launched. Only through the efforts of many people, and many generations, did we eventually find a way to make them float, at least for a longer period of time I believe that a well rounded individual is usually created through being a part of society for without a society we'd probably all till be cave dwellers and lack diversity.I partially agree with JP's comments of "Perhaps somewhere, in the primordial essence that all of us share, we as a speices are afraid to strive for our potential, because we fear that our potential is not much more than what we already are - and that my friends would be the saddest commentary of all." I think that sometimes we group together to live vicariously through the accomplishments of another but I also must add that we do often gather to share our accomplishments with others. How can something be considered "great" if there is nothing to compare it to or to even see or experience it with. Something great is just "something" if not put to a test of comparisons or opinions. So Audrey Blue, do not feel bad about not wanting not to feel alone because on this thought you are not alone. We all need each other because we all are each other. One big splintered gene of the two original different people, all trying to get back to the beginning and find comfort in the separation from being one.....what the hell am I talking about, I dunno, did that have any remsemblance to coherancy????? JP again: You've said, "I do not propose that the group is unnecessary, I simply say that the evolvement of humanity will occur through the efforts of individuals striving to obtain more that what the group would allow them to obtain. Those ubermensch will make strides and the herd will eventually follow." But without that group would there have been a need for individuals to obtain something that is not there. Would the radio have been invented if there was not a need by society? If one was alone, who would they talk with? and if they constantly talked with someone wouldn't that create a society much like this place can be considered a society? Would the Declaration of Independance been written if there was not a society which needed it? With that in mind is the group following the thoughts of the individual or is the individual following the needs of the group? Who is leading who? Who is influencing who's thoughts, who is directing who? Is it not a group effort that creates the individual (lets remember it takes two people to make one) and is it not the individual that creates the group? The inspiration is just as important as the inventor and invention. They can not exist without one another. It is a balancing act and I believe it is important not to place one above the other. What good is a leader without followers or a follower without a leader? With this in mind does evolution in humanity (though I'd prefer to say evolution in society) occur because of the individual, or because of the group, or because of indiviuals within a group (grouped individuals) made individual by the group they are in? An individual could not exist without a group because an individual does not (or at least did not) possess the mental nor physical tools needed to discover sufficiently the world on which it lives and progress at a needed rate for survival. A group without individuals, would be a group acting as one thereby still lacking the mental tools for such said needed progression. Lets face the music, we can not survive on our own. If anyone disagrees, move away from society, farm your own land and catch and train a horse to help plow the fields needed to keep up with your food demand. Build your own house, find your own way to heat a house or walk (or take the horse you caught and trained) to a warm climate where heat isn't need, p.s. make sure to practise crop rotation or your land will become a desert, also never find a mate for that would be the start of a mini-society......my pun on hermitism could keep going but I think you all get the drift.....Perhaps social evolution only occurs through a group effort of individuals. We need both interaction (to gain information) and time off from interaction (to process information) in order to be an individual...thus both a society is needed and a place "away" from society is also needed....hence a workable balance is achieved. Angel: "Yet contrary to what Brad seems to say I do not believe that any group has ever invented anything. A team (like society) is after all only a collection of individuals with individual input on which ideas can grow." Is not a collection, a group as well? Is there a difference in saying a collection of individuals or a group of individual? Where should the credit in invention lie? Within the inspiration or within the inventor? Was there one individual who influenced Ayn Rand or was there numerous individuals who influenced Ayn Rand? And of the individual/s who influenced Ayn, how many do you think were influenced/inspired by society? Would they have written the things they did without a society? Where should the accolades go? To Ayn, to those who influenced her, or to the societies which influenced those who influenced her? So what is more important, the group or the individual? Once again I will say it is a harmonic relationship that is balanced for maintaining existance for I believe that which is not constantly balanced can not exist for more than a moment. The human race could not survive acting solely as one or solely as individuals (though it's debateable if this would be a bad thing ). First off, groups are needed for procreation (I think it's an established fact that inbreeding may not be a healthy way to pass on genes anymore) and for the physical creation of individuals thereby making an individual an immediate member of a group. People at birth can not raise themselves mentally nor physically thereby making them a member of a group, or a society, futhermore making them subject to influences of such said groups and therewithsuchathing (I needed a new word ) making them a product of a society, thus the individual is created by a group. They may still be an individual but are so because of the influences or lack of.Anyways, kuddos to all who bothered to read this messy string of thoughts, I'm exhausted and won't continue even though I have more to say on the subject.....If only all of you would practise "Trevorism", you'd be so much happier Take care everyone,Trevor [This message has been edited by Trevor (edited 11-11-1999).] |
||
|
JP Senior Member
since 1999-05-25
Posts 1343Loomis, CA |
Well Trevor, you certainly made strong argument for a valid point. Not much I could say to contradict you, nor would I want to. Society, the group, the herd, the clutch of hairy dirty dwarves (Nietzche again) is absolutely a necessity. It is that which drives the individual to excel, which you have so eloquently expressed. The original thought in this thread (if I can remember that far back) concerns the fear of being alone. My advocation for individuality was never intended as a dismissal of the group, but more of an assertion that the individual drives the direction of humanity, or society, and the fear of aloneness would ultimately cease the evolution of humanity. I promote individuality not as an alternative to the herd, but as a vitally important element in the continued existence of that herd. Humanity, and I believe I am also speaking of the physical evolution as well as the societal/cultural evolution, can only grow and survive by the continued progress of the spiecies, and that progress will only happen through the forward bounds of individuals and the subsequent meandering tag-a-long of the group. I am going in search of a discourse I posted here some time ago regarding this subject. If I find it, I will repost it. I called it "The Evolution of Human" ------------------ Yesterday is ash, tomorrow is smoke; only today does the fire burn. JP |
||
|
Angel Rand Member
since 1999-09-04
Posts 134London UK, and Zurich Switzerland |
Trevor I am sorry I posted my reply to this on my own thread. That is what I get from overtiredness LOL. I do apologise. Will write more soon. AngelPS: JP Nietzsche is the correct spelling in English too btw. I looked it up just in case it was spelled differently than in German (my first language). ------------------ "I swear -- by my life and by my love of it -- that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I'm just curious if anybody else sees the connection between loneliness and bordom. Or am I way off track? |
||
|
Angel Rand Member
since 1999-09-04
Posts 134London UK, and Zurich Switzerland |
Brad I totally agree! Ppl who are busy doing something they thouroughly enjoy and which gives them a sense of fulfillment are rarely bored and even more rarely lonely. Alone yes. But lonely means the lack of something and I maintain that no other can give you what you lack within yourself. Love can only ever add but never replace. At least not in the long run. Angel------------------ "I swear -- by my life and by my love of it -- that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged "Any alleged "right" of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right." Ayn Rand |
||
|
Lolita Junior Member
since 1999-11-09
Posts 44Buffalo, NY, America |
I am 18, I have been with my grlfriend for over a year and a half, I have more friends than anyone else I know, I get on with people incredibly easily and if I was ever in trouble there are a million places i could turn to. But I AM alone, i make myself an island so my shres can be swept by different waves to the others |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||