Theory of Perception

[Aztec Triogal]

First let me start off by saying I don't buy into this theory... but it's an interesting concept I created.

I once had a theory that no one was flawed. It's not that we were perfect by nature but that "flaws" did not truly exist. "Flaws" were merely positive traits that were either not fully developed or uncontrolled. For example, someone who came across as bossy was not truly bossy. They were just someone who tried to help others but failed to control their passion. Someone who came across as whiny and wimpy was just sensitive.

In a way, the theory is simply a way to view everyone's traits in a positive light. No one is ever a bad person, just simply misunderstood. However, to an extent, these characteristics do fall into very defined categories and it is hard not to notice obvious similarities between what is defined as a good characteristic and what is perceived as a bad characteristic.

Take for example the very real example of Mitsuki and My Love For Yuna. MLFY thinks Mitsuki is the best thing since sliced bread. He adores and respects her to no end. He gives her a lot of attention and has no other objective other than to show her adoration. She and others, however, perceives it (rightfully so) as creepy and stalker-ish. MLFY is not "flawed" in his adoration of the girl but he cannot control his passion, which simply makes a very respectable trait seem disturbing and inappropriate. The line is so thin it can be crossed without a person realizing they've crossed it.

Thoughts? Also, I use passion to justify most of these "flaws"... which makes passion a flaw in its own right. Someone see if they can justify passion using my theory's logic.

 

[Big Casino]

This thread boggles my head, i know what you're saying but im struggling to word a reply.
I dont buy it at all either, it all really comes down to your opinions. An Aryan would say that Adolf Hitler was misunderstood, whereas a Jew might disagree slightly.
Flaws make us human they're what seperate us from each other.

Cant think of anything else to add at the moment.
Also when you write MLFY my eyes read it as MILF.

 

[Donald Trump]

So what you're saying is that, there are no negative qualities, only underdeveloped positive qualities?

I'll use LD's example. Hitler. I don't think that anti-semitism is a underdeveloped positive quality, nor do I think Hitler did not realise that by having 6 million people plus killed, that he was overstepping a very thin line.

 

[Aztec Triogal]

So what you're saying is that, there are no negative qualities, only underdeveloped positive qualities?

That is basically what I was trying to express, yes.

And to your Hitler point, no obviously what he did was blatantly wrong but you have to look to what he was trying to do. I am not trying to justify what he did but this theory isn't about actions, it's about perception. If you know his history, he joined a civil rights action group which was trying to improve the country. They gained power quickly with their popular ideals and chose Hitler as their main running man due to his charisma and intelligence. Eventually total power was within his grasp and he seized it. So while he did do horrible things with that power, his only goal up until he realized he could seize total power was to help his country improve. That was his motivation. So again, here is case of a man who attempted to do something very right but got lost along the way and ended up becoming one of history's most infamous monsters.

EDIT: Real quick note. Again, I do not support Hilter... he simply chose to argue my point using a very sensitive example. The only way to argue back was to prove my point via that example. It doesn't mean I support Hitler, it was just a good debate technique on his part... if not a bit of a cheap one.

 

[Donald Trump]

That is basically what I was trying to express, yes.

And to your Hitler point, no obviously what he did was blatantly wrong but you have to look to what he was trying to do. I am not trying to justify what he did but this theory isn't about actions, it's about perception. If you know his history, he joined a civil rights action group which was trying to improve the country. They gained power quickly with their popular ideals and chose Hitler as their main running man due to his charisma and intelligence. Eventually total power was within his grasp and he seized it. So while he did do horrible things with that power, his only goal up until he realized he could seize total power was to help his country improve. That was his motivation. So again, here is case of a man who attempted to do something very right but got lost along the way and ended up becoming one of history's most infamous monsters.

I do infact know my history. Hitler was sent to by the Weimar army to learn more about the Facist party NSDAP led by Anton Drexler, calling NSDAP a civil rights party is laughable. Hitler, found himself agreeing with said parties policies and joined, becoming the seventh member. NSDAP became the Nazi party, Hitler was a good friend of Mussolini, and Mussolini's march on Rome gave Hitler the same idea, that being the Munich Beerhall Putsch where Hitler tried and failed to gain power using force. During his following trial Hitler using his brilliant oratory skills popularised his cause and pretty much got away with the Putsch.
During Hitler's subsequent imprisionment he wrote Mein Kampf, in which he stated his 25 points along with other anti-semintic and anti-slavic views. These 25 points were to become the tenets of the Nazi party.
The Nazi party did not want to improve the country, it wanted to undo the wrongs of Versailles amongst others, including establishing a third reich and using slavs as slaves or just killing them. When The Weimar Republic was doing well because of the Dawes plan and Gustav Stresman, the Nazi party had very little popular support, because people knew they were a bunch of fuck ups.
However when the US stock market crashed, as did every other economy in the world, people started( and this is a very regular trend) looking to extremists for solutions to their problems. The Nazi party satisfied these needs, so Hitler became Chancellor, but5 only because Hindenburg and Von Papen thought they could control him. After the reichstag was burnt down supposedly by communists, though there are not wholy reliable sources who claim that Goring used to brag about burning it down in the 1940s, The enablin act was passed, allowing Hitler to scrap the position of Chancellor and President and create the position of Fuhrer. Hitler later had a lot of the SA shot, ie the night of long knives. And furthermore made his view on Jews crystal clear in 1938 with Kristallnacht.

The view that Hitler intended to do right is ridiculous.

 

[Aztec Triogal]

Again, you're moving the discussion of this theory on to another topic so you don't have to debate it head on. You could argue the same point without skewing the topic so it was more about Hitler than the theory.

Even so, with all the facts you listed, it still says nothing of his intent. The truth is there is no way he could have known what he would become when he was first starting off. So I had to pick which was more practical, that he had good intent but became power hungry which lead him to evil or that he clairvoyantly knew he was going to be pure evil and reign Germany before he did... I the first choice is far more practical. The end is the same but the road there is far different.

Anyhow, stick to the theory itself. Discussing Hilter gets you nothing except bastardizes this discussion into a thread about Hitler... and that just bores me. He was bad. Who cares why.

 

[Big Casino]

What is your definition of "Aryan"?

A follower of Hitlers writings, though i know thats not correct. Aryans were the supposed ' master race ' that the nazis wanted to create. I shoud have picked my words better.

And do you realize that by using the term you are unintentionally validating National-Socialism as an ideal?
validating nazism? how?

By this standard would you say that someone like Terri Schiavo, someone in a persistent vegetative state, was more human than yourself?

No i wouldnt. And i dont see how this relates to my post either. Please explain

 

[Aztec Triogal]

Let me address the same concept another way. Again, it deals with the difference between action and perception. Hitler's actions were obviously not good... but he did believe he was doing the world a favor by clearing it of minorities. So I take back what I said before... he didn't just try to do the right thing before he got power... he believed he was doing the right thing all along.

 

[Fusilli]

Thus, someone who has more flaws is more human, at least according to your statement.

That's really not what he said at all. He never said 'the more flaws you have, the more human you are', he was basically saying that ALL humans have flaws, and the idea of somebody with none is inconceivable.

Anyway, in response to the original post, I can understand where you're coming from Aztec. For example, a group of your friends might regard you as clingy when from YOUR point of view you're just trying to be friendly. I'm sure that logic could be applied to lots of things though, since a lot of the time people do things that others don't like even though they had no intention of offending anybody. But then other people might think that you're a hero for doing that, so it's entirely subjective.

 

[Aztec Triogal]

Technically Katsky is grammatically correct. Unfortunately, euphemisms and quips are never intended to be grammatically correct. His intent was the way Clementine implied so his grammar is kind of a moot point.

 

[Fusilli]

If I use the phrase "clothes make the man", essentially, the better quality clothes I have the better of a man I am. Thus the phrase "flaws make us human" would mean, the more flaws I have the more human I am.

It's a different phrase though so that doesn't automatically mean it'll be right when you apply it to a different situation. Besides, it was quite clear what he meant. 'Flaws make us human' just means that all humans have flaws. Some may have more than others, yes, but he never said that those with more are more human. How can one be MORE human anyway? You're either a human or you aren't, and as chance would have it we are, and as humans we have flaws. But as I said, so-called 'flaws' are entirely subjective so when one person may have more flaws than another in the eyes of one person, another may see it the other way around.

 

[Big Casino]

To apply the term "Aryan" the concept of "Aryan" has to be believed to be a truth to you, otherwise it would be invalid and void in being applied to any group of people in reality. Thus by applying the term to Neo-Nazis you're saying that they are genetically superior to supposed "other races".

so by using the word aryan i am stating that there is a race above the others, i see.

Thus, someone who has more flaws is more human, at least according to your statement.

I didnt say more flaws made us more human, not word for word anyway.
Theres no perfect being in this world, well not to my knoledge anyway.
Having flaws is a normal trait of a human. Also I wouldnt call being in a vegatitive state a ' flaw ' i was reffering to personality flaws, not a physical one. Although i think you knew that.

 

[Davey Gaga]

This thread has been derailed and no longer directly addresses the issue presented by the original poster. If you're so desperate to discuss the definition of an Aryan and the implications therein, then, please take it to another thread. Thanks.

 

[der Astronom]

The problem with viewing human flaw as being a positive thing is that you never learn from them. If you see them as being a good thing, then there is no reason to change it. And to not recognize it as being a problem, maybe for others, or for yourself in the long run (maybe because you can't see it now) means you have ignorance of it. Unless you admit this ignorance of yourself, you can never grow as a person. Sometimes, people need to see the negative sides of themselves. If they will only put them off as being something positive, you don't see it as a problem--one might suggest you believe yourself to be perfect.

I'm not sure if there is any benefit to viewing a negative trait as being positive. Because perception is all people care about; not necessarily what is.

 

[Aztec Triogal]

So to get this thread back on track, is it possible to explain away all a person's "flaws" as undeveloped or misguided positive characteristics? I still think it's an argument of perspective but then perspective is everything, so does that really detract from the argument at all? Is arrogance simply confidence run amok? Is violent behavior just a competitive nature that is outletted inappropriately? Is an argumentative person simply a person who likes debate but cannot keep themselves in check?

For an alternative to this theory, are all good features really flaws?

 

[der Astronom]

The converse is true too. If you don't believe a good feature to be a flaw, you don't recognize it as something that needs to be fixed. Of course, it's not a problem, but there are two cases of it.

One being that you go too far. You're so nice that you'd cover up, even for the wrong kinds of people. Or you're so nice that you end up being a doormat. These are flaws because there are unwanted side effects to them, which either harm yourself or others, and not recognizing it means you won't stop doing it.

The other is that other people perceive your good trait as being a flaw. I admit they may not be acknowledging the trait for what it really is, but if you can't change what they see, which can be impossible, you'll just have to realize that they don't see your good feature as being a good thing and deal with it. Or other people are jealous of the good things that you have, and you have to realize that they may have some resentment towards you and deal with it accordingly.

 

[Aztec Triogal]

I think the entire debate brings up the question of how much do actions really matter when perception plays such a big role? And it's one I really don't need answered. The truth is it doesn't matter what you do, only how it is perceived. Some people really go out of the way to put on the persona of badboy, like Decado for example, when really their pretty tame in the grand scheme of things. Even so, it's because he is perceived as bad that "he is". And that's all that's really needed. Now that's just an example... you could do the same for any wellknown member here.

Actually, I should've taken you as an example Angleus. You portray yourself as serious to a fault. Does that mean you never have emotions in real life? Nothing bothers you? You're not human? Fuck no... of course not. You portray yourself as serious so that's how people percieve you.

 

[der Astronom]

It would be difficult for me to put on that facade though if it came to the point where normal people would become emotional--that's the kind of stuff you can't control. But since I don't consistently lose my temper and tell people things I wouldn't say and have to apologize for those later, there has to be more than simply pretending not to have emotions.

Afterall, pretending not to have emotions, things that you can't control, can be pretty difficult.


Maybe what you mean to say is that I do have them, but it would take a long time and a lot of effort to get me worked up.

 

[Nalaar]

Aztec, if you are still here...first I would like to commend you on your forum patience, as the tendency to get off topic, run with a topic newly selected, or post at the ass end of the thread before reading even one of the previous responses, or even the thread topic is rampant here. I usually first address the fact I am only addressing the title of the thread which is usually a question. Now...on to your theory.

A context of justice....one rape can result in the establishment of a womens shelter.
One drunk driving accident created a campaign composed of Mothers Against Drunk Driving.(MAAD)
In the 1980's, two parents where falsely accused of child abuse and spent seven years in prison. In that time 800 cases of child abuse were reported and found to be true... and Child Protective Services was formed. Granted now, CPS is NOT cool, back them it saved lives and nurtured children. Yes...I could expound, but not now.

Perception is key when seeking a context for justice, and usually when something harmful happens to us or those we care for, we tend to find justice a lot less quickly. However, I can agree with this theory somewhat in that I have always seen potential for greatness in everyone at some point. Someone who is aggravatingly and constantly pointing something out and over-talking you is usually someone who is passionate about teaching..with no outlet to vent this desire, they grow bitter and end up destroying friendships. A child or teenager who is known to be too loud, is often an inspirational speaker with an ability to capture attention quickly on a mic or off...were the characteristic to be channeled productively. Our own unwillingness to see leadership residing in people keeps us suppressing the very things the world as a whole needs from individuals. I have always seen this trend in need of a good straining.(as in tea)

As in strain the unforgiveness, addiction to confusing atmospheres, the need to defend ones self, the adoration and sigh of relief from the ability to snare someone with their own words, the addiction to cornering someone or put them on the spot in conversation and without warning, the seemingly uncontrollable inclination to degrade or belittle another person in order to gain the emotion of glee and victory denied in childhood when confronting our abuser, and the need to seek a victim in effect cultivating an enemy so that we can reinact our most memorable abusive circumstance and say to them ," Of all you take from me, mother fucker, there is one thing you cannot take, and thats the fact I already know you are about to take it.." and keep that cycle going....with all these strained from the mind and emotions, what is left from...say....a controlling politician....is a person who is able to lead masses into new understandings of peace....that does not always mean a president...

That can mean the 60 year old man who stands in line at the pharmacy every week for heart medication and does little more than drive a cab, peek in the review mirror, speak and change perception, direction, and the life in general of a college student being dropped off at a bank where one conversation with an accountant leads to one newly learned sentence and is soon posted on a business forum that eventually reaches the ears of a small investor who decides that not buying that house out from under that family of 5 is the best route to go because after all she too had children to raise comfortably.

Just with the above example, we can see how perception of events and character traits are too often blurred into " What do I need this too look like so that I do not have to take responsibility for a mindset passed down to me that has never progressed me emotionally?" And then what? As long as we hold to the bitterness of circumstance we cannot see the event weilding its wisdom(Mother Holy Spirit) in our lives individually. If we let go of these things, we can stand in awe as answers to collectively created problems surge through a single person we know. With this in place, there is no longer a need to look to those we do not know in higher offices claiming to have the serum.

This reminds me of "Stillness"...from another post:"Almost in the same way as a person in a hospital bed has been placed in a position of "stillness" ( being emptied of all selfishness and gaining great empathy) becomes well and steps forward with a new perspective and enlightened view to share with the rest of the world. Purposes like that. Judgment does not mean, " I thought something wrong so I scraped my elbow." Judgment spontaneously manifest. A person is a plane crash who survives it, is not under judgment but given an opportunity for testimony, which is an opportunity to be refined in the soul (emotions) and change a mindset of the world they have been wishing to change. " All that time in prison opened my eyes so I wrote a book and lives have been changed as I always prayed I could do." This is an example of stillness. "

The rest of the aforementioned post can be found here.

 

[karmiccancer]

So what you're saying is that, there are no negative qualities, only underdeveloped positive qualities?

I'll use LD's example. Hitler. I don't think that anti-semitism is a underdeveloped positive quality, nor do I think Hitler did not realise that by having 6 million people plus killed, that he was overstepping a very thin line.

can we make it a rule not to reference hitler in debates, he gets mentioned all the damn time, takes the credit from the rest of the people who have committed genoicide