↖ Homepage of the site 'What to do with your life?' What do you have to do to be a good person?I define a good person as someone whose behavior does not interfere with the good functioning of the group. If in addition we have been privileged, that we are aware of it, and that we feel the moral duty to give something back to the community, then we become someone very well. Indeed, we thus activate a virtuous loop: I give, and as others also give, I receive. The difficulty at this level is to go from - I give to receive, and if I do not receive I am frustrated - to - I give because I feel privileged in absolute terms of not living in misery or oppression, and if I still receive, then I have an additional gratitude towards providence -. Why did you choose 'not to oppose the facts', and not 'not to harm others', to characterize someone as good?Let us begin by observing that when an individual or group seriously harms others, we almost always find a belief, which serves to exempt oneself from moral responsibility, contradicted by facts which are ignored.
So, in the end, if one does not oppose the facts, the belief falls, and the harm to others stops. In other words, not opposing the facts is a sufficient condition to put an end to the nuisance. 'Do no harm to others' is an expected result. 'Don't oppose the facts' is one way to do this. In other words, the famous phrase 'the freedom of some ends where that of others begins' is wishful thinking. Practice shows that some can trample on the freedom of others without even realizing it, as long as the beliefs on which they rely are not called into question, and therefore the facts which contradict them are ignored. Let us therefore simply remember that the capacity for harm of a non-psychotic individual corresponds roughly to his capacity to lie to himself. The cultural sources of this lie to oneself are religious, social and family beliefs, more widely developed and maintained in individuals with psychopathic tendencies. Why is it difficult not to object to the facts?Most people believe they are rational, and therefore not opposed to the facts. This belief generally reveals that they are unaware of the dreaded effects of cognitive dissonance that we have just talked about, and in particular lying to oneself. Indeed, cognitive dissonance, as described in the book A theory of cognitive dissonance From Léon Festinger, shows us that when a fact opposes a belief, it is rarely the fact that we favor. Consequently, the lie to oneself is gradually puts itself but inevitably in place, to preserve the right image that we have of us. Now the lie to oneself leads to ending up opposing the facts without even being aware of it. There is therefore a vicious circle between opposing the facts and lying to oneself. The second is both the product of the first, and its facilitator. The price to pay for not opposing the factsMost social groups are united by shared beliefs. To question these beliefs is to compromise one's belonging to the group, and therefore take the risk of social decline. Many individuals think they are smart enough to be able to play a double game at this level: pretending to believe in it to ensure their good integration into the group, and therefore optimize their success in life, while remaining rational, it is up to say not denying the facts. However, in his book A theory of cognitive dissonance, Léon Festinger shows us, supported by scientific experiments, that it is enough for the group not to exercise an explicit and strong threat for the individual who does not oppose to end up believing in it. Even more difficult: applying the regulations when it is clear that common sense recommends that it does not apply it in this particular case is to oppose the facts. However, not applying the regulations is taking a significant personal social risk. It is therefore easy to be a good little soldier, but difficult to be someone good. Personal indicatorAt the level of the question 'How to succeed in life', we talked about 'Don't pretend' as an indicator that we are on the right track. Respect for facts and respect for others are the same thingWhat is opposed, both to respect for the facts and to respect for others, is the ego (here social ambition or what we want) which prevails over reason. QuotesHenri Poincaré Free examination in scientific matters, 1909: “Thought must never be submitted, neither to a dogma, nor to a party, nor to a passion, to an interest, nor to a preconceived idea, neither anything, if not to the facts themselves; Because, for her, to submit, it would be to stop existing. »» ↣ Free examination in scientific matters Go deeperFirst see the question 'Why do you need to control your ego?' which presents the other way of approaching the subject. Read the book A theory of cognitive dissonance by Léon Festinger to understand what cognitive dissonance and its effects are precisely, and more particularly chapters 4 and 5 'effects of forced submission'. Possibly read Krishnamurti. Getting rid of beliefs, to objectively observe the facts, is the central point of his teaching.
|