Social Delusions Part 2

Social Hierarchy

     Perhaps one of the biggest delusion formed starts at a very early age. In fact, it actually can be observed more clearly at an early age – schooling age that is. Social hierarchy can be spotted in just about any school where students trample over each other to get to the cool kids hangout. It is probable that this is a simple resurfacing of people's innate primitive inclination to group into hunting parties or colonies but only it is more perverted than it already is. Hunting packs of the popular start thinking like real animal hunters – everything they can do is allowed and anything they can get their paws on is prey. Some even start behaving like real animals – despising those who fail to meet their standards like the idiots, the nerds, the nonathletic, the unfashionable to the ugly, the too pretty to be to be intimidating among others. Nevertheless when these cool kids fail to meet their own standards, it's all about artificial delusions. Failure is a part of growing up, a large component of adolescence, they say. But then others who fail to meet their standards, can make use of that same excuse – that failure is alright. Things like growing up and changing begin to arise. Change then becomes ideal for those aspiring to be recognized. An ideal is characteristic of being an embodiment of conformed standards and is then taken as a model for imitation. In this context, change is therefore indirectly coerced into an individual by the hierarchs. But one can reach the hierarchs' standards and still not be accepted. An ideal of change gives an individual hope but the ideal of hierarchy prevents him or her from being accepted. When a peasant changes and becomes as rich and influential as royalty, royalty will still not accept him but instead rivals and outdoes him. They will not accept to treat a peasant as an equal even when they already stand on equal footing. Though seemingly illogical, that is the existing case. It's all about double standards. Glory preservation maintains the popular be popular and the nots be not. Only when an individual outdoes the hierarchs will he be recognized by them but only to pull him back down again to their level. This whole scheme develops socially competitive individuals from the cool kids club and people not even competent enough to stand and talk up from the remaining unaccepted population.  

Social Delusions Part 1

Life is full of artificial delusions.

     People create their surroundings with other people who decieve themselves, all the same, with the same convictions to reaffirm theirselves. They twist and turn debatable subjects all to their liking. That would be the reason behind the evolution of trend over time. They think up of stuff that misdirect attention or even conceal their flaws and faults such as lessons about standing up after falling. 

     A once-somewhat-trending post that can be found online reads “If you've never failed, you've never tried anything new” preceded by a small list of famous people and their failures. It would look like something ideally inspirational. But an ideal is still an ideal. In reality, relating this message on an Always-Sometimes-Never basis, it would actually be on the Sometimes note as one can try something new and not fail in it, and as one can be experienced in something and still make mistakes regarding the field. Even more extensively, on a two-sided True-False basis, it would fall on the False side as it wouldn't be always true. (Remember that when using the True-False reference, aside from the basics – that is something that is always true is True and something that is always false is False, there is the logic that holds that when something isn't always true it is False but when something isn't always false it can be either True or False depending on the absolute frequency of it being true and false.) Since a delusion is characteristic of being believed in despite of viable evidence to its contrary and that it is, as in medicine and neurological pathology, incomplete or false, then the post would be passed as a delusion in this context. It is not completely true however, that delusions cause negative results and false hopes, therefore it is False that this specific delusion, and even together with the numerous others of its kind, is lacking in positive qualities and sufficient in negative qualities. In the other classification, these artificial delusions are sometimes positive-resulting and sometimes negative-resulting and actually more often than sometimes both, which would then in turn classify these artificial delusions in the Sometimes note.

The haves must give, with benevolent hearts, to the have-nots.

Extending a helping hand to those in need.

     And why is volunteering logical? The instinct of self-preservation would maintain that what is one's is one's and sharing is unnecessary as in nature, unless in hunting packs or colonies, an individual must learn to hunt for himself. People call this a factor of the "survival of the fittest." With this, it is highly defensible to not share one's resources with another as in the nature of competition. Once sharing occurs, even in the broadest sense the beneficiary depends on the benefactor. If the benefactor gains nothing helpful from the other, then the relationship would already be considered parasitic in nature. A parasite wouldn't be good for an individual at all.

     So why share with and help others? It is because of the laws of evolution. Remember that individual organisms do not evolve. Populations do. Unless individuals can completely separate themselves from the rest of humanity, we humans should then help one another so that we may finally evolve together, as an entire population. Is it possible for an individual to completely separate himself from the rest of his original population? Never in this eternity. He would need a mate to have sex with, a family to provide for him, and more necessities that he couldn't possibly provide on his own. Since we are then given that complete separation from the rest of the population is reasonably illogical and impossible, and only populations evolve and not individuals, the question left is the necessity to evolve. Do we need to evolve? Evolution occurs in a progressive manner wherein through evolution, the more adept would have better chances than its more primitive counterparts. In this context, to have even better chances is to evolve, and since we want better chances for ourselves we are left with the choice to be ready to evolve. Of course, evolution in this reference wouldn't mean morphological and physiological, but more of social and psychological. 

"The haves must give, with benevolent hearts, to the have-nots. People call this 'volunteering'. Extending a helping hand to those in need..." - Yukinoshita Yukino

Please leave comments for any of your reactions. Share if you found this interesting.

First Post

What the Blog is About

     The blog intends to correct inconclusive and contentious ideals and impart rational and sensible ones that people are sorely in need of. By using philosophical arguments and statistics and appropriate logical opinions, we would like to share the experiences and their respective lessons that would be informative and instructive to the readers.

     An open influx of data and its interpretation are to be expected in every post throughout the blog. Social ideals, mostly with debatable cogency and reliability, are to be the most deliberated discussions. Issues regarding political, economic and other communal systems will be analyzed as well. 

     In every part, please remember that some opinions may be subjective and are only logical in the viewpoints of us bloggers. Furthermore, we are encouraging everyone to take part in every discussion to provide a more unbiased and diverse treatment of the topics. Please share and leave your comments and questions always. Logged in users as well as anonymous users are free to do so, so please do. =)