Is it acceptable to live a passive life?

LucyJr said:
I can't enter into detail now, but I think the kind of relativity you are reffering is not applicable to virtues or vices, or about human actions, which are linked to morality.
Yes, there are many different contexts, but the moral principles remain the same.
Have you read Ethics of Aristotle? It will surely change your point of view I think.
Click to expand...

I'd agree with you. [MENTION=6917]sprinkles[/MENTION] and I are using the terms (active/passive) in a more broad, abstract sense using analogies from a different field (physics) to illustrate and elucidate the sort of relationships that exist between the two terms.

I think my original statement may actually derive from this more specific usage in that lifestyles are not measurable quantities despite having many measurable constituents. As a whole though, I do not think it useful or helpful to apply these terms to lifestyle choices.

The reason being is that this constitutes a black/white dichotomy which is especially counterproductive to continuous quantification. If we reason that a life can be either active or passive based on some arbitrary measurement in which no middle ground exists, then a variety of ridiculous and/or contradictory statements are then applicable dependent on the standard or standards of measurement.

This usage is simply too broad and ambiguous to be of any use. It can be likened to the ethics of right vs. wrong, and I'd bring up similar issues on that topic too, in that, there are grey areas where a black and white dichotomy do not make much sense, but I agree that the relationship between the two is unnecessary except for comparative reasons.

Let's not turn this discussion into an ethics debate though. I think it'd be appropriate to start another thread. If I remember correctly, you took issue with having your morality described as 'subjective' and I'd point out what I said previously to sprinkles about my usage of the word. Again though, I hope you'd start another thread if that is what you wish to discuss.
 
[MENTION=4822]Matt3737[/MENTION]

I was just contemplating this while I was outside trimming my bonsai and being feasted on by mosquitoes.

It's kind of passive in the sense that when I'm trimming I'm kind of slow and contemplative, just kind of a lazy pace, seeing what the tree wants to do and not feeling pressured to accomplish.

It is also active in the sense that the tree does need to be trimmed if it's going to remain healthy, since it's in a pot. Not trimming it would be like putting a hamster in a cage and never feeding it - since you've taken responsibility you have to take care of it.

Regarding the mosquitoes I was also passive because I didn't really care about them. I'm sure I'll have a lot of bites on me but I didn't really feel the need to do anything about them, except half heartedly shoo them away once in a while when they got too annoying.
 
LucyJr said:
I learned to play guitar from one, and I sung in his bad for some time.
ENTJs are not by any means "bad". In fact they can be shy and sensitive, as "solid" as they may appear outwardly.

I don't think you're concentrating on the right cognitive type, if you really want some drama. How about ESTPs?
Those guys are indeed dangerous if they really want to be, yet they aren't.
So there is ESTJs, ENTJs, ESTPs, and ISTPs...the "tough" types. ESTPs are by far superior in "toughness", more so than any type, even ESTJs.
So if there is a natural "marshall", that is ESTP alone, and his introverted brother, ISTP.
ENTJs...nah. I can't worry about ENTJs because I know them, and they are not even closely as these articles makes them to be.
Click to expand...


Lol

Except the people you think are ENTJ's probably aren't because you have been misstyping everyone; everything i read disagrees with you EVERYTIME probably because you are using socionics

For example i've read that the socionics INFj corresponds to the MBTI INFP so i think a lot of the time you are confusing MBTI INFJ's with INFP's

God knows what else you are confusing between the two systems but a lot of what you say doesn't make any sense when viewed through an MBTI lens

Are you aware that the socionics system you keep using was created in the USSR as a way to help control the population which is why the authorities gave an award to the creator of the socionics system?

Stalin who led the USSR for a while WAS an ENTJ!!! It was an ENTJ system

Now you have tried to push the blame onto the sensors but i have to disagree with you

As the study below shows the BOSSES of the corporations are ENTJ's with their sub managers (supervisors) being the ESTJ's who operate as the underlings or 'yes men' of the ENTJ's who use their intuition to stay one step ahead of others in their power games

The ENTJ's it describes as the 'directors' and the ESTJ's as the 'managers'

I'm sure anyone who has worked in a company has seen this dynamic of a boss and their underling who does their bidding

http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/11/06/...r-personality/

This Is How Much Money You’ll Make Based on Your Personality

Surprise, surprise: the more self-motivated and driven you are, the more money you'll make.


If you spent a lot of time on the Internet as a teen, you’ve taken approximately a bajillion personality tests. At least one was probably the hugely popular Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, which sorts people into 16 different groups with 4-letter names.
The test, based off of Jungian psychiatry and developed by mother-daughter author duo Katharine Cooks Briggs and Isabelle Myers Briggs in 1962, is supposed to tell you if you are introverted or extraverted, intuitive or sensing, thinking or feeling and perceptive or judgmental. Each combination–INFJ or ESTP, for example–is representative of different characteristics, behaviors and preferences.
The types can then be divided into four groups: artisans, guardians, idealists and rationalists.
Web Talent, careerassessmentsite.com

Career Assessment Site, maintained by Jonathan Bollag, recently published an in-depth infographic that shows exactly how much money different personality types will likely make in their lives.
Web Talent, careerassessmentsite.com

Unsurprisingly it’s ENTJs, who are known to be outgoing, self-motivated, driven and competitive, who earn the highest household income by a landslide, averaging over $80,000 per household. Meanwhile the artistic crowd, like shy and emotional INFPs, are the lowest earners, averaging around $60,000.
You can see the full Myers-Briggs infographic here.
Correction: The link to the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator test has been modified to link to mbticomplete.com.

mbti-personality-types.gif
 
Last edited:
sprinkles said:
[MENTION=4822]Matt3737[/MENTION]

I was just contemplating this while I was outside trimming my bonsai and being feasted on by mosquitoes.

It's kind of passive in the sense that when I'm trimming I'm kind of slow and contemplative, just kind of a lazy pace, seeing what the tree wants to do and not feeling pressured to accomplish.

It is also active in the sense that the tree does need to be trimmed if it's going to remain healthy, since it's in a pot. Not trimming it would be like putting a hamster in a cage and never feeding it - since you've taken responsibility you have to take care of it.

Regarding the mosquitoes I was also passive because I didn't really care about them. I'm sure I'll have a lot of bites on me but I didn't really feel the need to do anything about them, except half heartedly shoo them away once in a while when they got too annoying.
Click to expand...

That's a great example. It really has that meditative sense where it is both active/passive in the same activity.

Of course, this isn't necessarily the same throughout our entire lives, which is why I think passing judgment on an individual's entire lifespan is counterproductive. Although I think we intuitively understand that there are certain periods in our lives in which we feel we become stagnant or overwhelmed and seek out a method of resolution or a counterbalance to meet that end. This doesn't really constitute a passive or active life per se, but certain periods or stages in our life we might experience as so in comparison with each other.

That seems so like you to keep bonsai, sprinkles. Very Zen/Tao of you. :m201:
 
Matt3737 said:
I
I think my original statement may actually derive from this more specific usage in that lifestyles are not measurable quantities despite having many measurable constituents. As a whole though, I do not think it useful or helpful to apply these terms to lifestyle choices.
Click to expand...
What about living a cheater lifestyle, or a liar, or a thief's lifestyle, or a honest man lifestyle?
Its a lifestyle choice. Do you think these lifestyles have no "measurable quantities"? What do you mean by "measurable quantities", do you mean the kind that are used in physics and mathematics?



The reason being is that this constitutes a black/white dichotomy which is especially counterproductive to continuous quantification. If we reason that a life can be either active or passive based on some arbitrary measurement in which no middle ground exists, then a variety of ridiculous and/or contradictory statements are then applicable dependent on the standard or standards of measurement.
Click to expand...

I don't think anybody would based a judgement of this kind on some arbitrary measurement. I think that's why we even discuss this question, to see if there is a real standard from which to judge a certain way of lifestyle, otherwise the question would be absurd.

Some people, like Aristotle, thought and argued for a absolute, for a standard of which to judge objectively any lifestyle.
Any way of living life is ultimately linked to morality, and morality is, unfortunetely, black and white, in a fundamental sense. Of course, this is true if one believes that morality is objective.



Let's not turn this discussion into an ethics debate though. I think it'd be appropriate to start another thread. If I remember correctly, you took issue with having your morality described as 'subjective' and I'd point out what I said previously to sprinkles about my usage of the word. Again though, I hope you'd start another thread if that is what you wish to discuss.
Click to expand...


No, I do not wish to turn this into a discussion on morality.

I just think its correct to say that if there is a objective standard of which to judge a lifestyle, even if its one's own lifestyle, related only to one's own choice, then there is a "oughtness" in how one should live his own life.

If there is no such objective standard, then like you said, these are all "subjective value judgements".
But the only problem, which I think its correct, is that you made a assumption there, as if there is no objective criteria for judgement whatsoever, and it is clear that all is "subjective value judgements".
 
LucyJr said:
Yes.
Click to expand...

FDR easily, Newt's ideas on economics and market forces are reckless, rash and frankly insane, real Ayn Rand stuff, his handing social policy over to corporate interests was the straw which broke the donkey's back at the time but I dont know if things would repeat themselves today unfortunately.

Although I prefer Theodore Roosevelt to FDR most of the time.
 
Let's just put this simply: it is acceptable for people to live however they want to live. Even if I don't think that's what's best for them or anyone else. I strive to love a meaningful life and personally my mission is to be happy but that doesn't have to be everyone's. If we stopped clouding up our minds with all these 'should bes' we would all be a lot happier. Why should they be the way you think they should? It's ultimately their choice. Besides, I don't think anyone especially myself is able to say how acceptable another persons life is considering the state of my own (a principle, like some of my others, that I accidentally forget to follow. I try my best.)

It is acceptable for people to live.

And that is all.
 
We know that the world always change right? Thing that we consider as the right thing now will be false thing after many years later. That's the reason that we must be an active person. We should look around us and try to matching our principe with the culture.
 
freekundli said:
How old? 50-60 year old?
Click to expand...
What is the point of this question? It's okay if you disagree with me, but just say so. I don't like when people aren't direct or aren't genuine.

If you interpret my statement the way it should, it would be that the older you get, the less employable you become. There's no magical age that flips a switch to my logic on their 50th birthday.
 
Is it acceptable to live a passive life?

Yes Hun, of course I'll let you answer this for me...

:m136:
 
YES. People are too busy and distracted these days. Contemplation is frowned upon. Reminds me of the book "The Spirit of Capitalism and the Protestant Ethic." Society demands constant productivity and communication and activity. I could go on, but I have made this point in the past. By the way, what's with all the necromancy these days? Allow the old threads to Rest In Peace. Is this a Halloween thing or something? Zombies!
 
Gist said:
societal acceptance and low visible productivity, fast paced movement of the world, anything opposed to frenetic pace of constant activity.
Click to expand...
Then no
 
dang said:
YES. People are too busy and distracted these days. Contemplation is frowned upon. Reminds me of the book "The Spirit of Capitalism and the Protestant Ethic." Society demands constant productivity and communication and activity. I could go on, but I have made this point in the past. By the way, what's with all the necromancy these days? Allow the old threads to Rest In Peace. Is this a Halloween thing or something? Zombies!
Click to expand...
Gist asked all the questions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top