The cure for Avatar depression

[Traumaward313]

No. Don't you get it? Technological advancement is the purpose of our species, it drives the culture, the outlook. Trying to "Learn how to live" as you so oddly put it, is pointless because culture is driven by adaptation which is in effect, technological advancement. It cant prop itself up. Native societies did not "choose" to do anything they were simply primitive because by whatever twist of fate at the beginning of the world, Eurasia was predisposed to gain the ability to farm sooner and better, which meant advancement, and eventually conquering. You think European barbarians, Greeks, and Native Americans weren't into killing and conquering too? Think again.

Te world is about conquering, taking and destroying. People work together, in order to do that better. "Living in harmony" is stagnation. (not talking about environmental conservation with that one)

So in conclusion: Cool Story Bro!

Bravo sir.

 

[Cowabungaa]

Depressed about Pandora not existing? Watch the Planet Earth series, that'll appreciate your planet more.

The last part of the Caves episode for example, you would never imagine something that gorgeous to exist on Earth, and it's definitely on par with the Tree of Souls.

 

[Captain Blackout]

No. Don't you get it? Technological advancement is the purpose of our species, it drives the culture, the outlook. Trying to "Learn how to live" as you so oddly put it, is pointless because culture is driven by adaptation which is in effect, technological advancement. It cant prop itself up. Native societies did not "choose" to do anything they were simply primitive because by whatever twist of fate at the beginning of the world, Eurasia was predisposed to gain the ability to farm sooner and better, which meant advancement, and eventually conquering. You think European barbarians, Greeks, and Native Americans weren't into killing and conquering too? Think again.

Te world is about conquering, taking and destroying. People work together, in order to do that better. "Living in harmony" is stagnation. (not talking about environmental conservation with that one)

So in conclusion: Cool Story Bro!

Bravo sir.

Neither of you get it. Harmony is not inherently stagnation. There are indigenous groups today against capitalism. The statement "Technological advancement is the purpose of our species" is an assumption. While many cultures certainly practiced warlike behavior, not all did. If technology is all that gives your life meaning, good for you. Don't assume the rest of the world works that way.

I did my homework, now it's time for you to do yours. Here's a thought, read a few books. I recommend "Ishmael", the "Tao Te Jhing", and "Existential Psychotherapy". You'll learn a lot. Or you could just whip out whatever mindless retort you might have and go on happy with yourself.

EDIT: That was mostly aimed at nick knack. Careful quoting the guy who tells the OP to 'think again' when the OP knows he's done more homework on the subject (obvious as hell when nick knack says "all x cultures are into killing and conquering" and the OP has researched said cultures and found plenty of counter-examples)

 

[Nihilism_Is_Bliss]

i was sad (actually still sad) that pokemon aren't real when i was a kid.
i was sad i could not have my own daemon after reading the his dark materials trilogy.
i was sad on my eleventh birthday when hagrid didn't come and invite me to hogwarts.
however i wasn't sad when i left the cinema after seeing Avatar. at first i was like, man, that'd be pretty cool. especially when i considered that na'vi can download information instantly directly to their brain
but then i was just like, nah...no electricity.

 

[Allan53]

Christianity was a beautiful thing until Constantine (another fucked up Roman) completely ruined it.

Constantine just stopped the persecution of Christians. How does that ruin it?

NB: Not trolling. Checking my understanding.

No more feeding Christians to lions, that just softened up the worship base. Only the hardcore were into Christianity before Constantine.

To be fair, all the negative things people attribute to Christianity are/were done by the "hardcore" ones.

Christianity was a beautiful thing until Constantine (another fucked up Roman) completely ruined it.

Constantine just stopped the persecution of Christians. How does that ruin it?

NB: Not trolling. Checking my understanding.

Right after he stopped persecution of the Christians, he started the campaigns of persecution against pagans. He started small with economic deprivation of pagan temples but we all know how the mess ended in the dark ages with the witch burnings and shit....

All of which occurred centuries after he died. And Christianity just happened to gain influence after Rome collapsed (which occurred from about 150 AD to about 470 AD). He stopped the persecution of people for their beliefs. How is that bad? And the Goths were enemies of Rome at the time, shouldn't an emperor defend his empire?

 

[Captain Blackout]

To be fair, all the negative things people attribute to Christianity are/were done by the "hardcore" ones.

Christianity was a beautiful thing until Constantine (another fucked up Roman) completely ruined it.

Constantine just stopped the persecution of Christians. How does that ruin it?

NB: Not trolling. Checking my understanding.

Right after he stopped persecution of the Christians, he started the campaigns of persecution against pagans. He started small with economic deprivation of pagan temples but we all know how the mess ended in the dark ages with the witch burnings and shit....

All of which occurred centuries after he died. And Christianity just happened to gain influence after Rome collapsed (which occurred from about 150 AD to about 470 AD). He stopped the persecution of people for their beliefs. How is that bad? And the Goths were enemies of Rome at the time, shouldn't an emperor defend his empire?

#1: This is waaaay off topic
#2: Read the thread before you post (if you did, you missed a crucial point)
#3: Now for the real fun, the educational part:

Constantine started a new process of persecution. One of the first things he did was to defund a number of pagan temples. Not centuries after he died, while he was living. His idea to begin with. Constantine stopped the persecution of Christians, and started the persecution of everyone else. Furthermore, what he did against heretics was even worse. Prior to Constantine Christianity was a religion of choice, with various heresies around. The word heresy means choice. Constantine didn't see it this way. He ruled against the Donatists, then waged war against them, Christian against Christian. This is what Jesus wanted? He then held the Council of Nicaea an established a single Christianity for all, declaring heretics outlaws. The single most important theme in Christianity was compassion, and Constantine swept that aside when it didn't fit his politic and religious aims of power for himself and his new empire. According to legend Constantine was to cross on his warriors shields and send them out. The shield is a symbol of defense. Constantine took it a step further. According to another legend he had his army baptized, keeping their right arms out of the water because that was the sword arm they were to use to kill in God's name. Jesus wept. If Christians are to kill Christians and pagans are second-class citizens, how long before the pagans are burnt as witches just as Christians were before? Constantine wasn't defending an empire, he was building a monolith to his own ego. Christianity was meant to be carried to world as an addition to other's beliefs. Instead Constantine stole from others in order to make his monolith more palatable to them. There was another thread on here "Who would you punch in the face of you could". Constantine was a toss up for me with one other person. Hitler wasn't the other, because the raving mad didn't cross my mind at the time, just the trolls who find a way to philosophically fuck up the world for everyone else and truly know what they're up to.

 

[CloakedOne]

but depression is a beauty on its on for it gives makes us relize art and life, happiness is just a noroctic that leaves you hallow but is necessary form time to time.

What? Depression is a beauty? Do you have any idea, any idea at all, what being depressed feels like?

beauty can be different things to different people.

Again, do you know what depression is? You might as well have quoted me saying "What? A cripple can walk?" and then say there are different ways of walking. We are dealing with an illness that is defined as a state of unhappiness. I won't deny you could define beauty in some theoretical way that would make this connection possible, but in the context that was being discussed here, that's not the case. I can see no possible way that a depressed person could ever think: "this I'm feeling... it's beautiful."

your example of cripple vs. depression is, to say the least, hyperbolic and flawed. Comparing a cripple to a clinically depressed person is no comparison at all. Besides, you missed the point. I am talking about someone who can appreciate depression and not telling someone to find other ways to be happy as your analogy implies.
I am very aware of what depression is because I too had been clinically depressed for a significant portion of my life. Although it was hell for me, that doesn't mean everyone takes it the same way. I'm not going to be so quick as to judge someone else's idea of what beauty is because, as has been over-quoted so many times but is apparently in need of quoting again, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." Shakespeare was on to something when he wrote added that little like about "sweet sorrow". Think about it that way. I'm sorry if the idea of someone appreciating a state like depression angers you, but if someone can find the good in it, why is that so terrible? It really is okay if they feel that way, it's not hurting anything. The person that finds beauty in depression may change his or her mind when and if they feel it themselves, but why would anyone want to rush such optimism to be destroyed? Because it's not close to reality? First consider that you're at least partly defending depression brought about by a movie about an undeniably fictional place. To me the thought of getting clinically depressed over the message and/or the imagery in "Avatar" is extremely juvenile and pathetic, but I cannot possibly understand what these people are experiencing because the movie, although I enjoyed it, did not affect me in the same way; because this is so, I am not going judge those people that are experiencing that sort of sadness.

 

[Malkavian]

but depression is a beauty on its on for it gives makes us relize art and life, happiness is just a noroctic that leaves you hallow but is necessary form time to time.

What? Depression is a beauty? Do you have any idea, any idea at all, what being depressed feels like?

beauty can be different things to different people.

Again, do you know what depression is? You might as well have quoted me saying "What? A cripple can walk?" and then say there are different ways of walking. We are dealing with an illness that is defined as a state of unhappiness. I won't deny you could define beauty in some theoretical way that would make this connection possible, but in the context that was being discussed here, that's not the case. I can see no possible way that a depressed person could ever think: "this I'm feeling... it's beautiful."

your example of cripple vs. depression is, to say the least, hyperbolic and flawed. Comparing a cripple to a clinically depressed person is no comparison at all. Besides, you missed the point. I am talking about someone who can appreciate depression and not telling someone to find other ways to be happy as your analogy implies.
I am very aware of what depression is because I too had been clinically depressed for a significant portion of my life. Although it was hell for me, that doesn't mean everyone takes it the same way. I'm not going to be so quick as to judge someone else's idea of what beauty is because, as has been over-quoted so many times but is apparently in need of quoting again, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." Shakespeare was on to something when he wrote added that little like about "sweet sorrow". Think about it that way. I'm sorry if the idea of someone appreciating a state like depression angers you, but if someone can find the good in it, why is that so terrible? It really is okay if they feel that way, it's not hurting anything. The person that finds beauty in depression may change his or her mind when and if they feel it themselves, but why would anyone want to rush such optimism to be destroyed? Because it's not close to reality? First consider that you're at least partly defending depression brought about by a movie about an undeniably fictional place. To me the thought of getting clinically depressed over the message and/or the imagery in "Avatar" is extremely juvenile and pathetic, but I cannot possibly understand what these people are experiencing because the movie, although I enjoyed it, did not affect me in the same way; because this is so, I am not going judge those people that are experiencing that sort of sadness.

First off, I was in no way adressing the idea of Avatar Depression. The idea of such a thing even existing seems unlikely and abstract to me.
Secondly, my motivation in denying that beauty can be found in being depressed, has already been stated in the thread. I know it's a dickish move to just say: "already talked about it", but I don't feel the drive right now to reitterate my previous statements.
If there is indeed beauty and happiness to find in depression, I would not want to destroy it. I just find it highly unlikely that a condition that is defined by sadness and lack of energy and purpose could be described as beauty. I do understand the idea of "sweet sadness", but that is somethign completely else, at least as I understand it. Before my illness crept in, I had many a time found myself feeling sorrow over something, and still being able to smile a little over it.
I am not particularly angered by someone appreciating depression, if they themselves are indeed depressed, it just seems so... strange to me. I am angered however by people that have not experienced depression, and yet still glorifies it.

 

[Akas]

The world has changed, but it's hardly as bleak as you say it is. While imperialization/colonization/etc. may have destroyed native cultures, this is still a somewhat narrow view on life. Let me give you an example:

50 years ago, imagine that you were suddenly transported halfway around the world to Asia, Africa, etc. You'd try and talk with the people, but you wouldn't be able to communicate. You'd have no common ground, and at best, you'd be able to make it to an embassy and talk with one of your countrymen. There's no way you'd go wandering in the middle of a city in that environment.

Today, do the same, and you'd be able to find people that spoke the same language as you. The people around you might not have the exact stuff that you do, but they have amenities like television and internet, and you might find it easier to talk with them, in fact (since you have some common ground). It's not bad that we all have somewhat common ground to talk to people with: it's good.

Oh, and I don't mean to insult you with this but seriously, you sound like an idealist hippie. Hippies aren't good or bad, but even the most liberal hippies desire things just like everyone else. Hippies trying to get stuff out of supposedly "pure" practices is nothing new. Ask how many male hippies sign up for studying tantric Hinduism for purely spiritual reasons and not to have better sex. Or how many hippies are willing to give away all of their food, possessions, etc. to some random stranger. People are people, you sound like you're blaming them for doing stuff that comes naturally to us.

If you really want to get people "learning how to live" and "learning how to relax instead of physically crushing each other", do something about it. Create a volunteer group that helps out others in the community. Or donate half (or more) of your money to people in third-world countries. Or simply do research on many falsehoods propagated by even the "eco" movement (hint: the "natural" side is not as pristine as you think it is). By doing that, you might just solve this "depression" that comes from a movie and do something that makes an impact on someone's life.

So I'm supposed to just go my church and do good works there (which I do) instead of voicing a philosophy I've worked my whole life at? How about I do both, that okay with you? Also, I said the tech was just toys. I also admitted in another post in this thread that I'm a technophile, I love the toys. I just don't worship them, they way the culture around me seems to. Finally, I know something about folks who went halfway around the world over 50 years ago and did just fine. They were called explorers and the best of them learned how to learn new languages and live in new enviroments, something we don't teach. Here's a thought, let's take all our tech and build better schools, make as much education as possible available to as many as possible. Here's another thought: Don't peg me as an unrealistic hippie after one post. I am a hippie, but unrealistic? No. I put my lessons to use first and foremost at home for my family and they work.

Sigh, people always get defensive when they're called things even if I clarify that it's not bad. Idealistic hippies aren't bad, same as cynics, same with republicans, democrats, etc.: differing positions are what make the world great.

Anyways, if you do something about it, more power to you. You're more active than about half the idealistic hippies I know. But seriously, your argument is a bit flawed when it comes to technology. Just because the American culture seems to worship technology, you think the whole world does? Uhh...I'd have to disagree with you there. Even if Americans do, it's a subjective topic. You could argue that NYC, for example, is a place obsessed with technology, while I could argue that's furthest from the truth.

Secondly, I'm sorry to say, but you're a bit ignorant on the whole "teaching about new environments/languages" thing. I've spent my entire life traveling, visited five of the seven continents, and spent time teaching English to people of different nationalities. While the majority of America wants to have English as a centralized (and global) language, that's not to say we don't teach about other languages and cultures. Just go to any university, library, or even just TALK to people. America is a land that has many immigrants, you know. Also, what makes you think you can teach exploration? Your sentence was a bit unclear, but if you really think you can teach exploration...

Today, there are modern day explorers out there as there will be 50 years from now: our lifestyle isn't glamorous, so people hardly write too much about us. And fifty years ago, yeah, they existed, but the average person wouldn't be able to connect with another culture as much as it could now. Globalization has it's good points, you know.

And I don't think anyone would argue that more education/better schools is a bad thing, but what does that have to do with anything?

 

[Traumaward313]

No. Don't you get it? Technological advancement is the purpose of our species, it drives the culture, the outlook. Trying to "Learn how to live" as you so oddly put it, is pointless because culture is driven by adaptation which is in effect, technological advancement. It cant prop itself up. Native societies did not "choose" to do anything they were simply primitive because by whatever twist of fate at the beginning of the world, Eurasia was predisposed to gain the ability to farm sooner and better, which meant advancement, and eventually conquering. You think European barbarians, Greeks, and Native Americans weren't into killing and conquering too? Think again.

Te world is about conquering, taking and destroying. People work together, in order to do that better. "Living in harmony" is stagnation. (not talking about environmental conservation with that one)

So in conclusion: Cool Story Bro!

Bravo sir.

Neither of you get it. Harmony is not inherently stagnation. There are indigenous groups today against capitalism. The statement "Technological advancement is the purpose of our species" is an assumption. While many cultures certainly practiced warlike behavior, not all did. If technology is all that gives your life meaning, good for you. Don't assume the rest of the world works that way.

I did my homework, now it's time for you to do yours. Here's a thought, read a few books. I recommend "Ishmael", the "Tao Te Jhing", and "Existential Psychotherapy". You'll learn a lot. Or you could just whip out whatever mindless retort you might have and go on happy with yourself.

EDIT: That was mostly aimed at nick knack. Careful quoting the guy who tells the OP to 'think again' when the OP knows he's done more homework on the subject (obvious as hell when nick knack says "all x cultures are into killing and conquering" and the OP has researched said cultures and found plenty of counter-examples)

I assumed he meant the cultures that advanced. Then again I can't really pretend this subject is the slightest bit interesting to me or important. Everyone has their points and i'm sure yours are equally convincing but it's just one of those things no one person has an answer to. It's all just going to be assumption, theory, speculation, personal belief/ preference. No one person will be more right than any other. It's escapist magazine not Masters of the Universe. Quite a hostile response though for someone apparently oh so learned in the ways of peace still.... Should that suggest your knowledge in this particular area makes you feel superior to us or maybe... more advanced? And thus ready to conquer our meager views? You've almost made his point

I'm still not interested in the topic though. I just wanted to see the deal with this Avatar depression stuff.

So bravo to you too for your no doubt equally, if not more so, substatiated claims!

 

[Captain Blackout]

The world has changed, but it's hardly as bleak as you say it is. While imperialization/colonization/etc. may have destroyed native cultures, this is still a somewhat narrow view on life. Let me give you an example:

50 years ago, imagine that you were suddenly transported halfway around the world to Asia, Africa, etc. You'd try and talk with the people, but you wouldn't be able to communicate. You'd have no common ground, and at best, you'd be able to make it to an embassy and talk with one of your countrymen. There's no way you'd go wandering in the middle of a city in that environment.

Today, do the same, and you'd be able to find people that spoke the same language as you. The people around you might not have the exact stuff that you do, but they have amenities like television and internet, and you might find it easier to talk with them, in fact (since you have some common ground). It's not bad that we all have somewhat common ground to talk to people with: it's good.

Oh, and I don't mean to insult you with this but seriously, you sound like an idealist hippie. Hippies aren't good or bad, but even the most liberal hippies desire things just like everyone else. Hippies trying to get stuff out of supposedly "pure" practices is nothing new. Ask how many male hippies sign up for studying tantric Hinduism for purely spiritual reasons and not to have better sex. Or how many hippies are willing to give away all of their food, possessions, etc. to some random stranger. People are people, you sound like you're blaming them for doing stuff that comes naturally to us.

If you really want to get people "learning how to live" and "learning how to relax instead of physically crushing each other", do something about it. Create a volunteer group that helps out others in the community. Or donate half (or more) of your money to people in third-world countries. Or simply do research on many falsehoods propagated by even the "eco" movement (hint: the "natural" side is not as pristine as you think it is). By doing that, you might just solve this "depression" that comes from a movie and do something that makes an impact on someone's life.

So I'm supposed to just go my church and do good works there (which I do) instead of voicing a philosophy I've worked my whole life at? How about I do both, that okay with you? Also, I said the tech was just toys. I also admitted in another post in this thread that I'm a technophile, I love the toys. I just don't worship them, they way the culture around me seems to. Finally, I know something about folks who went halfway around the world over 50 years ago and did just fine. They were called explorers and the best of them learned how to learn new languages and live in new enviroments, something we don't teach. Here's a thought, let's take all our tech and build better schools, make as much education as possible available to as many as possible. Here's another thought: Don't peg me as an unrealistic hippie after one post. I am a hippie, but unrealistic? No. I put my lessons to use first and foremost at home for my family and they work.

Sigh, people always get defensive when they're called things even if I clarify that it's not bad. Idealistic hippies aren't bad, same as cynics, same with republicans, democrats, etc.: differing positions are what make the world great.

Anyways, if you do something about it, more power to you. You're more active than about half the idealistic hippies I know. But seriously, your argument is a bit flawed when it comes to technology. Just because the American culture seems to worship technology, you think the whole world does? Uhh...I'd have to disagree with you there. Even if Americans do, it's a subjective topic. You could argue that NYC, for example, is a place obsessed with technology, while I could argue that's furthest from the truth.

Secondly, I'm sorry to say, but you're a bit ignorant on the whole "teaching about new environments/languages" thing. I've spent my entire life traveling, visited five of the seven continents, and spent time teaching English to people of different nationalities. While the majority of America wants to have English as a centralized (and global) language, that's not to say we don't teach about other languages and cultures. Just go to any university, library, or even just TALK to people. America is a land that has many immigrants, you know. Also, what makes you think you can teach exploration? Your sentence was a bit unclear, but if you really think you can teach exploration...

Today, there are modern day explorers out there as there will be 50 years from now: our lifestyle isn't glamorous, so people hardly write too much about us. And fifty years ago, yeah, they existed, but the average person wouldn't be able to connect with another culture as much as it could now. Globalization has it's good points, you know.

And I don't think anyone would argue that more education/better schools is a bad thing, but what does that have to do with anything?

ARgh!!!!!

Ok, the world isn't as bleak as I think it is? Go ask how bleak the world is on a native reservation where gambling isn't legalized. I've been to one, bleak doesn't begin to describe it. What kept those people from complete depression (those who stayed) was adherence to a way of thinking and living that modern culture stomped and post-modern culture often mocks. Don't think we worship our toys too much? Look at some of the posts on this thread alone. That line of thinking is alive and well in the world. Thank you Ayn Rand, you stupid *****. We do teach languages, but the average American student does NOT get an education in how to learn languages in general. Too many years as a tutor has taught me that. Think we can't teach exploration? I can and have taught my kids to embrace differences and instill them with a curiosity and desire to explore the world around them, yet many of my peers came from backgrounds where differences were to be avoided or fought against. What does more education/better schools have to do with any of this? Absolutely everything. Remember, my main premise was that we need to learn how to live first and foremost. You're right, nature isn't pristine. It is strengthening. Our ancestors didn't have our toys, so they had to learn how to live first. Some choose to stick with that way of living, others went for tech. We got the toys, so we abandoned what they required, and to our detriment. Imagine raising your children in an environment where they had to face some (not all, just some) of the challenges our ancestors had to face. I try and do the best I can with what I have, and that includes posting boldly ideas that I think have great merit. When others come along and blindly trash my ideas, I will defend my ideas vigorously. This is where the battles need to be fought: In our hearts and minds, long before we dump our neurosis into the world around us physically. Finally, I see a great future for humanity amongst the stars, but we will never get there if we don't reclaim the teachings of our ancestors and put them to use wisely in our post-modern world.

I assumed he meant the cultures that advanced. Then again I can't really pretend this subject is the slightest bit interesting to me or important. Everyone has their points and i'm sure yours are equally convincing but it's just one of those things no one person has an answer to. It's all just going to be assumption, theory, speculation, personal belief/ preference. No one person will be more right than any other. It's escapist magazine not Masters of the Universe. Quite a hostile response though for someone apparently oh so learned in the ways of peace still.... Should that suggest your knowledge in this particular area makes you feel superior to us or maybe... more advanced? And thus ready to conquer our meager views? You've almost made his point

I'm still not interested in the topic though. I just wanted to see the deal with this Avatar depression stuff.

So bravo to you too for your no doubt equally, if not more so, substatiated claims!

Yes, I am hostile online. I believe in rigorously defending my views, especially when folks blindly try to stomp on them. Yes, I do have quite a few good answers to a number of tough questions. It isn't just assumption/speculation. I have seen what I'm talking about in the world around me. Once a see a phenomenon in the world, I know it can be repeated. Basic math, like 2+2, and almost everything comes back to math. Finally, what can I say: The line "as you oddly put it" got to me. Considering I've got, oh, 3000 years of teachings about learning how to live to refer to saying I'm putting it oddly is disingenuous or obnoxiously ignorant at best and a troll line at worst. While I report and move on or ignore them in other threads, I have a strong tendency to try and eat trolls for lunch in my own threads.

 

[CloakedOne]

but depression is a beauty on its on for it gives makes us relize art and life, happiness is just a noroctic that leaves you hallow but is necessary form time to time.

What? Depression is a beauty? Do you have any idea, any idea at all, what being depressed feels like?

beauty can be different things to different people.

Again, do you know what depression is? You might as well have quoted me saying "What? A cripple can walk?" and then say there are different ways of walking. We are dealing with an illness that is defined as a state of unhappiness. I won't deny you could define beauty in some theoretical way that would make this connection possible, but in the context that was being discussed here, that's not the case. I can see no possible way that a depressed person could ever think: "this I'm feeling... it's beautiful."

your example of cripple vs. depression is, to say the least, hyperbolic and flawed. Comparing a cripple to a clinically depressed person is no comparison at all. Besides, you missed the point. I am talking about someone who can appreciate depression and not telling someone to find other ways to be happy as your analogy implies.
I am very aware of what depression is because I too had been clinically depressed for a significant portion of my life. Although it was hell for me, that doesn't mean everyone takes it the same way. I'm not going to be so quick as to judge someone else's idea of what beauty is because, as has been over-quoted so many times but is apparently in need of quoting again, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." Shakespeare was on to something when he wrote added that little like about "sweet sorrow". Think about it that way. I'm sorry if the idea of someone appreciating a state like depression angers you, but if someone can find the good in it, why is that so terrible? It really is okay if they feel that way, it's not hurting anything. The person that finds beauty in depression may change his or her mind when and if they feel it themselves, but why would anyone want to rush such optimism to be destroyed? Because it's not close to reality? First consider that you're at least partly defending depression brought about by a movie about an undeniably fictional place. To me the thought of getting clinically depressed over the message and/or the imagery in "Avatar" is extremely juvenile and pathetic, but I cannot possibly understand what these people are experiencing because the movie, although I enjoyed it, did not affect me in the same way; because this is so, I am not going judge those people that are experiencing that sort of sadness.

First off, I was in no way adressing the idea of Avatar Depression. The idea of such a thing even existing seems unlikely and abstract to me.
Secondly, my motivation in denying that beauty can be found in being depressed, has already been stated in the thread. I know it's a dickish move to just say: "already talked about it", but I don't feel the drive right now to reitterate my previous statements.
If there is indeed beauty and happiness to find in depression, I would not want to destroy it. I just find it highly unlikely that a condition that is defined by sadness and lack of energy and purpose could be described as beauty. I do understand the idea of "sweet sadness", but that is somethign completely else, at least as I understand it. Before my illness crept in, I had many a time found myself feeling sorrow over something, and still being able to smile a little over it.
I am not particularly angered by someone appreciating depression, if they themselves are indeed depressed, it just seems so... strange to me. I am angered however by people that have not experienced depression, and yet still glorifies it.

The "sweet sorrow" idea, like many has the advantage of having multiple interpretations. Your interpretation is no doubt different than mine (or at least different that what I was advocating). Now that I understand your frustration and now that you have clarified your implications, I feel inclined to agree with you in several respects. I respect that the idea is strange to you and I thank you for giving my side of the story a thoughtful consideration.

 

[nick_knack]

No. Don't you get it? Technological advancement is the purpose of our species, it drives the culture, the outlook. Trying to "Learn how to live" as you so oddly put it, is pointless because culture is driven by adaptation which is in effect, technological advancement. It cant prop itself up. Native societies did not "choose" to do anything they were simply primitive because by whatever twist of fate at the beginning of the world, Eurasia was predisposed to gain the ability to farm sooner and better, which meant advancement, and eventually conquering. You think European barbarians, Greeks, and Native Americans weren't into killing and conquering too? Think again.

Te world is about conquering, taking and destroying. People work together, in order to do that better. "Living in harmony" is stagnation. (not talking about environmental conservation with that one)

So in conclusion: Cool Story Bro!

Bravo sir.

Neither of you get it. Harmony is not inherently stagnation. There are indigenous groups today against capitalism. The statement "Technological advancement is the purpose of our species" is an assumption. While many cultures certainly practiced warlike behavior, not all did. If technology is all that gives your life meaning, good for you. Don't assume the rest of the world works that way.

I did my homework, now it's time for you to do yours. Here's a thought, read a few books. I recommend "Ishmael", the "Tao Te Jhing", and "Existential Psychotherapy". You'll learn a lot. Or you could just whip out whatever mindless retort you might have and go on happy with yourself.

EDIT: That was mostly aimed at nick knack. Careful quoting the guy who tells the OP to 'think again' when the OP knows he's done more homework on the subject (obvious as hell when nick knack says "all x cultures are into killing and conquering" and the OP has researched said cultures and found plenty of counter-examples)

Irrelevant. Might makes right, "We" won, "they" lost. Perhaps you should read Collapse and better yet: The Prince.

I didn't say everyone thinks that advancement in all forms is the point, what I meant was that everyone who doesn't is....misguided. Technology shouldn't give anyone's life meaning, that would be pathetic, but to each their own I suppose. The only thing technology gives meaning to, is our species as a whole. (I am not saying it is the only thing that does that)

I said you "put it oddly" simply because I did not, and still do not really understand what you mean with that choice of words.Perhaps I am ignorant of it as a common phrase, yet I have not heard it before, ever.

 

[Captain Blackout]

Irrelevant. Might makes right, "We" won, "they" lost. Perhaps your should read Collapse and better yet: The Prince.

I didn't say everyone thinks that advancement in all forms is the point, what I meant was that everyone who doesn't is....misguided. Technology shouldn't give anyone's life meaning, that would be pathetic, but to each their own I suppose. The only thing technology gives meaning to, is our species as a whole. (I am not saying it is the only thing that does that)

I said you "put it oddly" simply because I did not, and still do not really understand what you mean with that choice of words.Perhaps I am ignorant of it as a common phrase, yet I have not heard it before, ever.

Interesting choices. Collapse makes my point for me. Many of the natives of the Americas understood the concept of not over-using your resources (again, learning how to live) and that's one of the major themes of Collapse. We are slowly shanking our food sources now through depletion of genetic diversity. The Prince is on my reading list, haven't found a copy yet. It should be thoroughly noted that Machiavelli's lessons combined with Sun Tzu's and Lao Tzu's would make for one of the strongest societies possible. Might does not make right: Might makes one the winner and if that is all it takes to be right, then there is no right as virtues truly are only made up concepts. Do you honestly think that advancement in all it's forms is the point and those who think otherwise are misguided? Please take everyone who thinks like you with you when you leave the planet: I don't want to be around when one of you advances weapons technology past nuclear weapons, since the next stage could well be planet destroying. Technology without virtue is an uncontrollable beast that will ultimately consume it's creators, or did you miss that lesson from Frankenstein.

I'm not against technology but we have clearly let it control us. A prime example: The auto industry in this country. Asking people to think about their choices, to learn as much as they can before committing to course they cannot change once on it, to learn how to live before they learn anything else isn't misguided, it's wisdom every major teacher has tried to get across, from Jesus to Buddha, from Sun Tzu to Lao Tzu, from Gandhi to Carl Sagan. I didn't put anything oddly, I was repeating a lesson history has tried to teach us over and over and we would have thoroughly learned by now except for this: History is written by the winners and the winners version is almost always written in support of "Our might made us right", a view Socrates put to bed a looong time ago.

 

[nick_knack]

Irrelevant. Might makes right, "We" won, "they" lost. Perhaps you should read Collapse and better yet: The Prince.

I didn't say everyone thinks that advancement in all forms is the point, what I meant was that everyone who doesn't is....misguided. Technology shouldn't give anyone's life meaning, that would be pathetic, but to each their own I suppose. The only thing technology gives meaning to, is our species as a whole. (I am not saying it is the only thing that does that)

I said you "put it oddly" simply because I did not, and still do not really understand what you mean with that choice of words.Perhaps I am ignorant of it as a common phrase, yet I have not heard it before, ever.

Interesting choices. Collapse makes my point for me. Many of the natives of the Americas understood the concept of not over-using your resources (again, learning how to live) and that's one of the major themes of Collapse. We are slowly shanking our food sources now through depletion of genetic diversity. The Prince is on my reading list, haven't found a copy yet. It should be thoroughly noted that Machiavelli's lessons combined with Sun Tzu's and Lao Tzu's would make for one of the strongest societies possible. Might does not make right: Might makes one the winner and if that is all it takes to be right, then there is no right as virtues truly are only made up concepts. Do you honestly think that advancement in all it's forms is the point and those who think otherwise are misguided? Please take everyone who thinks like you with you when you leave the planet: I don't want to be around when one of you advances weapons technology past nuclear weapons, since the next stage could well be planet destroying. Technology without virtue is an uncontrollable beast that will ultimately consume it's creators, or did you miss that lesson from Frankenstein.

I'm not against technology but we have clearly let it control us. A prime example: The auto industry in this country. Asking people to think about their choices, to learn as much as they can before committing to course they cannot change once on it, to learn how to live before they learn anything else isn't misguided, it's wisdom every major teacher has tried to get across, from Jesus to Buddha, from Sun Tzu to Lao Tzu, from Gandhi to Carl Sagan. I didn't put anything oddly, I was repeating a lesson history has tried to teach us over and over and we would have thoroughly learned by now except for this: History is written by the winners and the winners version is almost always written in support of "Our might made us right", a view Socrates put to bed a looong time ago.

Oh so you basically meant conservation? (probably other things too, spiritual development, etc. but I will ignore that for now.) If it is conservation of resources you meant then I agree wholeheartedly,that is very important. However I do not believe that "learning" to do this a millennium ago would apply today, and I believe that "learning how to live" is only relevant alongside advancement, rather than separate from it.

"Might makes Right" is a rather simplistic way to put my views I admit, it is rather flawed, I might address it later, but I have to go to school now.

I wish I could advise you on where to find The Prince, it is an excellent read, but sadly I was able to obtain my copy from the family bookshelf, so I cannot help.

I hardly think Frankenstein counts as a valid example of the point it makes, but it doesn't matter anyway, as I have said, by and large, the other developments come along with technology rather than not separate from it.

Get off the planet? And what, leave it to anarchy as the stupid fucking hippies realize that they can't make everything work perfectly and devolve into another Dark Age? I think not sir.
People like me have got us this far, if our society "Collapses" you will be vindicated, but for now I'll just leave you to your opinions, which I think, your hostility and aggression only serve to demean.

P.S. The auto industry. Yes the corporate lobbies control way to much. Just one of the problems we have to surmount(thats the right word right? It sounds wrong in my head) along the way.

 

[Captain Blackout]

Get off the planet? And what, leave it to anarchy as the stupid fucking hippies realize that they can't make everything work perfectly and devolve into another Dark Age? I think not sir.

Over-generalizing hippies doesn't change the fact that your kind will kill the planet if you reach for technological advancement of all kinds including weapons technology. People like you brought us manifest destiny, the enslavement of Asians to build railroads, and not only atomic weapons and beyond but the only government to ever actually use such weapons. My hostility and aggression online are nothing compared to the millennia of "Might makes right" or whatever friendly terms you wish to hide that thinking in. My vindication doesn't come from a collapse I hope never happens, my vindication comes from the mindsets of those who oppose me and my means, and those who see where I'm coming from and why I take the approaches I take.

 

[Squeaksx]

*snip*
Secondly, that blow at capitalism was more or less uncalled for and unwarranted.
*snip*

Never mind the rest of what you said, there's too much to tackle there in this forum at the moment. The blow at capitalism was very called for and very warranted. Why? Because just like tech and dogmatic religions, there are plenty of Americans who literally worship capitalism without any regard for the negative consequences. We just saw the tip of the iceberg with AIG et al. The absolute fact of the matter is many American capitalists will use it to drive anything good into the ground for their own benefit because of their blind worship. Given the overall theme of my post, the blow at capitalism was perfect.

AIG should have failed, it wasn't the capitalists that prevented this, it was the Democrat (Liberal) president who signed the bill that bailed them out. A free-market would have dictated that it failed and the more hardy companies survive and flourish. So it was the lack of free-market and capitalism that lead to AIG being bailed out. That was socialism, the semi-nationalizing of private businesses, not capitalism. Once you take a basic course on economics then return to us.

 

[Akas]

ARgh!!!!!

Ok, the world isn't as bleak as I think it is? Go ask how bleak the world is on a native reservation where gambling isn't legalized. I've been to one, bleak doesn't begin to describe it. What kept those people from complete depression (those who stayed) was adherence to a way of thinking and living that modern culture stomped and post-modern culture often mocks. Don't think we worship our toys too much? Look at some of the posts on this thread alone. That line of thinking is alive and well in the world. Thank you Ayn Rand, you stupid *****. We do teach languages, but the average American student does NOT get an education in how to learn languages in general. Too many years as a tutor has taught me that. Think we can't teach exploration? I can and have taught my kids to embrace differences and instill them with a curiosity and desire to explore the world around them, yet many of my peers came from backgrounds where differences were to be avoided or fought against. What does more education/better schools have to do with any of this? Absolutely everything. Remember, my main premise was that we need to learn how to live first and foremost. You're right, nature isn't pristine. It is strengthening. Our ancestors didn't have our toys, so they had to learn how to live first. Some choose to stick with that way of living, others went for tech. We got the toys, so we abandoned what they required, and to our detriment. Imagine raising your children in an environment where they had to face some (not all, just some) of the challenges our ancestors had to face. I try and do the best I can with what I have, and that includes posting boldly ideas that I think have great merit. When others come along and blindly trash my ideas, I will defend my ideas vigorously. This is where the battles need to be fought: In our hearts and minds, long before we dump our neurosis into the world around us physically. Finally, I see a great future for humanity amongst the stars, but we will never get there if we don't reclaim the teachings of our ancestors and put them to use wisely in our post-modern world.

I'm not going to post anymore after this, we're not understanding each other and it's becoming exercises in semantics. And believe me, I know a few things about semantics (I'm a linguist).

First, your main premise: "We need to learn how to live first and foremost...we got the toys, so we abandoned what they required, and to our detriment." OMG, of COURSE technology is bad. It's better to live in a place where there's no medical technology to save lives, no agriculture technology so that we don't have to spend all day hunting, and no weapons technology so we can't defend ourselves against outside attacks. [/sarcasm] Penn and Teller did a Bullshit show on nostalgia a while back titled "Good Ol' Days", you might want to watch it.

"Imagine a raising your children in an environment where they had to face some of the challenges our ancestors faced." Ok, I'm imagining it. I'm imagining 50 percent of kids dying before reaching puberty. I'm imagining a world where living to 40 makes you an elder. Or a world where if the slightest thing goes wrong with the crops/animals/etc., people starve to death. Wow, sure tons of people would die, but at least that life's authentic.

"Ok, the world isn't as bleak as I think it is? Go ask..." Sure, people are suffering, but that happens everywhere. Go to Africa, you'll see people suffering all the same. Some of it might be residual from past oppressors that destroyed their lives, but sometimes those same oppressors brought MANY good things. Did you know that when Nigeria was owned by a white government (I think it was the Dutch?), people actually got paid a livable fee, education was more standardized, and corruption was way down? Go now, and even the police will ask you for bribes because it's the only way they can make a living.

"Think we can't teach exploration?" No, we can't. What you talk about is diversity and understanding, that has jack all to do with exploration. A desire to explore comes not from teaching kids diversity, it comes from teaching them to be independent and exposing them to other cultures. Slight difference.

"What does more education/better schools have to do with any of this?" Because seriously, it doesn't tie into your argument at all. Let me sum up what I've seen is your argument:
-The world is vain, spoiled on technology and has oppressed many other cultures. I can agree with that.
-No one cares about the people that have been crushed, but those people had the right idea: they have the answers to teaching us how to develop as a society to live among the stars (uhh...ok?)
-We need to learn how to live first and foremost, and that comes from...not using technology? Communing with nature? (I'm really not so sure, the arrangement of your sentence structure is weird.)
-To do this...we need more education/better schools. Why, necessarily? Sure, education can be done outside the classroom, but better schools? How would better schools help learning from ancestors? Or help kids understand diversity? If more education really teaches you how to live first and foremost, then why are many highly educated people obsessed with technology and unhappy/spoiled/vain/etc?

Anyways, I've made my points.

 

[Captain Blackout]

AIG should have failed, it wasn't the capitalists that prevented this, it was the Democrat (Liberal) president who signed the bill that bailed them out. A free-market would have dictated that it failed and the more hardy companies survive and flourish. So it was the lack of free-market and capitalism that lead to AIG being bailed out. That was socialism, the semi-nationalizing of private businesses, not capitalism. Once you take a basic course on economics then return to us.

#1: That bill was signed before Obama was in office. It was signed by a Republican. Obama signed the following bailouts. Now who's making unwarranted statements.
#2: AIG shouldn't have existed in the first place. Ayn Rand talks about individual freedom vs. governmental collectivism while ignoring corporate collectivism. Capitalism doesn't give a damn about individualism vs. collectivism. As a tool, it's a useful economic system that promotes growth and industry. As a virtue and a value system, it is its own beast and like any greedy algorithm will consume every resource until it finally begins consuming itself.
#3: Take some fundamental mathematics and understand the ends of any system before you try and tell me to take some basic economics. At least I've got my basic facts straight and you are clearly trolling with that last statement. Only thing is, you're trolling a guy who has done his homework and actually knows what he's talking about.

 

[Captain Blackout]

*snip*

Your points are made based on a complete mis-characterization of my original post. For a linguist, that's sad. You want to end this, fine I'll give you the last word after this: I celebrated the possibilities technology could afford us at the end of the OP. Thank you for seeing what you wanted to see and fighting that instead of honestly looking for what I was aiming for.