/lit/ - Literature

>>5142945
Self-Actualization assumes there is some potential essential self waiting to be realized. This is incorrect. Identity is never fixed, but always in a state of becoming.

We dont.

accept the nihilism bra.

>>5142945
>At the lowest stage of knowledge, that of "opinion", man is under the dominant influence of things outside himself, and so is in the bondage of the passions. At the next stage, the stage of "reason", the characteristic feature of the human mind, its intelligence, asserts itself, and helps to emancipate him from his bondage to the senses and external allurements. The insight gained into the nature of the passions helps to free man from their domination. A better understanding of his own place in the cosmic system and of the place of all the objects of his likes and dislikes, and his insight into the necessity which rules all things, tend to cure him of his resentments, regrets and disappointments. He grows reconciled to things, and wins peace of mind. In this way reason teaches acquiescence in the universal order, and elevates the mind above the turmoil of passion. At the highest stage of knowledge, that of "intuitive knowledge", the mind apprehends all things as expressions of the eternal cosmos.
more or less

>>5142951
If identity is always in a state of becoming, then there is potentiality.

I really don't see what you're on about.

>>5142985
And you. Who in the fuck are you quoting?

>>5142996
Hugh Chisholm paraphrasing Spinoza

>>5142988
There is nothing to actualize. You become what you become.

Or to put it another way, literally everything you do is making you self-actualize all the time, because what are you beyond the sum of your feelings thoughts and experiences?

Read about 'Authenticity' as a concept of existentialism. It is hard and that is why you see so many slaves and followers.

>>5143014
this is correct. the real question is, what do you actualize?

>>5143014
that is a weak cop out. There are two ways to become what you want, change yourself to become what you want or change what you want to be to who you are. There has to be a appropriate amounts of both of these. Your approach is too much of the latter one.

Also, you don't understand the concept of self actualization as it is being used in this discussion.

The idea of self-actualization makes sense - many people wish to achieve some great meaning or greater self - but how can you possibly measure your "self" and tell what your full potential is? No matter how much you become or achieve there will always be more you could become or achieve. It seems like self-actualization is an abstract end or goal outside of the self used in order to limit and define it.

>>5143082
There is nothing to self-actualize. You will, brain-chemistry willing, inevitably reach a state of content indifference to the troubles that you have. You can perhaps bring about this state faster by following some sort of philosophy, but the odds aren't good.

>>5143082
I understand it, I'm just saying it's bullshit.

Good thread.

The people who simply say you are already so, or how can you know when you have actualized are missing the point.

It's easy to imagine a version of ourselves wth better qualities, if we are on the road to acheiving that, then we are getting closer to self actualization. It doesn't matter if we reach our ideal, rather it matters that we first aknowledge we want to pursue it, and then pursung it.

As a societh, if we want to increase this, there is a lot we need to do, one thing that would help greatly is reducing wealth inequality.

>>5142945
Something like this:

>Walden Two embraces the proposition that the behavior of organisms, including humans, is determined by environmental variables, and that systematically altering environmental variables can generate a sociocultural system that very closely approximates utopia.

so that or use Transhumanist magic tech to change human nature

>>5143082
> weak cop out
> has to be appropriate amounts of both
Why do you think these things? What is weak about taking one or the other to the extreme?

> So I am asking the intellectuals on 4chan to join me while we try to find a solution to this problem

lel

>>5143082
>change yourself to become what you want or change what you want to be to who you are.
black and white fallacy

In a certain way, humans cannot receive meaning (or a greater self-meaning, in the sense of self-actualization) without another human being. We do not decide what is better for ourselves. In other words, we cannot reason on our own if we are successful, progressing, or living our life to our full potential without the use of other human beings as a sort of metric.
From that, it is not a jump to use our own selfs as a sort of metric.
So, if our potential is that of our measured selfs against our own selfs, we will only ever actualize our measured-selfs, we can only live have one of them at it's maximum potential without make the equation out of balance with itself.
So if we are to follow this logic, the only way to self-actualize would be to continually push the metric of one, but not the other (our metered self vs the self-propelled self.

Well one such problem, or hurdle that exists from the get go is the physical limits on your mental fantasy. There is little hope of self actualization for a desire to punch the sun in half. So we should discount, or omit anything that the physical world is going to straight up prevent you from doing because of its nature. This doesn't mean you can't TRY something. A scientist trying to make faster than light travel could be self actualized even though he won't be successful. His pursuit may be his actualization. And as such sun punch attempts (while outlandish, and likely retarded without advanced tech) are fair game.

Next we should consider just what is happening when someone is BEING self actualized.

I would define it as any individual who constantly works to understand ones self, and live true to that understanding.

This means any law or man made obstacle which prevents them from indulging in this (save for those which ensure others ability to do the same) should be avoided when possible.

>>5143263's claim about wealth inequality misses the mark for this reason imo.

>>5143337
Is there an alternative?
Not the same person, just curious.

>>5142945

What is meant by "potential"? What is meant by "living to one's full potential"?

Striving to achieve a better self is running on a hamster wheel, endlessly. There's always something more that can be done. To criticize others for not wanting to waste their lives seeking the same perfection the OP suggests they seek is just being a judgmental prick. Let people alone. Let people do what they want. They aren't "leading lives of quiet desperation." You are. You're the one who is unsatisfied. Not them. You think their jobs are meaningless. You dislike them vegging in front of an LCD screen. They probably didn't want "to become" anything and are very happy not being anything. So don't try to solve their problem when you're the only one with the problem. Criticize yourself, not others.

>>5143376
It's about maximizing both your physical and metaphysical gains, brah.

>>5143393
If more people were self-actualized then more people would be politically active and we'd have more than a mere mass culture of marketing and masturbation.

>>5143400
Then fat people who love to eat and do so for their living truly epitomize actualization

>>5143393
How bloody provincial of you.

If we don't crticize one another, there is no arbiter of our behavior. There's a reason we have courts of law.

The point here is that livng in a society means we must judge one another. Anti-social behavior can harm the group, people self actualizing helps the group. So we have to ask if people are in fact reaching their potentials, and for many millions it's obvious they are not. Some may be happy doing little, but many others have no avenues for true expression or have many insurmountable obstacles before them.

Using your own brain to logically think your way into enlightenment is like letting a serial killer perform painful neurosurgery on you. I'm not quite sure how it all works, but apparently that's the case.

>>5143411
So then the theory of Self-Actualization is not to fulfill one's potential, but their potential to benefit society?

>>5143411
I don't believe that criticizing others brings a better society; in fact it's why we fight, murder, and start wars. You're not going to help people live better lives when you create a world in which one group believes it's acceptable to criticize another group instead of just allowing people to do what THEY want. It's commonplace to tell others what they should do with their lives, and groups do it to groups, and wars break out. How is that helping? "The point here is that living in a society means we must judge one another." That's the entire problems with society! You have one person telling another person what they should do - but more often the cause is because the person doing the criticizing is unhappy and wants to blame that unhappiness on someone else, not himself. You have groups doing it too - and then comes the machine guns. Look at the world! How long has the human race been fighting endless wars? You really think that self-actualization can be achieved if people criticize and tell others what to do? We've done that since the beginning of civilization and all it's done is cause conflict. What people do is project themselves onto society and blame society for their own problems. What people should do is look at themselves, not at others. You're advocating criticism of individuals. For what purpose? Who decides what is the best life? People do it already: one group thinks it's living for Allah, another group thinks it's living for money, and another group thinks it's murdering doctors who perform abortions.

So what you're advocating is exactly what we already have: a society mired in hostility, group-think, and conflict because one group believes it has the right answer to the question the OP poses: what's the best life.

Nobody decides that but the individual. But there are plenty who would criticize others because they believe they have the answer. The latter are the ones who cause all the havoc.

>>5143400

So by maximize it seems fair to suppose you mean optimize. To optimize one's physical gains is a question entirely of chance, is it not? Performing actions that increase the likelihood of significant physical gains. The question then becomes: by "gains" what do we mean? Do we mean pleasure? Many may argue so. The problem then becomes: is the individual who is pleased necessarily the individual of whom you speak?

The issue ultimately becomes: you have a very bizarre and unstable definition of self-actualization which you're not articulating correctly.

>>5143411
>The point here is that livng in a society means we must judge one another.

How do you come up with this shit? It's so fucking dumb. It means absolutely nothing. What do you mean it "MEANS". God, shut up.

>>5143423
If you believe in the self as primary then it makes sense to maximize one's potential in order to bring self benefit. If you think about the self as a product of outside forces then it makes sense to want to encourage other selfs to be all they can be so they can help you and others as well. It's just two perspectives of looking at the same thing. Neither one is really more correct but both point to self-actualization being good.
>>5143434
It was a fit joke. Maximizing gains is like a bodybuilding thing. I do think it is subjective as to what constitutes things like self-actualization or individuation and so on. I think Guattari actually talks about this in Chaosmosis. He recommends moving social/psychological views of health from our current scientifiicist perspective into a "ethico-aesthetic" paradigm. There are numerous subjectivations we can undergo. The goal is to maximize, in a sense, the horizons of possibilities themselves.

>>5143431
You misunderstand what I mean by judge. I don't mean the kind of blnd bigotry you're referring to. Rather an application of reason. We see people struggling, so we can judge based on our best evidence that they would benefit from help.

Someone else is violent, so we judge them dangerous. Someone is willfully ignorant do we judge them negatively. Without judgment, anyone can do anything.

The problem is judgig based on irrationality or prejudice.

It's actually people who judge rightlythat make progress. Abolitionists, women suffragists, civil rights leaders, etc.

>>5143463
Could you please wear your mask.

>>5143481
*Own
Fookin'ell

>>5143463
>thinks there is a universal right/wrong

What the fuck am I reading.

top pleb

>>5143455

>The goal is to maximize, in a sense, the horizons of possibilities themselves.

Is this not chance? How can one know which actions will maximize possibilities, particularly how moving into an "ethico-aesthetic" perspective will accomplish such a thing in a manner <i> better </i> than the "scientificistic" perspective?

>>5143463
But your underlying assumption is that someone needs to play the policeman. Or a group. Which relates to the OP's post, because he is judging people who vegetate in front of the television as bad, or wasting their potential. I doubt they see themselves that way. He projects his own values onto them, by saying that they are "leading lives of quiet desperation," because if he were in their shoes he would presumably feel that way. The thing is, that's not going to lead people toward self-fulfillment. That's just going to create more criticism.

"Without judgment, anyone can do anything." The police and lawyers exist to prevent crime, not philosophers.

In this case, watching television is not a crime. So why judge someone for vegetating? Why? Because the OP is projecting his values onto someone else.

The problem with criticism, judgment, is that more often than not it is a projection. For instance, the OP probably vegetates too much, so he wants to eliminate vegging in other people. Someone who dislikes a quality he possesses projects that onto others. Then criticizes them for it. To criticize another is pointless because of this: nothing can be achieved because it is the individual seeing himself and all he despises in himself projected onto others. See what I mean?

So you get abolitionists, right? You agree with abolition. But you also get Nazis. You likely don't agree with the Nazis.

Different outcomes. Same premise. The premise that groups should be in a contest for idealogical correctness.

Sure, the OP is just saying that people who watch too much TV are wasting their lives. But it's the same concept: judging others based on individual views of what is good for the self.

Also, we're talking about self-actualization here. Not about the forced self-actualization of others based on one person's view of what is best.

So why criticize others when the subject is the self? Because the criticism is a projection of the self, what OP likely suffers with! And that's my point: projection.

Let others do what they want. Criticize yourself and leave others out of it.

>>5143501
I dunno. A lot of people relate self-actualization to "working". Guattari talks about a lot of therapists direct people toward "getting back to work". He says they should be teaching people "how to work in new ways" and "how to find self-satisfaction through work". It sounds pretty to me at least. But it is kinda trite in some ways. I don't think he's anti-science. He's just talking about instrumentalist utilitarianism really.

Self-actualization, the injunction to "be/become your (true) self, is ideology operating at its purist. The authority behind these words is often society, having preestablished some idea of the individual's self only to signify their failure to fully "achieve" or "maximize" it, the rhetoric of industrial society no less in operation. One can imagine a moderately depressed, vaguely indifferent, but undeniably dissatisfied individual, perhaps feeling "lesser than" in money, drive, love -whatever it may be, a superior model or image is readily exposed. The injunction here displaces the fault in the form of society, where the system itself designed to never satisfy, onto the individual, telling them to get better and at playing the game, when the rules of the game are broken.

>>5143521
/thread

>>5143509
Your fundamental misunderstanding is that I said JUDGE and you equate that with policing in a physical manner. I only wish to see the moral labdscape policed with ideas, arguments, and democracy. Without a critical dialog, you have a disjointed society of individuals pursung their own pleasures at the cost of the whole. That's the present situation.

Once we come together are.mutually crrated values that benefit all through dialog, we create ways to reinforce those values, like education for example.

What you defend is basically a moral relativism, but the end result is the world we live in today, where it doesn't matter if a personal just wants to amass money, becuase as long as that is what THEY desire, it's just as good as soneone desiring to alleviate others suffering.

Not projecting, calling for dialog, but some things are obviously better or worse than others.

You forget humans are socialized, so we have to actively engage with HOW and WHAT thy are socialized with. The values, methods, goals, and means.

You gey nazis when there is a LACK of critical thought. thus I would judge people who are willfully ignorant negatively, while abolitionists thought critically, thus are better AND the outcome is better.

>>5143521
Interesting, but I disagree.

Part of self actualizing could be a realization that the entire game is shit, and live differently to the norm.

>>5143536
Suprisingly, I agree with Butterfly. We need no real police. We need to create a thought police of dialectical forces within society which prevent crimes before they happen.

>>5143521
This assumes that society influences the individual more than the individual influences himself. I disagree. People aren't paying attention to this sort of society as much as it might seem. For one thing, authority in such a society is already mistrusted. The ideals of that society aren't accepted by the majority. In fact, rebellion is the major outcome. Nobody listens to the messages that come from it. They splinter into subcultures. They rebel. They turn off the sources of the messages. What is left? For instance, if you don't like television commercials, you turn off the television. Who then is dictating the values? Just the work of the individual. "The system itself designed to never satisfy, onto the individual." Nope. The individual chooses whether to listen to the system, and most often the case is that the individual does his own thing, turns off the message. It's just a fantasy that somehow the individual is forced to put up with manipulation and a mass media designed to control him. It's not like that. All he has to do is turn it off. It's a choice. There's plenty of information to digest, online, in books, on television, in movies. The individual chooses. So this whole idea that society is indoctrinating people into a world of "dissatisfaction" is an intellectualization, not a reality. Turn it on, turn it off, read this, read that, make choices. The truth is the individual determines his understanding and the information he exposes himself to. Your idea is a fallacy and a fantasy for people who want to blame some sort of authority for the problems they created for themselves through their own choices.

>>5143536
You are saying that individuals should not be able to "purse their own pleasures at the cost of the whole." I'm saying the opposite, the exact opposite. The individual needs to be allowed to decide for himself what is best for himself. If that includes the whole, fine. But you're saying the whole should come first! How? Who is it? It's a bunch of individuals doing what they like. If this "whole" were to dictate what the individual should do - well, there isn't a whole that's in agreement! Because there ISN'T a "whole." It's a bunch of individuals.

You really are advocating a kind of fascist thought police.

Someone decides what is right for everyone else? Who decides?

You're calling for dialogue to determine for the ENTIRE world what is right and wrong, what is moral and immoral, what is the good way to live vs the bad way to live.

Don't you think we've done that enough already?

Every nation, civilization, has done the same, has fought and fought war after war. Look at the crusades. They believed they were justified and chosen by God. They went out and fought and fought war after war. That's where this shit leads. When a group decides what is best for the ENTIRE human race, the outcome is violent.

You say the Nazis lacked critical thought. I'm sure the Nazis would disagree. Nobody will ever agree on this stuff. Right, wrong, good, bad. For you to say they lack critical thought just points to the ultimate outcome of your argument: war.

It will end with war.

Simple as that. It always does. Until we stop focusing on fixing others and start focusing on fixing only ourselves, it just leads to the same shit we've had since forever.

Here's my argument in a nutshell:

"I am unhappy so YOU must change." That's the worst kind of abusive mentality, and that's the fundamental nature of your argument.

Try this: I am unhappy so I must change.

>>5143543
hey bb you got a blog?

>>5143255


> reducing wealth inequality.

hah hah hah hah

>>5143575
What you say amounts to, this is hard, thus we must not bother.

Secondly, you do realize that we are on the precipice of an ecological crisis due to our pursuit of individual desires? Do you not see collective action is required for us to continue to pursue pleasure at all?

Also, I'm pretty happy, but much like Bertrand Russell I suffer becuase their is much injustice and suffering in the world, and I'm powerfully aware that most of it can be remedied if more enlightened policies were put in place and personal pleasure wasnt above human thriving.

>>5143597
I'm not the bb you think I am, I'm a white dude who routinely posts under her tag.

>>5143602
bb why u no respond to me????
i wanna if u have a blog???????????????????????

>>5143604
I did, maybe she has a blog, I don't know.

>>5143603
i don't you know who i am
;) ;) ;) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;);) ;)

>>5143597
He might. It's not me.
>>5143546
>We need to create a thought policing force within ourselves which prevent crimes before they happen.
This is more me.

>>5143614
>i don't think******** you know who i am
whoops

>>5143619
eyyyyyyyyyyyyy bb u got a blog?

>>5143611
You see the nonsense you create with this?
Stahp.

>>5143624
No.

>>5143628
why not bb?

>>5143602
YOU suffer, so you think others should change and not pursue "personal pleasure above human thriving." Don't you see how you're doing exactly what I said? "I am unhappy so YOU must change." This is the thinking that starts wars.

You're not going to change the world by enacting the same behaviors that got it to where it is now.

I guess the gist of your thinking is: If people cared, the world would change.

Am I right?

Again, it's projecting. You care. So you think everyone else should care.

And how would you go about making them care? Re-education through forced labor?

>>5143625
>>5143619
>>5143611
>>5143628

Where you from bb?

>>5142945
One self-actualises by having one or two 'burning' questions that they want an answer to no matter what.

At the risk of completely 'ruining the game' for someone, it's all a matter of 'enough rope' to strangle your concepts with it, push and push and you will eventually hit ego death. We're talking years to get to the point of nigredo or what have you and then years in that state and then years of rebuilding. What you 'get' in return is an ability to be reborn psychologically, to see the value of each passing moment and to be unquestionably committed to it. It's the setting of the fire and the only 'eternity' man can hope to achieve.

>>5143543
>>5143546
Thats why I said "often" is the case.

Perhaps our dissatisfied individual recognizes the influence of society, however, escaping that is not as easy as turning off the tv. Rebellion is hardly truly radical, most often reactionary and therefore a sense of self negatively defined, not a product but a biproduct of society, a harmless antagonism that has already been resolved in the bigger picture, the greater workings of society in images like the outcasts as scapegoats or the rebels romanticized. There is no true way to escape society, to do so is to become pre-social, and if that were an option we wouldn't have this problem of self-actualization.

So forget the voice of society, say our individual has found a way to assume a genuine authority behind the injunction. What does that mean? Several posters already alluded to this point. Simply put, there is no essential self with a linear path that one only has achieve, and the very act of our individual transferring authority of the injunction from society to himself can only mean the impermanence of ones sense of self and the necessity of any ideal to be purely abstract, an illusion. Therefore, to "self-actualize" in this way is to define oneself negatively once more to a self imposed ideal, and the narrative of realization never reaches its conclusion due to the impermanence of self, giving way to one ideal after another, and thus forever in a state of anxiety and dissatisfaction.

I'd be down to have an AI police our behaviors. There might be corruption at first but I would trust a truly intelligent computer to outsmart a human. But I dunno if we could ever create AI. I'm not exactly sure humans are sentient myself.


But yeah, what is self-actualization? Am I living to the limit when I read a book? Have sex? Meditate? Enjoy a drink? Sleep? See... if we had an AI overlord it could just tell us what to do. It would be a child policing its parents in perfect justice and innocence.

>>5143643
fuck off man i asked her first if she has a blog
fucking minstros tryna quinatra me

>>5143645
cont.

The end result is something akin to processing and understanding each moment cleanly. It's living transparently and without trace. Only other people of similar ilk can notice the trace of tracelessness.

There's very little that's mystical or special about it, but a story is built around it because people seem to need it, a story that ends all stories. A dreamer dreaming the dream of life.

>>5143648
you want to build the God the Christians dream of

>ok.png

>>5143646
Haha. tl;dr Desire leads to suffering.

Forget society then. The entire pursuit of self-actualization, in the context of this thread at least, seems really slanted more toward self-perfection. It's a hamster wheel, endless. There is no end to perfecting oneself. To be fulfilled, on the other hand, is different for everyone. One person's fulfillment is another's hell, and vice versa. It's the same argument I've been giving: the individual must decide for himself, and no authority, society, or group should be deciding for the individual. Self-actualization, in that sense, is simply to do what is right for oneself. It's to find what makes you happy and do it. If that's watching television all day, fine.

Idealism is always flawed. To have an ideal means that automatically the ideal has a polar opposite. Then you get criticism of the polar opposite. Then you get conflict between groups, etc. As you might say, any ideal is flawed because the individual is ever-changing. Worse, idealists tend to persecute the polar opposite, as is seen with the OP and his television remarks. This all leads to the conflicts we see everywhere. Idealism forced onto others, for instance.

Fascist thought police.

However, there is not always a perpetual state of anxiety and dissatisfaction if there's no ideal. Simply drop it. No ideal, no problems. So you might say that allowing for a flexible self would work? Outside of intellectualization, that is how normal people work. Society might be dictating an ideal. However, I don't see individuals subscribing to society's ideals 100%. Most of the people I encounter ignore it. I'm in the USA: we have the American dream and all that. I don't know anyone who actually believes that stuff or seeks it out. All I see are individuals enjoying themselves. So, as for idealism, ordinary people aren't idealists; that's more of an academic fantasy or an intellectual fantasy. It's not how real people work. They neither follow an ideal that's unchanging nor follow the American dream, etc.

So I'm saying the same thing as you in different words.

>>5143689
The point at which you believe you've refused all of society's impositions is the exact moment that you are most deeply embedded in it. The "American Dream," which is simply a naive faith in the capitalist system, doesn't need to be consciously believed or followed for it to work, American society is structured so that we necessarily do the same thing we would have done. The true cause of dissatisfaction is not the content of idealization, but action and material circumstances which can be regulated and maintained by ideals and beliefs. What I am alluding to are the most unconscious beliefs operating at lowest levels, ideology, which are at the root of dissatisfaction.

self-actualization is impossible for all those who must take orders from an employer in order to live
thus a yearly payment of approx. $30000 to everyone over the age of 16 will effectively solve this problem

All of nature and history are in the process of becoming. They are actualizing. Everyone is a part of the process, and thus, it is inevitable that humans will fully self-actualize. What they want, and what their purpose is are often two entirely different things.

Was vernünftig ist, das ist Wirklich; und was wirklich ist, das ist vernünftig.

>>5143721
To add, self-actualization, the question of becoming yourself, being tautological implies the workings of underlying belief, ideology, in order to define the linguistic void.

>>5143721
Essentially, you're saying that dissatisfaction is caused by wanting too much. This is a problem I have with the regular USA belief that all people are following the American dream. It's just not true. Many, many people could care less about materialism, and they seem happy, free of the grind. So you say dissatisfaction comes from believing materialistic success is the ideal while also failing at that success. I would agree that that would cause great suffering. However, I just don't see it in the majority of the people I encounter. I see happy people, poor, and content. This idea that ALL people BELIEVE that wealth is happiness is just not true. Sure, if someone believes money is happiness and is poor, then they'll be horribly dissatisfied. But that's not the complete picture. That's about 1% of society. The majority, at least insofar as I've seen, don't pursue materialism as a route to happiness. So to say that "the true cause of dissatisfaction" is capitalist materialism is to only be looking at a minority of materialists. It's just not the whole picture. There's an entire society of impoverished Americans with varying degrees of happiness who could care less about wealth and materialism. So your outlook there is just not taking into consideration the full extent of society - all the subcultures, all the contented poor, all the people who, for instance, want to play video games or watch television or read Stephen King. You know? There's a lot of happy people who don't belong to your ONE group of dissatisfied capitalist materialists.

>>5143739
I would agree and dismiss the ideal of self-actualization or the need or the value in pursuing it. As I said, it's a hamster wheel that you can run on forever and never get anywhere.

>>5143744
Well, I was only addressing people who were relevant to the question of self realization, so you're expanding the scope beyond what I originally claimed. In any case, you dont have to identify with material success in order to be a victim of it, which was what I tried to describe with the american dream example, though I dont think you understood. But in that sense, the 1% aren't happy or satisfied with what they do and the 99% also suffer for it, because what you describe as seeming happy is also to the brutal backdrop of suffering that enables it.

>>5143767
I have to agree, if I understand you correctly, that a lot of people have been taken advantage of by capitalism, in the sense of exploiting foreign countries. Is that what you're getting at?

We also had Butterfly talking about the environment.

Where did he go?

"The brutal backdrop of suffering that enables it."

Explain what you're referring to. I'm thinking USA exploitation of foreign countries, or the general exploitation of poor countries by capitalist countries.

Please explain.

>>5143082
You didn't understand other anon's point. According to other anon
>change yourself
doesn't mean anything because there is no definite "yourself" to be changed.
>>5143255
>It's easy to imagine a version of ourselves wth better qualities

It's easy to imagine anything (or nearly). Doesn't mean those things are possible, or worthy of pursuit. Also, judging people in terms of "qualities" and "flaws" is likely to lead to objectification (and objectification of yourself, in particular, is generally pretty damaging)

>>5143400
I like how even when talking self-realization we're using performance businesspeak. Like we're the corporate manager of ourselves. I think this vocabulary is very telling.

>>5143767
I'm headed off to bed. Nice talking with you. :)

>>5143509
then you criticize the critics because you project your own values into another. it´s always the same, every critic is an attack of something you don´t want in your life. you don´t want people judging, it´s the same.

also, police and lawyers prevent crime with an idea of what crime is. without guns and power they are nothing more than ideas.

>>5143393
>Striving to achieve a better self is running on a hamster wheel, endlessly.
we must imagine Sisyphus happy.

You would be right except that the vast majority of people are unhappy and unfulfilled. The United States is one of the wealthiest countries in the world and has the highest rates of depression. Not to mention the problems like people who are so unhappy the go shoot up schools. It sounds like you are desperate to ignore the problem because you are trying to ignore your own failure to self actualize.

>>5143410
Are overweight people usually happy?

No, they usually are filled with self loathing.

>>5143431
The criticism is irrelevant. The fact is that people ARE NOT leading self actualized lives. This is evidenced empirical evidence. Scientist have actually gone around to see how many people are feeling happy and fulfilled in their lives, and found that most people are not.

>>5145048
Highest rates? Source please.

>>5145641
http://www.forbes.com/2007/02/15/depression-world-rate-forbeslife-cx_avd_0216depressed_slide_2.html

>>5145689
Ideally there should be a healthy medium of speed at which to run on the hamster wheel while remaining happy about living up to potential but also not killing yourself in the rat race. But then again, if your hamster wheel work only helps out certain people at other's expense then is it really self-actualization to maximize your solipsistic drive to provide for yourself?

>>5145763
ideally you aren't running on a wheel because of some reward or coercion. You are running on a wheel where the act of running is intrinsically motivating.

>>5145851
So many wheels to run on, however. And some wheels might be bad for other people. I might find it intrinsically motivating to sell cocaine and live like Scarface. I help other people in need out, I receive a good wage, I get to be my own boss, and I love doing cocaine. Does that mean it's good for me to self-actualize in that way?

>>5145868
well not worrying about if the guy selling cocaine is hurting people, how does someone flipping burgers and browsing 4chan get the will and fortitude to execute the actions that will get him his cocaine empire or whatever it is that will make him feel like he is living a self actualizing life?

That is mainly what I wanted to talk about here. Another way to think of it, is that we are sincerely trying to write an effective self help book. I didn't think of the analogy until now, though I hope that it won't being a million joking posts of people saying cliche bullshit imitating books like 'The Secret'

>>5145868
>Does that mean it's good . . .
why are you so retarded?

>>5145969
The fact that all us humans are alive here together (I think we can ignore solipsism as an unlikely state of affairs) then it makes sense for us to try to define and work towards some sort of common good. I like to think of philosophy as part of that dialogue. What constitutes the good life and how is it achieved? What does it mean to be cosmopolitan or a citizen of the world as Diogenes asked?

read carl rogers and martin buber