I heard this on Across the Universe, and found it pretty interesting.
(poll, 1 sec)
Reputation: 1151
The Person You Are...
I heard this on Across the Universe, and found it pretty interesting.
(poll, 1 sec)
Reputation: 107
arent those the same questions? only asked in another way?Originally Posted by Oisterboy
w8 ignore that, i just thought about it, i went for the first, though now id rather switch it to the second
Reputation: 87
I don't think it's because of the things I do that I have a personality...
I think I do things because of my personality...
(do you avoid working because you are lazy or you are lazy because you avoid working, when you look at it simply both means the same thing, but when you think, determine the order of things and why you do these actions, the second answer "What you do is defined by who you are." seem to be more correct)
Another example, you may save someone because you're kind, but it's only the other people's opinion about you that will change once that happen, your personality itself won't change because you saved someone unless it was in some f*cked up setting in which case it would be a trauma...
Anyway this is a rather phylosophical question and it's pretty hard for me to explain what I'm trying to say because well... english is not my first language and that's all pretty complex stuff... the best I could do was to give you those example to try and understand by yourself xD
Reputation: 182
I am for the first one, without a doubt.
Reputation: 1151
I don't let my actions determine who I am.
I let who I am determine my actions.
Reputation: 1151
Lols. This is how I felt when I heard it in the movie.
I knew you guys would have fun with it as soon as I heard it
Reputation: 46
I always figured who I was defined what I do/did.
Reputation: 182
Lols. This is how I felt when I heard it in the movie.
I knew you guys would have fun with it as soon as I heard it
We are not having fun with it.
Reputation: 1151
Maybe you're not.We are not having fun with it.
I'm having fun loling at everyones confusion.
Reputation: 46
Its not confusing I had decided upon my answer quite easily.
*smacks Oister*
>
Reputation: 677
Neither one.
Reputation: 785
Don't leave us hanging like that, man.
C'mon, tell us what you think.
Reputation: 677
Generalization are based on an information deficit.
I don't make decisions based on the principle of deficit-counter efforts, I gamble.
That means I rationalize problems or act randomly (often for environmental reasons I act contrary to my personal inclinations). With this systematic approach, the "personality aspect" falls out of the equitation.
As an illustration:
Body language does not lie.
It has really nothing to do with personality either, because it's a the same for all people, necessarily as a form of communication.
The emotions do not really tunnel through, they are internal aspects of our life, because the information of our personal state is not relevant to the acts and decisions of others.
That's why we are not communicating them well.
Anger, fear, etc. are not really important at all, they just are safety belts against us falling down from heights, etc.
They are also not in any way as individual as people think, because they serve the same purpose for everyone.
What mainly defines my acting are 2 things:
My capability to evaluate chances out of comparison to equal events
External influences, to which I count for example the weather as well as emotions, that effect me before I am able to judge them.
The first one is about abstract categories, so it's not individual aside from the individual set of equal events and estimates that form perception.
The second one is not an influence that I try to enhance but to decrease and also avoid.
The 2 options of the poll are influences of this kind.
Reputation: 152
Went with the 2nd one.
Reputation: 46
*clap* *clap* *clap*
Bravo Ronin bravo!
Reputation: 271
And that is why good and evil are flawed concepts.
Reputation: 87
Ah that has nothing to do with it. Replace good with right and evil with wrong. Same thing.
Reputation: 271
Right and wrong are also flawed concepts in a philosophical context.
But all of this is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Sorry for sidetracking.
Reputation: 193
I think your first point is half true. You left out the fact that many of our actions (or lack of), are based on many other factors as well, such as your environment, your personality, your state of mind, etc all at that point of time. So just because you did, or didn't do something at a certain point, doesn't define a part of your personality, because it could just be due to other factors.
For example, if a child was born intellectually gifted, but had never been properly developed or educated, does that mean he was never intelligent? Then again, the child also grows up and his body changes. Maybe when he's an adult his intellect is just average compared to other people. So if we're going by that argument, we're associating a person's 'being' to a point of time.
So all this...... means we can't try to define things so simply in 2 contrasting sentences like that?
Am I right?
Reputation: 47
Oh yeah I am sure there are examples like other things influencing what we do which do not necessarily show who we are. But that's almost like having to ask are we defined by our environments or situations we're place in then if our environments define actions, do both the environment and actions really define us?I think your first point is half true. You left out the fact that many of our actions (or lack of), are based on many other factors as well, such as your environment, your personality, your state of mind, etc all at that point of time. So just because you did, or didn't do something at a certain point, doesn't define a part of your personality, because it could just be due to other factors.
For example, if a child was born intellectually gifted, but had never been properly developed or educated, does that mean he was never intelligent? Then again, the child also grows up and his body changes. Maybe when he's an adult his intellect is just average compared to other people. So if we're going by that argument, we're associating a person's 'being' to a point of time.
So all this...... means we can't try to define things so simply in 2 contrasting sentences like that?
Am I right?
It certainly goes into even more and more deep shit to think about. Dx
Reputation: 82
It's what we know we aren't, that makes us who we are.
whoooa
Reputation: 67
im a person who cannot be defined
Reputation: 132
I think its a mix of both. So I can't vote.
Reputation: 17
I definately only picked the first one cause it made more sense to me without thinking, but after reading every post and really thinking about it, it would have to be the second one. Though both could be true depending on person to person, but im sure the question is aimed at each individual right?
Reputation: 201
Meh new opinion!
It's what you believe that defines who you are.
I mean you can do anything but those things might not define you.
I suppose defining yourself is up to you. Don't let others judge you by your actions.
Making mistakes doesn't mean you are a failure, and doing amazing things doesn't exactly mean you are selfless. Most people only see what they wanna see. :3 Then they base their opinions of you on that.
She knows how to party.
Posting Permissions
