My premise is more that there is a truth of the matter. Even if people start with opposite view points, that won't last when sufficiently good/true things are said (plus enough help seeing why this new view is better, and how to change, and how that will improve their life, etc).
You're assuming that people want to hear the truth. That is not at all what most people want. And if you insist on offering it to them against their desires they will eat you like (dare I say) a caged lion. :)
They might not want the truth now, but they could be shown why it's good to want it, and shown how much nicer that lifestyle is, and helped to change. Hard but certainly possible.
There are exist some truths about what lifestyles are nice for everyone. If they violate some of those, then changing would benefit them.
As far as we know, the truth about eating is a lot more like "eat foods you like" than "eat foods X, Y, and Z but not A, B, or C". So we can all agree that I will eat spinach because I like it, and you won't because you don't. That doesn't contradict, and is no reason for disagreement.
The only truths about lifestyles true for everyone I can come up with is "don't hit yourself with a hammer" and "don't eat poison". Definitely not "work for yourself" or "work for corp". A lot of people is unhappy working for corp, but a lot likes it better than being on their own (me included).
It's exactly the same way as with food - "work where you like".
Hold on there, I didn't say anything about people should work for themselves. We can do better than "don't hit yourself with a hammer", but nothing like "everyone should work for themselves" (that'd be a bit hard with no possibility of hiring employees, lol).
The flame with Paul started with him drawing conclusion (or leaving such impression) that natural state for human is to be own boss and that ones that work for somebody are missing something in life (hence their life is somehow inferior). That's why I jumped to "work" topic.
You did not mention work, but I connected Paul's essay with your post.
My point was that IMO there are very few universal truths about life and they are limited to very basic things. Differences between particular human beings and environments they live in are too big to draw general conclusions.
Right, I see. But I think there are actually a lot of universal truths.
For example, lifestyles that are open to criticism are more successful because they correct more of their errors. Lifestyles with appropriate attention to detail are more successful too (that doesn't mean more attention to detail, it means being good at judging the right amount for the situation and using that. And there exist non-obvious truths about how to judge the appropriate amount of detail for a situation).
And there's all that stuff we call "scientific rigor" or the scientific method. While it's normally associated with only science, large parts of it are valuable to thinking in general. And better ways of thinking definitely make for a better life.
I think we got common ground :) I consider features like "being open to criticism" and "appropriate level of attention to detail" basic things, so it does not contradict my POV (general conclusions limited to basic stuff), and since it is you who wrote it I assume, that it complies with yours too.
Not sure about how scientific method applies here (I DO agree with scientific method though), but I can live with that.
Now we just have to use it to somehow extinguish original flame of "you were not meant to ..." :)
Just kidding. I'm happy with discussion getting to the point of common ground +- epsilon.
I'll drink to that!
EDIT: how one downvotes posts here (no, not this thread)? I see only up arrows :|
You need more karma to be able to vote down. 20 or 25 or so.
The reason I'd say those aren't basic things is they (and many others) are, apparently, too hard for most people. The world could be greatly improved by people doing them better. (Not to say I do all of them perfectly, either.)
<friendly troll>
That voting thing does not sound fair. Or the other way - seems aimed at putting some bias. "Only those that agree with majority can vote against" stuff.
Like in communist countries (hey, I live in a former one): only ones that agree with the Party can vote against it.
</friendly troll>
25 karma is really not very much, even for someone who's consistently in the minority, I think the point is not to let totally new accounts use downvote.
