What is stopping you from being ignorant?

what prevents us from doing what we expect others to do?

  • I discovered the question in my social studies book from my vocational school. And because of the current situation, I keep asking myself the question. What prevents some people from taking the initiative or trusting sometimes? Some sometimes ask their partners or friends to do things that they cannot do themselves, but which are actually completely simple.
  • can you narrow it down a little or make it more precise ???

    what prevents people from doing something. . . that would be 1000 things, on the phone it is not even the hindered but let's say "intent". . .

    greetings
    "OH LLort...!"

    The Mercedes drives because it is a car, not because its name is Mercedes.
  • Original from Carhartt
    I discovered the question in my social studies book from my vocational school. And because of the current situation, I keep asking myself the question. What prevents some people from taking the initiative or trusting them sometimes? Some sometimes ask their partners or friends to do things that they cannot do themselves, but which are actually completely simple.


    He is unable to do something precisely because he expects someone to do it.

    He sets his thinking as the measure of all things, and now expects the other to carry out what he thinks himself, since he believes the other thinks the same.


    I don't think I have formulated my thoughts sufficiently
  • Original from Carhartt
    I discovered the question in my social studies book from my vocational school. And because of the current situation, I keep asking myself the question. What prevents some people from taking the initiative or trusting sometimes? Some sometimes ask their partners or friends to do things that they cannot do themselves, but which are actually completely simple.

    Maybe because you just don't dare to do that? Either they can't, or at least they mean it. Or they think the other person has more time and can therefore do it. "Completely simple" may be subjective.
    The human being as philosophizing is the starting point of all philosophy.
    Corollary: Philosophy that ignores people makes a mistake.
    Second conclusion: you should include people in almost every context.

    Supplementary hope: May there be a general AI that can at least partially absorb human errors and help correct them.
  • Maybe they don't because no one is from it them expected. At least that's what they think.
    The distance to an object you are looking for is directly proportional to the urgency with which you need it.
  • I think that most of them also lack the pioneering spirit or the courage to leave the protection of the “herd” and to take the first step into untested terrain because of the fear of “stumbling” and embarrassing themselves .
    And so everyone waits for the other to take the first step. And in doing so, we suppress the thought that each of us is "the other."

    LG
    ariane
    > Those understand very little who only understand what can be explained. <
    Marie v. Ebner-Eschenbach
    > Those who wander to the truth wander alone
  • Original from Carhartt
    I have the question in mine Social studies book discovered by my vocational school. [highlighted by me]


    Are there actually sociology forums?
  • Original from Carhartt
    What is preventing us from doing what we expect others to do?


    Nothing, just your own self! We mostly always expect what we cannot give ourselves. Maybe because we are ignorant and are afraid of making or discovering our own mistakes and of course our own laziness. Which in turn is a human weakness.

    But there must be several factors responsible for it. Personally, I have had the experience that you get it back if you have made the decision to grow beyond yourself. But there is also a feeling of weakness. One projects. So, you think you have given in and the person you gave what you expect from him can always do it with you now. Until you realize that you might be the one who would only take advantage of it, time can pass. I called it self-knowledge and since then I've often just been able to do something for someone because I like them. And I'm glad that I was able to recognize it, no, I'm grateful.

    Best regards...
    si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses.
  • SOLVING DIFFERENCES OF OPINION (Dschuang Dsi)

    Suppose I argued with you; you defeat me and i don't defeat you. Are you really right now? Am I really wrong now? Or I will defeat you and you will not defeat me. Am I really right now and you really wrong? Is one of us right and one wrong, or are we both right or both wrong? Me and you, we can't know. But when people are in such confusion, who should they call to decide? Shall we get one who agrees with you to decide? Since he agrees with you, how can he decide? Or should we get someone who agrees with me? Since he agrees with me, how can he decide? Should we get someone who differs from both of us to decide? Since he differs from both of us, how can he decide? Or should we get someone who agrees with both of us to decide? Since he agrees with both of us, how can he decide? So I and you and the others cannot understand each other, and should we make ourselves dependent on something that is outside of us? Forget the time! Forget the opinions! Raise yourself to the limitless! And live in the limitless!
    Your intoxicating forest eyes were dewy,
    sweetened by wildness (...)

    You who he knows;
    they who recognized each other -


    dantesdatscha.npage.de/


  • Original by Paul Fels
    Are there actually sociology forums?
    Yes there is too.

    Are there any rhetorical questions?
    Yes there is too.
  • Original by Ra-Jah
    Suppose I argued with you; you defeat me and i don't defeat you. Are you really right now? Am I really wrong now? Or I will defeat you and you will not defeat me. Am I really right now and you really wrong? Is one of us right and one wrong, or are we both right or both wrong? Me and you, we can't know. But when people are in such confusion who should they call to decide? Shall we get one who agrees with you to decide? Since he agrees with you, how can he decide? Or should we get someone who agrees with me? Since he agrees with me, how can he decide? Should we get someone who differs from both of us to decide? Since he differs from both of us, how can he decide? Or should we get someone who agrees with both of us to decide? Since he agrees with both of us, how can he decide? So I and you and the others cannot understand each other, and should we make ourselves dependent on something that is outside of us? Forget the time! Forget the opinions! Raise yourself to the limitless! And live in the limitless!

    Thank you Ra-Jah,

    for the - albeit certainly unintentional - confirmation of
    Original from ariane
    .... which I have already expressed here many times, namely that it is completely indifferent what I do, say, think, there are always those who say .... great! and those who say ... that's crap!
    Who can I do justice to but myself, so why should I bend over?

    We both seem to agree with that.
    Who is right now, us or the others, who see it differently

    LG
    ariane
    > Those understand very little who only understand what can be explained. <
    Marie v. Ebner-Eschenbach
    > Those who wander to the truth wander alone
  • Original from ariane

    Thank you Ra-Jah,

    for the - albeit certainly unintentional - confirmation of

    Original from ariane
    .... which I have already expressed here many times, namely that it is completely indifferent what I do, say, think, there are always those who say .... great! and those who say ... that's crap!
    Who can I do justice to but myself, so why should I bend over?


    We both seem to agree with that.
    Who is right now, us or the others, who see it differently

    LG
    ariane


    Those who live are right, Ariane.

    Incidentally, the quote from Dschuang Dsi comes from the fourth century BC, apparently the powerful people have misunderstood its essence since then;
    not a nihilistic impulse, a destructive motive, such as greed (for capital and thus power, control -> to compensate for the latent fear of compensating for the insecurity of the acting individual), but
    the text implies a constructive level. To understand that all participating characters of the dispute, whether right - or not - are subject to the same system, the abstract, conceptual (dialectical), contradicting, in principle need one another in order to survive. In the ideal case, this knowledge leads to mutual fertilization and development of finer structures.

    In this sense, to put my initial, pessimistic statement into perspective, a lot has happened: today, despite all the obstacles that still exist, discussions can be held more intensively and in more detail than ever before in history.

    In the end, the theses and their antitheses, beyond their (supposed) truthfulness, and even if some mistakes in history were repeated (seem to recur again and again) - all in all - nevertheless constructive, effective, syntactically created.

    Whether inherent intelligence is hidden in material processes, or in the dialectic of language (as a "chance product" of the former), or whether it is something synergetic, something dreamed up, if intelligence and discourse and feeling are considered; want to know how to use, how to use them and to become, seduced and fulfilled, recognized and named; once forgotten in the flow of time and yet thoughtful, weeping from the heaven of wisdom, the knowledge slides into our blood, a knowledge that lets us breathe fresh spring air - stretch out our arms and receive the rays of the sun. The philosopher's spirit becomes light because of the beauty of being, the harmony of his thinking with the heartbeat of the world - verily: Peace is what can also be war.
    But the war's twisted face seeks shadows, never looks at the other, this bright peace indeed.
    Your intoxicating forest eyes were dewy,
    sweetened by wildness (...)

    You who he knows;
    they who recognized each other -


    dantesdatscha.npage.de/


  • Original by Ra-Jah

    Those who live are right, Ariane.


    Your word in God's ear.


    Today, in spite of all the obstacles that still exist, the world can discuss more intensively and in greater detail than ever before in history.


    Yes, after moving my retraumatisation thread from the lobby to small talk. * murrr *

    Whether inherent intelligence is hidden in material processes, or in the dialectic of language (as the "chance product" of the former), if intelligence and discourse and feeling are taken into account


    Yes, if only it were so, clear Ra-Jah!

    Peace is what there can be war.

    Such a Far Eastern paradox?

    But the war's twisted face seeks shadows, never looks at the other, this bright peace indeed.


    Most of the time the warriors do something, which is a bad deed.

    Constantly any greetings
    rollo-o