General Question

whiteliondreams's avatar

What does it take for humans to be objectively agreeable and subjectively tolerant - minus egoism and skepticism?

Asked by whiteliondreams (1693 points ) August 22nd, 2012

I wanted to know what ideals do we think of and would like to implement into society that would not hinder us incapable of living amongst each other “peacefully”?

By peacefully I mean through perfect knowledge, and by perfect I mean ideal in your mind; and by knowledge I mean experiential, theoretical, and intrinsically good in itself; whereby, intrinsically good in itself I mean requires no external influence to be considered an end and with the possibility of this particular end also being alternatively a means.

I.e. Thinking (Philosophizing): It is intrinsically good because it gives humans the opportunity to communicate and organize knowledge and only requires the individual at hand to come to an end (although not always).

This question relates to wanting to understand what it takes for people to communicate effectively, respect subjective beliefs based on their virtue and not on their moral propagation or ideals.

Furthermore, in this particular forum I expect people to be considerate and clean in their terms and terminology. If you have nothing progressive to add, please do not participate.

Lastly, consider society in the past and how it is today and how much it has or hasn’t changed and what things in the past could be used today to further advance humanization ecologically.

I.e. Education. If people are more educated, perhaps they can understand more about each other in a psychological, philosophical, and sociological sense. If so, what should be done to promote this? There is too much to add to this so please improvise and do not be condescending. Again, you do not need to respond.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

19 Answers

MilkyWay's avatar

An open mind.

wonderingwhy's avatar

A collective recognition that our happiness is a state of mind restricted solely to the mind of the individual. Start there, then work on a fundamental shift in external focus from “I” to “we”.

wundayatta's avatar

This question seems very complicated and goes in so many directions, that I don’t know what you really want. What is objectively agreeable? Does that mean we agree on facts? What is subjectively tolerant? Does that mean we tolerate other people’s points of view?

No ego? No skepticism?

I think we would have to not be human to reach these criteria. Without skepticism, we could not be knowledge seekers. Without ego, we could not have a point of view. To agree on facts, we would have to be the same person. To tolerate all points of view, we would have to be selfless.

So mass suicide is what it would take to meet your criteria. This, to me, is not desirable.

LuckyGuy's avatar

We’ll achieve that level the day we have unlimited free energy, food, water, clean air, shelter, and, maybe, sex.

Nullo's avatar

Understanding that nobody’s perfect, and that if we want others to be forgiving of our shortcomings, we should be willing to be forgiving of theirs.

zensky's avatar

Be willing to forgive ourselves.

Adirondackwannabe's avatar

Holy shit. What an amazing question. Do you think humans, as opinionized, imperfect beings can handle this? It would take an individual with incredible openess to new ideas, a willingness to accept new concepts easily, and a constant striving for new experiences and new knowledge and a willingness to discard long held views at will, all without any biases.

Adirondackwannabe's avatar

I’m bummed. I got the question, promoting this is going to suck because people suck.

zenvelo's avatar

You are right, none of us needs to respond to your question. But I think the premise is a little on the weak side. 99% of us do live our days out peacefully at any given time. We each do our best to get along with our neighbors and coworkers and community on any given day. And I think collectively we do a pretty good job of it.

Most of human interaction is a matter of boundaries, and learning to stand up for our own and not violate those of others. And most people learn that as they grow up.

Beyond that, I think you could only achieve your “perfected” world if it didn’t have humans in it. Maybe @wundayatta figured it out first.

augustlan's avatar

A fundamental change to human nature, a shift in which all of us feel connected to one another (the “we” that @wonderingwhy mentions) and the planet (or universe, even), too. How do we get there? Education and exposure. And lots of it.

DaphneT's avatar

Basic manners will help us live in agreeable objectivity and be tolerant subjectively.

Oh wait, we got bored with that. So here we are today, trying to revisit those social structures that got human society this far. Someone in our lives taught us that these things called manners were too constrictive and no longer needed to get along with each other. But that’s not really true, either. It’s just that the manners of the preceding centuries have such minimal place in today’s fast paced societies.

Where we once had time and leisure to study and interpret the reactions of our conversations, now we have to anticipate those reactions and force out a coherent thought that presupposes all variables and angles of interpretation.

Skepticism is a factor of today’s technological drive, egoism is what helps us survive the errors of our communications. If we could go back to an agrarian society, maybe we can remove the damaging skepticism and egoism that informs our conversations. Backwards isn’t a realistic, nor pragmatic way to view life or the evolution of social structure.

Determining something’s virtue is also fraught with dangers, as virtues have always been subjective. What is virtue in one society can be weakness in another. Consider gang-based societies that exist side-by-side with suburban societies that exist side-by-side with specific ethnic-cultural societies that exist side-by-side with elitist societies. This is currently happening in many cities, large and small. There is no agreement on what constitutes basic manners, except as by selecting the manners of the society we strive to enter.

Our social evolution went through a period of choosing to educate the less privileged to assist them in moving from one social level to another, now the less privileged are fodder for amusement. Anyone not financially in the top 1% of society-at-large are considered less privileged. So the few that view this as reprehensible are fighting a battle where rebels are forced into violent, non-peaceful modes of existence.

well, this took about an hour and three or four routines on So You Think You Can Dance and seems to be the long-winded version of what @LuckyGuy said. I’ll have to take the s__ from the dance routines

flo's avatar

I don’t think peace is in and on itself the ideal. If I find happiness in torturing animals and noone stops me, I have peace, and happiness.

whiteliondreams's avatar

You all provided AMAZING responses and they are ALL exactly what I was looking for. You truly have made my night, seriously. These are all precepts that we have grown up with, acquired, developed, given, shared, agreed and disagreed with, amongst other things. These are wonderful points you have made and it’s a start! We all realize something is wrong and it comes down to finding the figurative impetus that got us, as in society and humanity, to the point we are at now sociologically.

Again, thank you and I hope to see other additions. This is great.

flo's avatar

We’re too busy being helpful to child predators, (child beauty pageants, with fake boobs, fake butts etc. Let’s stop the insanity, that would be a start.

tinyfaery's avatar

I’m confused. This question is all over the place.

I’ll try to answer. Humans must realize we are connected to every living thing and what one person does affects the entire world.

Pandora's avatar

For that to happen we would have to accept ourselves as we are and have no ambition or desire. Ambition and desire drives us to greatness and tragedy. It is the yin and yang of life.
Without ambition, we wouldn’t have medical discoveries, but it comes often with a desire to be rich and recognized, which means not all will benefit from the discoveries because the expense.
Society isn’t perfect but our bodies are not perfect either. We die, we get ill, we get hungry, we get cold, or overheated. We are slaves to the flesh first because of our desire to survive. That desire keeps us alive and fighting for what we need, but it often comes at the price of making someone else suffer. Our population continues to grow so I only see the fight for survival becoming worse.
Our desire for self preservation would have to be the very first thing to go.

Coloma's avatar

Yes, open mindedness, and a loss or drop of ego.
@Pandora is correct, self acceptance leads to other acceptance and ego is all about being right and “winning” vs. sharing, learning. Ego is not needed for survival in the physical sense, but in the psychological sense, a bruised ego FEELS like self annihilation.

whiteliondreams's avatar

See, what many of you discuss is dualism. How something has to be right or wrong or good or bad. These dichotomies are another variable that sets a limit on human understanding. It doesn’t go without saying we need to understand limitations and restrictions, but by labeling actions as right or wrong and characters as good and bad we are subjecting people to the injustice of judgment without understanding why people act inappropriately (based on a given circumstance or situation) and why their personalities support and convey inappropriate actions.

I’m sorry the question and the context seem “everywhere”, but if it wasn’t everywhere, then you would be left without certain details. I did my best to provide as much “perspective”. I cannot simply place one question without numerous thoughts into it and expect you to understand my context or perspective because with or without the information, you may have well responded that it didn’t have enough details. So it’s a lose-lose situation for me.

KNOWITALL's avatar

You have to be willing to accept without rancor everyone else’s actions, opinions, words, etc..

One thing about life in simpler times was that people generally tried to treat each other well and with respect, and people who could not conform to that expectation were generally reclusive and did not participate, which reduced conflict.

Today we communicate so rapidly and about so much, such as fb posts & Twitter, we often lack the consideration found in other generations. We think more about the self than the group unfortunately.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther