Member Questionnaire (EmergentPhilosopher)

Beauty is a quality such that I wish to spend more time with someone exhibiting that quality. This is often an intellectual beauty in how I and another stimulate each other's intellect (though I won't pretend I am above some sense of phsycial aesthetic too, however this is more vareid, and cerebral beauty' is a predicate for me to consider physical aestheics as valid).

Love (in a romantic context) is somewhere between an involuntary feeling of attachment and a conscious desire for and state of having a state of mutual intimacy with another. In a less romantic context is valuing a sense of closeness to another and considering their desires on a similair level to your own.

Largely, our concept of 'love' as a feeling, which has come from poets and playwriters, isn't much more than an electro-chemical state in the brain compelling us to pair-bond and mate; this isn't very romantic, hence the value of consciously valuing another's company as well as any involuntary reflexes (only the conscious obsession would be tantamount to limerence)

The idea that the best option is rarely (but on occasion) an extreme one, that the best decisions are reached through reasoned and articulate discussion.

Intellectualism, balance, the free discussion of ideas and Socratic 'truth', consistency in internal logic and a valid description of an external reality (i.e. empirical data) and (to a lesser extent) the capacity to articulate these things to allow for discussion with one's self and with others

Agnostic with no affiliation to any religious group. Had two separate religious experiences that I consider as likely to be genuine as I consider them not to be. I'm open to the idea of a deity, though don't expect there to be one, or actively believe there not to be one. I consider most religions to be factually incorrect projections of human nature and our desires, but also functionally useful for individuals who lack the capacity to guide themselves through life (let alone an existential crisis).

tl;dr - agnostic (not religious nor atheist).

War is an extension of conflict, conflict is a state of two parties having two (at least seemingly) mutually exclusive set desired outcomes. As long as there are reasons to wage war and more than one person to wage it, war is an inevitablility. It can be minimised through the threat of any victory being Phyrric, though likely never elminated entirely. Thus, militaries will always be formed either de facto or de jure to ensure the safety of and to secure the interests of groups, be those groups involuntary such as nations or (more) voluntary such as a collection of people of a shared ideology.

Power, at its most simple description, is the ability to get what you want, or to make the world as you would like it to be. This encompasses control over the natural world (through tools, technology and other similair things), over other people (through the threat of force, mutually beneficial agreements or through friendship) and over one's self (the capacity to motivate onesself to achieve their own goals).

Politics, philosophy, history, all natural (pure) sciences and combinations between traditional boundaries of sciences, the immediate and ultimate fate of humanity, the nature of the human condition, forms of narrative in fiction, andthe practicalities and planning of achieving goals or creating some of the things discussed in previously mentioned topics. These things appeal to me on an intellectual level and provide me with a sense of stimulation that celebrity gossip does not. My interests involve mostly abstract systems, sometimes applied to a funtional or practical reality and sometimes for intellectual stimulation.

Health and medicine are very interesting topics, both as they are now, their history and their future. While I have dieted in the past and have worked out, it is often difficult for me to motivate myself on matters of my body, even if I have managed to on occasion in the past and even if I theoretically know I should put more effort into it. The science and philosophy of medicine and of health are all very interesting, and the practicalities of both are also important, even if I don't apply myself to it anywhere near as much. I would like to improve my bodily condition, though will probably end up doing so using a scientific method (any dieting I have done has been based on data from empirical research, to decent effect, though after a few months I lost the motivation and/or organisation to continue the process).

tl;dr - I consider them important, and do believe I should put more effort into improving and maintaining both, though do not actually do so at the moment.

Tedious and largely futile (because the place eventually becomes messy again), but ultimately necessary and somewhat rewarding when completed. When my space is messy I often don't mind as I inhabit a mental (either an imagined landscape or just reading lots of factual information) or fictional (a book or game, usually) space instead. However, after having made a place tidy again it does feel refreshing to finish the chores and to have a pleasant environment to be in. Most of the time my space does not affect me, but if it is too extremely messy I find it difficult to arrange my thoughts and if it is too spartan or sterile I find it difficult to develop thoughts to organise.

tl;dr - I don't usually do them every day or enjoy them while doing them, but can be satisfied at the end result (though be disappointed that it'll be messy again) [This may just be me coming out of my teenage years].

Books include:

'Snow Crash' by Neal Stephenson; 'The Count of Monte Cristo' by Alexander Dumas; 'Notes from the Underground' by Fyodor Dostoyevsky; 'The Catcher in the Rye' by J.D. Salinger; 'Wuthering Heights' by Emily Bronte; 'On Liberty' by John Stuart Mill; 'The Social Contract' by Jean Jacques Rousseau; 'Leviathan' by Thomas Hobbes and both 'The Prince' and 'Discourses on Livy' by Niccolo Machiavelli (though I prefer the latter – Machiavelli has gotten a poor reputation because of ‘The Prince’, which largely doesn’t even reflect his principles and ideals!)

Films include:

'The Dark Knight' (only the second film of the trilogy, with Heath Ledger as the Joker); 'Red Dragon' and 'The Silence of the Lambs' (with Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lecter)

Emotional turmoil such as bereavement and break ups have lead to tears, not much else. When I smile it is often in relief, or at the resolution of a thorough discussion when a conclusion or consensus is reached and we flow into another topic. Enjoying the company and stories of friends can also put a smile on my face too.

I often don't feel much association or belonging to an environment. I sometimes find it difficult to work in spaces that are very cluttered, though this is rarely an issue. I suppose I am more at home physically in places I am more used to, and feel more of a sense of belonging or comfortability depending on my company – if they value discussion, debate and similar things I would be more comfortable.

tl;dr - I don't consciously consider it very much. I’m more at ease in a social setting with people similar to myself.

I find it difficult to get on with life and just be happy with how things are.

I often spend too long thinking about something without actually doing anything.

I find it hard to motivate myself.

I rarely find people I can easily relate to, and often have difficulty relating to others on a personal level.

I’m usually not assertive enough in how I act, and thus sometimes end up being too harsh when I do assert myself in a social context.

I can sometimes be inconsistent with how I behave in similar situations, or in how I feel about certain topics, on account of my thoughts going too quickly for my descriptions of those thoughts to keep pace.

My capacity for reasoning and logic, and articulating that logic.

A balance between creating ideas and brainstorming, and breaking down ideas to form a single cohesive system of reasoning.

I develop very rich, coherent mental landscapes and can sometimes write them down and describe them to others in great detail.

In certain contexts I can defuse conflict rather well, given that I know the parties involved.

I use large bodies of factual information to inform my opinions, and am willing to change how I think when I am provided with new, more valid data that is contrary or somewhat at an angle to my previous way of thinking on a subject.

An ability to both embellish and depict a tale, and to cut down information to its most concise form to communicate.

I'm good at using parable and analogy to describe things to others in a way they will understand.

Motivating myself and being involved in the physical world and my body; in enjoying life and the present moment.

Yes, usually as a response to a sense of inadequacy about my motivation to tackle a problem (usually I can find a solution, but either can't implement given my position, or can't motivate myself to implement it, which leads to internal conflict).

I dislike individuals who are overly close minded and who don't try to detach from prejudices and preconceptions during discussion of new topics. I enjoy the company of people who stimulate me, be it with humour and their stories and exploits or through talk of philosophy and history and their dissertations (though usually the latter). I like being with others who both offer their own insight and knowledge, which I appreciate, and listen to and appreciate my own.

I enjoy sex and romance, but neither casually. It can be a nice feeling to hold someone close at night and to be wholly comfortable with an emotional closeness to each other, without being dependent on each other to function.

The act of romancing someone seems strenuous relative to what I'd want in a relationship - I'd hope it would developed organically. I need time to myself in solitude, to avoid melding with the other person entirely, though this doesn't mean I don't enjoy their company alone together also.

While being with a single individual is probably ideal, I question the ability for a single person to appeal to or satisfy all of my nuances, and if they did they might be so similar to me that if we were both in a poor state we'd end up making each other's lives very unpleasant (compounded/resonant neuroses). All in all, I need to experience more relationships in order to better understand what I'd appreciate in another within a relationship (read: I need more relevant experience to make a valid judgement).

The qualities I would appreciate in a partner would include holding similar values and principles to my own, though with their own nuances - appreciating the abstract and being able to both stimulate my thoughts (and be stimulated my own in turn).

Stimulating me to action in the physical world would be appreciated, but only if it didn't conflict with a core similarity in how we think, and without coming across as controlling (I value a sense of autonomy too much for that). Being able to be comfortable with each other's presence both next to each other with our books or laptops and also to be able to enjoy as much physical intimacy as we feel like, both sexual and otherwise (i.e. an enjoyment of sex and cuddling, but not an obsession with either).

I place a lot of value in loyalty, both in my partner’s to me and my own to my partner.

Making sure they develop into well developed and talented individuals, being the best they can be in terms of their abilities and faculties.

I would hope to help them balance extending and accepting their limitations, and having to accept hardship to achieve success and satisfaction, without developing a dependence on external stimuli to have a good life (so much as a fufilled one, perhaps).

I would hope to balance firmness with fairness, hardship/adversity and nurturing to allow them to grow - by having control and principles when developing when they are younger, I would be more confident being liberal in their teenage years (hoping they would have developed a degree of self control, and would no longer need my input to guide them as much), and allowing them to 'do their own thing'. If they needed help I would hope they would try to accomplish a task on their own, but if not I would teach them when and how to ask for help, and if they were too shy to do so I would offer to do so in as conducive a way as possible.

tl;dr - concerns include their self-control, satisfaction with life, ability and drive to apply their 'innate' talents and developed skills (as well as a drive to continue growing and developing over their lifetime); the measure's I would take would involve nurturing and challenging them, and providing control (but not too much) as they grow up to allow self-control to develop, allowing a more liberal approach when they enter their teens (I would continue reading up on developmental and educational psychology to develop the best parenting system I could, most likely). As for why... because I consider that the best way to develop the best level of human flourishing, which is what I would want for my child in order for them to live a full and fulfilled life.

Outwardly I would discuss with them their reasoning that led to their claim, and see how it compares to my own, and from there I would either offer a compromise, reform my opinion or reject theirs as invalid based on whether or not it is internally coherent and/or accurately describes our shared, objective reality (i.e. uses factual data). We would either resolve the difference some way or (more rarely) agree to disagree.

In the process I may come across as confrontational, though in fact I am instead aiming for a resolution between the difference in ideas (usually with less care for feelings). Inwardly, the reaction would be largely the same - trying to understand their pattern of thought that led them to a different conclusion than my own. However if they were not conducive to a discussion or resolution and did not 'agree to disagree' for the sake of enjoying each other's company I may begin to revaluate them as a friend; if it happened repeatedly I would question why I was friends with them in the first place, and possibly find they are of some other utility to me (e.g. a good motivator in matters of physical action). I wouldn't rush to shunning them from social contact, though may, over time, passively end up spending less time with them due to a difference in core values and how we think.

I don't feel much of an attachment to 'society' as a whole. If it were more in line with my principles, and a voluntary collection of like-minded individuals as opposed to a conglomeration of people by tacit agreement I would likely associate with it more and consider it a more productive resource. I see people as a whole as collections of individual trends in behaviour - I avoid considering people in terms of groups or collectives whenever possible, as there are many outliers and variables within each individual despite overall trends.

To me, a prevalent social issue is the lack of intellectual rigour in policy making and social movements (eg. flawed statistics or poor interpretation of data, and poor internal logic and reasoning along the process) and a related lack of imagination and the limited debate in many 'Western Liberal Democracies' and the combination of anti-intellectualism, small-mindedness and determination of groups opposed to the free discussion of ideas (both internal to those democracies and outside of them), which is possibly correlated to the growing collectivism and partisan attitudes across the political spectrum (not to say that pure individualism and associated consumerism isn’t a potential problem also).

I usually choose my friends based on my capacity to relate to them and discuss topics of value with them, along with a consideration of shared interests (though I also consider their social utility too - they may have vast repositories of knowledge or be good at getting me to do things, in which case I will get on with them as best I can and offer them whatever I can to maintain a 'friendship' of sorts). With some friends I will enjoy a few glasses of wine and a game of cards against humanity, with others we may sit around a table for hours debating philosophy or discussing future applications of an emerging technology, and with others we may develop a plan based around some emerging technology. While I usually spend my time alone, I can enjoy the company of people who agree with me because of good reasoning and data, disagree with me because of reasoning and information I haven't been exposed too (and thus offer me new insights into a topic) and who may come to agree with me on account of my information and insight.

At the same time I can (on occasion) simply enjoy the company of friends in a good mood with some stories being shared as well.

If I doubt I will come across the strangers in question again I won’t care about how I conduct myself within reason; if I’m likely to see the strangers again I will likely be withdrawn at first, and if no-one initiates a discussion I may occasionally do so myself.