Guests may browse all the site, but only registered users can post in the main forums.
Unregistered users may post in the Free Range Talk Forum

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The nature of influence.
#1
This is not something I'm capable of writing. But it say's what I think. You can google the author.

Quote:"There is no such thing as a good influence, Mr. Gray. All influence is immoral -- immoral from the scientific point of view."

"Why?"

"Because to influence a person is to give him one's own soul. He does not think his natural thoughts, or burn with his natural passions. His virtues are not real to him. His sins, if there are such things as sins, are borrowed. He becomes an echo of some one else's music, an actor of a part that has not been written for him. The aim of life is self-development. To realize one's nature perfectly -- that is what each of us is here for. People are afraid of themselves, nowadays. They have forgotten the highest of all duties, the duty that one owes to one's self.

Since I don't believe in souls, I think you can read that word as "humanity".
Winner.
Winner.

Chicken Dinner.


Reply
#2
Morality or immorality is a human construct, something that changes over time and from place to place. If "influence" is itself immoral, that in itself is a human construct and as used here, is itself influence. We've come full circle.

If taken to an extreme, our parents would not impart to us the language they speak. They would allow us the freedom to explore our own nature, such that we would develop our own language. Soon, no person could communicate with another. Perhaps a few grunts during mating season, but we would cease to be that thing that makes us uniquely human.

Reminds me of a philosophy class in college, where we spend a great deal of time discussing a writing that in it's final analysis has zero meaning to our everyday lives. But hey, it's Saturday morning and I don't have to go to work for a little while.
Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country.  
Reply
#3
I think I understand where the writer is coming from, but I also think he left something very important out.

Civilization.

Man evolved from a form of humans who beat women over the head and dragged them off to the cave. Alpha Man ruled the day. Man's inherent nature is to win at all costs. Civilization over the last milinia or two has taken the rough edges off that inherent condition but we do need to keep working on it every day.

It puts awesome and awful constraints on us because we just know we could get a lot more of what we want if we were just free to fight for it without cops coming to haul us off to the pokey.

Short answer: I think it's a good thing to allow ourselves to be influenced by people who have evolved into more caring, sharing, and responsible citizens. But he is right that we also need to remember who WE are and try to be true to that if we can.

This topic isn't easy to avoid talking about why we have religion in the world. But I'm avoiding it for the moment, anyways.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If I don't answer when you talk to me or about me, that's likely because I have you on ignore.  Try to PM me. It won't let you PM me if I have you on ignore. There are other people, not members, who peruse this site. I want THEM to know why I don't reply to everyone who talks to or about me.
Reply
#4
(07-23-2016, 09:29 AM)Liberty Wrote: This is not something I'm capable of writing. But it say's what I think. You can google the author.


Quote:"There is no such thing as a good influence, Mr. Gray. All influence is immoral -- immoral from the scientific point of view."

"Why?"

"Because to influence a person is to give him one's own soul. He does not think his natural thoughts, or burn with his natural passions. His virtues are not real to him. His sins, if there are such things as sins, are borrowed. He becomes an echo of some one else's music, an actor of a part that has not been written for him. The aim of life is self-development. To realize one's nature perfectly -- that is what each of us is here for. People are afraid of themselves, nowadays. They have forgotten the highest of all duties, the duty that one owes to one's self.

Since I don't believe in souls, I think you can read that word as "humanity".

One of the things that allowed humans to become successful overall as a species is culture. We pass our knowledge base on through it and one of the way to do that is through influence. The idea that the highest of all duties is the duty to one's own self was passed along itself through influence.
"Some people have a way with words. Others...oh...not have way." - Steve Martin
Reply
#5
Quote:This topic isn't easy to avoid talking about why we have religion in the world. But I'm avoiding it for the moment, anyways.

We have religions because we have gods. We have gods because men are afraid to face a reality where they exist for 70 years and stop existing. Religion is a symptom of fear.

Quote:We pass our knowledge base on through it and one of the way to do that is through influence.

Sure, that's inevitable. But because of that, we really aren't ourselves, but rather an amalgamation of the influences on our lives. Maybe one of the baby steps of becoming yourself is recognizing the we aren't ourselves, but what we have been made into. If we know that, maybe we won't be given so easily to outside influence and can become genuine individuals to some extent.
Winner.
Winner.

Chicken Dinner.


Reply
#6
(07-23-2016, 06:17 PM)Liberty Wrote: We have religions because we have gods. We have gods because men are afraid to face a reality where they exist for 70 years and stop existing. Religion is a symptom of fear.


Sure, that's inevitable. But because of that, we really aren't ourselves, but rather an amalgamation of the influences on our lives. Maybe one of the baby steps of becoming yourself is recognizing the we aren't ourselves, but what we have been made into. If we know that, maybe we won't be given so easily to outside influence and can become genuine individuals to some extent.

Define "genuine individual".

And I've just noticed that the reply no longer includes the quotes you quote in your original post. It just quotes what you typed. Is that something new?
"Some people have a way with words. Others...oh...not have way." - Steve Martin
Reply
#7
I think if you reply to a reply that quoted a previous reply, you only get the latest quoted reply included. There was an issue quite a while back, where all the replied-to quotes were stacking up ridiculously so, making it hard to follow so the Kahuna limited that action.

Whut?
Reply
#8
(07-23-2016, 07:24 PM)rockchalker52 Wrote: I think if you reply to a reply that quoted a previous reply, you only get the latest quoted reply included. There was an issue quite a while back, where all the replied-to quotes were stacking up ridiculously so, making it hard to follow so the Kahuna limited that action.

Whut?

That makes sense. I can just copy/paste the quote they were referring to in then. Thanks!
"Some people have a way with words. Others...oh...not have way." - Steve Martin
Reply
#9
Liberty Quote:


[i]We have religions because we have gods. We have gods because men are afraid to face a reality where they exist for 70 years and stop existing. Religion is a symptom of fear.[/i]



I don't have a beef with people who have a god or gods. I always think in terms of politics. Can't help it. And my one problem with some people is that their politics says there either HAS to be a god and that god has to be every citizen's god or they can't be first class citizens.

Not nearly as irritating to me is the other extreme where people say there are no gods and therefore you're inferior if you have one. Let me stress it's when they want to insist that religious people are stupid, less than in some way.

My concern is when either side insists that the other side is not worthy of choosing representatives to run our country.

I know from experience that you can have a god and you can, at the same time, not judge other people on that point.

I suppose if I have one supreme god it's the god of balance... I'm okay. You're okay. Where gods are concerned.

As you might guess, what follows is that the biggest political sin I know of is insisting that there be laws that are based on religion.

Not only do I not want their religious laws, I don't want them in my face about it. So their protests at abortion clinics are immensely disturbing to me and should be outlawed. They should not be allowed to protest within a mile of an abortion clinic.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If I don't answer when you talk to me or about me, that's likely because I have you on ignore.  Try to PM me. It won't let you PM me if I have you on ignore. There are other people, not members, who peruse this site. I want THEM to know why I don't reply to everyone who talks to or about me.
Reply
#10
Since I don't believe in souls, I think you can read that word as "humanity".

So everyone is a ginger to you?
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Our Amazon Picks


Donate With PayPal