Monday, September 1, 2008

Different Standards for Different People

It seems that a spicy lifestyler would ideally surround him or herself with other spicy lifestylers. Obviously, this is not always possible, and indeed, many non spicy-lifestylers are certainly worth getting to know, like many attractive women, for example. Certainly it is reasonable to maintain cordial and friendly relationships with religious people and liberals and other non spicy-lifestylers but how reasonable is it to have a long term, perhaps even romantic, relationship with someone who is so different?

Most of the women I have encountered are religious, liberal in some way, and have other inconsistent beliefs and value systems. They want expensive clothes to impress their friends, and likely want to have a big car and house shortly after getting married. It is hard for me to decide if I should accept this for what it is and even play along to some extent or if I should completely try to change their philosophy. This has been a constant debate among spicy lifestylers. Should we expose everyone we meet to the idea of the spicy lifestyle, which says that "the fundamental goal in life is to maximize expected subjective life quality, in a system that permits freedom by minimizing the initiation of force, and without the burden of religious dogmatism?"

I would tend to think that the answer to this question is "yes" but only for people who you have already established some rapport and social consequences with. For the average person, it is probably best to hide some of the aspects of it as many people just are not ready for it. It is especially important to not talk too much about religion as this is one of the most irrational and emotional subjects which will likely make the other person uncomfortable. It is not always clear how open we can be with a new person, and this skill requires calibration of the individual, which can sometimes be very tough.

Let's move on to the next question. Assuming that we have become romantic or very close with a non-spicy lifestyler, should we make compromises to our principles for their own good? For example, if your siginificant other is religious and they really want you to go to church with them, should you? This is a really tough question. It seems so hypocritical to condone something such as religion, and, in fact, it may even be unlikely to get close enough to someone who is so religious, but is it worth hurting their feelings or causing them emotional distress becuase you are not supporting them? This is once again something that is vey tough to decide on. All in all, it is probably best to be as tolerant as possible to the differences of others. If you value the person enough for their other qualities, it may even be in your best interest to go along with some of their irrational behavior. It is good to use your mind on most things, but when dealing with other people, our genetic programming and emotions have some value as well.


nhien said...

This is the ultimate question of "to be or not to be." And I think the answer lies in how dedicated you are to your beliefs and compare that to how dedicated you are to the non-spicers. I think that your beliefs contribute to who you are as a person. So if a person doesn't know your beliefs then that person essentially doesn't know you. If that person know that you don't believe in God, then shouldn't that person be understanding enough to NOT convince you to go to church (the equivalent of trying to convert you)?
My policy is...If you don't convert me, then I won't convert you. That way, anyone that acknowledges difference will still be friends with me, but anyone too pushy will get a lesson that s/he deserves.

mspice said...

Perhaps the example of going to church is extreme. The real question is is it even possible to really care or value someone who is so wrong philosophically?

nhien said...

Maybe the question is/are whether or not the philosophy affects the person...or if a person can judge someone based on the latter's philosophy.