Mediocrity - when do we settle?

    • NotD

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Mediocrity - when do we settle?

      Generally, people like to think they´re special. Most of us anyway. We´ve been raised to believe in our dreams, to strive higher,
      to think everything is possible. Until puberty hits, then you´re told you should stop acting like a child and focus on securing your future.
      You finish school/university and maybe get a job. You move out, get your own place, pay your own bills, you go celebrate with a couple of friends.
      Hey, you´ve made it, you´re a responsible adult.
      Or so you think. Then kids come. A wife. She works 10 hours, you work 10 hours ,kids play games for 10 hours. You tell your kids they´re wasting their lives playing games, they should be doing something productive. You´re almost grown men kids, act like it! You forget you´ve been there, playing some other games, but playing games nonetheless.

      Years pass and you´re 40, 50, 60. Grandkids, unwrapping Christmas presents, familly reunions, and you really hate that annoying wife´s cousin, but he´s familly, let him be. Kids leave, wife is somewhere, doing whatever wives do when they need a break from your constant nagging about "good ol´ days".
      So you sit there in your living room, in the house you´ve earned through a lifetime of splinters on your hands, and you have it all - a good, cozy life. A wife that can´t stand you, but still loves you to this day, a herd of younglings that come visit a couple of times a year, a nice, foreign car in your garage, some old buddies from work you meet once a week in a bar nearby to drink beer and throw kinky comments at student waitresses with.
      Good, long life. And then you remember you wanted to be an astronaut. Or a sailor. Or a reporter. Or something else. But you´ve chosen the safe way, the better way.
      Just like your neighbour. And his neighbour. And all the other hundreds living down the street. Do you wish it were different? Would you trade it all for a fresh start, another go at your dream? Do you even have the right to contemplate in such manner? Ungrateful bastard, look what you´ve achieved. There are millions out there who have nothing, and you have it all - a well planned, thought-out, safe life. Good life.

      So why is there something missing? Not everyone can be an astronaut, sure. But you could´ve been... so much more. Or could you really?
      Perhaps mediocrity was destined. Perhaps we are born into it, or perhaps we choose it. There´s nothing wrong with mediocrity. Statistically, most people are just that--- mediocre.
      So when do we do it? When do we settle? When do we take the safe road and think how smart we are for not risking? Should you risk? Why aren´t you? Where are you now and what are you doing to make your life more exciting, and is there a reason to even try doing it, or is the safe way the better way?
    • Excellent post man, answer can be summarized in basic human nature of always wanting more no matter what they have in life. Rare ppl are satisfied with their lives, those are happy ppl, most of ppl always wonder eternal WHAT IF. And if you have few what if's hanging in your mind then you are happy man, if you have many nothing will satisfy your questions in your mind, not good job, not money or house or anything you achieved at that point.
    • Mediocrity can mean different things to different people. What is only average to one person, can be extraordinary to another. Hence, trying to generalise on mediocrity is a Sisyphean task.
      On the other hand, contemplating about our past and future life is human. The fact that we can do that makes us different from animals. We rethink our actions, we judge ourselves, we try to plan ahead...
      Does it always work for us? - No.
      Does it makes us feel better? - Sometimes.
      Will we stop doing it? - No.
      Why? - Because it is in our nature, and there is no escape from that.

      We are always in the search for something...happiness, love, job...and our priorities change on daily basis. What is important today, is less important tomorrow. With the priorities changed, everything changes, and we want something different. I believe that comparing ourselves to other people is not necessarily a bad thing. Especially if we strive for more. And when I say more, I don't mean more money, more of that worthless material crap we are constantly reminded about in the media. I mean more of the spiritual. I refuse to believe that only settling down in life will fulfill us. We should look for fulfillment in the small stuff. Talking to a friend today, recommending a good movie to someone, listening to a great track someone shared with you, opening a Kinder Egg and being surprised and happy by that silly two-part car you got. Only people with no heart will look down on things like that.

      I think that we should all just relax and follow our heart as much as possible. I am aware that the mind is often smarter. But how many of you would trade the adventure the heart can take us on, for the regular, smart-choiced road our mind is telling us to take?
      Because life is not a proffessional 100m race for us to run as fast as we can and grab as much as we can along the way. Life is an amateur cross-race, where the only thing important is not winning, it's taking part and running at your own pace whilst enjoying the landscape and the company.

      "Let me be clear as I can be: In politics and in life, ignorance is not a virtue. It's not cool to not know what you're talking about."
    • system is forcing mediocrity, and I think that mediocrity is not bad at all if you find happiness in life
      and yes people are materialistic and trying way too much to be something that they are not
      but true happiness is in small things, family, friends and pets, so by that mediocrity is way to happiness
      and when you are happy in life then you settle down

      The post was edited 3 times, last by Hokz ().

    • Lot of view-points here, figured I should add mine. It's long, be free to criticize and ignore if you so desire, since it's easier than actually creating a view-point and I don't demand attention to the post anyways.

      There's no mediocrity, only an induced sense of want. The society is a brilliant machine made by a few really cunning intellectuals made to wash down all traces of individuality and produce conformity.

      IDK if anyone here's watched 'Fast Five', but the scene in that movie where the antagonist (Hernan Reyes, played by Joaquim de Almeida) is sitting in front of 2 clients, saying that he wants to do business in their countries but their methods are too violent. That speech is the summary of society. As he says at the end, "I go into the favelas and give them something to lose. And for that taste of a 'better life', I own them."

      Everyone around us is bent on making us feel inadequate, as if we're missing something out, when we're already as complete as we can be. Everything, from the 'basic needs' of food/clothing/shelter to things like family and kids and the latest phone/house/car/insurance/safety/stability/whatever created by other people, everything becomes an induced want. Sooner or later, you stop consuming because you want to and start consuming because you start feeling a need for it, even if there might inherently not be one.

      And so, it happens with every human and so, the society runs. The whole idea of society was made on slavery - being slaves to artificial, induced needs, by others. Everyone 'fulfilling' everyone else's needs out of some so-called 'necessity', when in fact everyone is capable of fulfilling their own needs using their own desire.

      There's the mediocrity. I'm sure my whole post will be completely disagreeable, since most people believe in the 'necessity' of a society and the even stronger belief of man being a 'social animal', but the fact is - none of this will ever be gone till the society stops existing and people reconnect with their individual selves instead of social ones. Societal destruction is inevitable - it's not really something made by nature (nature calls for relationships and a natural flow of life, not a rule-based, conformity-forcing system made by humans). And when it happens, the mediocrity will finally end and life will show itself in the truest sense.
    • Oh dear. Let's just break some of this down, then I'll offer a counter proposal.

      AMNeSia wrote:

      There's no mediocrity, only an induced sense of want. The society is a brilliant machine made by a few really cunning intellectuals made to wash down all traces of individuality and produce conformity.

      Evidence please. This is rather conspiracy theorist if you refer to "The Society", especially when you've not provided any reasoning behind this.


      AMNeSia wrote:

      Everyone around us is bent on making us feel inadequate, as if we're missing something out, when we're already as complete as we can be.
      Actually this is more a statement about an ideological construct called "Capitalism", mainly that marketing, produces this inadequacy. Do you want to know why women shave their armpits? Because commercials sold the idea that shaving armpits is something women should do. Same goes for things like plastic surgery. What you are describing is essentially an economic and political system, not society.


      AMNeSia wrote:

      The whole idea of society was made on slavery - being slaves to artificial, induced needs, by others
      Again, you are mistaking an ideological system for society.


      AMNeSia wrote:

      The whole idea of society was made on slavery - being slaves to artificial, induced needs, by others. Everyone 'fulfilling' everyone else's needs out of some so-called 'necessity', when in fact everyone is capable of fulfilling their own needs using their own desire.
      Ummm no. Societies have been around long before our species evolved, it is part of many anthropological disciplines, including archaeology, primatology, anthropology, etc. Humans form communities because we are a social animal. That is why we talk, it is why most of our intelligence centres around social intelligence. It is why we have language and we're arguing this very point! We invent abstracts because we need them. Death in Terry Pratchett's novel The Hogfather said it best:

      “All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need... fantasies to make life bearable."

      REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.

      "Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—"

      YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.

      "So we can believe the big ones?"

      YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.

      "They're not the same at all!"

      YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.

      "Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point—"

      MY POINT EXACTLY.”

      The point here is that as a solid concrete thing, society doesn't exist. However, it exists in the mind and we need it to make us human. Abstract thought is one of the key things about our evolution, without it, we couldn't have invented most of the things we have. And if you don't believe me, go and take away every piece of music, art, literature, film, etc, that you like. Your argument here uses a film, which uses an abstract piece of reasoning. Society exists because we believe in it.


      AMNeSia wrote:

      since most people believe in the 'necessity' of a society
      Well it makes us human so yes. You are interacting with a society right now.


      AMNeSia wrote:

      even stronger belief of man being a 'social animal'
      It's not just a belief, it is a verifiable, academic position. You've yet to provide evidence against this.


      AMNeSia wrote:

      people reconnect with their individual selves instead of social ones.
      Apart from our social "selves" as you put it are part of our identity. How we treat others is part of our identity and enables or disables us.


      AMNeSia wrote:

      Societal destruction is inevitable - it's not really something made by nature (nature calls for relationships and a natural flow of life, not a rule-based, conformity-forcing system made by humans)
      Apart from any animal that lives in social groups, wolves, chimps, us, gorillas, monkeys, etc are all naturally evolved societies. Are you aware of the definition of what a society is?

      Amnesia calls for the destruction of society. He's practically echoing Maggie Thatcher, a despicable human being who is still hated in places because of her cruel ways, but she said "there is no such thing as society", summing up rabid capitalism and the yuppie phenomenon of the 80s. Yet this ignores the fact that individuals can only achieve so much on their own. Society evolved in animals because it provided the opportunity to work together to achieve individual and societal goals. And it works. Those who are sick can be cared for, as well as the old, the disabled. Individuals can be given better opportunities when society assists, the problem is when political ideologies such as communism can take it to extremes. We need society and if you don't believe me, loneliness is being considered a cause of illness in various countries and there is discussion on whether it counts as a health epidemic.

      So society isn't mediocrity because it can provide more chances than just a lone ape can ever achieve. Instead there are brutal reasons why we aren't all astronauts or world famous musicians, etc and that is somewhat down to opportunities/ privilege and talent. We cannot expect everyone who is given the chance to be amazing musicians. There are people that have better talents in certain areas and those talents won't manifest without help, opportunity and if they aren't there in the first place. So we have new priorities as we get older, we go for realistic dreams. Some make us happy, some leave us dissatisfied because we aren't encouraged to be proud of achieving at our own pace. We dislike failure, yet we don't always appreciate its lessons. Respect your limitations, don't use them as an excuse, but respect that when you are tone deaf, you're not going to be the next Mozart.

      NoMoreAngel wrote:

      Nobody of the still active, not newly registered people, except maybe Cass and bibob will miss you
      And the COMA's opinion on the matter....
    • I have trouble inserting quotes in as much detail as you do, so I'll just put my points, break down my post for you, so you can understand:

      The very first sentence of my post says that it's my OPINION. I'm not writing a fucking thesis here, titled "Society: It's history, evolution and possible future." That's not my goal, it's pretty explicit.

      You want evidence, I'm sure you can find some on your own. I'm not sitting around here to provide evidence to everyone who comes along and demands living proof of what's obvious. Whatever I said is (again, my opinion and not a scientific thesis) based on MY experience with everyday life, seeing people around me, their behaviours, their perspectives, their logic and what-not.

      Yes, societal destruction is inevitable, because unlike other animal societies you mention, humans can't live in equilibrium with their environment. Hell, they can't even live in balance with each other, much less with their environment! Yes, maybe those illusions of a utopian, equal society are something you can see, but I can't, because of what's obvious in front of me - strife, discord, discontent, anger, hatred, lack of will, lack of pretty much anything.

      Again, since the whole of it is my opinion, I'm talking from my perspective - yes, I don't feel that we need the society to make us feel human. A dog doesn't need a pack to feel like a dog, a cat doesn't need a litter of kittens to feel like a cat, a tiger doesn't need a timid deer to feel like a tiger. No, a society doesn't make us human, our own individual thoughts and perspectives do. Yes, maybe lack of (same-species) social contact will make it not so simple to engage with others, but that doesn't make the one in isolation any less human.

      Yes, I've taken away all those things you mention - literature, film, movies. It's overwhelming. There's an aching to forget it all, to be as ignorant as I can be, to not have been tainted by anything of the human society. Yes, I'd have missed out on a whole wealth of things, but then - I wouldn't have cared about missing something either, because I'd have been fine without anything. There would be no inadequacy of discovering something more in the first place!

      As for achieving - yes, it's fun to achieve, but is there a 'need'? Do I need to achieve some goal, or some thing, or whatever you might want to insert, to be a human? No - I'm perfectly fine without achieving anything. Maybe society won't call me human for it, but I know myself better than anyone else ever could, don't you think?

      I'm definitely an exception and not the norm, but yes - I prefer loneliness. Humans haven't really proved themselves to be worth anything more than destructive beings. Oh, yes, there's infinite examples of how much humans have created and how 'far ahead' have they come. And yet, it all comes down to people fighting with each other. They can't stand each other, much less tolerate, even less accept and even lesser - get along. Maybe you live in some utopia where people live in perfect harmony, but I don't. I see people just willing to tear each other apart, either through words, or at times, through action.

      And what's the point of living in a society if people can't get over their own egos? Granted, I live in one due to lacking the means and the skill to survive out of it, but that doesn't change the fact that I would be no less human if I didn't have people around me creating and helping me form abstract thoughts. Maybe loneliness counts as an epidemic in this world, but only because humans deem it so. There's no universal rule saying loneliness is a disease/disorder, is there? Maybe lonely people don't behave according to societal norms, but that doesn't make them sick, neither any less human than any of you over-achieving societal citizens who pride in being part of it.

      Yes, society is mediocrity precisely because it provides more chances, since more chances = more contenders = less rate of success. If society can't provide equally for everyone without anyone having to compromise, then it's a failed system. Maybe I sound impractical, but then, I was putting up an opinion, not some universal truth, which no one can provide.

      And finally, as you put up a story earlier about humans needing fantasies to make life bearable - life is unbearable. Let it be accepted as unbearable rather than live a life through infinite lies. Let there be no point to life rather than some invention of an idea just to keep going. Yes, there's no point of living, but neither does that mean we should all die, nor that one has to believe the lies. Life never had a point, or maybe it did, no one knows. But one thing's for sure - society's a fallacy and there's a definite difference between surviving in the midst of it and accepting it.

      You can accept it if you feel that you're less than human without it, I'm happy rejecting the society and still feeling like myself - a better human (or rather, an entity) than I was before. I just wish someone had told me this when I could start understanding language - maybe I wouldn't have wasted so much time in the society.

      Edit - And the universe doesn't use scientific papers, thesis, evidence and so on to run. As your story said, let me phrase it: Grind down the universe to the finest sieve and show me one molecule which demands evidence. The universe just runs, without asking one to prove themselves. Why are you (and a lot of others) demanding evidence, I have no idea. After all - evidence doesn't decide things, does it?

      The post was edited 2 times, last by AMNeSia ().

    • Largenton wrote:

      What you are describing is essentially an economic and political system, not society.
      society

      [suh-sahy-i-tee]

      noun
      an organized group of persons associated together for religious, benevolent, cultural, scientific,political, patriotic, or other purposes.

      %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

      I'm not sure how politics and economics aren't part of a society, did I misunderstand your words here?

      @AMNeSia I don't think anyone has a problem with your opinion as your right to voice it...but if you don't want people to comment maybe you should keep it to yourself instead of putting it on a social media forum? Just a thought.

      GO - Bellatrix & Aquarius & Vega

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Silverwind ().

    • I haven't read the question premise, or the replies, but I have a quick thought to put down.


      Those of us playing OGame have already settled to one degree or another.





















      :zpopcorn:

      ~ Top 10s: 14 (18) + Assist on WorldWide Number 1 + Worldwide Number 2 (suicide) ~ RiPs: 80.962 ~

      ~ Experience is something you gain after you need it ~
    • Silverwind wrote:

      @AMNeSia I don't think anyone has a problem with your opinion as your right to voice it...but if you don't want people to comment maybe you should keep it to yourself instead of putting it on a social media forum? Just a thought.
      I would be more than stupid if I would think that I put something out and people don't comment on it. I expected more than a bit of flak for saying what I did and it's not a problem. Problem is him demanding evidence for my opinion. I don't use society's definition of science to judge things (except for practical, 'getting-the-job-done' purposes). I am not writing a thesis and he shouldn't demand evidence from me of something which is purely no more than my own perspective of the subject in question.

      The post was edited 2 times, last by AMNeSia ().

    • If you expected flak for what you said...then why is it a problem that @Largenton is giving it to you with a demand of evidence? ?(

      I just think it's a mixed signal that you've put words out here and because someone doesn't embrace your idea with open arms they can't ask you about it because "it's your opinion"

      But carry on, I've settled for farming which might be a bit more fun. :D

      GO - Bellatrix & Aquarius & Vega
    • Sorry, it's a public venue, as much as you have the right to talk about this esoteric nonsense, I think he has the right to comment as he wishes, right? Who made the rule he has to ask and can't demand? Can show me where someone has established he can't demand instead of ask, I might have missed it?

      GO - Bellatrix & Aquarius & Vega
    • Oh dear, I've upset someone because I criticised his "opinion"..... I believe this is a Discussion Board, not an opinion board and it still seems to me that you are upset because I demanded reasonable, intelligent discussion which might educate you. I used to mod here and there is a good reason why Cassandra Vandales asked this. Let's go through this to explain the problems.

      AMNeSia wrote:

      The very first sentence of my post says that it's my OPINION. I'm not writing a fucking thesis here, titled "Society: It's history, evolution and possible future." That's not my goal, it's pretty explicit.
      This is a discussion board. Whilst you have an opinion, I think Douglas Adams summarises things best.

      All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others.

      Yes you have an opinion, but if you are putting it up for criticism, expect someone to demand substance to it. Especially as you delve partially into my area of expertise (anthropology and history). Stating an opinion is worthless, what I wanted is some actual thought which you've not provided.

      AMNeSia wrote:

      You want evidence, I'm sure you can find some on your own. I'm not sitting around here to provide evidence to everyone who comes along and demands living proof of what's obvious.
      It is your opinion, therefore the onus is on you to provide evidence to explain it. Especially if you feel it is "obvious". People believed for a long time that it was obvious that the Sun went around the Earth. What is obvious can therefore be a lie.


      AMNeSia wrote:

      Yes, societal destruction is inevitable, because unlike other animal societies you mention, humans can't live in equilibrium with their environment.
      Not what you were implying. Again, I'm asking questions so that you explain your opinion. Even so, with this explanation it isn't inevitable. Quite frankly, you can't predict that even if it seems likely. And your viewpoint seems coloured by nihilism.


      AMNeSia wrote:

      Again, since the whole of it is my opinion, I'm talking from my perspective - yes, I don't feel that we need the society to make us feel human.
      And I, the person with two degrees in archaeology and experience with mental health disorders disagree with you. Because we form societies because it is part of our evolution. Which is why I am challenging you on this "opinion". Because according to actual knowledge, your proposal runs counter to what we actually know through logic, rational thought and evidence.


      AMNeSia wrote:

      A dog doesn't need a pack to feel like a dog, a cat doesn't need a litter of kittens to feel like a cat, a tiger doesn't need a timid deer to feel like a tiger.
      How do you know that? Because you have made an assumption. And a comparison to animals without the ability to think in the abstract as we do.


      AMNeSia wrote:

      No, a society doesn't make us human, our own individual thoughts and perspectives do. Yes, maybe lack of (same-species) social contact will make it not so simple to engage with others, but that doesn't make the one in isolation any less human.
      Actually society does make us human. Because our evolutionary success is based upon society. Literally, we cannot have humans if they don't form social groups.


      AMNeSia wrote:

      There would be no inadequacy of discovering something more in the first place!
      What a terrible thought. A life without wonder.


      AMNeSia wrote:

      As for achieving - yes, it's fun to achieve, but is there a 'need'?
      Maslov's hierarchy of needs. Look it up.


      AMNeSia wrote:

      I'm definitely an exception and not the norm, but yes - I prefer loneliness.
      There are a few individuals that do. But even extreme introverts require human contact sometimes. We actually get serotonin boosts from it.


      AMNeSia wrote:

      And yet, it all comes down to people fighting with each other. They can't stand each other, much less tolerate, even less accept and even lesser - get along
      Actually Stephen Pinker wrote a book a few years ago which showed statistically the world was getting more peaceful. Just a thought. Anyway, there is a degree of nihilism there which does not seem to be evidence based but an opinion derived from pessimism.


      AMNeSia wrote:

      And what's the point of living in a society if people can't get over their own egos?
      In this I quite like the story of Shanidar 1. To those outside my field, Shanidar 1 was an elderly Neanderthal found in Shanidar cave along with other Neanderthal burials. This individual had several injuries which would have made him "deformed" or at least disabled by today's standards. Researchers have concluded that others helped him stay alive whilst he was able to carry out other roles, or provide wisdom from his experiences. There are similar cases such as the Grandmother Hypothesis too, suggesting that the introduction of specialised roles within societies aid humans immensely, giving them the ability to cope with hardships.


      AMNeSia wrote:

      Maybe loneliness counts as an epidemic in this world, but only because humans deem it so.
      No, because not having contact with other humans in adequate amounts can cause illness. That is why it is an epidemic. We are not meant to be alone. It isn't because we deem it so, it is because it has an effect on health.


      AMNeSia wrote:

      Maybe lonely people don't behave according to societal norms, but that doesn't make them sick
      Anxiety and depression to name two mental health disorders are illnesses. Literally, loneliness can cause them or make them worse.


      AMNeSia wrote:

      Yes, society is mediocrity precisely because it provides more chances, since more chances = more contenders = less rate of success. If society can't provide equally for everyone without anyone having to compromise, then it's a failed system.
      Again this is in reference to capitalism, not society.


      AMNeSia wrote:

      And finally, as you put up a story earlier about humans needing fantasies to make life bearable - life is unbearable. Let it be accepted as unbearable rather than live a life through infinite lies.
      Unbearable implies suicide or at least suicidal thoughts. That is not a healthy worldview and that is something that will lead to depression.

      But the fact is, is that it is assuming life is unbearable. No it isn't. There is joy in life and I can assert that having been there and found my own answers. The fact is, is that assuming life is unbearable is a lie within itself. It assumes the most negative outcomes without any hope for better ones. That is a lie just as much as always looking on the bright side of life (if anyone doesn't start whistling because of that, shame on you).

      Lies make us human. Lies are the basis of abstract thought. In order to lie you need to use your imagination. And that ties into what you think about humans full stop.

      At school you may have learnt that atoms were the smallest things that exist and you may have imagined them as like billard balls. Later on, you are told this is wrong, i.e. a lie and given the idea of a solar system. We lie to each other sometimes to make us learn new things, to see new perspectives. Being human is about living a lie through infinite lies. And if you don't believe me, then how exactly can you read what I am saying and understand it?


      AMNeSia wrote:

      Yes, there's no point of living, but neither does that mean we should all die, nor that one has to believe the lies. Life never had a point, or maybe it did, no one knows. But one thing's for sure - society's a fallacy and there's a definite difference between surviving in the midst of it and accepting it.
      The answer is 42. Society though, well society is why we are here as a species.

      AMNeSia wrote:

      I just wish someone had told me this when I could start understanding language - maybe I wouldn't have wasted so much time in the society.
      The irony of this when language is just a well constructed way of creating images and lies to communicate is beautifully comic.


      AMNeSia wrote:

      Edit - And the universe doesn't use scientific papers, thesis, evidence and so on to run. As your story said, let me phrase it: Grind down the universe to the finest sieve and show me one molecule which demands evidence.
      No, scientific papers, theses and evidence is how we learn about the universe instead. Cart before the horse there. And my point was to make you think or at least someone think. It is part of Socratic philosophy and a very good way of viewing the world.


      Silverwind wrote:

      I'm not sure how politics and economics aren't part of a society, did I misunderstand your words here?
      No, society is more than politics and economics is what I am saying. Capitalism is a system run within society but if removed, society would still exist. Tis an important part, but I am saying society is more than capitalism. Good question ;)


      AMNeSia wrote:

      he shouldn't demand evidence from me of something which is purely no more than my own perspective of the subject in question.
      Why not? If something is wrong then shouldn't it be challenged?


      AMNeSia wrote:

      There's a difference between asking me why I feel a specific way or why I have a specific view (which I did explain) and demanding evidence like a court, or a science seminar. I'm sure you know that much.
      Asking for evidence is an attempt to get you to think why you have made that claim. It is a basic part of discussion. It is something that shows intelligence and I would rather cultivate that and maybe challenge your bleak, nihilistic and worryingly depressed viewpoint to promote something healthier.

      NoMoreAngel wrote:

      Nobody of the still active, not newly registered people, except maybe Cass and bibob will miss you
      And the COMA's opinion on the matter....
    • Man this is something you think about after a mushroom or two and thought about it I have. What I keep coming back to as an answer is fear, fear of failure maybe. We only get one life and I think most fear poverty more then lack of wealth so mediocrity is the safe bet, its what makes people controllable. Maybe its just me.

      I think Kaldor hit the nail on the head though, this game drains time and effort that could be put into other things. When I was younger I used to invest much more of my time in RL and my ogame rank reflected it. Almost a decade and a half later my dreams have come and gone and I find myself living vicariously though this game and spending more and more time here. As much as I love this game I sometimes wonder if on my deathbed it will be my greatest regret....
      Uni 1
      Zibal
      ~RIP Taurus~