Self-awareness

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Judaka
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:24 pm

Self-awareness

Post by Judaka » Sat Jan 12, 2019 2:04 am

I'd like to offer an opinion about self-awareness, where philosophy goes wrong and why certain people don't really need philosophy at all. The basis for the latter claims is that the ways in which one learns about self-awareness and the self-awareness itself is the same as having a very realistic, practical and fairly comprehensive understanding of life in general.

Breaking it down into seriously generic levels of social awareness we get:
1. You can't understand others or yourself.
2. You can understand others but not yourself
3. You understand both others and yourself

I think most people fit into the second category, they're able to see when others are acting out of fear, or on their biases, when they've been indoctrinated or brainwashed, when they're being annoying or embarrassing themselves, when they're being petty and when they're being unreasonable. However, they can't see these things in themselves.

I'm not saying the first category is empty, many introverts, in particular, come to wrong conclusions about what other people are thinking. They have the same problem as the second category in my opinion, which is that they make exceptions for important people.

In the case of the second category, they can understand when someone else is being annoying but they can't understand that if they exhibit the same behaviour as that person, that they'll also be being annoying. They think because they have their own reasons for doing things, their own special circumstances and whatever else, that they're not the same.

They can see that someone else is a product of how they were raised but they think everything about themselves was their own choice. They think they are more reasonable than everyone else because they can tell when others are unreasonable and not themselves.

You see this in debates about politics, religion, culture, music, movies, geopolitics, philosophy and the list goes on forever.

Much of the questions asked in philosophy are answered by realising that people are products of nature/nurture and this affects everyone including you. Sadly, I think most people on philosophy forums are some of the least self-aware people you'll ever meet and they've turned to philosophy to answer questions which seem advanced, unanswered and too complicated for the average individual uninterested in philosophy. Truthfully, they come up with absurd answers to questions that would've easily been answered by having some self-awareness.

I'm not trying to bash on all philosophy, wouldn't be on a site like this if I thought it had no value. I just think that if we say philosophy is a skill that is supposed to increase understanding or make life easier/better, the average self-aware person puts the average philosophy poster in the bin.

Judaka
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:24 pm

Re: Self-awareness

Post by Judaka » Sat Jan 12, 2019 2:27 am

And for the record going to draw a distinction between self-awareness in psychology and general self-awareness/social self-awareness.

Somebody could be self-aware about their thoughts, sub-conscious thoughts and such and be considered self-aware in a psychological sense where it's between you and a shrink or just yourself.

However, that's not what I'm talking about here. You can't be considered self-aware if you can't identify your position relative to others and in doing so, having some understanding about others. Which is necessary for self-awareness in social situations, business situations, philosophy, politics and most contexts really.

Nick_A
Posts: 3766
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Self-awareness

Post by Nick_A » Sat Jan 12, 2019 2:46 am

Hi Judaka

I read you as describing people confusing philosophy with psychology. Self awareness as I read you describing it refers to our personality. How can we improve our personality by becoming aware of how we are reacting as ourselves and with others? This is beneficial of course but I’ve come to appreciate philosophy as nutrition for the inner man rather than our personality. Where psychology is concerned with what we do, philosophy is concerned with what we are. Our physical death and the death of our personality is one thing. Our inner death is another. To clarify what I mean I will quote from the intro of Jacob Needleman’s book “The Heart of Philosophy.”
Chapter 1

Introduction

Man cannot live without philosophy. This is not a figure of speech but a literal fact that will be demonstrated in this book. There is a yearning in the heart that is nourished only by real philosophy and without this nourishment man dies as surely as if he were deprived of food and air. But this part of the human psyche is not known or honored in our culture. When it does breakthrough to our awareness it is either ignored or treated as something else. It is given wrong names; it is not cared for; it is crushed. And eventually, it may withdraw altogether, never again to appear. When this happens man becomes a thing. No matter what he accomplishes or experiences, no matter what happiness he experiences or what service he performs, he has in fact lost his real possibility. He is dead.

……………………….The function of philosophy in human life is to help Man remember. It has no other task. And anything that calls itself philosophywhich does not serve this function is simply not philosophy……………………………….
Where psychology enables us to heal our personality, philosophy enables the inner man to remember what has been forgotten in order to remember what we ARE. Years ago this was understood. Philosophy and the study of “being” were united. Now they are separate and psychology is limited to the study of personality.

To know thyself has a profound meaning as it concerns the inner man while self awareness as reaction to social life has another.

Age
Posts: 1708
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Self-awareness

Post by Age » Sat Jan 12, 2019 6:12 am

Judaka wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 2:04 am
Much of the questions asked in philosophy are answered by realising that people are products of nature/nurture and this affects everyone including you. Sadly, I think most people on philosophy forums are some of the least self-aware people you'll ever meet and they've turned to philosophy to answer questions which seem advanced, unanswered and too complicated for the average individual uninterested in philosophy. Truthfully, they come up with absurd answers to questions that would've easily been answered by having some self-awareness.
Will you provide any examples of these questions that seem advanced, unanswered and too complicated for the average individual uninterested in philosophy?

If so, then will you also provide what would have been the easily arrived at answers to those questions, by those who have some self-awareness?

Judaka
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:24 pm

Re: Self-awareness

Post by Judaka » Sat Jan 12, 2019 6:49 am

Nick_A

I can see where you're coming from. I'm referring to self-awareness as a basis from which to launch plenty of philosophical questions rather than some kind of alternative. It could quite simply in the context you're referring to, talk about the necessity for Jacob Needleman's self-awareness to recognise that philosophy can fulfil such a purpose as he describes. He's also aware enough of others to realise this isn't something unique to him but something that might impact all of mankind.

My argument is more the case that self-awareness is a necessary component of healthy and effective philosophy.

As for my comment about "some people don't need philosophy at all", I think it comes down to their philosophy being created naturally through self-awareness. They see what they like and don't like, develop aspirations and opinions and this forms the foundation of their philosophy. There is no need for further questioning which I find for many people, simply becomes detrimental.

Age

You name a context and we can start talking about examples of this, I'd hate to give you examples, only for you to feel that the examples I've chosen are not you'd consider "real philosophy".

I will say that I am talking generally about people misappropriating personal opinions or experiences into philosophies, describing the nature of things in idealistic terms (see viewtopic.php?f=5&t=25831 as an example), speculation on why people do things and whether it's good or not.

The answers from an individual whos aware of others and himself are not black and white and I'm not saying all self-aware people must agree with each other but they will at least be multi-faceted and grounded in their thinking which gives their ideas a chance.
Last edited by Judaka on Sat Jan 12, 2019 12:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 1793
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Self-awareness

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Jan 12, 2019 6:59 am

Judaka wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 2:04 am
I'm not trying to bash on all philosophy, wouldn't be on a site like this if I thought it had no value. I just think that if we say philosophy is a skill that is supposed to increase understanding or make life easier/better, the average self-aware person puts the average philosophy poster in the bin.
It is said that there are as many definitions of what is philosophy as the number of people who attempt to define it.
I believe you had defined philosophy too narrowly, perhaps limited to Western academic and arm-chair philosophy, thus your negative [some] for it.

I defined philosophy as
  • 'whatever-that-is-necessary to optimize the continual progressing well being of the individual and therefrom the collective'.
"whatever-that-is-necessary" will include the whole range of knowledge & wisdom, the relevant skills, intelligences, the relevant tools, etc. and that will include one's ability of 'self-awareness' on a continual improvement path.

Self-awareness, analogically, is merely one of the players within the symphonic orchestra to produce synergy and it cannot be done without the conductor which in the case of humanity is philosophy to optimize human synergy.

The highest level of self-awareness is the awareness of the principles and mechanics of one's own body and brain/mind, the genome, interacting with others and the environment.
Note the human brain on average has 100 billion neurons each with up to 10,000 connectors [synapses]. The visceral has almost the same number of neurons.

I would say the self-awareness of the individual is corresponded to how much one knows about the brain and using it effectively and optimally.
Given the little we know about how our brain works, the average self-awareness of humanity at present is relatively VERY low, thus need to be very humble and strive hard to open up greater potentials.

Human Connectome Project | Mapping the human brain connectivity
http://www.humanconnectomeproject.org/

Age
Posts: 1708
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Self-awareness

Post by Age » Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:37 am

Judaka wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 6:49 am
Age

You name a context and we can start talking about examples of this, I'd hate to give you examples, only for you to feel that the examples I've chosen are not you'd consider "real philosophy".
I would never consider any thing to be not "real philosophy", especially considering how we both use the word 'philosophy' differently. There is no agreed upon 'real philosophy', yet, so I am completely open to any thing you provide. There is no need to ever assume what i would or would not do, so any context will do and all examples you give will suffice.

How about just starting with the exact questions that you were thinking of, from the context that was being thought about, when you wrote that, and then just providing the answers that some one having some self-awareness would have easily answered will be fine thank you.
Judaka wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 6:49 am
I will say that I am talking generally about people misappropriating personal opinions or experiences into philosophies, describing the nature of things in idealistic terms (see viewtopic.php?f=5&t=25831 as an example), speculation on why people do things and whether it's good or not.
Are you suggesting/stating that it is not right, not good, not correct, or maybe some thing else, to misappropriate personal opinions or experiences into philosophies?

Some might suggest/state that it is not right, not good, and/or not correct to appropriate any personal opinions or experiences, or any thing else, into "philosophies".

Also, is there really any thing wrong with describing the nature of things in idealistic terms? If yes, then what are/is they/it?

And, is there really any thing wrong with speculating on why people do things and whether it's good or not? If yes, then what are/is they/it?
Judaka wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 6:49 am
The answers from an individual whos aware of others and himself are not black and white
But some might argue that the answers from an individual who is truly or fully aware of thy Self and is thus also fully and truly aware of supposed "others" are what is sometimes, and wrongly, referred to as "black and white".
Judaka wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 6:49 am
and I'm not saying all self-aware people must agree with each other but they will at least be multi-faceted and grounded in their thinking which gives their ideas a chance.
Gives the ideas a chance of what exactly?

The truly Self-aware does not need any chances.

Also, the requesting from you of those, supposed, easily answered questions, in philosophy forums, is to give you a chance to show how grounded the thinking actually is.

Logik
Posts: 3917
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Self-awareness

Post by Logik » Sat Jan 12, 2019 12:21 pm

I agree, and I don't think there's any need to nitpick. Instead - I will try to generalise your argument even further: What does it mean to understand? Anything, not just "self"

How does one acquire understanding?
How does one learn effectively?

Once you have a conceptual model of how understanding/learning works (in general) then you can understand anything you turn your attention to.

The process is mechanical. We call it "the scientific method". The trick to good science is good observation a.k.a awareness.

The reason people lack understanding of self is often, because they haven't spent much time paying attention to self. It's easy to get distracted when society keeps imposing on you that what's "real" is external to self. So we pay a lot of attention to the "outside world" and not enough attention to the "inside world".

Good scientists excel at introspection!

commonsense
Posts: 948
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Self-awareness

Post by commonsense » Sat Jan 12, 2019 5:09 pm

Judaka wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 6:49 am

As for my comment about "some people don't need philosophy at all", I think it comes down to their philosophy being created naturally through self-awareness. They see what they like and don't like, develop aspirations and opinions and this forms the foundation of their philosophy. There is no need for further questioning which I find for many people, simply becomes detrimental.
And by your account, they don’t know art but they know what they like. Many have claimed that anyone doesn’t need to appreciate Art in order to enjoy an artistic work.

Certainly, anyone can like a philosophy without understanding Philosophy, but that runs counter to what Philosophy is, by any definition.

Certainly, anyone can enjoy something without understanding it, but that is a thoughtless activity. The degree of appreciation attained without thought is merely visceral.

Of course, it can be argued that thoughtless appreciation is as valuable as mindful appreciation. However, that is a matter for philosophical discussion.

Logik
Posts: 3917
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Self-awareness

Post by Logik » Sat Jan 12, 2019 6:04 pm

commonsense wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 5:09 pm
Certainly, anyone can like a philosophy without understanding Philosophy, but that runs counter to what Philosophy is, by any definition.
Coherent definitions of 'Philosophy' are hard to come by...

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2024
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Self-awareness

Post by bahman » Sat Jan 12, 2019 6:20 pm

Judaka wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 2:04 am
I'd like to offer an opinion about self-awareness, where philosophy goes wrong and why certain people don't really need philosophy at all. The basis for the latter claims is that the ways in which one learns about self-awareness and the self-awareness itself is the same as having a very realistic, practical and fairly comprehensive understanding of life in general.
I think everybody uses philosophy since it is about general overview about reality.
Judaka wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 2:04 am
Breaking it down into seriously generic levels of social awareness we get:
1. You can't understand others or yourself.
2. You can understand others but not yourself
3. You understand both others and yourself

I think most people fit into the second category, they're able to see when others are acting out of fear, or on their biases, when they've been indoctrinated or brainwashed, when they're being annoying or embarrassing themselves, when they're being petty and when they're being unreasonable. However, they can't see these things in themselves.
I think we belong to first category. We don't understand ourselves, since our selves are the result of all our lives' experiences. It is difficult to know the origin of feeling and thought in a given situation.
Judaka wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 2:04 am
I'm not saying the first category is empty, many introverts, in particular, come to wrong conclusions about what other people are thinking. They have the same problem as the second category in my opinion, which is that they make exceptions for important people.
You might have a way to understand yourself through certain practice. But it is impossible to know other people since you simply don't know their lives' experiences and you don't have access to their inner lives. So to me the categories 2 and 3 are empty.
Judaka wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 2:04 am
In the case of the second category, they can understand when someone else is being annoying but they can't understand that if they exhibit the same behaviour as that person, that they'll also be being annoying. They think because they have their own reasons for doing things, their own special circumstances and whatever else, that they're not the same.
Why a person is annoyed depends on all his life's experiences. A person could become resistance to specific stimuli once he is exposed to it many times.
Judaka wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 2:04 am
They can see that someone else is a product of how they were raised but they think everything about themselves was their own choice. They think they are more reasonable than everyone else because they can tell when others are unreasonable and not themselves.

You see this in debates about politics, religion, culture, music, movies, geopolitics, philosophy and the list goes on forever.
Yes, what we are is the result of all things you mentioned.
Judaka wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 2:04 am
Much of the questions asked in philosophy are answered by realising that people are products of nature/nurture and this affects everyone including you. Sadly, I think most people on philosophy forums are some of the least self-aware people you'll ever meet and they've turned to philosophy to answer questions which seem advanced, unanswered and too complicated for the average individual uninterested in philosophy. Truthfully, they come up with absurd answers to questions that would've easily been answered by having some self-awareness.
People are not just very serious at philosophy forum. Not all of them though.
Judaka wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 2:04 am
I'm not trying to bash on all philosophy, wouldn't be on a site like this if I thought it had no value. I just think that if we say philosophy is a skill that is supposed to increase understanding or make life easier/better, the average self-aware person puts the average philosophy poster in the bin.
They cannot put philosophy in the bin since whatever they do is somehow is based on a philosophical point of view.

Nick_A
Posts: 3766
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Self-awareness

Post by Nick_A » Sat Jan 12, 2019 6:26 pm

Judaka
As for my comment about "some people don't need philosophy at all", I think it comes down to their philosophy being created naturally through self-awareness. They see what they like and don't like, develop aspirations and opinions and this forms the foundation of their philosophy. There is no need for further questioning which I find for many people, simply becomes detrimental.
As I see it there is a big difference between self awareness and being self conscious. It is similar to the difference between pride of self and self pride. Where self pride is the praise of what we believe we are in relation to worldly standards, pride of self is the recognition of the potential for freedom from the fallen human condition to become what Man is intended to be.

To be truly self aware is having consciously experienced our mechanics and the contradictions we live with from a higher conscious perspective. It means to be able to consciously look down on our mechanical reactions. Self consciousness in contrast is what forces our personality to be governed by the opinions of others. We become the results of being self conscious. A self conscious person lacks the inner freedom to see themselves. I've experienced that a lot of what are called efforts at self awareness are really efforts to live with being self conscious. Of course philosophy under these conditions is just efforts to justify weakness so the results are often more harmful than beneficial.

Judaka
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:24 pm

Re: Self-awareness

Post by Judaka » Sun Jan 13, 2019 1:33 am

Age

Yes, I think that it's self-evident that you'd want your arguments to be based on facts and not misinformed perspectives or coincidences. People who lack self-awareness also seem to lack that kind of grounding of knowing how much they don't know and realising what their goals should be in philosophy.

A nice segway into some examples is that a lot of people involved in politics today lack self-awareness. Many youthful and idealistic people try to make their purpose in life to correct the mistakes of the world as they see it. A self-aware person in their shoes would recognise that the issue is complicated and possibly easy answers are easy because they are neglectful of all the factors.

Philosophy surrounding depression/suicide is another great example, you can instantly tell when someone lacks self-awareness by talking about this topic. Since people try to universalise what is needed to overcome these problems without testing their theories or having any experience. I'm not saying the self-aware person knows how to deal with depression/suicide exactly but that they will know that they don't know what they don't know, they'll know that the issue is complex and multi-faceted and they'll either have no opinion or an opinion that takes into account what they know and that might or might not be sufficient for them to have an understanding or an answer.

There is no "philosophy" to take place here, philosophy is not appropriate here and it is uninteresting to the self-aware.


Commonsense

Hmm... I disagree strongly with the way you're using the word philosophy, it is not something to "know" or be "understood", rather it's a collection of opinions and truths about a great variety of topics which amounts to something like "a way of thinking about x". Great philosophers seldom agree with each other, philosophers on this forum seldom agree. Becoming interested in or studying philosophy doesn't mean you'll "know" anything. I see people become more and more confused, distraught and hopeless with philosophy not infrequently, sometimes people only dabble in philosophy because they get struck with some question like "does life have meaning?" and it has a profound impact which must be dealt with.

You can offer a definition for philosophy and we can talk about it but what I'm saying isn't that the self-aware can "enjoy philosophy but not understand it" but literally that a self-aware person is a far better philosopher than an individual who isn't self-aware even if the person who lacks self-awareness devotes years of their life to philosophy. This forum has plenty of such people but I won't name names, it's either obvious to you or it isn't.

Bahman

It seems I caused many misunderstandings in the way I've used the term philosophy, however, what I meant here is that philosophy is a practice or study for the purpose of attaining many things, my argument is that many of those things you can get elsewhere. Self-awareness is just one example, let's say I was a sporting captain and I learn responsibility, discipline and the value of friendship. I realise from that, this is what I need in my life. Someone could have just as easily created philosophical arguments for such things and came to appreciate these things that way, this is not my overall argument with self-awareness but that in many situations the problems of philosophy aren't answered solely by philosophy, particularly the important ones.

My suggestions for the levels of self-awareness are not suggesting complete understanding or anything approximating it. Also, there are obviously levels within those levels about how much you can understand about others and yourself. However, it's obvious that people can be more or less aware of why yourself and others act as they act and so on.

I didn't say they put philosophy in the bin, I said they're more adept at answering philosophical questions in a reasonable and effective way than non self-aware people who are interested in philosophy.

Nick_A

Very insightful and interesting comments, I strongly agree with how you're defining the differences between self-consciousness and self-awareness. It is precisely the ability to look at yourself from a higher perspective and free yourself from as you say our "mechanical reactions" that allows individuals to pursue philosophy in a meaningful way. Self-consciousness is surely too often confused with self-awareness and I agree with how you've characterised its problems.

I believe of those people are capable of recognising the mechanical aspects in others lives perhaps self-consciousness gets in the way of seeing it in themselves, or perhaps bias, hubris, many possibilities. As you say, under such conditions, philosophy can be reduced to a very sad and pitiful thing. The results are generally more harmful than beneficial and it unlikely to be useful to anyone.

Great post.

Nick_A
Posts: 3766
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Self-awareness

Post by Nick_A » Sun Jan 13, 2019 3:36 am

Judaka
However, that's not what I'm talking about here. You can't be considered self-aware if you can't identify your position relative to others and in doing so, having some understanding about others. Which is necessary for self-awareness in social situations, business situations, philosophy, politics and most contexts really.
I've learned over the years to take certain concepts seriously at one time I took as misguided.

The first is when I had to agree that the cause of all insult is within me. It is silly of me to blame others. If I am insulted or hurt the cause is in me. Not easy to admit.

I came to realize that I was taking the Socratic axiom to "Know Thyself" superficially since that is how I always read it explained. It was a real jolt when I experienced that to Know thyself is to have the conscious experience of myself and to experience what we ARE as human being. Then what St. Paul wrote in Romans 7 became obvious. I am a plurality living in opposition to myself. It was so obvious I wondered why it wasn't clear years earlier. I had assumed an inner unity which wasn't there

Romans 7
14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? 25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!
It became obvious that if I live in contradiction with no inner unity, everyone I know is the same so rather than arguing about it the common sense thing to do is forgive. When I am aware of the human condition through impartial self awareness it is idiotic as arguing with a person dying of cancer.

So for me the beginning of philosophy are efforts to have the impartial experience of ourselves; what we are, self awareness. It provides the foundation upon which philosophical ideas can be built. Philosophy opens the mind for our potential to remember what we are but it must begin with experiencing the inner plurality we are; the human condition. We are not one; we are many. Without this humility philosophy becomes a means to feel important by convincing others you know what you are talking about. All this does is prevent philosophy from providing the good it is capable of.

Age
Posts: 1708
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Self-awareness

Post by Age » Sun Jan 13, 2019 3:54 am

Judaka wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 1:33 am
Age

Yes, I think that it's self-evident that you'd want your arguments to be based on facts and not misinformed perspectives or coincidences. People who lack self-awareness also seem to lack that kind of grounding of knowing how much they don't know and realising what their goals should be in philosophy.

A nice segway into some examples is that a lot of people involved in politics today lack self-awareness. Many youthful and idealistic people try to make their purpose in life to correct the mistakes of the world as they see it. A self-aware person in their shoes would recognise that the issue is complicated and possibly easy answers are easy because they are neglectful of all the factors.

Philosophy surrounding depression/suicide is another great example, you can instantly tell when someone lacks self-awareness by talking about this topic. Since people try to universalise what is needed to overcome these problems without testing their theories or having any experience. I'm not saying the self-aware person knows how to deal with depression/suicide exactly but that they will know that they don't know what they don't know, they'll know that the issue is complex and multi-faceted and they'll either have no opinion or an opinion that takes into account what they know and that might or might not be sufficient for them to have an understanding or an answer.

There is no "philosophy" to take place here, philosophy is not appropriate here and it is uninteresting to the self-aware.
You have a very biased and closed in, narrow view of things that this is not even worth responding to.

However, you have implied that you have self-awareness and you have inferred that being self-aware then you can easily answer some questions, which you referred to. Now, either you are going to give examples of these questions and your ability to easily answer them, and thus show just how self-aware you actually are, or, you will not give any examples, and thus leave others wondering.

Attempting to digress away from providing examples is not helping you here.

Just saying things like you are here, which imply you have self-awareness, while others do not, does NOT show me any thing than the lacking of knowing who you really are. In fact, the more you write the less you are showing about how self-aware you really are.

The Truly Self-aware does not try to belittle others, like the way you are attempting to do here. The Truly Self-aware KNOWS why ALL people are at different stages of self-awareness, and encourages them to become more self-aware in a completely unobtrusive way.

The Truly Self-aware does NOT portray are sense of 'what I do' is because 'I have self-awareness', while when "others" are not doing 'what I do', then that is because they lack self-awareness. The Truly Self-aware does NOT have , nor portray, this type of arrogant attitude, like you are SHOWING here.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest