Philosophical question (1 Viewer)

Ivy

Senior Member
Jul 16, 2003
1,604
#2
eh??? :confused: why yopu ask such a question?

Oh well, here's my philisophycal answer....

The extistance of domination/superiority is nature, but the level to which it develops to, is nurture.

:p

urrmmm.... you see. No one wnats to feel inferior, all people like to feel impt and it makes you feel good when you have some control over things. This is human nature. Especially men (no offence to anyone) this is because in nature most male species, human and animals ( once again.... pls.... not meaning to ofend anyone) have to 'fight' over females and the better ofthe 2 wins and gets to carry on the family genes :blah: so the need to come out tops is there.

But some people are more power hungry/dominating than others is probably down to nurture. If you come from a family where 1/2 the members are big business men for eg or if you grow up in a highly competitive enviroment.... you'll probably end up as a more dominating character.
 

Majed

Senior Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,630
#4
++ [ originally posted by Sunshine ] ++
eh??? :confused: why yopu ask such a question?

Oh well, here's my philisophycal answer....

The extistance of domination/superiority is nature, but the level to which it develops to, is nurture.

:p
nice answer :)
 
OP
OP

Layce Erayce

Senior Member
Aug 11, 2002
9,116
#5
sunshine u make perfect sense but i meant specifically in regards to dominion over others. authority over others and leadership, being master, employer, boss or whatever...

i was thinking about how some people are logical while others are emotional (;) *ahem* fab). often logical people- people who rely a lot on decisions have a subconscious desire for more control not only over others but also over nature. this extends to a desire for respect and standing as well...

people who rely on emotions- aka artists and such are not as desiring of control. but im not concerned about the nature and characteristics of these two groups now...

to better explain my question- are people who desire control wired like that genetically in any way?
 

Ivy

Senior Member
Jul 16, 2003
1,604
#7
erm...well....

I think that yes there is probably some kind of genetic factor that will predetermine if a person has the capibility to be dominating in life, but the way a person is nurtured will also affect wether these factors are expressed or not.


Eg. Researchers have found some genes related to agression. People with such genes have higher chances of becoming killers in the future, but it will depend on how you are brought up. It doesn't mean that if you have this gene, you will definately comit a crime.....

If you people get freaked out by me.... i was a Biotech student so i studdied a bit of genetics, so that's why i'm such a :geek:
 
Jul 12, 2002
5,666
#10
++ [ originally posted by [LAC] ] ++
lol im not freaked u make sense. the aggression gene i have heard about...

but im back to square one now :D
Easy to answer, Lac. Everyone is born with the desire to dominate. Those who embrace it and act upon it are the victors. Those who resist it are the losers. Now, whether you accept or resist has more to do with nurture, but ultimately the thing is inherent.
 
OP
OP

Layce Erayce

Senior Member
Aug 11, 2002
9,116
#11
well who's the victor and whos the loser is debatable.

im saying that because although i love the thought of domination, I think it would be my duty to help others less fortunate than me(only to a point where they are still uncapable of biting my hand that feeds them of course :p).

and your idea makes me a loser :D

why is resisting dominance is losership? and why would u think its inherent?
 
Jul 12, 2002
5,666
#13
++ [ originally posted by [LAC] ] ++
well who's the victor and whos the loser is debatable.

im saying that because although i love the thought of domination, I think it would be my duty to help others less fortunate than me(only to a point where they are still uncapable of biting my hand that feeds them of course :p).

and your idea makes me a loser :D

why is resisting dominance is losership? and why would u think its inherent?
I don't think that I know you well enough to call you a loser, but from our conversations, I'd say that you are probably more ont he dominant side...

As for why resisting is losing, it's fairly self explanitory. I mean, those who embrace their want to dominate generally achieve that goal in some way. Of course there are notable exception where the indivual is so pathetic in all other ways that victory is impossible...

And it has to be inherent, otherwise, I would reject that dominator instinct. My father was a devout socialist who made enough money to provide sparsely for his family and donated the rest to charity, he passed up promotion at his job in order that his peers who wanted the better positions coulod achieve them, he refused his rather large inheritance. He was not a dominator and he attempted to embue his children with the same values. If that instinct wasn't at some level inherent, then I'd have ended up like him, and I sure didn't.
 
OP
OP

Layce Erayce

Senior Member
Aug 11, 2002
9,116
#15
++ [ originally posted by Rickenbacker2 ] ++


I don't think that I know you well enough to call you a loser, but from our conversations, I'd say that you are probably more ont he dominant side...

As for why resisting is losing, it's fairly self explanitory. I mean, those who embrace their want to dominate generally achieve that goal in some way. Of course there are notable exception where the indivual is so pathetic in all other ways that victory is impossible...

And it has to be inherent, otherwise, I would reject that dominator instinct. My father was a devout socialist who made enough money to provide sparsely for his family and donated the rest to charity, he passed up promotion at his job in order that his peers who wanted the better positions coulod achieve them, he refused his rather large inheritance. He was not a dominator and he attempted to embue his children with the same values. If that instinct wasn't at some level inherent, then I'd have ended up like him, and I sure didn't.
well i guess i want to reach the goals i have, certainly, and would be dominating enough to reach them but that would be dominance over fate and circumstance. i am referring to people who have a desire to dominate other people, directly or indirectly through circumstance, or via relationships, etc.

im rather meek in that sense (or would like to think of myself as :p)
 
Jul 12, 2002
5,666
#19
++ [ originally posted by [LAC] ] ++
well i guess i want to reach the goals i have, certainly, and would be dominating enough to reach them but that would be dominance over fate and circumstance. i am referring to people who have a desire to dominate other people, directly or indirectly through circumstance, or via relationships, etc.

im rather meek in that sense (or would like to think of myself as :p)
But, surely accomplishing your goals would mean that you'd have to beat other people. I mean, to get into a good university, that means that someone else didn't. And I'd find it hard to believe that your goal is to achieve the lowest position of any occupation so that no one is under you.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)