|
Inlägg #1: Postat: 2002-06-18 10:29:00
|
|
Frederik |
What the debate is about is our societys focus on superficial matters, as if that were all there is. For instance by judging someone by his/her looks rather than by his/her heart, going for short-term satisfaction rather than living a long-term vision, or looking for happiness in material things rather than in the more difficult but ultimately more giving area of human relationships and of caring for each other.
|
| |
|
Inlägg #2: Postat: 2002-06-18 10:32:00
|
|
Frederik |
What you are defending here is an unchangeable psychological reality. You might just as well argue for the right of stones to behave according to the law of gravity.
|
| |
|
Inlägg #3: Postat: 2002-06-18 10:34:00
|
|
Frederik |
...while the debate is about attitudes. And those can fortunately change.
|
| |
|
Inlägg #4: Postat: 2002-06-18 10:34:00
|
|
Michael Lundahl |
Om du hellre intresserar dig för det inre istället för det yttre så finsn oftaste det allternativet... om du anstränger dig lite. Men om ANDRA hellre bryr sig om det yttre, då finns det inte mycket du kan göra annat än som idag, d.v.s. försöka förolämpa dem med "du är så ytligt" eller liknande. Och vad gäller de som visar upp sig så kan du heller inte där tvinga dem att visa upp sitt inre istället för det yttre... därför att det har de förmodligen inget större intresse av.
|
| |
|
Inlägg #5: Postat: 2002-06-18 10:37:00
|
|
Michael Lundahl |
Om vi tar Kayo som exempel... om hon hade viljat att du skulle se hennes inre... då hade hon publicerat en autobiografi eller något liknande. Men hon gjorde inte det. Hon visade sitt yttre istället. Det borde skicka en klar vink om vad hon vill visa och vad hon inte vill visa. Dessutom har betraktaren ÄNDÅ ett ansvar att minnas att de som visar ett yttre även har ett inre som MÅSTE respekteras. Och därbrister det hos väldigt många som tror att de som visar ett yttre bara handlar om det.
|
| |
|
Inlägg #6: Postat: 2002-06-18 10:39:00
|
|
Michael Lundahl |
Men alla människor har ett inre. Man kan inte dissa dem bara för att de valt att visa det yttre men dolt sitt inre. Det finns där ändå. Det enda modellerna har sagt är "Det har du inte med att göra".
|
| |
|
Inlägg #7: Postat: 2002-06-18 10:40:00
|
|
Michael Lundahl |
Och "givande" i det sammanhanget heter "rewarding" på engelska. *retas lite* ;
|
| |
|
Inlägg #8: Postat: 2002-06-18 10:46:00
|
|
Frederik |
I never really liked the förolämpa-option. It hurts and in most cases it?s not very constructive. I guess accepting that I cant change others, only myself, is one of the big lessons in life Im still learning it... : . What I sometimes can do is try to help them change themselves, and there well-meant yet provocative thoughts and comments here and there can at times be quite effective. If they dont catch it or if I got it wrong, well, so be it. Lifes not perfect, but fun anyway.
|
| |
|
Inlägg #9: Postat: 2002-06-18 10:51:00
|
|
Frederik |
...wait, just noticed that you had written three further commentaries while I was finishing and sending mine...
|
| |
|
Inlägg #10: Postat: 2002-06-18 11:04:00
|
|
Frederik |
Well, if in your text you would have argued for the reality of an inner life even among superficial people that should be respected I would have agreed with you. People who fight superficiality by denigrating it are fighting fire with fire. My way of taking part in the debate when I do is about making them aware of the inner life and emphasising its importance.
|
| |
|
Inlägg #11: Postat: 2002-06-18 11:05:00
|
|
Frederik |
If Kayo for instance now invests all her efforts in her looks her happiness wont last longer than her youth. In that case her superficiality however would be different than the one youve been describing in your text.
N.B.: giving used as an adjective is a synonym of rewarding
|
| |
|
Inlägg #12: Postat: 2002-06-18 11:41:00
|
|
Marcus P |
It seems to me that the discussion has landed in semantics. As far as I can tell, Frederik, myself and SHQ seem to have about the same opinion about the meaning of the word "superficiality", while Lundahl puts another meaning in the word. This creates severe difficulties for the continuing discussion. Cant we just start by stating some definitions?
|
| |
|
Inlägg #13: Postat: 2002-06-18 11:46:00
|
|
Michael Lundahl |
Well actually its not about semantics... but rather that people here have very string tendancy to make assumptions about other peoples opinions... such as some people do feel affected Marcus have assumed that I favour a society where the superficial is all that matters. That assumption is about as faulty as it can get. Now if people would only STOP trying to secondguess, this discussion will come along nicely.
|
| |
|
Inlägg #14: Postat: 2002-06-18 12:11:00
|
|
Marcus P |
I have not assumed anything. But if you by writing your article aimed to debate my article "Därför är utvik fel" of yesterday empirical evidence tells that you, Michael, often stick to a particular debate in more than one article, which is why this is a fair guess, it totally missed its aim. Could you please explain what you really mean, and also whats the news? It really does not get clearer when you express yourself in English.
|
| |
|
Inlägg #15: Postat: 2002-06-18 12:21:00
|
|
Frederik |
Please dont feel forced to write in English because I do. Im quite fluent in Swedish. Its only that my active vocabulary is still relatively limited, and...well, ok, Im also a bit lazy when it comes to using the dictionary when writing comments...
|
| |
|
Inlägg #16: Postat: 2002-06-19 08:09:00
|
|
Marcus P |
No problems. I take this as an opportunity to practice... ;- I understand you must be fluent in Swedish since youve commented the article - which, to be frank, I did not understand perfectly well myself.
|
| |