Are those who are most sensitive/serious about their purpose the most human?

Affable

OK please dont' pick apart for cliches or pick apart language wise, because it's my way of getting my jist across, just try and empathise with what I'm getting at. Something I've always wondered.

Are those who are most sensitive/serious about their purpose the most human? ie Those that have a drive for distingiushment, those that separate themselves from the basest thoughts, feelings such as being a stud down the pub, for example, to attain some so called higher human endeavour(such as subtle humour, writing, extra work on sports etc, hgreat scientific thought etc). Or are they actually just neurotics that need validation, can't acknowledge all of our more base natures and are too high minded about what they stand for. (Can those who are the best in the primal arena like the pub, where you need chutzpah charisma and looks, actually lay claim to a greater human savvy in an implicit knowledge of what the games about and that oversensitivty is an (self)indulgence, a neurosis, a way of distinguishment and differentiating that sacks of insecurity and is not really needed )They might be doing it because of the insecurities we all have about not standing out or being worthwhile, they might have to try harder because of fear of failure, they might be perfectionist hypersensitve, compensating or whatever.

I mean to say, more speicifically, what conclusion do we draw when we consider those who attained distinguished because of some neurotic drive. Could be insecurity, need for validation, hypersensitivity perfectionsim or whatever. Whereas some people are more charismatic, more loud, sexy, brutish or whatever, people you see down the pub on a Friday night hhave more about them on that superfical appearance than many of the distinguished. So is this a case of still waters run deep? Is it a case of the distinguished often being more fearful of failure and needing validation more?
In that case, does that make them more human because they care more or have more perfectionism/vision? Or is that just neurotic? Are they the canny interesting ones, or are the people who can let go and have no need to distinguish themselves as mentally special yet still have a presence and impact the really canny ones? (in subconsciously letting go of sensitivity and realsing that too much is no good and we are all animals)?

That should read, but they are content to be the charismatic guy/girl down the pub who looks good and makes an impact personality/vivaciousness wise.

Is trying to attain to much subtlety or seriousness mentally actually a form of fear and neurosis or is it what makes us most human?

I hope you can grasp some of this because it is kind of abstract, like some stuff I post.

Latchy

Is this what they call it when your creative jucies are flowing ?

Affable

Latchy wrote: »

Is this what they call it when your creative jucies are flowing ?

I have no idea whta you're on about.

thebouldwhacker

OP, the short answer is no.

Perhaps if one fits in well with contemp society the perception may exist that they are better but the last few months have shown this to be false.

with regard to who is most human, the question could be asked which breed is most dog? cute labs? fast greyhounds? tiny little rat dogs?
The answer is while they are all very different they are ALL dogs, none more so than any other.

Perhaps by asking such questions some would call you 'most human'?

Affable

thebouldwhacker wrote: »

OP, the short answer is no.

Perhaps if one fits in well with contemp society the perception may exist that they are better but the last few months have shown this to be false.

with regard to who is most human, the question could be asked which breed is most dog? cute labs? fast greyhounds? tiny little rat dogs?
The answer is while they are all very different they are ALL dogs, none more so than any other.

Perhaps by asking such questions some would call you 'most human'?

Most interesting then. I mean to say. That narrows it down and makes the question more easy to address. Are the great creative people, great sportsmen, great scientists etc the most interesting? Or are they just the most self-important, the most driven by neurosis, the most enamoured with their own path in life, the most needy for validation, the most hypersensitive etc? Is the truly interesting the one who can submit to their place in the universe as just a human animal like everyone else?
Does it require a kind of savvy to trust base instincts and not aspire to anything 'higher'? This is what I mean about the less ambitious or serious about an art/purpose people who are attractive, charismatiic, ballsy or whatever. These are the people in the world who let you know that your self-importance from coming from any disntinguished background is unwarranted. Cos when you step in a pub Friday night, you aint **** in that arena, get me? I know coming from my background that I recieved extra attention and a sense of value from relatives distinguishment which I often feel is a complete delusion wehn faced with the real world. A perfect example of the dsinguished who may have worked extra hard, needed validation and is sensitive enough to aximise their awareness of their own inner lives and family lives. Which you could say is good sense, or you could say is boring and trying to inflate ones importance.

Still can't figure this out.

dreamlogic

thebouldwhacker wrote: »

with regard to who is most human, the question could be asked which breed is most dog? cute labs? fast greyhounds? tiny little rat dogs?
The answer is while they are all very different they are ALL dogs, none more so than any other.

LOL @ which breed is most dog. Classic!

Joe1919

Erasmus seem to argue that to be stupid is also human, perhaps even more human than to be rational. (although we have to be careful about this interpretation as these statements were satirical).

'I am Stultitia, Goddess of Folly, from whom gods and men derive all cheerfulness. I am incapable of deceit. Look how great Jupiter has given men an ounce of reason to each pound of passion....... I charm away woes, and makes life bearable. It is I who make old men wear wigs. As to the wisdom of the learned professions, the more empty-headed any one of them is, the more he will be thought of. Fake physicians, pettifogging lawyers, chattering barristers- and they make for themselves fortunes! I make men drunk like wine! It is I who alleviate the drudgery of the schoolmaster. The poets ought to laud me, but waste their time with manuscripts and the praise of few....... So, live and drink lustily, my most excellent disciples of Folly! '

Erasmus In 'Praise of Folly' (condensed)

http://www.btinternet.com/~glynhughes/squashed/erasmus.htm

thebouldwhacker

I'm thinking this may have more to do with personal experence that philosophyic investigation???

Affable

thebouldwhacker wrote: »

I'm thinking this may have more to do with personal experence that philosophyic investigation???

It's both, but what does it matter?

orestes

Moved from philosophy forum.

Affable

thebouldwhacker wrote: »

Perhaps by asking such questions some would call you 'most human'?

Why?

Earthhorse

The problem here is that you are trying to ascribe too much to the word human.

To be driven to succeed in life out of some neurosis, some need for validation; that is human.

To act the lad down the pub out of some sense of insecurity at your masculinity; that is also human.

thebouldwhacker touched on this and so you have rephrased the question as:

Affable wrote: »

Most interesting then. I mean to say. That narrows it down and makes the question more easy to address. Are the great creative people, great sportsmen, great scientists etc the most interesting?

Again, this depends on what you mean by interesting! Sorry to focus on defintions, I know we've moved out of the Philosophy forum but I still think definitions are important here.

It might be interesting to read a biography on Orson Welles, or to have spent an evening in his company being regaled by anecdote after amazing anecdote, but would he have been an interesting person to know beyond that? Hard to say.

Similarly, is the raucous, salt of the earth, punter down the pub a man of hidden depth or wisdom or talent? Perhaps you will have more adventures with him or learn something from his acceptance of his "place", as it were, or perhaps he is just a raucous bore.

There's no one answer to your question I think. It may just be a matter of doing things for the right reasons.

Are you trying to find peace with your own path in life OP?

Affable

Earthhorse wrote: »

The problem here is that you are trying to ascribe too much to the word human.

To be driven to succeed in life out of some neurosis, some need for validation; that is human.

To act the lad down the pub out of some sense of insecurity at your masculinity; that is also human.

thebouldwhacker touched on this and so you have rephrased the question as:



Again, this depends on what you mean by interesting! Sorry to focus on defintions, I know we've moved out of the Philosophy forum but I still think definitions are important here.

It might be interesting to read a biography on Orson Welles, or to have spent an evening in his company being regaled by anecdote after amazing anecdote, but would he have been an interesting person to know beyond that? Hard to say.

Similarly, is the raucous, salt of the earth, punter down the pub a man of hidden depth or wisdom or talent? Perhaps you will have more adventures with him or learn something from his acceptance of his "place", as it were, or perhaps he is just a raucous bore.

There's no one answer to your question I think. It may just be a matter of doing things for the right reasons.

Are you trying to find peace with your own path in life OP?

Thanks. Yes I kind of am! Doing things for the right reasons, or indeed accepting that there is no objective truth on this issue, and therefore selecting an almost arbitrary conviction from a set of options.