I mentioned this before, and I'm sure it's been touched on directly if not indirectly.. but something critical to consciousness is awareness of time (past, present, future).

You noticed a seed that has fallen onto the ground. You notice it begins to take root. You later notice another plant begins to grow where said seed has fallen.

Etc. Though, many animals exhibit this form of consciousness as well. An animal learns it can either get food by cracking open nuts, or that if you witness a fellow member of your species being killed or injured by something, if you don't react (fight or flight) it can happen to you, or some even say something along the lines of a squirrel storing nuts for the winter or a bear gathering up on fat for hibernation, though it is commonly argued the latter are more habitual/instinctual (genetic memory?) than conscious willpower. Who knows?

You need to be aware of a before state to be aware of a present state, and both are required to have any notion of a future state, which is where planning/decisions derive from, which is probably where invention and innovation comes from ie. you notice two objects that seem unrelated to each other say a fallen tree branch and a heavy object, than perhaps put two and two together, then you have a lever. But how deep is this really? Beavers build dams, birds can solve puzzles, and yes as mentioned squirrels know to store away nuts for the winter. Are these all forms of consciousness or merely habitual instincts or behaviors learned through generations? What is human consciousness, as in consciousness that is allocated/available solely to humans? A mere advanced form of this or something much greater we've yet to understand?

I think it means that no matter what other people can't feel what we are feeling or understand what we are going through, they can only look on. The same goes with us, we can never truly get into their heads or fully understand them. — Darkneos

As good of an interpretation as any. Though it is said at the end of the day we all experience or have experienced the same root emotions, desires, and fears, simply that as they relate to our individual circumstances, upbringing, preferences, and beliefs (what's warranted, what's tolerable, what's wise/the best course of action and what isn't) we each end up with a mindset and will (personal preference/opinion) that is as unique as our fingerprints.

Logic and psychoanalysis are very effectively in the right hands in not just understanding (or in the case of an investigation, creating a "psychological profile" of) an individual but offering them solutions or otherwise helping them solve or at least cope with problems using perspectives that they themselves may not have.

That or it's a reference to space aliens. Never leave out the possibility of space aliens.

Something this world is nearly devoid of, what people wouldn't know if it bit them in the arse.

Not raising a kid to follow your views or treating a woman with sincerity because you know it all comes back to what you want or need. These days it's little more than a feeling, typically primal and primordial in nature, chemicals and endorphins which together create a positive state of mind that alleviates a negative or darker state of mind or being. To those before us however, it was the only thing in this life that could give pleasure during pain and on occasion, pain during pleasure.

Certain philosophers, such as Kant and Plato, believed in transcendent ideas, beyond the material world. — Jack Cummins

There are a few distinctions people either don't acknowledge or consciously bear in mind when throwing around terms like absolute, reality, and the "material world". Our understanding of the material world has never been constant for long. A long time ago, all we saw were stars and heavenly bodies. It was not known with absolute certainty there was "a universe" beyond the ground upon which we walk. Before microscopes, it was unlikely the idea of anything smaller than a grain of sand existed. Numerous examples continue this theme.

I'm not intimately familiar with many philosophers beyond Socrates, and even what I am familiar with is just the stuff everybody knows. Transcendent ideas beyond the material world, that includes and encompasses the fact that we are in a constant state of ignorance as to its true nature evidenced by scientific innovation and discovery even at times in history where great progress was made and treated as such (first irrigation systems, early medicines, Industrial revolution, etc) would seem to be something a little metaphysical even spiritual. As in, even the (unproven) idea of ghosts and spirits are still.. physical as far as we would ever know or experience them. So it's hard to say. Where is the line between the material world and a transcendent reality beyond the material? Quantum mechanics and the idea of multiple universes? They are still physical and material... just not in a realm or plane we can access or experience. Right?

Placing cruelty first, the most evil of all evils, is incompatible with the faith of the zealot. — Banno

That. Or it means you were pretty darn sure you'd succeed... wouldn't want to be caught on the opposing end of that dynamic. However, seeing as history is written by the winners anyway, the most virtuous could be caught up in said dynamic regardless of their virtue or cruelty.. as some people like to attest.. "damned if you do, damned if you don't."

Besides, what is cruelty, really? Allowing a child to grow up in a broken home, more or less alone? Perhaps. Though, if said caregiver knew they wouldn't be around to raise them, an argument can be made that provided the child ended up growing up with "grit and gristle", able to fend for themselves before adulthood, and able to withstand the torrents of pain, despair, and loneliness without losing hope or at the very least purpose.. compared to babying someone who in this world truly has no such luxury and would find this out in due time... assuming both facts are known, what act would really have been the most cruel?

I had a dog once. Truly a great friend who got me through many a rough patch in my adolescence. As I got older, life got hectic, things got crazy. One day while I was busy working at home, I noticed he seemed to have been in the same spot for several hours. When I came up to him I noticed as he attempted to rise to greet me, his back legs buckled and could not support him. I was unsure as what to do. Veterinarian surgery was not an option at the time, and the consensus was it was probably time to put him to sleep. I had a gun, and could have asked the vet to do it humanely. Both possibilities anguished me. I waited for some time, purchasing a few items to allow him to walk around more or less the same. He survived for a decent amount of time after. But was he happy? It's a question I don't particularly care to ponder.

Exactly. It's not about if something is this or that, rather if there is something that is not rationally this or that. If there weren't so, scientific discovery beyond the caveman experience of snow = cold, fire = hot, pain = bad, pleasure = good, would have never been achieved.

Yes. The only reasonable solution is to create more doomsday devices capable of destroying not just entire regions but entire continents. Ergo, if every person is allowed to have one in their home, we end all war/conflict/hostility/negativity completely. It couldn't be more obvious.

Plants communicate with each other. In a lesser way, don't magnets do as well? Being being subjective of course, sure.

As both concepts are each on the opposite side of the same spectrum, when a civilization approaches the limit, they eventually should reach the other side — Gus Lamarch

How's that? If I activate a blast furnace used in old smithing, or take an old volcano, if it becomes hot enough it will eventually become freezing? Or if I place a frozen pizza into a subzero freezer it should eventually burst into flames?

If both are in the end, the samething, what if this ideas are nothing more than humanity's way of accepting the entropic end of existence by creating of the illusion of choice between the "perfect good" and "perfect evil"? — Gus Lamarch

What if indeed. Well, then they are. Lol. Nothing long and drawn out about it really. In more traditional terms, utopia vs. dystopia one means generally perfect with little complaint and the other means generally ineffective with much complaint. Though the idea of "too much of a good thing" comes to mind. We need a little rubbish and imperfection in our lives, a little strife, angst, anxiety, and struggle. A few hurdles too. After all, without, where would passion come from? All of which is easily and readily available by just reading the news, history, looking around beyond our circle of trustworthy, civilized people every now and then.. which of course can be balanced by the incredible progress made in modern society vs. that of times long past, the dark ages, primitive times, etc. It's a balance, perfect in a way. Yet imperfect in others. Oddly enough, some say these are the best times with the least amount of global suffering ever achieved. Though of course, the same could be said, factually too, of any time in history. :grin:

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...?

The husband has obviously done immoral and unvirtuous things and he is responsible for those indeed, but is he morally responsible for her suicide? — Matei

I like this question. It's interesting. Approached in a non-biased manner.

The husband in question sounds to be a person lacking any and all notions of self-control ie. a child. However, the women sounds to have roped herself into a lifelong commitment with something, a man in this case, without truly "testing the waters" and seeing what kind of person he is, essentially, as you said "loved him" ie. deciding the entire fate of one's life based on petty emotion (ie. tingles in the pants, masquerading as love from the heart)... ie. also a child. Yet, who failed to raise her as a woman with dignity and discernment? Another child. Though we don't know her circumstances nor those of her father. Maybe life was hectic and there was due cause, reason, and purpose proper upbringing and related discernment was absent. We don't know!

Long story short, nothing the Global Church State cannot and will not fix. Coming soon by the way.

Logic 101 seems to be as good a place to start as any. If A = B and C = B then B = A = C.

I'd imagine the role of both would be quite traditional and of the respective namesake of each. The teacher is there to teach logic, ensuring students avoid common logical fallacies, and the students are there to learn.

Coding is a good medium as it simultaneously requires and teaches analytic logic.

Nick Bostrom's simulation hypothesis raises the serious prospect that what we perceive to be reality could, essentially, be running on someone's laptop. — Zaneemia

Who in the actual f- ... anyway. As was stated by thousands of philosophers across thousands of years before in theories each more unique than the last, not to mention countless religions that essentially state the same thing, there is more to this reality than the life and death we experience. I guess, obviously since we are aware of computers now they could and would naturally be part of the whole thing. Sure.

Assuming the beings simulating us would have evolved through natural selection (if they're not simulated themselves), it seems likely that they have similar tendencies to us - including vindictiveness & rare sadism. — Zaneemia

I.. uh.., sure. Why not assume they wear blue hats and red shoes while we're at it. It's just random. Also, "like us" is a major quantifier. We (as in modern humans) = barely got off the ground hardly a century ago after fighting with each other who happen to look a little different or speak differently. They (beings that create technology so advanced there is no difference from it and reality = Not the same. Not at all. Not by a long shot. Not even by a million years. Literally. So. Pretending this wouldn't be invalidated completely... yeah let's just continue.

Regardless, it still seems like a nasty possibility & I'm wondering if people have thoughts on this topic? — Zaneemia

Nothing nastier than how it was and would be otherwise. No thoughts. Other than, why not smile for the camera and, as all religions essentially encompass: "don't be a ****.

While we're on the topic of truth and lies, who are you Benji? :lol:

You always ask these drive-by questions of, on occasion philosophical depth, yet I nary a time recall you participating in an in-depth discussion. Not to say I have often either, I leave my little input and continue on. Just curious. I'm sure others reading have a latent curiosity as well.

But in the meantime... I'll present the obvious albeit clearly arguable answers.

So did James make a bigger lie? — Benj96

Depending on what one defines as bigger and what defines as a lie ... it's a toss-up. A lie is a lie. An inch over the line is not the same as a mile over the line, or is it? Is, in a social setting of abnormals in an abnormal fallen society (sorry, "modern day life" as the majority like to call it), considering you are told and raised to tell what are lies by pure definition, is doing so actually a form of truth? To many it is. The poor fools. Meanwhile, who could say.

Is it altruistic to want to give other people life experiences that we have had, and in what way is the altruism affected by the knowledge that no matter what we do all experiences may ultimately be unique? — TiredThinker

Perhaps so, but not nearly as altruistic is wanting to give other people life experiences that one has never had. Provided they're positive, of course.

If you have to ask, whatever it is that you were planning on doing.

Is it always wrong to interfere with autonomy or can it be right under certain conditions? — Tom1352

I can think of a few scenarios. Essentially, when pursuit of prolonging or perhaps even expanding one's autonomy presents great risk toward one's anatomy! Of course, few who like to play king, queen, mommy, or daddy often care much beyond ensuring there are no new kids on the block. Not that they care about their survival really, simply put, "better the devil you know."

he was suspected of being Jake — fdrake

I guess you need context for this not to make you laugh out loud. :lol:

I mean, to be fair there's not many views to hold and styles to express them.. but if you know you know I guess.

Wittgenstein beat his students — Brett

Lol. Hey teachers used do that allover. Meet "Ol' Spanky" the paddle. You either teach them actions have consequences in a controlled, safe manner or life will take over that role for you, and it can often be fatal.

Nietzsche despised sick people ... Mill condoned colonialism — Brett

I'm not saying either of these things are good. Just, are you willing to coddle up with a plague victim or give your house back to whoever lived there before and live on the street? No? One quickly loses the ability to chastise and weight of argument toward what inclinations or rather beliefs behind inclinations one himself would have done. Sure, it's now passive vs. active (ie. plague is virtually non-existent/we have vaccines and as far as nations and borders, someone already did all the hard work for you). Still, just like one who uses medical research from Josef Mengele should not criticize him... Well, more broadly speaking in regards to these flawed philosophers you mention, you learn to separate the art from the artist.

Which makes me wonder if it’s possible that philosophy has nothing to do with life or how ones mind operates. Like I said, it’s as if philosophy is attached to the mind inorganically, that it’s completely alien to what we are. — Brett

It can be a tool to unleash new methods and avenues of discovery, not just in debates, concepts, and other non-physical ideas but even science and innovation. There are quite a few parallels between how thoughts and ideas form and interact with one another and the physical world in which we dwell.

Is philosophy good for us? — Brett

I like to think so.

In the early stages of society, there was likely much more physically demanding and exhausting labor in a man's day than today, which is often just driving in a modern air-conditioned vehicle to an air-conditioned office and sitting, typing on a computer for 8 hours or so, then driving back home. That's why we have gyms. Early to bed, early to rise, makes a man healthy, wealthy, and wise. That or try some melatonin. Or giving your wife equal treatment every now and again, It'll work out.

It's pretty simple. Like in coding. You have a standard variable that has a static value that can be changed. When you call this variable you get the value. The variable has always been equal to the assigned value, until changed. Seeing as you left the fortuneteller or the fortuneteller in question has yet to "consult" .. whatever it is they do, neither persons have information of the updated value of the original variable.


Therefore, you will now have...


Not so complicated really. Not how it usually works of course.. but not impossible.

"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
- Sherlock Holmes

So, what isn't the self or the present or whatever you wish to define? Why not? You could, in theory, use the answers of the prior two questions to begin to narrow down the answer to your root question.

If you set out do something with specific intentions, and fail to accomplish your goals, you are technically a failure. — Brian Gomes

A bit one dimensional. It makes you nothing other than you were before said endeavor, with the exception it can be said you indeed "failed" in the scope of that one specific endeavor. If I experience an injury it doesn't make me "an injury", now does it? Granted, some words used today are useful for grounding a person in the spirit of improvement and betterment of one's self as well as encouraging them to gain more knowledge and better understanding of said failed endeavor before attempting it again. We've all lost or otherwise failed in something or another. We've also all won or otherwise succeeded in other things. Why should one or even many failures or successes be internalized as a defining characteristic of one's true self? What if I lose a game of chess, yet win two. Or even lose five and win five. Is it a matter of numbers of occurrences or simply the most recent outcome you believe, technically, defines a person.

Besides, there are instances of non-completed endeavors (with the exception of time-sensitive, numerically measurable goals ie. losing 20 pounds before Christmas or being able to add 50 pounds to one's weightlifting max before the end of Summer) that are far from failure. For example, perhaps I inspired others who will accomplish said goals in a way better than I could or would be comfortable risking at the time. Perhaps I discovered said goals were not as useful in the long term as was first believed or that they were even detrimental.

Perhaps, the only true failure in life is failing to learn from one's failures. And perhaps the only true success in life is learning to take one's inevitable losses gracefully when they do occur, and one's successes with a sense of gratitude absent of all pride. Not everybody can do it, you know. For does all success in this life not come with a poisoned chalice of complacency, dooming all would partake from it to an even greater and insidious failure? One that disguises and manifests itself as the opposite? Perhaps these are just mere words of encouragement for all who may benefit from them- the afflicted, the downtrodden, those without hope. Perhaps not. Who's to say.

To put it briefly or vaguely, many concepts you can't have one without the other. They sometimes do more than simply complement or contrast each other, rather are essential for each other. These terms and concepts, specifically what they truly are or mean have been debated since the dawn of man. Both in the courts and on the battlefield.

Liberty to do what? To live as I please? To take either directly or indirectly that of another for my own jollies? Liberty to be authority or authority to have liberty? Etc.

Hierarchy based on merit? Or natural hierarchy (ie. I'm bigger/there's more of me than you so tough nuts. Unless you invent something that can level the playing field)

Status quo? Depends. Where am I at on it. :lol:

Etc, etc...

I’m more interested in what you hoped to accomplish by posting this rather than whether or not it’s true. — khaled

Nothing slingshots an offbeat cause quite like a good martyr. "He died for this ... so we.. we must live for this!" *hoorahs of the crowd*

Nothing turns common folk against the king like seeing one of their own put to death.

Do you think that Trump is the reincarnation of Christ? — Maw

Personally, no. Though I don't see why it would be impossible. The same for the random guy who delivers your mail or perhaps waits your tables. According to scripture, Jesus was not aware who he was until he was in his 30s or so, when he was in the temple and stated "the prophecy is fulfilled". He was purportedly, obviously from the most widely known detail being born in a manger, born into a family of neither wealth nor nobility. One could argue, being born as a billionaire mogul would in theory only stifle such a realization, being a man as well subject to temptation, fear, anger, lust, etc.

Nothing, as it is generally used, often has a context in which it can be contrasted to and therefore defined. Ex: I spent all my life's savings on cheap beer and and even cheaper women, and now I have nothing! Or, I got drunk and forgot to renew my insurance policy and also left the oven on, my house was destroyed and I now have nothing! Etc.

Nothing could exist in theory. Perhaps in a vacuum devoid of all gases. Though, if you insist darkness being the absent of light is in fact something, perhaps nothing is unobtainable. How encouraging. :)

Many probably view it as more of a thought experiment or mental exercise in logic than a statement of absolute fact. How do I know my keyboard is here in front of me? Because I can see it, touch it, and interact with it. Though I could do the same with the mansions I live in while I dream. But do they exist? I sure like to think so. :)

Political opinion may be subjective but logic- specifically demonstrable real-world examples and statistics or factual data- are not. Care to list a few examples?

A man who desires to do evil and does good is not a good man. Just a failure. — Brian Gomes

Where caution should be heeded is acknowledging the circumstance or trials in which the failure occurred. Not everyone goes through the exact same things under the exact same circumstances.

And this is a reply. What are we attempting to convey here?

It is best illustrated by the events that unfolded earlier today in the U.S. Capitol. One person, unfortunately, was killed. I would compare these to hypothetical (some not) numbers of fatalities that would arise if others in another country decided to encroach their government buildings, numbers amounting to human lives lost that will never be heard of.

In most modern societies, you have a right to insult and make just short of literal death threats toward elected leaders. You can oppose the government openly, vehemently, and on occasion, successfully. Your ancestors, whether you know or accept it or not, were more than likely highly dependent and faithful toward religion, or their idea of a god or supreme being. They considered all their successes, gains, etc. as solely from said entity. So much so they allowed "the reigns to be loosened" so that us modern folk can live as we more or less please, provided basic decencies or at least egregious crimes
are recognized as they are.

Perhaps they were wrong, god did not exist and all successes and contingent rewards or gains were and are based solely on human endeavor, be it moral or otherwise. Perhaps not. You seem to have made your choice. Let others make theirs.

One gets pregnant and one doesn't. Unless you're a seahorse, of course. Are you a seahorse?

Does that make me a good man thinking he is evil, or an evil man playing at being good? — Book273

Neither. It makes you a child. Nothing more, nothing less. Though the window of proper upbringing has come and gone, perhaps you could find solace in society ie. "socially acceptable actions" upon the realization the laws, systems, and orders in place are what allows you to have been raised as you were in the first place. You would not be you, as you are, alive, without the society that you claim to "choose to play nice" in. Show a little respect for what made you and continues to sustain you day after day, at the very least.

I have recently found a flaw in my own philosophical views, a bugging inconsistency. — Matei

Nothing to worry about too much, they'll be many more assuredly.

Good is largely defined as what should be.
And a good thing is a thing that helps said good exist, as it should. — Matei

Yeah but that's just subjective. If aliens happen to exist, perhaps numbering in the trillions, and discover our history, where we are and that we're trying to colonize the universe, we'd probably just get blown up to be honest. And they would this call this good. And logic would agree. But would we? Etc, etc.

"Religious" people are as diverse as the day is long, for starters. So let's consider that. However, the common element is that they usually believe there is a Creator God who wishes us to live and conduct ourselves in a certain way, or at least to avoid certain egregious things. Sometimes, again depending on doctrine, certain failures to do so result in either lack of reward or often punishment. So that's bad. It's not hard to understand.

Without going on too much about what is and what isn't, what's realistic and what's not, etc, I offer the following simple and understandable anecdotes. A long time ago, before science, medicine, technology, and any of that, when the first civilizations and societies first started taking root, observations and patterns that could not be explained where noticed. For example, if you were uncleanly or kept garbage and rotting organic matter around or otherwise did a poor job at sanitation, you most likely were more at risk of becoming sick or contracting an infection. How else could someone explain this at such a time? Perhaps, God wants us to be clean, tidy, and orderly, and avoid the deadly sin of Sloth, otherwise we would be punished, often severely, perhaps even fatally. It made sense, and dang it it worked and saved lives.

Now, these days with all the science and knowledge readily available, such knowledge that (I recall hearing this quote once and though it is memorable enough for me to deem it worthy and relevant of posting here and now, cannot seem to recall from where it was from..) "the average schoolboy is now familiar with facts that Archimedes would have gave his life for"... there seems to be less room for faith. Now, imagine, today in some third world country. A man is being attacked by a larger assailant and is about to be fatally killed in front of many shocked onlookers frozen and pacified by fear. He screams out to the Heavens, and the assailant is struck dead by an inexplicable bolt of lightning from the sky. What are the odds? Slim to none. Therefore, a miracle. Proof of God. Even the most educated, snobbish, and otherwise rational man couldn't help but ponder for at least a moment over the phenomenal chances such an event would occur. This is how legends are born. Granted, most self-determined affirmations of faith are far less remarkable than this. Often a simple predicament solved unexpectedly or slightly annoying situation turned in ones favor. However, faith is faith.

So, it depends on what one believes is the will of said higher power. I suppose more importantly, what is the punishment dealt when certain commandments are broken. It's an act and viewpoint of compassion more so than not. Save for those who just like to milk and cattle-prod the gullible. Of which there are many.

I'm sure there are many. Are you able to provide more information? Both general and specific. Details are useful, if you can be sure you recall them as they were.

It wouldn't be this biblical passage, would it? What about this?

When people are violent to humans they tend to be locked away for it. The cruelty towards animals tends to be because they literally have no voice, and the perpetrator almost always gets away with it.

The beatings and torture footage is from hidden cameras, planted by activists. As Philosophim says, this footage pressures businesses in a positive direction. — Down The Rabbit Hole

In a perfect world, you would not be an idealist but a realist. Not a perfectionist but a pragmatist. And though I admire much of your sentiment as can be inferred here, let us, if not for simple sake of pragmatic philosophical argument, think in other ways.

Say the entire world is but one village. The people have a modest amount to spend, more than enough for essentials, but not incredibly so. The law does what it can to ensure civility and a society without fear of rampant crime, but it is far from omniscient. Now. Say the price of essential foods increase by double. You have, to compare to modern standards, and perhaps these numbers are incorrect of course but perhaps they are correct:

It’s estimated that there are currently 27 million shoplifters in the U.S. today, which means 1 in 11 of us steal from stores and retailers.

At face value, these are not people who either have harmed or would harm anybody. A simple "appropriation" from someone much more successful, typically an unfathomably wealthy corporation who could take the loss. And, in fact, doing so alerts them of vulnerabilities in their systems, thus being a mutually beneficial action for all involved .. I suppose it could be argued. So. Let's say, by arbitrary example, an additional 1 in 11 out of those 1 in 11 are violent, who would kill or injure fellow citizens either in order to achieve said gains or prevent accountability (to escape and avoid jail time).

What do you think would happen to those numbers if the prices for essential goods doubled? Do you think they would increase by anything less than double?

Who knows. I doubt it's as directed, insidious, or "intelligent" as some may infer from your premise. Though, it is an interesting concept. Since we began to become "cleanly" or embrace "cleanliness", we unnaturally remove the germs and microbes that have been on our bodies for, allegedly, millions of years prior. Perhaps this assumption is but a conspiracy theory. Perhaps not. However, in the years leading up to the Black Death that wiped out half of Europe (1000-1200 A.D.) this did occur.

Bathing is [has become] essential to the Western European upper class. — Human history

Of course. Who knows.

Edit: I infer or imply the possibility of germs, viruses, or microbes building intrinsically natural immunity from unnatural and man-made stimuli, as documented here.

Can you articulate at all what is the distinction between inner and outer? — unenlightened

Perhaps the inner is what defines the purpose of an otherwise inherently purposeless outer. Purposeless with the exception of creating purpose for the inner. Or something cliched like that.

Inner life being self-worth, sense of personal identity, values, beliefs, motivation, drive, that sort of thing?

Outer life being how they all interact with the inner lives of others? Or like mentioned discovery and exploration.

Perhaps the inner is the sole commentator on the most important of the five Ws. The only one qualified enough to answer the "why", while the outer answers the remaining four.

Thoughts? Maybe?

The people each lose their own self-sufficiency as well as the capacity to help or benefit each other, undermining the interdependence which constituted the community itself and destroying the basis of friendship. — Garth

The obvious counter-argument would be, no not at all. Simply the 'specialist' or 'highly trained' becomes more successful in their ways and means to help said people, provided they choose to of course. Take "Diddy" as a recent example.

The act of being trained brings a person to stop appreciating simple efforts and to only view others as having skill if they are similarly trained. — Garth

Not always. The master conservationist no longer spends an extended period of time admiring a single rose, not because he lost appreciation for it, simply because he knows his time is better spent protecting the garden so that others in the future may enjoy the gaze at the lone rose that perhaps first inspired him. Nothing more. And nothing less.

When we run about, demanding excellence from one another constantly, we do nothing but destroy the possibility of genuine and authentic fun. — Garth

Others are content with what is, solely thanks to those who strove beyond what is in order to protect it. There is no wrong path, provided neither are foolishly chastised or become out of proportion. Which is what typically happens when individuals are allowed to fall into complacency.