Civil Rights Up for Vote

[JCShutout]

Because the men are so totally hot.

Really, more power to them if they enjoy their lives, but what an oppressive life. What a simple life it must be to be taught from the time you are born that your one purpose in life is to please a man and bear his children and nothing else. It makes things very easy, cut and dry, and all that jazz. Actually, they may be on to something...it would be kinda nice to be at home waiting to have sex all day and taking care of kids. But to share a husband that you actually love, not in this lifetime, no way. But to each his own.

This is probably fodder for another thread, but would you rather be blissfully ignorant, or unhappy and aware? (not just you ttb, all of us)

The expected answer is the latter, but what do we really prefer? What choices have we made which show us taking the former vs the latter or vice versa?

Could be an interesting thought experiment, or we could all convince ourselves that we're REALLY the ones who chose the latter, just as how everybody thinks THEY are the ones outside Plato's cave.

[G. Keenan]

Living in a society where your rank was obvious based on the size of your pompadour could make life interesting.

That is amazing.

[G. Keenan]

This is probably fodder for another thread, but would you rather be blissfully ignorant, or unhappy and aware? (not just you ttb, all of us)

Fortunately this is a choice we never have to make. Happy and aware are not mutually exclusive.

[JCShutout]

This is probably fodder for another thread, but would you rather be blissfully ignorant, or unhappy and aware? (not just you ttb, all of us)

Fortunately this is a choice we never have to make. Happy and aware are not mutually exclusive.

They're not mutually exclusive but I do think we make that choice frequently. I think we close our minds off to many other possibilities in favor of what is more familiar because we're certain that will give us comfort, and we're afraid opposing realities (myself included).

We don't HAVE to be unhappy with one version of reality, but if we find enough comfort in an opposing worldview, becoming tolerant of others can even be a painful experience.

[G. Keenan]

This is probably fodder for another thread, but would you rather be blissfully ignorant, or unhappy and aware? (not just you ttb, all of us)

Fortunately this is a choice we never have to make. Happy and aware are not mutually exclusive.

They're not mutually exclusive but I do think we make that choice frequently. I think we close our minds off to many other possibilities in favor of what is more familiar because we're certain that will give us comfort, and we're afraid opposing realities (myself included).

We don't HAVE to be unhappy with one version of reality, but if we find enough comfort in an opposing worldview, becoming tolerant of others can even be a painful experience.

I don't agree. For starters, how can one choose to be ignorant? Is that like having a box in your living room that may or may not have something good in it but refusing to open it out of fear you won't like what's inside? You still know the box is there. It's not going to go away. It'll keep on sitting there whether you open it or not.

I think the defaulting to what is familiar and comfortable only works for people who are very boring or profoundly incurious. Being comfortable is not the same thing as happiness.

Also, it is for some reason a popular sentiment to say that people never really change when in fact people change all the time. And over the course of our species' history we have changed monumentally. Furthermore, that change is accelerating. These changes tend towards enlightenment and reflect precisely the kind of grappling with uncomfortable issues that you argue people avoid.

[Arthur Dent]

They're not mutually exclusive but I do think we make that choice frequently. I think we close our minds off to many other possibilities in favor of what is more familiar because we're certain that will give us comfort, and we're afraid opposing realities (myself included).

We don't HAVE to be unhappy with one version of reality, but if we find enough comfort in an opposing worldview, becoming tolerant of others can even be a painful experience.

This is rather abstract, so I'm not sure I know what you're talking about. What possibilities? Which opposing realities?

[tothebeach08]

I don't agree. For starters, how can one choose to be ignorant? Is that like having a box in your living room that may or may not have something good in it but refusing to open it out of fear you won't like what's inside? You still know the box is there. It's not going to go away. It'll keep on sitting there whether you open it or not.

I think the defaulting to what is familiar and comfortable only works for people who are very boring or profoundly incurious. Being comfortable is not the same thing as happiness.

Also, it is for some reason a popular sentiment to say that people never really change when in fact people change all the time. And over the course of our species' history we have changed monumentally. Furthermore, that change is accelerating. These changes tend towards enlightenment and reflect precisely the kind of grappling with uncomfortable issues that you argue people avoid.

Hope I'm not butting in here, BUT don't you believe that some people put up blinders and are not willing/able to see what is going on around them. This is not choosing to be ignorant, but fearing the unknown, fearing possible change, thinking your life is satisfying. I was guilty of this for 15 years. I should have known all those trips to the gambling boats were not "coming out even" but indeed spending close to $100,000 of OUR money. But I had on these blinders. It was not about me being boring or incurious but more about fear. Fear of knowing the truth, fear of losing what I thought I had. I only recently realized that not knowing was worse.

I do agree with you, however, that being comfortable is NOT the same thing as being happy. In fact I would say being comfortable is a way to cover what you may really be thinking and feeling...which is that something is not right but I'm afraid of the future. Just my thoughts from my experience.

[G. Keenan]

I don't agree. For starters, how can one choose to be ignorant? Is that like having a box in your living room that may or may not have something good in it but refusing to open it out of fear you won't like what's inside? You still know the box is there. It's not going to go away. It'll keep on sitting there whether you open it or not.

I think the defaulting to what is familiar and comfortable only works for people who are very boring or profoundly incurious. Being comfortable is not the same thing as happiness.

Also, it is for some reason a popular sentiment to say that people never really change when in fact people change all the time. And over the course of our species' history we have changed monumentally. Furthermore, that change is accelerating. These changes tend towards enlightenment and reflect precisely the kind of grappling with uncomfortable issues that you argue people avoid.

Hope I'm not butting in here, BUT don't you believe that some people put up blinders and are not willing/able to see what is going on around them. This is not choosing to be ignorant, but fearing the unknown, fearing possible change, thinking your life is satisfying. I was guilty of this for 15 years. I should have known all those trips to the gambling boats were not "coming out even" but indeed spending close to $100,000 of OUR money. But I had on these blinders. It was not about me being boring or incurious but more about fear. Fear of knowing the truth, fear of losing what I thought I had. I only recently realized that not knowing was worse.

I do agree with you, however, that being comfortable is NOT the same thing as being happy. In fact I would say being comfortable is a way to cover what you may really be thinking and feeling...which is that something is not right but I'm afraid of the future. Just my thoughts from my experience.

Not butting in at all, no worries. I think the conclusions you've drawn for your personal experiences are completely correct. There are aspects of all of our lives about which we're in denial, sometimes they're huge aspects of our lives. That will always be the case. I'm not talking about those as much, though. I was trying to address the more big picture part of the equation that, I think, JC was getting at. On the whole, humanity has chosen truth, even if it can be harsh, over ignorance as we've moved through time.

Perhaps this macro movement is mirrored in our personal lives though. Very few people can deny the truth of their circumstances forever. In the examples you cited from your life you eventually had to acknowledge them.

It's a a legitimate truism that all we have to fear is fear itself. Almost nothing is as scary as we think it is. In fact, the best things in life come from facing our fears, from taking risks, and from pursuing truth.

[JCShutout]

Sorry guys, busy today at work. AD, I left it vague on purpose, partially because I think it applies both in personal and macro ways, and partially because I'm not sure. I didn't really have a point to argue for when I brought this up. This is seriously just a thought experiment for me, and I decided to ponder/post aloud.

I don't agree. For starters, how can one choose to be ignorant? Is that like having a box in your living room that may or may not have something good in it but refusing to open it out of fear you won't like what's inside? You still know the box is there. It's not going to go away. It'll keep on sitting there whether you open it or not.

I think the defaulting to what is familiar and comfortable only works for people who are very boring or profoundly incurious. Being comfortable is not the same thing as happiness.

I think this is far more common than you give it credit for. I've seen my dad proclaim the United States as the greatest culture in the world (and I'm not anti-America or anything), yet he's no expert on any other culture, and refuses to study it. He has chosen a need to believe that his culture/people/group is superior to others. When he cites reasons why, I can easily bring up similar reason why another culture is just as strong, or how our culture is just as unhealthy, and he then defends with "well, no one's perfect, we're just better than anyone else".

In a sense, he is choosing to reject a lot of truth to uphold a comfortable ideal.

And to offer a personal example so as to not appear too egotistical, as a Theist, how seriously do I take the worldview that everything really is chance, and that there is no meaning to any of it? Not much, because it would destroy the very foundation of my comfortable ideals. If the bible really is just a book and nothing more, if we are not all one, if to love God is not to do justice, to have compassion and suffer with people and move for liberation, I've lost everything I live for.

Now you could raise the question of, at what point does our inability to know everything come into play here (the need to be at peace with our finiteness)?, Or even with our need to rest (not question so much our head explodes... metaphorically) Those are good questions which I don't have an answer to.

Also, it is for some reason a popular sentiment to say that people never really change when in fact people change all the time. And over the course of our species' history we have changed monumentally. Furthermore, that change is accelerating. These changes tend towards enlightenment and reflect precisely the kind of grappling with uncomfortable issues that you argue people avoid.

I'm not sure if that is the popular sentiment or if the opposite is. Probably depends on who you talk to (I've heard both), but I'm not sure we've changed so drastically. We still have people who try to do good, and people who put themselves and their group above the needs of others (to be vary general, etc etc).

[Arthur Dent]

Sorry guys, busy today at work. AD, I left it vague on purpose, partially because I think it applies both in personal and macro ways, and partially because I'm not sure. I didn't really have a point to argue for when I brought this up. This is seriously just a thought experiment for me, and I decided to ponder/post aloud.

Just to be clear, I didn't mean my comment at criticism. I was intrigued and hoped you'd expand. I understand better now.

With regard to theism, I don't think you'll find to many atheists who feel that everything is chance or that there is no meaning in the universe. Much more common is the belief that meaning is something people give to the universe and not the other way around. And that is enough.