|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jun 10, 2020 20:41:57 GMT
It is important that people have shared the same habits. In this case, mutual understanding is provided by a more reliable mechanism. Of course, such behavior should be called much more reasonable and rational than the assimilation of different habits.
It happens often that people who got used to the same habits at the same time feel sympathy to each other in some way. The type of this sympathy is specific, and it doesn't mean the ones won't be angry or raged against each other.
However, in this case, people may form hostility towards those who do not have such habits.
The conclusion that the lack of common habits makes people more vulnerable to their “enemies” seems quite plausible. Accordingly, “enemies” are those who do not share common habits with the vulnerable people.
The habits might be different. It's usually some methods of finding something, or criticizing someones. It probably can be anything that help us to do lotta plain daily things. Even phrases or phonetic pronunciation of them play not the minor role here.
Getting used to the habits helps to those people quickly group and coordinate their actions.
It also happens that if a one's been disappeared for a time, his reunion won't be plain and easy.
In summary, the process of "alienating" a person is gained with natural mechanisms of getting shared habits.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 27, 2020 16:25:36 GMT
Do you mean social habits or habits in general? Thank you for responding. I'd better think about personal ones. Social ones, as for me, are resulted by personal ones. Perhaps I'm wrong. I don't get along with the topic. What do you think about this? Is it really good that people living together (sharing one room, meeting same arrangements, visiting same places, etc) have similar or kinda similar habits? (As "really good" I understand – having as less as possible amounts of conflicts, and having as much as possible free time.)
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 27, 2020 17:57:54 GMT
Thank you for responding. I'd better think about personal ones. Social ones, as for me, are resulted by personal ones. Perhaps I'm wrong. I don't get along with the topic. What do you think about this? Is it really good that people living together (sharing one room, meeting same arrangements, visiting same places, etc) have similar or kinda similar habits? (As "really good" I understand – having as less as possible amounts of conflicts, and having as much as possible free time.) Better. Well, what is a person habit? For me is a habit contracted in some activity that not includes socialization. And a social one is what includes the social behavior. I think there is a diference in habit and behavior. We can behave without a habit? Don't think so but there is a diference. If the person habit includes the social habit, I think that is really true. But if there is a diference of moments, another element we can include. The priority of person habit includes the social habit. But I think we lose some precious thinking in including a element of priority. But if we include relative priority, we can achieve a very good reasoning. Yeah, that's it. Habitless behaviour doesn't seem to be real. What is that relative priority? Intuitively I think it's some kind of a casual or uncertain accent on one point instead of another one (like choosing a burning match as a cause of the blow instead of a poured oil), but I'm not sure. Also, I guess it's kinda way of thinking that there are either properties, or relations. (Unfortunately I forgot the exact term; the discussion about that took place in Russell's writings in early 1900's. – His critics of idealism and monism as well.) We can say then that personal properties are properties which appear through (in) relationships (i.e. we can observe them or they might be displayed), so the social elements in them is its correlation, while the personal ones is its attributive moment (or kinda). – These show what you've said – we needn't any analytic or theoretical discussion for the purposes of investigation.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 27, 2020 18:22:21 GMT
The background of reasoning have same importance of reasoning itself. I believe that intention is the very essence of a good reasoning, because it claims other things, extemporaneous things and place in the foreground of thought, of no small importance. It surpass habituality and express the very ground of the conditions of existence. But about common habits, I really believe that bonds grounds in habits, and security of a friendship, in habitual sympathies. I totally agree with you. Plenty of regards. (Btw, if you want to notify your comment you can use a "quote" button, or to write down a participant's nickname with "@" ahead. Sometimes it's not obvious whether or not the new comment appear.)
|
|