A theory, try to disprove, I'm kind of a philosopher?

Question

I have developed a theory as of late, what if two opposite things were to be perfectly combined? A new and better thing would be the result, far greater than both. So what if someone with a nicer personality, were to be combined with a darker one? Obviously, you would get someone with a balanced personality; he/she would be able to gather faithful friends easily, (nicer side.) but would be able to crush his/her enemies without mercy. (darker side.) So now I ask u this, which will end up happier; a good, evil, or neutral person?

Answer 1

A person who is always good will not understand the factors that can lead to becoming what we call "evil", so will act negatively to an "evil" person risking making them more evil. That is "evil form good."

A person who has always acted "evil" cannot understand a good person never having experienced such a state. Remember an "evil" person does not percieve itself as evil.

If a good person becomes evil then it is a choice based on some factor that has perpetuated that state. (Excluding genetics.)

An "evil" person who becomes "good" has obviously metamorphosed because of a recognition the prior state was not healthy for him/her.

A neutral person who practices good but understands the enemy is in the best position. But they would be good. If they go to church every Sunday a commit a murder on Tuesday, I would not call it neutral.

Obviosly you can't be neutral. Also To crush ones enemies is to do good and as a consequence you help others.

How about we all be NORMAL and learn by our mistakes.

No matter how good or evil you are, if you learn by your mistakes we will all end up living together without conflict.

OMG that's a mouthfull.

Answer 2

I agree that in certain instances your theory has merit. However, I have some questions. First off, what do you define as combine? If you combined someone with a light personality and a someone with a dark personality perhaps you would end up with someone with no personality at all. The new person might have little kindness to make new friends and little darkness to fight enemies. Or by combine do you mean they can be simultaneously evil and good at the same time being able to call on either side? Second, what do you define as better or far greater? Better can mean different things to different people. I think a dark person would say that they have no need of friends and a light person would say that they have no need of enemies. You can't really prove either of them wrong unless you define what you mean by better because otherwise you are just expressing your opinion of what is better. Each of them would say they are better they way that they are. Lastly, if you combine two things do you always obtain a desirable result? A stupid person combined with a smart person might result in a person of average intelligence. Personally, I would rather be a person of high intelligence. A sick person combined with a healthy person could result in a person with average health. I would rather have good health.

Who would be happier? I would think it would rely on more than the shade of their personality. A light person has to be more than kind to make friends sometimes they have to be outgoing, fun, etc. A dark person is not guaranteed to crush his enemies as sometimes dark people don't have any power. So, I think it their happiness will depend on what they enjoy and whether they have the power to obtain that joy.

Answer 3

Interesting.
Put two personalities into one's body.

Genetic analysis shows that a man / woman made of two person's ( their parents) genetics. But the personalities that the man / woman have are not only TWO. Not only DARKER SIDE and NICER SIDE. There will be more than 2. If we try put every personalities that we want from two different personalities, we are the GOD. We are just doing GOD is doing. There is no job same like GOD's job.

A good, evil, neutral person - end up differently. Which end up happier?
Happiness grounded on Personality of someone?
How "happier" defines?

I will think that different personality can gain different happiness based on their views on happiness. I cannt tell.

** I was thinking the same question like you posted here this morning.
** It is so coincidental.

Cheers
Yee Cs

Answer 4

You are assuming, like a true materialist, that personalities are inherited and that is not entirely true if true at all. It brings up the problem of nature vs. nurture in the formation of a person's personality or character. Is it more important to have a good pedigree or be raised in a good environment?

What do you mean by a "darker" personality (I'll bet a black would diss you on this choice of adjectives if darker means more evil)? Evil people are by definition not happy because evil is negative (as shown by your choice of "crush his/her enemies with out mercy." as a description of a darker person's behavior.) and the negative emotions include anger, fear, disgust, and saddness. If however darker people are just more powerful then they may achieve some happiness by using their power in a positive way (again assuming positive emotions are joy, love, surprise etc.). You have to realize by factoring in the emotions (like happiness and others) that they are relative.

What is happiness relative to? To positive behavior; you won't feel happy if some black criticizes you for calling bad people "darker" will you?. You will feel negative, sad. Do you think a "darker" person can really feel happiness by crushing others with out mercy?. I Doubt it! We have a certain built in sense of good and bad as evidenced by the reactions of very young children to distressing situations even when they are not personally involved. Their reactions are a result of the positive mother love given them when infants.

My guess is that the good person will end up happier and I doubt that there is such a person as a neutral person.

Answer 5

1. If you were to apply this theory to material things, it would probably work - but then it does not guarantee that the end result would be greater.

2. A human person is more than the totality of his personality and inherent qualities - aside from what goes on inside him/her, there are "other" human beings "around" him that directly or indirectly affects him/her.

3. Happiness is a state any person, good, bad, or neutral can "will" himself into. You can give anyone everything yet end up miserable, and you can also give anyone a little, yet be filled with happiness.

Answer 6

Happiness means different things to different kinds of people - no two are the same - ever! You could be a "bad" person and have a much happier life than a "good" person because you get to do lots more of what makes you happy that perhaps a "good" person who does feel they do enough good to make them happy. And mixing two different types doesn't necessarily create a diluted version of the two. We all have a choice to be happy or not - good or bad or indifferent - we have immense power in our will and we can find happiness in anything we set out minds to - or not. We have the power of will and the choice to change from good to bad to indifferent in a heartbeat!

Answer 7

They would all think they are happyest. Who was really happyer? Id say the good person because he would be happy when he was making a smile and the evil person would be happy when frowning and the neutral person would be happy only when not smile or frown. There bodys would not be happy with them and thats a big factor. The body is a person seperate from the soul and it has feelings too :)

Answer 8

I'm lost. I don't see how you've connect an emotional state (or state of being) of happiness through this theoretical model. A person's experience of happiness is directly proportional to the volume of thinking that they do -- thinkers are less happy than non-thinkers.

Happiness is easy to achieve and has very little to what you described in your initial statements...

As an aside, your notion of combining polarities is also similar to Gestalt theory concerning polarities........

Answer 9

difficulty a million: i've got self assurance I exist and that i've got not got self assurance any declare is authentic in basic terms because of fact the declare is made. you may declare that your toaster is a god, yet in basic terms when you consider which you're making the declare would not make it authentic. you may declare there's a private god, that would not make it authentic the two. you may declare something you like, yet once you may no longer returned it up then what you have is an argument of religion. I settle for information, no longer faith. do no longer like it? Too undesirable, i'm no longer attempting to persuade you to think of like I do. difficulty 2: My toaster is a god. tutor me incorrect. difficulty 3: it isn't any diverse for the different theory in technological awareness. All theories replace as new discoveries are made. If new observations don't extra healthful the present theories, the theories ought to get replaced. we don't pick to be incorrect continuously, you already know. the huge bounce is mere hypothesis and those featuring it have made that hassle-free. some scientists? which of them? i pick names. some scientists do have self assurance in gods. extremely a number of them have self assurance interior the god of the Bible and make no attempt to disguise it in while illustrating a factor they try to make. i've got not got a difficulty with that. additionally, the huge Bang and cosmology have no longer something to do with atheism. the two that or those scientists that have self assurance in gods could have some explaining to do. difficulty 4: See the tail end of difficulty 3. super apes alive on the instant proportion a hassle-free ancestor with apes interior the previous. we are one species of super ape. We did evolve from a species of human and that they are labeled as apes too. Or whats up, in line with threat we don't exist... variety of makes this communique pointless even with the indisputable fact that. difficulty 5: I enjoyed this. How do i comprehend who's top? i do no longer understand, i do no longer think of you or I exist, undergo in innovations? ;)

Answer 10

I have a firm belief that such inane questions have little to no impact on an individuals life, and philosophy is nothing more than idiocy masquerading as academia. Mental masturbation in short.