by ReverseEngineer » Mon 01 Sep 2008, 04:29:18
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MadScientist', 'I')n psychology, this phenomenon is refereed as human resilience. Resiliency is the ability of an individual to face painful events or adversities and grow and mature as a result of them. This psychological quality was "discovered" when researchers observed children, who despite having grown dysfunctional family environments, suffered physical and psychological abuse, and poverty, they were able to overcome these adverse conditions and become “normal” and productive and relatively well adjust adults
By this logic, in order to make our children stronger and better able to face the hard times ahead, we should physically and psychologically abuse them. While you might make a case for this being true, its hardly a life worth living, now is it?
Clearly this thread has matured into a debate between Nazis, Darwinists, Collectivists and Fundamentalists. Some folks cross various lines in the arguments, its not all black and white of course but the underlying separations in the philosophies are visible in the writings. The Nazis are look out for #1 at all costs, the Darwinists figure nature will takes its course regardless, the Collectivists feel if we all work together for the common good we will be better off and the Fundamentalists believe that by following principles in the Bible/Talmud/Koran/Bagivat Gita whatever we can achieve a balance ordained by God/Nature. Does that sum it up well enough? I can't really pick out any other distinct philosophical argument being made here anyhow.
I tend to fall in these arguments somewhere between a Darwinist and a Collectivist. Its absurd IMHO to believe "the meek will inherit the earth". In Nature, its always the strong who survive in the end, but on a social level its not necessarily the individual who must be strong, but the bonds and ties between the individuals must be strong. That is where the Collectivism comes in.
Children are vulnerable and they must be PROTECTED, at all costs. To make the case that because an individual might become stronger as a result of abuse and in so doing become more able to survive undermines the human spirit, and similarly also to put adults through repeated trials in the effort to "make them stronger" generally only succeeds in beating them down further.
To my mind, Nazi style thinking wherin one person or group of people take control and determine life or death over another group is abhorrent and despicable, it is beneath contempt. Fundamentalist thinking simply does not really WORK, it hasn't worked since the inception of organized religion. It only serves as an Opiate for the Masses.
If you fall in the category of a Darwinist or a Collectivist, from my point of view the arguments have merit and can be consistent with value in the human life, both on the individual level as well as the social level. If you are a Nazi, you are Evil, simply stated. If you are a Christian/Muslim/Jew/Hindu/Buddhist, you are a deluded fool.
If you are to survive at all, you have to know what strength really is, and it is not simply being able to stand up to tough times. Its also knowing how to value a given human life, your own and that of others. Sometimes its worth it to give up your own life to save others. There is Honor in that. There is no Honor in saving your own life at the expense of others, it is a life not worth living.
Each of you will choose your own path in the dark days ahead. For each of you, there may come a day when you have to decide whether you will live or you will sacrifice yourself for others. Only you can know what the right choice is to make and when you have to make it.
Reverse Engineer