The Contradictions in Dealing with Other People

Quoting schopenhauer1

So if the problem is that we are social animals and but other people are frustrating, how does one resolve this tension? Is it better to habituate ourselves to be alone or is it better to resign ourselves with dealing with the frustrations of other people as just the cost of being a social animal?

Honestly this seems like a question that can be answered simply by appealing to the general psychology of an individual.

I don't really like parties. I hate huge social events like dances and parades. I'm much more introverted.

Whereas an extrovert might enjoy those things.

However I do contend that a quite ironically large amount of our suffering is caused by our interactions with other people, interactions that we pursue because we are social animals. Regardless, an extrovert might say that it was worth is because they need these social gatherings to be happy.

So my prescription would be to have a balance. If you are frustrated with people all the time, then you need to find new people to spend time with. It is inevitable that you will be let down by other people, but realize also, that it is inevitable that you will let them down. The key is to find the right balance.

Reply to schopenhauer1 the truth is humans are insignificant creatures. The majority have the potential for such great things and choose to be emotionally impulsive idiots. Humans are akin to cattle yet they act like they are superior.

Reply to schopenhauer1

I'm trying really hard to imagine a world in which everyone isolated themselves from others as much as possible.

Having read through Schopenhaurs aphorisms many times and isolating myself in the past as he would have prescribed, that there is a great deal of truth in what he might call the tyranny of trite and boring human interactions. Yet, to indulge in his philosophy is in some sense a narcissistic urge that is created by the rampant misogynistic tendencies of his philosophy. I find that human interaction is good and useful instead of throwing out the baby with the bathwater per Schoppies narcissistic or individualistic philosophy. One does need therapy after indulging too much in his philosophy, or to put the point more clearly, no person lives on an island isolated from everyone else.

Quoting schopenhauer1

So if the problem is that we are social animals and but other people are frustrating, how does one resolve this tension? Is it better to habituate ourselves to be alone or is it better to resign ourselves with dealing with the frustrations of other people as just the cost of being a social animal?

People are social animals because the evolutionary process has made them so.
The grouping instinct is advantageous in regards to protection and the procreation process.
If an individual lives in a safe environment and has no need of finding a mate and procreating, that individual has the option to live a solitary and comfortable life.
It becomes more comfortable with age as a result of the dilution of sex hormones.

I would have thought that the quality of one's friendships is going to influence the way one responds to this question. Human relationships are gradable like many other other things. To me it makes absolute sense to want to manage one's interactions by reducing or eliminating the low grade and maximising quality.

Given Schopenhauer's life experience, it's possible to make the argument for bad case of sour grapes. Indeed, it requires little imagination to interpret his position as an elaborate post hoc rationalisation of his own condition as a social undesirable; especially when we consider his affection for dogs.

Quoting schopenhauer1

Is it better to habituate ourselves to be alone or is it better to resign ourselves with dealing with the frustrations of other people as just the cost of being a social animal?

I have no idea.

I personally experience life with both positive and negative sides. I think it's not supposed to be easy. Isolating myself would feel like running away from both positive and negative things about interaction with other people. I think I should learn to accept the fact that we're different and put in some effort to understand why people act the way they do.

I've read a few things about people's childhood experience and the influence of these experiences on their personality. The way your parents interacted with each other and with you can be the reason why you are who you are at this moment. It's not always completely their choice to become frustrating. So I accept most frustrating things about people and let these things pass.

Other people might be frustrating, but who is frustrated then? You, right? This isn't even their problem, it's yours, so it's yours to solve. You can either run away from this problem by isolating yourself or try to not get frustrated. What is better is a personal question, no one can speak for what's best for you. Altough, I choose to work on myself to accept frustrating things and remain untouched by their behavior.

Interesting question btw ;)

Greetings

Regi

Even people closest to us are far from perfect, for example when their logic has a strong falsity. Say, a grown child moves far away to start new family, and takes several photographs from family album to remember their family by. The response from the parent is this: Do not take any pictures! What are you doing? The parent is angry and frustrated. Few years later parent has a visitor, another adult child. Parent shares his frustration about photographs that another child took away and hears: How could she? Well, let me take this entire album home with me ( to another country), I'll keep it safe. The parent happily agrees. Result: Parent does not have anymore the entire photo album, as opposed to not having few photograps, yet he did not notice horrible logical mistake, because what drove him was ego and spitefullness.

Yes, we are predominantly a social species, so communication assumes huge importance. I find this especially difficult, being an autist. Setting aside the many variations within the autistic community, most of us share communications difficulties, because we do it a little differently. I don't think it would help or entertain to delve into autistic communications any more than that, but our issues clarify the huge importance of communication to us humans. If you can't communicate easily and fluently, you are at risk of being outcast, as lepers once were.

People come in all shapes and sizes, and some of them can be difficult to get along with, as the OP observes. But we manage it anyway, or we disappear (as a species). :chin:

Quoting schopenhauer1

So if the problem is that we are social animals and but other people are frustrating, how does one resolve this tension?

First, other people tend to be frustrating for people like us, nerds. Generally speaking, on average, there seems to be an inverse relationship between the ability to process logic calculations and social skills.

Other people are not frustrating for everyone. As example, one member of our family spent her career as a professional salesperson. She LOVES people and is connected to every other person in our state, with a non-stop schedule of social activities.

Being a nerdy nerd man myself, with limited social skills and serious hermit tendencies, I've reflected on this quite a bit. My theory for the moment is that people who are not intensely logic oriented don't find humans as frustrating, because they have little expectation that people will be logical. That is, they are better aligned with reality than we nerds tend to be.

Anyway, getting back to your question...

Quoting schopenhauer1

So if the problem is that we are social animals and but other people are frustrating, how does one resolve this tension?

In my nerdy analysis, saying that we are social animals is an imprecise diagnosis. Closer to the truth, imho, is this....

1) The inherently divisive nature of thought creates a human experience of being separate from reality.

2) Thus, we feel the need to bond, connect, unite with something.

3) Humans are typically very accessible and engaging, and thus a common target for bonding. But not a necessary target, just a convenient target.

I spend a LOT of time in the north Florida woods, typically sunrise to sunset on any day with decent weather. I never feel lonely out there by myself because I've learned how to bond with that environment. It's much like making a human friend, you have to invest a lot of time, and open yourself up to the experience.

Imho, people are a means to the end of bonding, and if one can successfully find another effective means of bonding, people can become less important.

For myself, I wouldn't go so far as to say humans are unnecessary. I've been happily married for 40 years, and without that human connection my situation would likely not be so simple or satisfactory.

Here's real world evidence of where we are going. Consider the incredible popularity of dogs. Why are dogs so popular? Because they are very loyal enthusiastic friends, who will submit to our control. Important, please note, we don't really care that dogs aren't human. What we care about is: 1) loyal friends, 2) under our control.

The point here is that digital intelligence will eventually out compete dogs as man's best friend. Right now at this moment, you dear reader, an anonymous Internet entity with few observable human properties, is out competing all real world people, due to your willingness to read this post. It's only one more step from here to you being replaced with a fully digital "friend".

Here is a follow-up question: Can human relationships have ethical values? Are relationships necessary for achieving the ends of human life? Why?

Reply to schopenhauer1
What is your goal?

A mother is not someone who lives alone. At least the traditional wife and mother cannot be fulfilled without human relationships with family and the community. I think we have greatly overlooked the importance and value of traditional women.

Reply to SapereAude

Yes, human relationships have ethical values. Why, because humanity would have not survived without the value of our relationships. We need each other, even if we can be annoying.

A study was done of Italian families because they had an exceptional survival rate living into their later years despite breaking all the health rules about smoking, diet, and exercise. It was discovered their exceptional life spans decreased when they got sophisticated and stopped living together, and separated into single unit families. But of course a hundred, and thousand, and a million years, we all had more risky lives and we were dependent on each other for survival in other ways. All social animals are programmed for the survival of the species, and individuals are must sacrifice for the group while at the same time taking care of their own survival.

On the other hand, we are very limited by the number of people we can deal with in a day, and overpopulation is very stressful for us. We dehumanize each other to cope with there being more of us than we can deal with. We create boundaries to protect ourselves from being overwhelmed. In a small town women can take turns caring for the children, the aged, and the sick, but in a city, this totally breaks down.

I'm a pretty isolated and introverted person myself but I don't think that being completely isolated is always a good thing. If you are finding that the people that you are around are frustrating and causing you to suffer, then you should try to find more pleasant people to be around perhaps. I think that we all have various diverging social desires that have to be fulfilled in order to avoid suffering sometimes. Unfortunately, because we have diverging desires, we often have to compromise with people in order to fulfill them.
For me, the strongest social desire has always been sex(I know it's not clear if that counts as a social desire but I think since it requires social interaction it should be considered as one). It becomes very frustrating to go without sex for a lengthy period of time and you start obsessing about it after like 6 months of celebacy if you are a young man like me. The problem with sex is that it leads to a variety of undesirable consequences like reproduction, disease, drama, attachment and feeling like you have to lie to someone about having serious romantic intentions that you don't really have. I think many of these problems could be mitigated if you choose the right person. I try to only date infertile women and limit the number of sexual partners I have to avoid STDs. I also tend to not tolerate much drama from women and I don't make any promises for a serious relationship. I also don't tend to get romantically attached to women and that helps with the frustration that might come with serious cohabitating and married relationships. You might be wondering how I can find an infertile woman that doesn't cause any drama and tolerates my unwillingness to commit. The answer is simple: date older and larger women. If you are a relatively attractive young man and you are sexually attracted to mature 300 pound women, relationships are quite a bit less frustrating and simple. I think homosexuals of both genders also have this advantage since we tend to have more diverging social desires with people of the opposite sex than we do with same sex individuals. In regards to romantic desire, I think women, on average, tend to have stronger romantic desires. Many women tend to be romantically frustrated because they can't find a man that wants more than sex from them(I suppose I would be in that category of men lol). My suggestion would probably be to choose to date older and less attractive but more successful and romantically involved men. In many ways, I tend to think older guys are better for younger women and older women are better for younger men and vice versa. Though, this arrangement is not ideal for reproduction and social cohesion. This is why I think there's a decent social resistance and stigma to it.
My second strongest social desire is intellectual stimulation. I enjoy talking to people about deep philosophical issues and it's hard to find people that share a similar interest in real life. That's why it's good that I live in the age of the Internet and that there are philosophy forums with like-minded individuals.

Quoting schopenhauer1

Humans are social animals. Yet, it is also mainly true that other people are frustrating to be around in almost every regard. That is to say, not ALL people are frustrating in every single way, but at least some people are frustrating in at least one way.

You were correct in the second sentence, no need to mitigate your judgement in the third one: Other people are definitely frustrating in almost every regard, over time. Some special cases manage to be frustrating in every regard all at once. Flee them like the plague.

Of course, this sweeping judgement has to include our esteemed selves. I frustrate other people, of course, but I annoy myself as well.

Our socially annoying selves are the consequence of our evolutionary history. We abandoned the trees, developed a big brain and smaller teeth, and became puny in comparison to chimpanzees, but we retained many annoying primate personality features. We are stuck with our social needs and our social liabilities.

Refined manners, which some people cultivate, allows the aggressive features of our primate selves to be deployed in more subtle forms. Many people (too many) don't bother with the mannerly approach and just bash you in the face if you annoy them too much.

Many people (not enough) curb their social urges and spend more time in the woods, in their basement shop, in a comfy chair with a book in their hands, or in front of a screen reading, searching, learning, and other activities.

I spend a lot of time alone but I need a regular dose of social contact; the standard dose is several people for about 1 or 2 hours, or 1 person for maybe 5 hours. 24/7 social contact is OK under certain circumstances, as long as there is respite down time.

Reply to TheHedoMinimalist

Well, I totally agree with the desire for intellectual discussions and how important the internet is to that! It isn't just that it is easier to find and engage with such people on the internet, but I find my thinking is very different when I am writing than when I am speaking. Also, I like this form of communication because I am alone but not alone. That is I am not concerned with how I look or how close to someone I sitting, or all the other concerns that come up when we meet face to face. For sure avoiding a man's sexual agenda is a huge plus to internet discussion.

When it comes to sex and romance and the desire to bond, yes, women are more hormonally geared towards bonding. They can override that, and there is a lot of pressure to that today, but even your overweight, older women are desiring that romance and bonding. They just know being obvious about that will chase the male away, while the more attractive woman works on the premise that she can have what she wants if she doesn't hang with the wrong guy, and keeps kissing frogs until she finds her prince. So for the attractive woman, it is the male who is most likely to be rejected unless he appears to want the same bonding she wants. It is hormonal.

I like the movie Pretty Woman and the prostitutes' rule, never kiss the guy! We are capable of sex without bonding, and money helps get our mind in the right frame for that. But it must be clear that money is pay for services and not gifts.

Quoting Pattern-chaser

Yes, we are predominantly a social species, so communication assumes huge importance. I find this especially difficult, being an autist. Setting aside the many variations within the autistic community, most of us share communications difficulties, because we do it a little differently. I don't think it would help or entertain to delve into autistic communications any more than that, but our issues clarify the huge importance of communication to us humans. If you can't communicate easily and fluently, you are at risk of being outcast, as lepers once were.

People come in all shapes and sizes, and some of them can be difficult to get along with, as the OP observes. But we manage it anyway, or we disappear (as a species). :chin:

I tend to think of myself as an absolute introvert. By "absolute" I mean, I can't even role play an extrovert. Some people have the ability to "become" or "act out" as if one were an extrovert. I lack this ability. But, this isn't the same as what schopenhauer1 is describing. He's fundamentally describing a dislike for other people. I don't share this misanthropic view of his from some odd 3 years ago. I can get along with people (as long as I'm not overly paranoid), which is distinct from being a misanthrope or absolutely introverted.

What do you and others think?

Quoting schopenhauer1

So if the problem is that we are social animals and but other people are frustrating, how does one resolve this tension? Is it better to habituate ourselves to be alone or is it better to resign ourselves with dealing with the frustrations of other people as just the cost of being a social animal?

I think, the solution is "curiosity" or nurturing that flame inside one's self. You can't really live as a solipsist even if you try.

Quoting Athena

Well, I totally agree with the desire for intellectual discussions and how important the internet is to that! It isn't just that it is easier to find and engage with such people on the internet, but I find my thinking is very different when I am writing than when I am speaking. Also, I like this form of communication because I am alone but not alone. That is I am not concerned with how I look or how close to someone I sitting, or all the other concerns that come up when we meet face to face. For sure avoiding a man's sexual agenda is a huge plus to internet discussion.

Good point! I do think it is better communicating about complicated philosophical topics in writing. It's very difficult to explain a complicated idea in verbal speech. In addition, there's more anonymity and privacy online. I do think there are some advantages to verbal intellectual conversations though. I find that having a verbal intellectual discussion is a bit more thrilling. It also seems like a more candid and personal way to discuss a topic. Sometimes that can be a bad thing though because it could lead to an uncomfortable situation if you're talking about a controversial topic. I generally avoid having discussions on controversial topics with people who I know can't have a polite and mature conversation about these topics.

Quoting Athena

When it comes to sex and romance and the desire to bond, yes, women are more hormonally geared towards bonding. They can override that, and there is a lot of pressure to that today, but even your overweight, older women are desiring that romance and bonding. They just know being obvious about that will chase the male away, while the more attractive woman works on the premise that she can have what she wants if she doesn't hang with the wrong guy, and keeps kissing frogs until she finds her prince. So for the attractive woman, it is the male who is most likely to be rejected unless he appears to want the same bonding she wants. It is hormonal.

Every girl I dated did want to have a serious committed relationship. So, I usually have a non-committed relationship with women. I act romantically with them and I try to bond and develop intimacy with them. I also take them out on dates occasionally. But there's an understanding that I'm not a huge fan of marriage or cohabitation. I feel that this a fair compromise between casual sex and committed relationship. I'm pretty introverted and I would prefer to live by myself so that's why I don't find committed relationships appealing but I do want my relationships to last awhile nonetheless. I can spend an entire weekend by myself in my house and not feel lonely or bored, but I need a lot of privacy and alone time because that's the only time I can really be myself.

Quoting TheHedoMinimalist

Unfortunately, because we have diverging desires, we often have to compromise with people in order to fulfill them.

Surely true, now. But we are entering a world where compromise will increasingly fade away. Real human beings in our lives will be replaced with digital entities which realistically simulate humans, and can be customized to taste. You and I are half there already in this exchange.

Quoting Jake

Surely true, now. But we are entering a world where compromise will increasingly fade away. Real human beings in our lives will be replaced with digital entities which realistically simulate humans, and can be customized to taste. You and I are half there already in this exchange.

I agree, I think AI has a big potential to change the fabric of our society and people are already starting to use technology as a substitute to satisfy social desires. People often use social media to replace real life conversations. If there were customizable AI that designed to learn what makes you interested in talking with them, they could easily replace human conversation partners. People also use porn as a substitute for sex. If there will be sex robots in the future, I wonder how many people would stop having sex with humans all together. Finally, people use video games as substitutes for genuine accomplishments and adventures. I wonder how many people would spend their lives playing advanced VR games if we had them. Some people might argue that no substitute will be better than the real thing though. But I think it doesn't have to be better, it just has to be good enough and cheaper and more convenient than the real thing.

Quoting TheHedoMinimalist

If there were customizable AI that designed to learn what makes you interested in talking with them, they could easily replace human conversation partners.

Yes, that's it. As we can see with today's Google and Facebook, there is already huge work underway in developing software that can track you and learn what interests you. The vast profits involved in such operations guarantee that such work will continue to mature.

There are already primitive services available that attempt to simulate live interactive conversation, such as for example, CleverBot and iGod.

Software such as CrazyTalk can make an image speak anything you feed in to it, and turn it in to video (both 2D and 3D).

I don't know how long it will take for these trends to merge, but it's not hard to imagine a digital entity which 1) learns your interests, 2) is live and interactive and 3) presents a video image.

We need only look to the incredible popularity of dogs to see that vast numbers of people will happily give up human friends if they can be replaced with some other kind of friend who is under our control.

My guess is that over the medium to long term this is how the issue of annoying human experiences will be resolved. It will perhaps be both the best and worst thing to ever happen to us.

Reply to TheHedoMinimalist

Your words demand a reply! :grin:

The problem is hormonal. Some of us avoid men because like you, we are perfectly happy with our independent, private lives. However, we may need help with something, or we may want a male companion, an escort to dinner, travel partner, etc. Problem is, once we start speaking with a man, our hormones can start messing things up. We may want to be intimate and that can lead to a worse hormonal problem called bonding. Then we end up fighting with ourselves with our heads screaming at us to be reasonable and the feeling self screaming at the intellectual self because the feeling self does not want to be denied and the intellectual self does not want to give up her freedom and independence and be stuck with a man.

Obviously, as we age the idea of living with a man seems even worse because our hormones are not at the level where we think if we don't have a man in our lives we will die. We have had our children and know we don't want to go through that again. But when we are young, OMG. Like hunger forces us to stop our lives until we have eaten, our hormones can drive us to sex and bonding and having children. We don't always want to stop and eat but hunger won't leave us alone. We can know we want a career and don't want a husband and children but our feeling self, the hormonal self is driven!

:lol: It is not just The Contradictions in Dealing with Other People but also the contradictions of dealing with ourselves. Now I have to close because I have an agreement to meet with a man I have been avoiding. I hope when I tell him I am not Christian he will stop pursuing me, but I hope he will also be agreeable to me a renting a room from him so I can transition from one apartment complex to another, without having to sleep in my car. I hope he will take me to the Annual Steam Engine Fair this summer. :joke: It is crazy! the worst contradiction is within myself!

Very important. If you know you don't want to be a father, make that very clear. Women can be totally unrealistic about this because their hormones are driving them, so talk about how awful it is to have a child with a man who doesn't one and who will not be a good father. Of course, she will think you are the perfect man because you care about such things, but you must do the impossible. You must active her reasoning. I hate it, we like to think we can have the perfect family even when we know this is unlikely. Stupid hormones! :rofl:

Reply to Jake I thought about this issue a little more and there are 3 objections that I had come up with to your future prediction:

1. Most people desire genuine love as opposed to merely company. Even dogs can have genuine love for their owners, but AI programs cannot actually care about the person they are talking to. Knowing that your friend isn't a real sentient being that feels concern for you would likely to make people feel lonely.

2. Most people desire to be listened to as opposed to merely analyzed by an AI program. Even dogs can listen to our commands because they some have mental activity. AI programs only appear to listen and that partly is the reason why many people don't care that Google is spying on them. The AI programs that spy on us on the Internet don't actually have an opinion about our online activity. We, on the other, desire friends that do have genuine excitement when talking to us.

3. Many people have friends for social status. You can't attain much social status talking to AI friends. In fact, people often destatusize and mock those that only have online friends and don't hang out with actual people.

Reply to TheHedoMinimalist

Good points, thanks.

As I imagine it, those already born when these technologies mature will probably turn up their nose. Those born in to that new world will probably see it as completely natural to talk to AI. We see this today to some degree in relation to the Net.

So my bet is that your objections are more about now than the environment these programs will inhabit. But, just a guess of course.

Quoting Athena

problem is hormonal. Some of us avoid men because like you, we are perfectly happy with our independent, private lives. However, we may need help with something, or we may want a male companion, an escort to dinner, travel partner, etc. Problem is, once we start speaking with a man, our hormones can start messing things up. We may want to be intimate and that can lead to a worse hormonal problem called bonding. Then we end up fighting with ourselves with our heads screaming at us to be reasonable and the feeling self screaming at the intellectual self because the feeling self does not want to be denied and the intellectual self does not want to give up her freedom and independence and be stuck with a man.

I know what you mean. Romantic attachment can really make you lose your sanity. I once got romantically attached to a woman and I completely lost my convictions to avoid getting married and having children for about a day. Luckily, I regained my reason and realized I had to be careful about who I get romantically involved with. It really strange. I'm sexually attracted to just about any woman but I'm only get romantically attached to attractive women. It's one of the many reasons I only date unattractive women.

Quoting Athena

Very important. If you know you don't want to be a father, make that very clear. Women can be totally unrealistic about this because their hormones are driving them, so talk about how awful it is to have a child with a man who doesn't one and who will not be a good father. Of course, she will think you are the perfect man because you care about such things, but you must do the impossible. You must active her reasoning. I hate it, we like to think we can have the perfect family even when we know this is unlikely.

Unfortunately, activating my girlfriends reasoning is quite hard because she has bipolar and schizophrenia. Luckily, I don't think my girlfriend could even get pregnant and she doesn't want to have kids. She claimed that 2 of her doctors said it was extremely unlikely for her to get pregnant. I believe her since she has many health problems and takes too many fertility killing medications. Plus her periods only last 2 days usually which is strange. She is on birth control also. Although, I'm still taking a risk by not wearing a condom and ejaculating inside of her. It feels so damn good though :grin: .

Quoting Athena

Now I have to close because I have an agreement to meet with a man I have been avoiding. I hope when I tell him I am not Christian he will stop pursuing me, but I hope he will also be agreeable to me a renting a room from him so I can transition from one apartment complex to another, without having to sleep in my car. I hope he will take me to the Annual Steam Engine Fair this summer. :joke: It is crazy! the worst contradiction is within myself!

Well, I wish you luck with that. I also gotten rejected a lot for being an atheist lol. My girlfriend doesn't reject me but she keeps trying to convert me lol

Reply to Jake
Fair enough, I agree that perhaps the newer generations would have a completely different outlook about having a conversation with AI programs.

Reply to TheHedoMinimalist
As you can see, I find this to be a fascinating topic. I do so at least in part because since I found the Net in 1995, the transition has been happening to me, to the degree possible in the current primitive technology. This personal experience makes, for me, the "talking with AI" prospect more than just a hypothetical idea.

Here I am, talking to you, a human being I know pretty much nothing about. And I don't really care that most of your humanity is obscured from me because you are more interesting than most of those available to me in the real world. Given that most of your human properties are already lost to me, it doesn't seem that big of leap that someday you might be designed by humans, but not actually human yourself.

Philosophically, what interests me is how the "talking with AI" era seems to be both the best and worst thing that could happen to us socially. I'm always drawn to any idea that seems to be holistic, containing all polarities within itself.

There are a LOT of lonely people in the world who could be served by such technology. Every neglected discarded person on Earth could have an intimate best friend, or 50 of them, all tailored to their personal needs and taste. That's surely a remarkable, indeed historic, development.

On the other hand, such technology will also cause a great many of us to turn our backs on our fellow humans, because they can't meet our needs the way AI can. We will in effect increasingly be talking to ourselves. We see this already today in the way that social media builds a self reinforcing bubble around each of us, feeding us mostly what we already like and agree with.

Of further interest, my best guess is that the negative will in the end out weigh the positive, and that many or most of us will realize this, while we nonetheless plunge headlong in to the AI social realm with great enthusiasm.

Here I am, today. I know that a social life built primarily on forums is a weak stew indeed, but I don't seem to care, because I get to talk philosophy all day long without limit, an experience not vaguely available to me in the real world.

And I will of course be turning my back on you personally, because you don't appear to be a 22 year old gorgeous redhead in a skimpy outfit who thinks I'm a genius, or rather The Genius. Yup, sorry, you've been found wanting, not exactly perfect in every respect, so I gotta let you go.

Well, ok, ok, I guess we can keep chatting until the AI peeps are ready...

I very strongly doubt humans will ever be happy without each other. Here is a movie that explores the possibility of being alone with only robots to interact with.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BWWWQzTpNU

This TV series explores living with robots who cannot be detected as robots but appear to be real humans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smBXniHhrrY

We all want the perfect mate and that can lead one to fantasize about that perfect mate, Of course, that would have to be a robot. Go ahead, give it a try. Give the fantasy a few days maybe a few weeks. Does your long-term relationship with the perfect mate still please you? An episode of Humans deals with this possibility of having the perfect mate, but only having your own experience will answer the question of if this really what you want?

A robot will not motivate you to grow and become the perfect you. With a robot, you can be a complete jerk and there would be no repercussion that prompts you to improve your ability to relate with others. Maybe the robot would correct you, as a teacher may correct us, but that does not motivate our desire to be better people. Here is what is wrong with education for technology replacing liberal education. Learning to be technologically correct, like a robot, does not help us become better humans. We are destroying our democracy with our focus on technological correctness instead of a focus on being human. It is sad that today so many think robots could be superior to humans and appear to willing to submit to rule by computers. Star Trek addressed this many times. Giving up our liberty to have the perfection we believe computers can give us, is desirable why?

Reply to TheHedoMinimalist

Yes, the fact that I am not a Christian resolved the problem. He is very sure he does not want to consider having a serious relationship with a non-Christian. :lol: I have to laugh because in this thread we are considering robots and perfect mates.

Personally, I have a preference for a mate who has the same background in the classics and science that I have. For the two men, I had breakfast with, this intellectual focus is lacking in feeling and spontaneity. I was working extra hard to be sociable with these men. I thought their Christian bias made them insensitive. :lol: We, that is all of us, are divided between thinking a president should be a thinking person like Obama or a spontaneous person like Bush or Trump. Christians want to trust in God and the other side wants to trust in education and the perfectibility of man. Then we have those who are sure computers and robots are best. :lol: I am not willing to give up my planet to the computers and robots, nor do I desire to wake up every day with a Christian.

Quoting Athena

What is your goal?

A mother is not someone who lives alone. At least the traditional wife and mother cannot be fulfilled without human relationships with family and the community. I think we have greatly overlooked the importance and value of traditional women.

I'm not sure what you mean as what is my goal. I guess I meant in the OP three years ago that we live in the imperfect situation of a world where we usually have a longing to socialize, but that socialization process brings with it enormous amounts of frustrations. This brings about a conundrum for the human condition- Hell is other people, but we need them. I am not sure how the traditional role of women would make this predicament any different. A mother is frustrated by her children, but loves them. A wife is aggravated by her husband's actions or words, but she loves him, etc. It is pretty much the same in any human relationships.

Quoting Bitter Crank

Our socially annoying selves are the consequence of our evolutionary history. We abandoned the trees, developed a big brain and smaller teeth, and became puny in comparison to chimpanzees, but we retained many annoying primate personality features. We are stuck with our social needs and our social liabilities.

Refined manners, which some people cultivate, allows the aggressive features of our primate selves to be deployed in more subtle forms. Many people (too many) don't bother with the mannerly approach and just bash you in the face if you annoy them too much.

Many people (not enough) curb their social urges and spend more time in the woods, in their basement shop, in a comfy chair with a book in their hands, or in front of a screen reading, searching, learning, and other activities.

I spend a lot of time alone but I need a regular dose of social contact; the standard dose is several people for about 1 or 2 hours, or 1 person for maybe 5 hours. 24/7 social contact is OK under certain circumstances, as long as there is respite down time.

Yes, so what does this say about humans? What to be done about this dilemma? There is a substratum of boredom which leads to urges to socialize, yet that socialization leads to us being perceived as the Other and not as we see ourselves.

One of my conclusions is that personality plays an enormous role in daily behavior. Screw grandiose ethical arguments. Dealing with an asshole or a flake on an everyday basis takes its toll more than any ethical dilemma described in a text book. Personalities can make or break your day. It drives so much interaction and is largely ignored in philosophical discussions. I am not sure we should erase the place of personality in daily interactions when understanding how to act.

Quoting schopenhauer1

I am not sure we should erase the place of personality in daily interactions when understanding how to act.

We can not, so we don't have to worry about this option.

Philosophers focus too much attention on the quiet, logical, rational activities of the pre-frontal cortex while they ignore the thundering powerhouse of the limbic system which drives human behavior. Humans think, sure; but our appetites, preferences, personalities, and so forth color our thinking and drive it in various directions.

Quoting schopenhauer1

socialization leads to us being perceived as the Other and not as we see ourselves

True, and we are both 'other' and 'self'. Try to avoid becoming an 'other' to your own 'self'. Being 'other' to other people is an essential aspect of human existence -- maybe not the most pleasant part at times. The tension between being a 'self' and being an 'other' gives life one of its essential structures. We do not, can not dissolve into some sort of transcendental Over Soul, a pool of being.

Quoting schopenhauer1

What to be done about this dilemma?

The same thing that is to be done with all of the existential dilemmas: endure or enjoy it to what ever extent that is possible for you. Life is pretty short, really; 60, 70, or 80 years for most people; not a long time, especially when you deduct the 1/3 we need for sleep, and the 1/3 we spend in (often pointless) labor. Of those 3 score years and ten, only 24 are left for everything else--not a long time.

I was often resentful about work, back when I was working before retirement. It wasn't only the boss's time clock that was ticking away. Life itself... I was so very much happier during periods of unemployment or non-employment, like retirement, when I had / have all day to exist for my own purposes instead of some other means to an end.

All too soon this pleasant time will be over, then... Pfffft.

Reply to schopenhauer1

Not your personal goal but the goal of the individual deciding to be social or to be a hermit. There are valid reasons for either choice.

There is a delightful story of hell. There are two rooms. In each room the people are dressed nicely and they are sitting at a large table that is filled with delicious foods. In one room the people are enjoying themselves and the other they are not. In both rooms people's arms had been made stiff so no one could feed him/her self. In the room of happy people, they were feeding each other. In the room of unhappy, they were complaining and screaming angrily and not helping each other enjoy the banquet. The moral is, it is as you make it. Happiness isn't out there but in your head. You can be angry because you don't have what you want, or you can be grateful for what you do have.

Or another way of looking at this, is back to the question of the goal. I thought to be fulfilled as a woman, I had to have children. To have children, I had to be married to a man who would support me and the children. This choice to be a fulfilled woman was a choice to depend on someone else and put my family first. A good woman puts others first and cares for everyone in the family and community simply because this is what a good woman does. Before deciding to be a mother, I considered being a nun and that too would be a choice to serve others and depend on others for my needs. I may have preferred that choice, but I do not believe the Christian mythology and I did not know of a Buddhist nunnery at the time.

What must the individual do to fulfill one's self-image? How does this define the relationships with others? I have a video of a man who spent his life as a hermit in Alaska. That was very fulfilling to him.
Given the choice I made, I am happiest when I get a call from time to time to help someone in the family and when I think what I am doing is making a difference in a child's life. I would love to make a difference in the world with my writing and I am thrilled with all the people attempting to make the same difference I want to make. I feel very tied to humanity from the very beginning to the end but this includes a lot of time to myself which is vital to me being any good to anyone else.

Quoting Athena

Personally, I have a preference for a mate who has the same background in the classics and science that I have. For the two men, I had breakfast with, this intellectual focus is lacking in feeling and spontaneity. I was working extra hard to be sociable with these men. I thought their Christian bias made them insensitive. :lol: We, that is all of us, are divided between thinking a president should be a thinking person like Obama or a spontaneous person like Bush or Trump. Christians want to trust in God and the other side wants to trust in education and the perfectibility of man. Then we have those who are sure computers and robots are best. :lol: I am not willing to give up my planet to the computers and robots, nor do I desire to wake up every day with a Christian.

I'm usually pretty indifferent about what philosophical views or interests my friends have but I like being friends only with nice and pleasant people. Even if I don't share someone's interests, it's easy to have a decent conversation with someone who is really nice and friendly. Even though I am a young man, I tend to get along better with women and older people. It's been awhile since I befriended a young man around my age lol. I do find it helpful to talk about philosophy with likeminded people occasionally though. I just don't think the real world is a good place to find such people

Reply to Athena
You seem like a very nice sweet individual (but who knows..maybe you kill baby kittens or something). Anyways, some like myself think that having children is actually a bad choice to make on someone else's behalf, as all the suffering of life is caused from being born in the first place. This position in philosophical circles is called the antinatalist position.. Anyways, the point is the world is full of people who either are assholes or do asshole things. We seek out people because we are social creatures, but the very thing we are almost always driven to let us down or frustrate us. Is it best to fullfill this desire to seek out others who will unleash such negative emotions, or is it better to withdraw into oneself like the hermit? Perhaps it is a matter of personality and preference as you allude to. Humans perhaps have no choice, but it does seem interesting that if Camus was right that other people are Hell, and we seek out other people, we seek out our own Hell because we have no choice. Ouch that's an interesting conundrum. Of course Hell can be ourselves too. Mental disorders and anxieties of all kinds makes it even harder to live with our own thoughts sometimes! Wait, perhaps this all leads to more truth that life has inherent suffering principles, which then feed into the antinatalist argument that it's better to never have been in the first place! Ouch that's another interesting conundrum..

Quoting schopenhauer1

We seek out people because we are social creatures, but the very thing we are almost always driven to let us down or frustrate us. Is it best to fullfill this desire to seek out others who will unleash such negative emotions, or is it better to withdraw into oneself like the hermit?

First, while it's surely true that many, or perhaps even most, people can be seen as more trouble than they're worth, that's not true of everyone on Earth. Whatever one's taste, there are likely individuals somewhere in the vast pile of society who can meet that taste. And so, if we are taking it as a given that humans are social creatures, then the question would seem to become, how to find those individuals whom we will experience positively? The following two step process may assist in this regard.

1) Work The Numbers - the more people we meet the more likely we are to find those people who are right for us. Thus, a hermit strategy seems ill considered, unless we are sure we can be happy as a hermit.

2) Give More Than We Receive - Once we find the individuals we are looking for the job changes to selling ourselves to them. The formula here is remarkably simple, give more than we ask in return. But of course this won't always work, which brings us back to working the numbers.

If we are struggling with our social lives, it could be that is so because we aren't willing to pay the price tag, working the numbers and giving more than we take.

============

A more philosophical approach could be to try to understand what need drives us to seek out other humans. Instead of just stating "we are social creatures" as if it were an obvious given, we might ask why we are social creatures. If the underlying need can be identified and met by some method other than connecting with other humans, the problem is solved. I won't dive in to all this here, unless members start such a conversation.

============

Finally, I think the incredible popularity of both social media and dogs tells us where this is all headed globally. On average, generally speaking, we are retreating from each other, choosing convenience and control over the often messy business of face to face social connections. In other words, whether we like it or not, whether it's a good idea or not, the robots are coming.

Another angle may be that the frustrations we experience with other people may be really just a reflection of our own inner disturbance.

Imagine that you are a great sage who is totally at peace. I come along and say and do a bunch of annoying stuff. You aren't frustrated, because you need nothing from me, and see my annoying behavior accurately as being my situation and not yours.

We find people frustrating when we need something from them and don't get it. Thus, one solution would be to understand and meet our own needs independent of what anybody else is doing.

Ok, so this is hardly as easy as it sounds. What might be easier is to see our frustration with other people, or anything going on between our ears, as being our own situation and not the fault of somebody else. That is, take responsibility for our own emotional experience.

Ok,, so this isn't as easy as it sounds easier. And the truth is that most of us most of the time just don't want to do any of that. Which is why the robots are coming. :smile:

Quoting Jake

Finally, I think the incredible popularity of both social media and dogs tells us where this is all headed globally. On average, generally speaking, we are retreating from each other, choosing convenience and control over the often messy business of face to face social connections. In other words, whether we like it or not, whether it's a good idea or not, the robots are coming.

True.

Quoting Jake

We find people frustrating when we need something from them and don't get it. Thus, one solution would be to understand and meet our own needs independent of what anybody else is doing.

Hard to do when our very survival is predicated on collaborative actions- probably one of the main factors in why we have such a large neo-cortex (that is social cognition in a complex society along with things like future-planning, and tool-making).

Quoting Jake

Ok, so this is hardly as easy as it sounds. What might be easier is to see our frustration with other people, or anything going on between our ears, as being our own situation and not the fault of somebody else. That is, take responsibility for our own emotional experience.

Yeah similar to Stoic idea of indifference. I just don't think that conquers the annoyances of others. Just one more notch added to prove that this is certainly not the best possible world. Much of life is just coping with stressors and unwanted preferences. One still has to be exposed to the harm, whether there is thick armor in place as a defense or not; the very fact of this makes life questionable. I said in another post that our universe, if compared to an infinite amount of universes that could exist, is mediocre at best. Jim Holt suggested this in his book "Why Does the World Exist". Our universe is certainly not a universe with the most ideal circumstances.

We often use the idea of, "when things get real or that's just reality as if pointing to the fact that this is how things just work, means that we should tolerate it. Of course, my form of rebellion in regards to any form of harm is that we rebel against it by preventing future people from experiencing it.

You can try to develop coping strategies from the millions of self-help books, you can try to take the path of the indifferent sage, but really, it was existing in the first place that was the first mistake. People scoff at my idea that since this reality/universe is not one with ideal circumstances (specifically that harm exists), then any ethic that puts as a priority X agenda (i.e. experience itself, overcoming adversity, experiencing pleasures of the mind and body, etc.) is putting aside the principle of prevention of harm to another (and in this case preventing the exposure of all instances of harm), in order so that a person can be "bearers" of an agenda (carrying out the experience of life, carrying out pleasure, carrying out overcoming adversity). You will chastise me for these ideas because it puts suffering at a premium. I will gladly agree, but I see no other ethic as more important IF there was no person who existed in the first place who cares, or would be deprived. At the end of the day, it is only the parents' projection of an agenda.

Thus, to bring it around again- frustrating people is one (though a large one) known harm of existing. I recognize that we have coping strategies, but that is post-facto- after the fact. We already exist so, yeah of course we have to find ways to deal. The fact that we create others knowingly who will be exposed to this harm and many other negative phenomena, just to because we know there are after-the-fact coping strategies doesn't provide a high enough threshold to then put more people into existence.

Now see, if you were a robot, I'd adjust the slider from "the way too philosophical" setting towards the "down to earth" setting.

Like it or not, you're here. We're all here. We've apparently decided not to leave just yet. So, one way or another, we face the contradictions in dealing with other people and have to deal with that somehow.

Quoting Jake

So, one way or another, we face the contradictions in dealing with other people and have to deal with that somehow.

Yep.

The way I see it, robots will provide a middle ground compromise between becoming a hermit, or subjecting oneself to social torture. :smile: Ok, yes, robots will be only the illusion of connecting with other humans, but then the connections we currently do face to face are mostly illusion based anyway.

I send my public relations image out to exchange data with your public relations image. It rarely gets beyond that.

Will robots perhaps help us better understand what it is we really want from each other? It seems we rarely really know what it is that we really want given that we live in a social realm dominated by limitations, negotiation and compromise. The equation seems more a case of "what can I get" than "what do I really want".

Also, there is the issue of vulnerability. Most of the time we are ruled by our relationship with the judgments of the group consensus. We tend to tailor the image we present to meet the acceptable criteria handed down by the group. What if there were no group, no group consensus, no rules of the road, no moral judgments, no expectations to fulfill, no vulnerability, and nothing to rebel against. Who would we be then?

We really have no idea, because we so rarely face such a situation. But, the robots are coming to teach us. :smile:

Meet Jibo...

One thing that comes to mind is that I would find Jibo more interesting when I was stoned. Thus I'm wondering if chemical enhancers will be part of what helps us accept the fantasy being presented by social robots.

Reply to schopenhauer1

:heart: :flower:

You make my heart sing with joy because I absolutely love conundrums. Your post makes me feel like a child in a toy store free to play with anything I want.

I operate with a notion that I have duties to humanity, my country, and my family. Oh, and I am also working on my life after death by learning as much as I can. I don't want to sit next to the great people of history and be totally ignorant. :yikes: That would be embarrassing.

If we are in the resurrection it is our duty to learn as we can and work through all the decisions we need to make for all of us. :lol: That is to say I have some pretty good fantasies and a sense of purpose.

Did I have to have children? To fulfill myself as a woman I did have to have children. Would I do it again? Not in this lifetime! Do I regret that I had children? Well, maybe because I can agree with your point of view and our future is not looking good. But there is a chance that all may come out well and taking that chance is kind of like betting a horse race. I am not talking about truth, but an attitude and a feeling, and if we can make this come out good, wouldn't that be wonderful? Could there be a better heaven than one that is this interesting?

There was a time many years ago when I didn't like life and I contemplated suicide a lot. I couldn't kill myself and leave people to hurt, so I had to kill them too, and then I had to kill all the people who would hurt if I killed those people. I realized the circle of people I would have to kill just got bigger and bigger, so I had to give the idea up. Okay, if I couldn't kill myself, then what? Obviously, I had to do whatever I could do to make life better.

A cartoon really helped me turn myself around. It was a picture of a man standing at the complaint desk in heaven and the caption read, "I don't like life. Do you have anything better to offer?"

Hell or Hades is a place we must all go to have a sense of meaning. But we must never go to Hades without the help of the gods, because it is so easy to get lost in Hades. To be lost in Hades is to be depressed or maybe even psychotic. I love Greek mythology. Our lack of a shared mythology today is problematic. Now we each have to invent our won mythology. For sure we can create our own hells and get lost in them. But perhaps we should keep in mind- it isn't all about us. It is also about everyone we know and everyone they know and the circle just keeps getting bigger.

Quoting Athena

There was a time many years ago when I didn't like life and I contemplated suicide a lot. I couldn't kill myself and leave people to hurt, so I had to kill them too, and then I had to kill all the people who would hurt if I killed those people.

We all have wacky ideas like this sometimes. In a virtual realm we could play these inclinations out and learn from them, without any real people being hurt. The virtual realm will help us explore our social relationships in a manner not possible in the real world.

Reply to Jake

That sounds very interesting. What is a virtual realm? What if a person had a shitty job and wanted to explore other jobs?

Quoting Athena

What is a virtual realm?

Sorry, I just mean interaction with software and robots, ie. human simulations. Here's a quick example.

https://www.cleverbot.com/