Jump to content

Calling Professor Johnson: What Is America?


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

Now wouldn't this "all" also INCLUDE people?
The man is giving you a compliment, why are you giving him a hard time....lol.

 

@Pioneer1  who cares about compliments?   I prefer accuracy.  

... I corrected Troy's description because while he's assigned it to me - it has nothing to do with me.  And yes people are included in the set of living things but to focus on people would be a reductionist view of my outlook.  I would provide first aid to a person just as I would provide first aid to a plant.  I would relocate a person who seeks to harm me just like I would relocate a spider.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Mel Hopkins said:

 

@Pioneer1  who cares about compliments?   I prefer accuracy.  

... I corrected Troy's description because while he's assigned it to me - it has nothing to do with me.  And yes people are included in the set of living things but to focus on people would be a reductionist view of my outlook.  I would provide first aid to a person just as I would provide first aid to a plant.  I would relocate a person who seeks to harm me just like I would relocate a spider.   

 

Out of all that he said to you I'm focused on the "love for people" portion of his statement because I was a bit puzzled for the reason you gave for objecting to it.

Is accuracy the issue here, or specificity?
It seems to me that his statement was not incorrect, but your issue with it was that it was too narrowly focused or "reduced".


BTW, I prefer a healthy balance of compliments-accuracy-criticizm.
Too much of either without enough of the other usually doesn't lead to the best results.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

Out of all that he said to you I'm focused on the "love for people" portion of his statement

“Smart is not how I would describe myself.”

“ I'm curious ...that may appear to be passion but it's more of an obsession

 “i  don't have to think deeply”

 

Sooooo...

 

Out of all the things I wrote correcting Troy you chose to focus on “people” - why is that?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mel

 

Out of all the things I wrote correcting Troy you chose to focus on "people" - why is that?


It stood out for me because all the other reasons you gave for objecting to how he described you seemed rational (despite my not agreeing with your objections to a couple of them), but your objection to being described as "loving people" and declaring that you don't.....only to turn around and describe this as being too reductionist and that you actually love ALL living things seemed a bit irrational.

I can understand your objecting to it if he said outright or implied that this love was reduced to ONLY people instead of all living things, but this was neither said nor implied.
It just wasn't expansive enough to your liking.

Imagine walking into a pet shop and asking an employee,
"Since you work well with dogs, could you give me the best advice on how to train mine?"
....and they rebuke you by saying.
"Actually I DON'T work well with dogs, I work well with ALL animals!"

Perhaps it was just the wording.
Maybe if you had added a "just" in your objection it would have seemed more rational TO ME.
For example:  "I don't JUST love people.....I love all things"


 

 

Out of curiosity.......
Although you didn't say it outright, do you think for a man to call you smart is a bit "condescending" ?
Do you take that compliment from a MAN the same way a Black person would take it from a White who called them "articulate"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

It just wasn't expansive enough to your liking

@Pioneer1 this is exactly how I felt - and see,  you did understand.  Some how I had a feeling you knew exactly why I responded the way I did! And yes, I understand why it struck you as irrational - because “love” is irrational and to actually have love for all living things equally is probably something you don’t come across on a daily basis. 

 

Now, before you throw my children in the mix - I also have an uber irrational “LOVE” for them but if I were to think it through ... it would be because they came from me... and there’s no greater love,  I suppose than one who you’d lay down your life for..so yeah, my babies are on a whole different astral plane... one that even I can’t comprehend.

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

Out of curiosity.......
Although you didn't say it outright, do you think for a man to call you smart is a bit "condescending" ?

 

Not at all! There are a lot of smart people.  I  don’t think it suits me.  I’m curious and i keep digging like a dog looking for a bone.  Someone might say “he’s hungry” ... but in most cases that’s not true—-The pooch is looking for his “treasure”.  

 

30 minutes ago, Delano said:

What is your definition

 

My definition of “smart” ? I like what you’ve said @Delano “pedigree” - a “person of letters” is my definition of smart.  People who know enough to get the task completed by an agreed upon standard. 

 

Edited by Mel Hopkins
Annoying typos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mel

this is exactly how I felt - and see, you did understand. Some how I had a feeling you knew exactly why I responded the way I did! And yes, I understand why it struck you as irrational - because "love" is irrational and to actually have love for all living things equally is probably something you don’t come across on a daily basis.


It wasn't that hard to figure out, you pretty much said it plainly.

When you say "love for all things equally" I don't NECESSARILY consider that statement irrational because I realize the word "love" is just one English word that is used to describe MULTIPLE different types of feelings, many of which aren't even related to eachother.
I think Greek attempts to separate it with words like "agape" and "eros" ect....

I would guess that the feeling you're calling "love" that you feel equally for everything is a deep caring type of feeling which is a separate feeling than what you have for your children and both of those feelings are different than the type of feeling you have for a lover or spouse....but most people will call all of it "love" for lack of a better term in English.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...