Robert Vigerious

Someone is shy

Robert hasn't completed a profile. Should we look for some other people?

Comments & conversations

Noface
Robert Vigerious
Posted over 2 years ago
Can Money Buy Happiness?
Dear Mrs. Steen, I'm absolutely supportive for your own situation and sharing the understanding of the point of view you're proposing. Please, do not be deceived by the sour and pinch tone I've used on purpose, as I said it was intended as a provocation aiming to hit a particular aspect of the topic. Reading your kind reply, I would say that you're not so far away from my real (unsaid) point of view, and I like that. At the same time, I recognize that I've failed to make you see through this particular keyhole. I doesn't really matter anyway. My best wishes for your days to come Robert :)
Noface
Robert Vigerious
Posted over 2 years ago
Can Money Buy Happiness?
As a matter of fact, in the current society money does buy happiness. Every minute. Whoever says the contrary shall cut down his entire in/out flows of money from his life starting from tomorrow, just to see how much his happiness really depends on that. Oh, you should obviously not lean against anything you purchased with money in the past, of course. That would be cheating: instead of relying on a purchase made today, you rely on a purchase made in the past. Nor lean against the money or possession of other people, naturally. Don't want to call it money? Call it possession, acquisition, ownership. Of course there are psychological and spiritual aspects to be considered too, since humans with a *certain* level of acquired happiness can start living on a different level of existence. But why does this topic always go so very far away from the real human being who is speaking? It looks like it's so damn easy to forget who we are and what we are doing in our every single day. And before pointing out that "what you buy is not true happiness but basilar needs", note that: - unsatisfied basilar needs = TRUE unhappiness, I guarantee you by experience. - you're just stating that *for you* those basilar needs are no more enough to feel happy. I know people who would be filled with immense joy for several days in your place. Naive? Yes. But sometimes one has to be like that, when idealization goes so far away from reality. Of course if you happen to have just too much money for your own real need of happiness, then the statement "money doesn't buy happiness" is magically true. But now you should know what to do with your surplus: give it away. Unless you're a penny pincher! ;-) >> This post is an intellectual provocation, and should be taken as such. No one really expects human beings from being so pure to really become consistent to this simple truth. And I purposely neglected other important aspects involved, many of which already on this page.
Noface
Robert Vigerious
Posted over 2 years ago
How do we prove an answer
Sir, I can understand and subscribe your concerns with the "peace" concept. :-) I was referring to the (y) (z) (x) example, but you already cleared it out with the last paragraph. I thank you for your curiosity, but I feel like I should not try to force my English skills by writing down thoughts that I would hardly explain well even in my own language without the support of my consumed book of hand notes and examples. Unfortunately, I don't know any external source to point to you that would play a satisfying replacement for mine perspective. Thank you for the chat!
Noface
Robert Vigerious
Posted over 2 years ago
How do we prove an answer
I apologize Mr. Christofaris, English is not my main language and I've got a hard time trying to interpret your last two messages. If there was enough space I would have quoted each part and pointed out my questions, but on this board I shall trust whatever my mind grasps of your replies. If I get something wrong on your own view, please be both kind and patient with me. :-) --- Your starting suggestions, while It looks confused to me, remind me of an approach of human wisdom that I can safely say to already apply and know. In my last comment I was trying to say something different from the direction you've taken, but it's not a problem for me. I would just add that your suggestions fall in a positive perspective, because from my experience to be really *pedantic* there is a lot to be said and pointed out over the real fruits of a communication exchange among 2 or more human beings. The "box" - in my comment - wasn't the mindset or the set of assumptions/beliefs/perspectives, but rather the self-imposing limitations of a brain on its own capabilities by construction. If you get what I'm talking about, then you understand that there is no such thing as "think outside the box" or "think in all boxes". I do understand that this word has a lot of meaning, hence I won't stress over my perspective. By the way I understood what you meant with your sentence anyway. ;) Was that a rhetoric question? I think so, I didn't define *your* peace. At least, I didn't define it more explicitly of how the "golden rule" does itself, and I'm not implying that is bad - just that it has an encoded assumption more strict than the one I left out of my comment. :-) Your example and conclusion look totally confused, and I don't get the reason why you've written it down. You've basically encoded a moral law example. But I miss the point.
Noface
Robert Vigerious
Posted over 2 years ago
How do we prove an answer
Thank you for your kind reply. :-) Well, if you think of it the first time this looks like a paradox, really. In my opinion, all those things are part of the awesome human wisdom of recognizing the limitations of his capability of knowing the environment. As instinctive and primordial creatures, we are lead to use inner knowledge (= Truth) as if it was a perfect mirror of Reality outside. On the other side, sometimes in the highest peaks of our consciousness or in some particular instants of life, we are able to jump out of the pond and feel shame for the nudity of our human brain limitations. As a relativist, I live in the constant paradox that I recognize every piece of (achievable) knowledge truth value subject to a particular context/model/assumptions/tastes/individuality - thus portraying the human as a being completely unable to tell which of the many reflections in the mirrors of reality is the right one - while at the same time I constantly break this rule, since as a human being I'm acting and speaking as if I ever really knew something certain of reality anyway. Of course there are degrees of certainty, but one can never be totally relativistic without be stuck in a not decidable loop. I recognize that it is fairly difficult to "get the mindset outside its own box", for certain reasons it should be better said impossible (again with an extension of generality and assumptions), but I still repute this contradiction, this paradox, to be the most important intellectual achievement needed to promote peaceful coexistence of people with VERY different perspectives. Funny enough, since this thought is the result of my perspective of sight of the entire universe, it is expected by the same law of relativism that a huge part of people should (and will) disagree with it.. ..which cuts the possibility of a constructive dialogue, given "assumptions" very different. I don't know. But I love every chance to see these details in my life. :)
Noface
Robert Vigerious
Posted over 2 years ago
Should employers not hire you or fire you when they discover your bad credit history?
You've been in bad credit? You've had low marks at school? You've been fired in the past? "It's your fault." is the thought that strikes the mind of any person, since in general it is known that it can be done better. Why should prejudices of bad credit (that you're unable to properly manage a situation, to assess risks/expenses that are needed from those that are excess, to understand a bad choices for unfavourable circumstances in time, etc.) be wrong at all? Any reason that may show you as a "looser" even if through preconceptions, has to be demonstrated to be biased or wrong. If you feel uncomfortable and you know the other will check it, step in the topic first. And explain how you learned to do better in the "recent" past. Show that your satisfaction with life and capabilities have improved and not diminished, maintain a positive mindset when describing it. Certainly, bad credit as bad marks (or good ones) means nothing, but if you don't give people the big picture, if you don't let them know you and your skills, the only information they will have on you is the one on the peace of sheet.. ..and I challenge you to state that it is a positive curriculum aspect to have bad credit. Probably it's "not bad" at most.
Noface
Robert Vigerious
Posted over 2 years ago
How do we prove an answer
In my opinion, the fundamental step is to contextualize it. Each and every statement is the result of a set of axioms/assumptions, a set of preferences determining the way in which raw data should be evaluated (what is important? what is the criteria? on what focus the attention? what can be known and which are the questions that are "important" in this representation of the reality? etc.), a set of (possibly) unchecked sources of knowledge and by induction a set of third party actors over which we rely on the truthfulness/faithfulness of the knowledge itself (is it (subjective) experience? is it "well-known" fact? who did the experiment I'm referring to? Am I referring to the original results or to text/references/words of (how much?) trusted mediators? Who would lie on purpose? Who would lie unconsciously? Who would take for granted? What would I want to hear and take for granted? Did I check any reference? With what? What is the criteria with which I evaluate contradicting references?). Once you have completely contextualized an answer, the magic is done, and your "answer" is proven within the so called "model" in which it lives. (Actually, if you provide a model in which the answer can not live, you have proven that in that model its value is "wrong", but it is still.. proven. And that was your question.) (And yes, mathematical approaches - when applicable - are much more fun, but have even been already listed) (And no, this is not the (very specific) scientific method of Galileo Galileo (living in a very specific model of the cognizable reality), you don't do science this way.. that isn't my claim, of course.)
Noface
Robert Vigerious
Posted over 2 years ago
How can overly empathetic/sympathetic people compete in this world? Do they eventually end up jaded and bitter?
The article is very good, I've always thought it was a clear difference though. Beware that at the root of the "nice" guy behaviour there are his own selfish needs, beliefs and feelings, toward which he is honest and faithful, although those can look "sick". This "nice" guy "ruins" his own existence to be appreciated, to be accepted" and ultimately to be "first" as those kind, smiling and beautiful people he imitates. As the article points out, the negativity hidden in his own behaviour does find a way to counterbalance his sick struggles, in a way or the other. Therefore, it's not only him who get his life ruined, but he makes the others pay off their price too and their only fault is to have misjudged him before. A guy of this temper hardly refrains from using all his skills in a competition, unless it is his own goal to disguise his own person under lesser dangerous clothes. He in fact can take out in any moment the same strength and violence he applies to his own existence, and apply them to firmly compete with others when he needs it. These guys are usually those "you didn't see coming", and make you feel surprised unless you've seen them doing that in the past. When Marcia Sirota outlined the possible sick behaviours that these guys can develop, she has been very accurate in my opinion. You should always put just half of your trust in this kind of guys, and never let they play their game if you want to help them to go out of their vicious circle. These opinions come from my own experience with "nice" guys, and I have a piece of strong evidence that at least some of them do reflect this kind of description very well. So I would end saying that your worries are misplaced. Only those trapped in being "victims" can fail to compete, because they've stopped trying.. ..but it is a really different type of people in my honest opinion.