Loneliness is the natural state of being

We are all alone. No one can truly know our hearts and minds. Very few of us even know our own. What fulfillment can we expect if we cannot accept this fundamental truth? Of course, human connection is possible. In fact, it is necessary, and kind, compassionate connectedness is the key to happiness. We find loneliness saddening because our attempts to make such connections are met with only superficial interest at best. So we recoil, out of fear or disappointment, because our opinions on loneliness and sadness are validated. And yet, I have found, when I reach out to others who claim a need for connectedness, they prefer to cocoon within their own isolation. This brings me some level of sadness. But, as they say, this too shall pass.

Er yeah I kind of agree with that. When we talk of people not knowing who we are, we don't either, we flicker between different states different definitions of who we are.

Everything will pass but the present instant contains so much beauty we should making the most of it noticing and enjoy solitude where possible.

But also where those confusing bits of connectedness are possible we should probably seek them out and enjoy them too.

Everything will pass yeah but it's how it passes that matters.

welcome back Amthorn, haven't seen you in a while

These days, I'm loving my loneliness too much. It even makes me afraid of relationship. I'm not yet ready to be involved in a relationship. Hopefully, I'll be some day. You can say that it's kind of self-inflicted loneliness.

Amthorn said:

We are all alone. No one can truly know our hearts and minds. Very few of us even know our own. What fulfillment can we expect if we cannot accept this fundamental truth? Of course, human connection is possible. In fact, it is necessary, and kind, compassionate connectedness is the key to happiness.

Click to expand...

You start out with a philosophical approach, but then quickly dissolve into a brash assumption.
What makes you assume that "human connection" is "necessary" and also "the key to happiness"? What reasoning is placed behind this?

To me, personally, I think you went the completely wrong way with the philosophy you began. Why interject an assumptions like that out of nowhere? What makes you think it is true?

I can't agree that it's true, myself. So here's how I see it:
We are all born being connected to our mother. For 9 months we are carried and connected and we have the warmth and comfort of an unconditional relationship. Then we are forced out into a world and disconnected. It is a foreign and alien world to us. We are confused and dazed and the first thing we naturally do is cry. So naturally the most primitive desire of people is to find that comfort again. To want and feel the need for an unconditional relationship, one which we feel we belong to and are a part of that will carry us through the world.
However, upon inspection of this concept we should see that it is merely the primitive desire of trying to resolve the confusion felt in the world. As we grow and mature as people we are learning and understanding to be at peace with the world. Growth as an individual is therefore understanding our world so that we are no longer lost in the confusion, and so we are able to take care of ourselves and not be carried.
So we then have two options: to accept the world and possibly learn to enjoy the openness and serenity of its disconnection, or we can reject this and continue to seek the comfort of others to carry us through safely.

In many ways our minds are always seeking to reconcile our current reality with our previous one by making compromises, and this is generally how human psychology seems to work. So it's not really about humans having some sort of PTSD or instincts from their birth but more accurately that this is just something that tends to follow them throughout their entire early life, and so I am just generalizing it, somewhat as a sort of analogy. (So don't focus too much on the whole conception/birth thing, the same concept applies to all childhood.)

Anyway, I won't say there is a right way to live because there isn't, but I would say that if you want to continue to 'grow as a person', philosophically speaking, you should let go of your more primitive desires and accept change as it comes. In this way we move more and more away from needing others for our own happiness and more and more towards confirming our true reality.

Not to get into the whole mumbo-jumbo of anyone's personal beliefs, but it's the same concept that monks and such utilize for their way of life. They seek to get away from the material world and material relationships and develop a deep connection with themselves. They find 'enlightenment' in this process, and believe that it helps them to grow.
While I'm certainly not suggesting that everyone should go live like monks, because there are many ways to be at peace with yourself and your world, but it does demonstrate the principle quite effectively.

Anyone agree or disagree? I'd love to hear someone else's point of view on this.

Existentially, we are thrust into the world alone and exit it alone, I think this is one of the fundamental challenges we face as humans. How do we fill that loneliness - friends, lovers, family, gods....?

I think the thing with monks is, they develop the deep connection with themselves so they can then forge deeper connections with and teach others - at least this is the case with many Buddhist monks, solitude is ironically a path towards greater connection. The Buddha left his family to wander in the wilderness, but once he became enlightened he went back to his family and they became discuples (or arahants) and went on to teach others. Or so the story goes.

I think a lot of this is tied up in the words conditional and unconditional - many of our relationships are conditional (only if I am a certain way will people/society accept me) and this means many of us only have conditional acceptance of ourselves (only if I am accepted by others can I be acceptable to myself) which causes a lot of misery.

I think unconditional relationships are wonderful, but take a lot of work. How much of love is about wanting someone to be just how we want them to be, rather than embracing what they are? I suppose that goes for our relationship with ourselves too - can I only love myself if I am a certain way, or can I fully embrace myself in my entirety, warts and all? Can I be unashamedly what and who I am in any given moment (as long of course as it's not interfering with others too much!) This is kind of the path I've been on for quite some time, though occasionally I will drift into challenging territory and have to learn something new before I get back to seeing where that path is leading.

Despicable Me said:

Anyone agree or disagree? I'd love to hear someone else's point of view on this.

Click to expand...

How the heck would mankind reproduce if man and woman were not meant to be together?
Simple realization, but tis true.

Loneliness is not a natural state of being. You personally may be all comfy with it, or accept it and remain either indifferent or depressed, but it ain't the way the MAJORITY of men and woman are supposed to live their lives.

Your "monks" example is an exception, an example selected to fit your argument which I find to be irrelevant to the topic. Why? Because the monk has made a conscious, reasoned choice to live in such a manner - rules and such are shaped by the methodology of the religious sect. You want to become a monk? Then you must consciously "sacrifice" your soul by giving up / going without, all in the name of your God. To imply that someone who is not happy being alone develop a mindset which encourages him / her to live in such a state where partner companionship is unimportant and, egad, unnecessary, is absurd.

People who say they are comfy with being alone - booey for you. But that is not natural, it goes against evolutionary programming. I may be content for a time being unattached without companionship of a female, but no way for my entire life.

If you have never been in a relationship, but desire one at an older age, it must feel excruciating and soul crushing. Unless you're blocking emotion and in denial, like an alcoholic. When I was in a close relationship, everything in my life turned 1000% exponentially better. Health. Outlook. Mental focus. Confidence. Self esteem blossomed, because now I felt I had someone who believed in me and loved me. It made me feel alive. Sounds lame, but colors went from opaque to brilliant.

Now that I'm without a relationship, much of what was grown has withered away. you cannot just flip a switch and tell yourself to be or feel "happy". We are not all guaranteed to find the special someone - some may try and try with many, and eventually fail. some may never experience a relationship that turns romantic. That's they way life is. Some people win and some people lose. Such is the essence of human life.

I find it quite telling that many on ALL who post they are comfy and fine being alone if they had to be are currently involved in some type of relationship with a partner. I'll bet not one would sacrifice their relationship with their significant other just to be alone. For if being alone was the premium preference, why would they stay with their partner?

Very sorry for this long post, but I have much to explain.
(Sorry, I love talking about Philosophy.)

ABrokenMan said:

How the heck would mankind reproduce if man and woman were not meant to be together?
Simple realization, but tis true.

Click to expand...

How is this relevant, exactly?
As far as I know, I don't see anyone here suggesting that reproduction is necessary for happiness. Are you implying that it is?

ABrokenMan said:

Loneliness is not a natural state of being. You personally may be all comfy with it, or accept it and remain either indifferent or depressed, but it ain't the way the MAJORITY of men and woman are supposed to live their lives.

Click to expand...

I have to disagree with you here... You have this view as if there is a way that things are "supposed" to be. But where do you get this idea from?
In actuality there is no explicit 'purpose' for humanity. There is nothing we are 'supposed' to do because there is no rulebook, there are no guidelines. We are not born with a manual.
Even speaking of the most 'natural state of being', you can't enforce this ideal that humanity is "supposed" to reproduce and be happy because it simply just does not exist in that way. The most 'natural state of being' would be more like whatever we consider to be our personal desires. Not everyone wants love, not everyone wants kids, not everyone wants sex.

Hey, not even all men/women even want the opposite sex. Are you really saying that this is "unnatural" despite the fact they are born with this trait and it's not a choice? Because I'm sure there's more than enough people who would disagree with you there... very strongly disagree.

So tell me, where are you getting this idea from that anyone at all is actually "supposed" to do anything?
I have to disagree with this concept entirely because I see no basis for it anywhere.

ABrokenMan said:

Your "monks" example is an exception, an example selected to fit your argument which I find to be irrelevant to the topic. Why? Because the monk has made a conscious, reasoned choice to live in such a manner - rules and such are shaped by the methodology of the religious sect.

Click to expand...

Did you even read my previous post? Now it seems like you didn't or you're just completely missing the point entirely.

Yes, they made a reasoned choice to do that. That's the point. People can reason and think and they have a will to choose. That's the whole point of what I was talking about. People can overlook their instincts and their primitive natures to do something else. As I explained, I stated that to do so was in fact to 'grow as people'.
But let me go one step further - reasoning and making personal choices is not just the growth of an individual, it is the very essence of humanity. It is what divides humanity from the animals. The ability to overthrow instincts and primitivity and to think and to reason and to become something different than simply what were were biologically designed to do.

Without reason and without choice, there is only stagnation. Nothing changes.
And while this is also a part of humanity, at least for now, it is in a way the very denial of their humanity. When one refuses to use reason to understand both the world and themselves and therefore excludes the possibility of making rational choices in their lives, they are denying what makes them human and merely acting as an animal does.

ABrokenMan said:

You want to become a monk? Then you must consciously "sacrifice" your soul by giving up / going without, all in the name of your God. To imply that someone who is not happy being alone develop a mindset which encourages him / her to live in such a state where partner companionship is unimportant and, egad, unnecessary, is absurd.

Click to expand...

You've only built a straw man, and this goes a step too far with it.
I'm not suggesting everyone live like monks. I believe I even stated that. You implying that I suggested this is just... wrong.

However, to get the core of this, what you're implying is that someone must be naturally happy being alone, and that this isn't a learned trait.
Again, I disagree. No one is happy being alone, originally. As I explained, we are all instinctively and naturally looking for that comfort of 'togetherness'. It is driven within us from the time when we were born and during our entire childhood. We are rather forced to depend on others to survive. It becomes built into us.

Yet, as I explained above, humanity has the ability to reason and to choose. They can overcome this desire and they can break out of this mentality, all by choice. By making that conscious and rational decision that they do not need others to survive and that they can and will survive on their own. That they will develop and grow on their own, and that they can be happy in this state.

It is something that must be 'learned' in this way. It's nothing that we're born with.
Though some people may indeed have an easier time with it than others, because of their personality, but inevitably we normally desire something else. That's why a choice must be made.

The monks ARE indeed an exception but very intentionally so. They are the exception to make clear that this is possible and very intentionally to explain that it is a conscious decision. If you felt that I was only using it to justify my statements, rather than as an example, then you are completely and entirely missing the point of every word I stated earlier.

ABrokenMan said:

People who say they are comfy with being alone - booey for you. But that is not natural, it goes against evolutionary programming.

Click to expand...

You're trying to use science to justify your statements, but these statements of yours are absolutely not supported by science.
How is it not entirely natural, and how does it go against "evolutionary programming", to be "comfy with being alone"? You're looking over the fact that the state of being able to be "comfy with being alone" might have developed from the fact that many individuals in a species must be alone a lot of the time and still survive. They must learn to become independent, rather than constantly be dependent.

It's true that humanity is a herd-like animal, but this isn't to suggest that evolution has somehow 'programmed' every single human to never be able to survive independently.
Again, the most basic 'evolutionary' aspect of humanity that sets it apart from the other animals is that they have the ability to reason and to choose and to think on a higher level. This gives all human beings an advantage in being able to make conscious decisions in the way they live, and so these conscious decisions ARE "natural".
You're confusing 'natural life' with 'nature' itself. There is a difference. Someone doesn't have to follow every instinct to be 'one with nature'. Nor does enjoying man-made things, or living in man-made buildings, defy someone's natural existence. They can still be who they are, and who they want to be, without living out in a forest or "living off the land".

Furthermore, you're also suggesting that not only is it 'right' to follow primitivity and instincts over reason but that people are "supposed" to do this. Why?

You know, I can prove even you don't follow this ideology. Are you living off the land? Do you go out and club your mates over the head and drag them back to your cave? How are you even using a computer right now? Are you "supposed" to be doing that?
Needless to say, you're either being a hypocrite or you don't really fully believe this stuff yourself.

ABrokenMan said:

I may be content for a time being unattached without companionship of a female, but no way for my entire life.

Click to expand...

And though this is irrelevant now... What is wrong with being content just for a little while? Again, I never stated everyone should become a monk or go live alone.

There is a difference between 'content with being alone' and 'attempting to be alone'. You don't need to try to always be alone just to be content with it and not be a miserable person.

ABrokenMan said:

If you have never been in a relationship, but desire one at an older age, it must feel excruciating and soul crushing. Unless you're blocking emotion and in denial, like an alcoholic.

Click to expand...

If someone has never had a relationship before, why would the realization that they wanted one later be so intense? I see no reason why it would be. If they were fine for all those years before, why would it suddenly change?

I can't see why it'd be all that much different than a younger person who has wanted a relationship for just as long. The only difference would be the age, which could impact the feelings, but there would still be no reason for such intensity.

It'd be like never having ice cream and then one day when you're older you want to try it. If you don't get to try it is it really going to be that bad? You've never even had it so you don't even know if you'd like it or not. There would be no reason for the person to get intensely upset because they don't know what they are missing out on and likely won't care all that much if they'd gone that whole time without it.

ABrokenMan said:

When I was in a close relationship, everything in my life turned 1000% exponentially better. Health. Outlook. Mental focus. Confidence. Self esteem blossomed, because now I felt I had someone who believed in me and loved me. It made me feel alive. Sounds lame, but colors went from opaque to brilliant.
Now that I'm without a relationship, much of what was grown has withered away.

Click to expand...

And, no offense, but that is because you are dependent on others. You rely on someone else to make you happy.
You even, apparently, refuse the very possibility that being happy or content by yourself is even an option. You seem to label it as "unnatural" and disregard it and throw it away entirely. It isn't "supposed" to be that way, right? That's what you've said.

As I have explained, we all make conscious decisions because that's just what people do. You seem to have made some that, perhaps, you're not actually willing to accept.

ABrokenMan said:

you cannot just flip a switch and tell yourself to be or feel "happy".

Click to expand...

And I never said it was a like flipping a switch.
Learning to be independent and making conscious effort to feel contented and enjoy life when you're alone takes a lot of effort.

You think monks just pop into a temple in the mountains one day and they are all fine and dandy for the rest of their lives? You don't think that initial loneliness and even that choice they make to take that step is a very difficult one for them?

Perhaps maybe you don't really understand monks, but do you really think they don't ever feel any pain? You don't think they sometimes struggle with loneliness?
Do you really think that they aren't really people, that they are some kind of foreign entity that rejects 'purpose', 'evolutionary programming', and living a 'natural life' just because they are somehow born that way?

Come on.... You can't be serious. Your ideology doesn't logically add up, and there's a reason for that.

ABrokenMan said:

We are not all guaranteed to find the special someone - some may try and try with many, and eventually fail. some may never experience a relationship that turns romantic. That's they way life is. Some people win and some people lose. Such is the essence of human life.

Click to expand...

That is true. But what point does it have to being happy or content with oneself?
There are two conscious decisions a person like this can make:
1. Allow this rejection to turn them into a negative and miserable person. Allowing the colors to fade and to just see bitterness and remorse in the world and in their life. Not being able to enjoy things anymore, and possibly pushing away potential mates due to all of this negativity.
2. Continue on, contented, realizing that they can keep on trying and that there are plenty of other things to do in the world even if and when they fail. They can continue on being positive and realistic and enjoying all of the other things that life has to offer.

Some might say this isn't a conscious decision, but I would fully disagree with that.
I was once a very bitter and miserable person myself, a long time ago. If you've read any of my posts before you might have seen a few of my stories. In any case, I made a conscious decision to change that.

ABrokenMan said:

I find it quite telling that many on ALL who post they are comfy and fine being alone if they had to be are currently involved in some type of relationship with a partner.

Click to expand...

I find it that many of the miserable people often reject good advice by seeking whatever possible reason they can because, in truth, they really don't want to try anymore.
Come on, you don't think I know what you're doing? Been there, done that. I even got the T-shirt.

I find it even more peculiar that the things they sometimes point out as reasons not to take advice are in fact the very reasons why they should.

It's very ironic that you suggest you want a relationship, yet when people IN a relationship who HAVE found someone offer you advice, you then reject it specifically because of that reason.
So who in the world would you ever take advice from? Other people who are just as miserable and just as lonely? And you think THOSE people are the ones with the advice you need?
The irony of this is everywhere. How do you not see it?

ABrokenMan said:

I'll bet not one would sacrifice their relationship with their significant other just to be alone. For if being alone was the premium preference, why would they stay with their partner?

Click to expand...

Once again, the straw man goes way out of proportion.

No one here is suggesting that being alone is the "premium preference". If you don't want to be alone there is nothing that is going to change that aspect of your life. You will still prefer to be in a relationship.

What the advice has been, and what it will always be, is that you should accept being alone and stop being so negative about it. Is it hard? Yeah, sure... but as you pointed out earlier, that's part of life.
You don't think someone in a relationship can face hardships? It would be extremely naive and very ignorant to make that sort of assumption. So I would assume you understand that already.

The trick is to stay positive and enjoy the advantages of being alone. Learn to enjoy life. Things like all the free time you have to enjoy hobbies and crafts and fun things that people may not otherwise be able, or have the time, to do.
Make that conscious effort to get to know yourself, learn to love yourself, and to become independent.

You don't think being an independent and spiritually deep person helps you to find someone else?

One last note, this aura of misery you protrude and your obvious disregard for pretty much anything philosophical or spiritual is a massive turn off to most potential partners. Just thought you might like to know that.
It kind of proves my entire point about how people are all making a conscious decision in their lives. All I'm really asking is.... Why are you making this one?

Much of what Amthorn says is true. We do indeed exist in the solitude of our thoughts (and trust me, it's _much_ worse when our thoughts are not private). People who become acclimated to loneliness do sometimes--_sometimes_--reject those who reach out to them. But I don't agree that solitue is the natural state of being. As I've said a number of times, back when life originated on earth 3.46 billion years ago, those very first living things did not eat, have sex or seek shelter, but they _did_ form colonies. Collective life predates what we consider to be the most basic animal needs. For that reason, the need for collective life also atavizes us.

Despicable Me said:

One last note, this aura of misery you protrude and your obvious disregard for pretty much anything philosophical or spiritual is a massive turn off to most potential partners. Just thought you might like to know that.

Click to expand...

I didn't exactly read everything you wrote, but kinda saw this line above. I honestly don't think that anyone who disregards anything philosophical or spiritual is a massive turn off to most potential partners. I don't know the numbers and statistics, but I really wouldn't make this sort of generalisation. Not trying to stir anything up, but just saying.

Despicable Me said:

One last note, this aura of misery you protrude and your obvious disregard for pretty much anything philosophical or spiritual is a massive turn off to most potential partners. Just thought you might like to know that.
It kind of proves my entire point about how people are all making a conscious decision in their lives. All I'm really asking is.... Why are you making this one?

Click to expand...

I've deleted most of your ramblings, as I find your "philosophical" posts to be nothing more than poking for a response so that you can present a biased viewpoint to substantiate your own argument - you seem like the type who needs to showcase your importance so that you may soak up attention and validation by emerging the victor. You do not really care if someone can truly debate you.

Your last comment which I quoted illuminates your true intention- a masked quest for validation.

My argument is based upon personal experience, which is relevant to me. It's my reality. I can offer an opposing viewpoint for each and every point you present.

The condescending and judgmental manner you present is a huge turn off, to which you might consider. How dare you question and denounce my own spirituality - you do not know me.

It's not worth my time and effort to answer you - I'm done.

ladyforsaken said:

I didn't exactly read everything you wrote, but kinda saw this line above. I honestly don't think that anyone who disregards anything philosophical or spiritual is a massive turn off to most potential partners. I don't know the numbers and statistics, but I really wouldn't make this sort of generalisation. Not trying to stir anything up, but just saying.

Click to expand...

Really? Maybe that is true, but I guess I've never really even talked to people who weren't at least vaguely interested in philosophical discussions.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought everyone at least asked themselves the question 'What is the point of my life?', of which I think that at least attempting to find an answer to this would be something a potential partner would want to see. Because I've not really met many people who desire a partner who doesn't know what they are doing with their life. Most (in my experience) seem to want someone who either is already successful at something or at least has a passion for doing something.

And, of course, it requires at least a minor philosophical or spiritual approach, an inward look, to connect oneself with such a passion. Does it not?

ABrokenMan said:

I've deleted most of your ramblings, as I find your "philosophical" posts to be nothing more than poking for a response so that you can present a biased viewpoint to substantiate your own argument - you seem like the type who needs to showcase your importance so that you may soak up attention and validation by emerging the victor. You do not really care if someone can truly debate you.

Click to expand...

See now.... If you truly knew me you'd know just how ridiculous that sounds. And I don't expect you to know me, but it's just kind of funny... You really think I just want attention? It's pretty funny. Most of my life has been spent trying to get away from attention.

As well, you say you've got all these arguments and experiences to try to argue with me, but then you basically just ignore and disregard everything I've said and just, basically, say I'm not worth talking to. So how is it I'm the one who doesn't really want to argue? And you think I'm the one being condescending? Don't be a hypocrite, please.

I'd discuss the issue with you more, but you clearly don't seem to care to actually discuss anything yourself. Kind of just proves my point, in fact... *shrug* I tried to help.

Amthorn said:

We are all alone. No one can truly know our hearts and minds. Very few of us even know our own. What fulfillment can we expect if we cannot accept this fundamental truth? Of course, human connection is possible. In fact, it is necessary, and kind, compassionate connectedness is the key to happiness. We find loneliness saddening because our attempts to make such connections are met with only superficial interest at best. So we recoil, out of fear or disappointment, because our opinions on loneliness and sadness are validated. And yet, I have found, when I reach out to others who claim a need for connectedness, they prefer to cocoon within their own isolation. This brings me some level of sadness. But, as they say, this too shall pass.

Click to expand...

With technology separating people and the pull of material wealth becoming idolatry humanity has ceased to be as social of an animal as we once were. We have never really been alone when the need for one another supported our need to survive. It is only the distraction of the toys we distract ourselves with that have made our individuality so much like solitary confinement.

The only reason we don't recognize this reality is the electricity remains on. If it were somehow removed our dream world of distraction would come crumbling down around us and we would soon learn again how much we need each other.

oh-kay? said:

With technology separating people and the pull of material wealth becoming idolatry humanity has ceased to be as social of an animal as we once were. We have never really been alone when the need for one another supported our need to survive. It is only the distraction of the toys we distract ourselves with that have made our individuality so much like solitary confinement.

The only reason we don't recognize this reality is the electricity remains on. If it were somehow removed our dream world of distraction would come crumbling down around us and we would soon learn again how much we need each other.

Click to expand...

You're generalizing far too much here.

Not everyone is just distracting themselves with technology. Most actually don't do this, and while this minority may be growing or possibly becoming the majority, I don't think it's breached that point yet.

Not to mention that simply using technology does not necessarily mean someone is materialistic. You can use technology for various purposes and not be the least bit materialistic. Maybe you want a spiritual connection with other people, for example?
There are many different reasons people use technology.

And while, yes, perhaps there is a generation of people growing up being lulled by technology into a materialistic world-view. However, you'll find that this generation of people does not feel that this division of reality and technology to even be a negative thing. They generally don't feel it is like "solitary confinement", as you suggest. They generally experience it much like previous generations have experienced their own youth.

The dividing factor here is mostly in how people are experiencing themselves when they utilize technology, and what purposes they seek within technology. Technology does have a tendency to make people's lives easier (and simultaneously more difficult), which does have a tendency to draw people towards relying on these 'things' and as such becoming more materialistic. However, the real problem is when people are lost in themselves and confuse the materialistic reality of technology with the materialistic reality of society. When they mentally merge both technology and people into the same category, dividing themselves from society in the process through the aspect that technology allows you to connect with others without spatial-barriers, yet it is those very spatial-barriers which define the solitude of a materialistic relationship.

In other words.... If you become wholly materialistic and you cannot overcome the spatial-boundaries that are realized when the computer is off, then you are at a loss and feel alone.
Otherwise, people will only feel the general loneliness that they otherwise feel even without technology to lull them into thinking they are happy.

Despicable Me said:

You're generalizing far too much here.

Not everyone is just distracting themselves with technology. Most actually don't do this, and while this minority may be growing or possibly becoming the majority, I don't think it's breached that point yet.

Click to expand...

I don't think I'm generalizing at all. I'm concentrating on those who have grown up in the age of computers and have never known the world without Facebook or Goggle.

People who use computers in school and then come home to set infront of a Playstation or some other gamming console, instead of going out and reacting face to face with others their own age. They get on debate sites and tear into each other because of some stupid disagreement and cause each other harm that they wouldn't necessarily do to each other if they were face to face, in the real world.

Not to mention that simply using technology does not necessarily mean someone is materialistic. You can use technology for various purposes and not be the least bit materialistic. Maybe you want a spiritual connection with other people, for example?
There are many different reasons people use technology.

Click to expand...

How many times have you seen people sleep overnight in front of stores to be the first one to get the new I-pod or the new this or that, which equates to the new shiny on the block. They don't care how much it costs. they just want to be the first one on their block to be seen using the thing.
If you want a good example of this, go watch some youtubes about Black Friday.

And while, yes, perhaps there is a generation of people growing up being lulled by technology into a materialistic world-view. However, you'll find that this generation of people does not feel that this division of reality and technology to even be a negative thing. They generally don't feel it is like "solitary confinement", as you suggest. They generally experience it much like previous generations have experienced their own youth.

Click to expand...

Since when has young people ever been introspective or in any way cognizant of anything but the here and now. People see what is happening in their formative years as the standard way to live. They know nothing and many of the have any respect for the past and generally discard it as useless.

The dividing factor here is mostly in how people are experiencing themselves when they utilize technology, and what purposes they seek within technology. Technology does have a tendency to make people's lives easier (and simultaneously more difficult), which does have a tendency to draw people towards relying on these 'things' and as such becoming more materialistic. However, the real problem is when people are lost in themselves and confuse the materialistic reality of technology with the materialistic reality of society. When they mentally merge both technology and people into the same category, dividing themselves from society in the process through the aspect that technology allows you to connect with others without spatial-barriers, yet it is those very spatial-barriers which define the solitude of a materialistic relationship.

In other words.... If you become wholly materialistic and you cannot overcome the spatial-boundaries that are realized when the computer is off, then you are at a loss and feel alone.
Otherwise, people will only feel the general loneliness that they otherwise feel even without technology to lull them into thinking they are happy.

Click to expand...

They loose social skills that one learns with interaction, face to face and also how to empatize with others, because when they are looking in the eyes of those they hurt, they can see that hurt.

Despicable Me said:

Really? Maybe that is true, but I guess I've never really even talked to people who weren't at least vaguely interested in philosophical discussions.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought everyone at least asked themselves the question 'What is the point of my life?', of which I think that at least attempting to find an answer to this would be something a potential partner would want to see. Because I've not really met many people who desire a partner who doesn't know what they are doing with their life. Most (in my experience) seem to want someone who either is already successful at something or at least has a passion for doing something.

Click to expand...

There are also people I know who don't care much for the other person's qualifications, financial status or goal in life. For a lot of people, they often don't know what they wanna do in their lives, nor do they know what their "purpose" is. So for these people to expect others to be that way... isn't that a bit of a double standard? But yet these people who are purposeless or goalless in their lives still yearn for love and search for compatible people. Nothing wrong with that, and nothing wrong with not having a purpose or goal if you haven't reached it yet. IF this is a turn off or a deal breaker for some, then I think they have really high standards. However, to expect that in a partner, is fine, because to each his own.

Despicable Me said:

And, of course, it requires at least a minor philosophical or spiritual approach, an inward look, to connect oneself with such a passion. Does it not?

Click to expand...

Not necessarily, I don't think so. It doesn't have to be limited to just those approaches. Life is so vast and broad full of so many inconsistencies and changes and varying thoughts and opinions. I believe it is not limited to these approaches alone.

oh-kay? said:

I don't think I'm generalizing at all.

Click to expand...

But then you go on to generalize. See below.

oh-kay? said:

I'm concentrating on those who have grown up in the age of computers and have never known the world without Facebook or Goggle.

People who use computers in school and then come home to set infront of a Playstation or some other gamming console, instead of going out and reacting face to face with others their own age. They get on debate sites and tear into each other because of some stupid disagreement and cause each other harm that they wouldn't necessarily do to each other if they were face to face, in the real world.

Click to expand...

But this isn't everyone. I've personally seen this generation of young people hanging out with each other quite a bit, much more than I ever did myself, and possibly more than people I knew in school when I was there age.

I've seen so many people make this mistake. They just see a bunch of kids obsessed with computers and gadgets and gizmos and they assume this is bad for them. They see a girl staring at their phone and texting to the girl 3 feet away, or a boy who's completely involved in playing video games with his friends.

But you know what I see? I see a different kind of social behavior than my generation and the generations before me are used to. I see a generation of people who are being criticized for not knowing the 'old ways' of doing things, being criticized and condemned just for growing up in an age of 'things' that we, our own generations, have created and given them.

I don't see it as a problem. I don't think others should either.
You know what is interesting about 'MY' generation? We grew up with computers, and then we got the internet.
Previous generations did not know these things. They HAD to go outside and HAD to meet people the 'old fashioned way'. And they saw us with our (huge) gadgets and our silly virtual computer games and our Windows and they think it's bad for us.
Before my generation, the generations before me grew up with the Devil called "Rock and Roll". Before them they grew up with automobiles. Before them they grew up with electricity and lightbulbs.
At every turn, in each generation, there is this criticism of what the next generation is doing.

oh-kay? said:

How many times have you seen people sleep overnight in front of stores to be the first one to get the new I-pod or the new this or that, which equates to the new shiny on the block. They don't care how much it costs. they just want to be the first one on their block to be seen using the thing.
If you want a good example of this, go watch some youtubes about Black Friday.

Click to expand...

And how big of a majority are these people? This is your most obvious generalization yet. These people are in a very small minority. The ones who camp out (which include many in my generation and even older) aren't even a blip on the radar of that generation. They are very few compared to how many who don't.

And yes, there is an obsession with the newest and best, but once again I'll point out this has always existed.

In times past, how many people were literally and physically crushed or harmed by Black Friday sales, before we ever even had cell phones and internet delivery?
You don't think it was still happening?

Before then, how do you think cities became so large? Why do you think shopping malls were invented and placed in practically every city?
Was it because people were just fine with the same-old stuff they always had, or was it because there was always a desire for the new and the convenient?

Let's not fictionalize reality by losing sight of our own generation and generations who came before us. This new generation of gamers and Googlers and texters may be 'different', but it's only different in all the same old ways.

oh-kay? said:

Since when has young people ever been introspective or in any way cognizant of anything but the here and now. People see what is happening in their formative years as the standard way to live. They know nothing and many of the have any respect for the past and generally discard it as useless.

Click to expand...

And here is the worst of your generalizations. This one is just... completely unreasonable.
So because this new generation is 'listening to The Devil' on their phones and computers, they are in no way able to understand anything introspective or understand anything but the "here and now"?

And how often was this said when everyone was listening to the Devil's spawn Rock and Roll? How did that generation of rock-and-rollers react to the old generation? Did they venerate and love them for their mercilessly condescending attitudes and self-righteous condemnations?

History proves to us that your own condemnation of these youth is the same sort of narrow-mindedness of all past generations, unable to look past the 'here and now' to their past selves.
So what is this, exactly? Is this sort of condemnation some sort of rite-of-passage? Does every teenager and young adult need to go through this in order to grow up one day and eventually do it to their own children?
You really don't think this tech-generation isn't going to someday do it to the next generation, like you're doing it to them?

oh-kay? said:

They loose social skills that one learns with interaction, face to face and also how to empatize with others, because when they are looking in the eyes of those they hurt, they can see that hurt.

Click to expand...

It's possible that perhaps these social changes do alter the generations general perspective on things, but that's true of any generation with any change.
These changes may have negative things, like maybe it is true that they are not learning to empathize as well as previous generations, but at the same time they are also learning how to express themselves better than previous ones. They have confidence to state what they believe and to be themselves and be proud of being who they are.

You can't just look at the negative things, you also have to look at the positive. Look at the larger scope and the bigger picture. You can't just see the Devil in their hips.
Worrying about their souls and their sins has never worked in the past but to degrade the generation and force them to reject the older generations.

What should be done is constructive criticism. If you're worried that a dependence on technology may result in negative consequences, such as lacking empathy and destructive behavior, then provide them a healthy and fun alternative that appeals to them. Give them a good reason why they should break away from those habits.
And if your criticism and suggestions are good, they will work.

However, if you're just going to tell them that they must stay away from technology or the Devil will get them... You're not going to get anywhere with anyone.
But you can call me Satan if you want to. I'm one of those people who makes technology. Shame on me, huh?

P.S. I don't mean to attack or offend you by this. I actually felt similarly about these trends a few years ago. I just wanted to point out and emphasize that you can't just generalize and condemn entire generations of people like that. It's an unhealthy response and it's gone on for far too long. Understanding the next generation's own perspective is much more important.

Despicable Me said:

But then you go on to generalize. See below.

Click to expand...

No I do not generalize. I simply don't have enough time to cronicalize every aspect of what I'm taking about and you are assuming that my use of brevity as my limitation.

But this isn't everyone. I've personally seen this generation of young people hanging out with each other quite a bit, much more than I ever did myself, and possibly more than people I knew in school when I was there age.

Click to expand...

Who says it needs to be everyone? All it needs to be is enough to react negatively against society as a whole. talking the levels of obesity, lack of social skills. the suicide rate of young people and the ability to communicate disagreements without demonizing others as is the political landscape of America at present.

I've seen so many people make this mistake. They just see a bunch of kids obsessed with computers and gadgets and gizmos and they assume this is bad for them. They see a girl staring at their phone and texting to the girl 3 feet away, or a boy who's completely involved in playing video games with his friends.

But you know what I see? I see a different kind of social behavior than my generation and the generations before me are used to. I see a generation of people who are being criticized for not knowing the 'old ways' of doing things, being criticized and condemned just for growing up in an age of 'things' that we, our own generations, have created and given them.

I don't see it as a problem. I don't think others should either.
You know what is interesting about 'MY' generation? We grew up with computers, and then we got the internet.
Previous generations did not know these things. They HAD to go outside and HAD to meet people the 'old fashioned way'. And they saw us with our (huge) gadgets and our silly virtual computer games and our Windows and they think it's bad for us.
Before my generation, the generations before me grew up with the Devil called "Rock and Roll". Before them they grew up with automobiles. Before them they grew up with electricity and lightbulbs.
At every turn, in each generation, there is this criticism of what the next generation is doing.

Click to expand...

Society is always in flux and every generation sees the one before it as less important than theirs, because of the arrogance of those who see themselves as more important. We, in this country have a fascination with newness.

The old is to be discarded as is the elderly because the ambient wisdom is that old is tried and the new needs to be, but in their arogance they never really think that some of their new ideas have been thought of before, tried, failed and rejected.

And how big of a majority are these people? This is your most obvious generalization yet. These people are in a very small minority. The ones who camp out (which include many in my generation and even older) aren't even a blip on the radar of that generation. They are very few compared to how many who don't.

I'll point out this has always existed.

In times past, how many people were literally and physically crushed or harmed by Black Friday sales, before we ever even had cell phones and internet delivery?
You don't think it was still happening?

Click to expand...

Again you are not thinking of why these people want these new gadgets. They want them to show others who are just as addicted to newness, but lack the time or the resources to get these items. If there were none around to be envious, then the people who do this craziness would get no payback for their efforts.

The thrill of gaining something new, like this is not to simply have it, but to be seen by others having it.

It's called a status symbol and people with money have been doing this since money was invented.

Before then, how do you think cities became so large? Why do you think shopping malls were invented and placed in practically every city?
Was it because people were just fine with the same-old stuff they always had, or was it because there was always a desire for the new and the convenient?

Click to expand...

Cities became large by virtue of what they provided. Security, convenience, prosperty

Let's not fictionalize reality by losing sight of our own generation and generations who came before us. This new generation of gamers and Googlers and texters may be 'different', but it's only different in all the same old ways.

Click to expand...

Please don't degrade the conversion by trying to dismiss what I have stated so arrogantly with the use of words like fictionalize and I will not reciprocate. The balls in your court now!

And here is the worst of your generalizations. This one is just... completely unreasonable.
So because this new generation is 'listening to The Devil' on their phones and computers, they are in no way able to understand anything introspective or understand anything but the "here and now"?

And how often was this said when everyone was listening to the Devil's spawn Rock and Roll? How did that generation of rock-and-rollers react to the old generation? Did they venerate and love them for their mercilessly condescending attitudes and self-righteous condemnations?

History proves to us that your own condemnation of these youth is the same sort of narrow-mindedness of all past generations, unable to look past the 'here and now' to their past selves.
So what is this, exactly? Is this sort of condemnation some sort of rite-of-passage? Does every teenager and young adult need to go through this in order to grow up one day and eventually do it to their own children?
You really don't think this tech-generation isn't going to someday do it to the next generation, like you're doing it to them?

Click to expand...

You know. you're use of the Religious, moralistic epithets are being to show me your own prejudices in this matter. Devil rock and roll. You have no idea who I am, yet you seem to take me for some image you have in your head.

It's possible that perhaps these social changes do alter the generations general perspective on things, but that's true of any generation with any change.
These changes may have negative things, like maybe it is true that they are not learning to empathize as well as previous generations, but at the same time they are also learning how to express themselves better than previous ones. They have confidence to state what they believe and to be themselves and be proud of being who they are.

Click to expand...

What good is self expression if you push those people you are expressing things to away from you. Where has it been in any time period that artists have become renowned to this they discard?

You can't just look at the negative things, you also have to look at the positive. Look at the larger scope and the bigger picture. You can't just see the Devil in their hips.
Worrying about their souls and their sins has never worked in the past but to degrade the generation and force them to reject the older generations.

Click to expand...

Again you are envisioning me as someone I'm not. DEVIL in their hips. I'm not a Christian dude. I'm not going to defend myself from the images you have of me. I would have liked to see how well you would have fared if you had overdosed of Angel dust as I did or have gone through detox when I did. Please remove me from that little vidio you have dancing around in your head, because it has nothing to do with me.

What should be done is constructive criticism. If you're worried that a dependence on technology may result in negative consequences, such as lacking empathy and destructive behavior, then provide them a healthy and fun alternative that appeals to them. Give them a good reason why they should break away from those habits.
And if your criticism and suggestions are good, they will work.

However, if you're just going to tell them that they must stay away from technology or the Devil will get them... You're not going to get anywhere with anyone.
But you can call me Satan if you want to. I'm one of those people who makes technology. Shame on me, huh?

Click to expand...

Who is going to tell them anything. I am not a preecher, nor am I a judge. I was simply responding to a thread with what I see as truth.

P.S. I don't mean to attack or offend you by this. I actually felt similarly about these trends a few years ago. I just wanted to point out and emphasize that you can't just generalize and condemn entire generations of people like that. It's an unhealthy response and it's gone on for far too long. Understanding the next generation's own perspective is much more important.

Click to expand...

I don't accept apologies from passive aggressive people they are inherently dishonest.

I dont actually believe loneliness is the/our natural state, we are social animals, in retrospect we lived in groups, 'our groups', modern society itself is comprised of many such groups. And the argument 'we arent really physically connected' makes up for every single species, be it animals which live in groups or solitairy creatures, so the argument itself doesnt cut it really imho.

And though there have always been lonely people, living in solitude, in this modern age people are getting less empathic with every new generation thus in effect are losing connection with eachother and therefore are loosing their (our) true identity.

The proof is in the pudding.

College students are less empathic

@oh-kay,
I'm not sure you actually know what generalize means... You say you don't do it, but then immediately explain why you do it. That is confusing and nonsensical to me.
I'll point out that a generalization is not necessarily negative. It is appropriate to reduce exceptions and generalize concepts and even populations so that you can achieve an understanding of the larger scope of things, in this circumstance understanding the larger scope of certain problems.
However, I do think you're vastly over generalizing, and in fact using these over generalizations in ways that aren't appropriate to form illogical conclusions. Perhaps it's due to the fact you misunderstand what a generalization is, so you don't understand how to generalize properly. That would be my guess, to be honest. My biggest problem is you make these leaps in your conclusions that I feel are baseless and unwarranted. That you seem to think that if one problem exists in general then it applies to everyone or every group or 'something' underneath that general category, as well as going the other way and also applying to the larger category. It just doesn't make any sense to me how you rationalize this.
For example, your statement that people use their money to purchase status symbols, which is true and I would agree it's a proper generalization of those who hold relative wealth, but then you seem to make this ridiculous assumption that an entire generation is doing this for that reason. It just seems too far-fetched. Perhaps it's true in some cases, but do you really think it's true for most? I would disagree, I think it's a baseless assumption. I think pretty much all of the conclusions you've made in this topic are baseless assumptions, to be honest.

I see no point in continuing this conversation either. You are obviously feeling resentment towards me because I disagree with you. That's fine, you're welcome to hate me if you want. It's not going to bother me at all. I just want you to know that just because I think you're wrong does not mean I think you're a bad person.

One final note:

oh-kay? said:

I don't accept apologies from passive aggressive people they are inherently dishonest.

Click to expand...

I was not apologizing at all, in fact. I meant every word that I said. What I was doing was trying to explain why I was disagreeing with you so that you'd realize I'm not doing this to be bitter or resentful of your opinion. I do think your statements are misguided, and there is no way I'm going to apologize for that, but like I said above, do not think I believe this makes you a bad person. You have your reasons for believing what you do, I know that. What you should understand is that I also have reasons for believing what I do and for disagreeing with you.
So I was hoping such an explanation would cut out the bitterness so we could discuss the subject on an intellectual level, rather than an emotional one. It didn't work, so that's why I feel I can't continue this.

I'm sorry if I offended you. But do not mistake that again. This is an apology if you took what I am saying the wrong way because I don't want to offend anyone here. It is NOT an apology for my statements or an admission of guilt in any way, shape, or form. I still mean what I say and I'm not going to lie about anything. Lying is for people who people who don't stand by what they say. Do not mistake me for a liar, please. I rather resent that.