Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sushan]

This topic is about the September 2021 Philosophy Book of the Month, If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your But's by Mark L. Wdowiak

Sleep with dogs and you will end up with fleas. You will never soar like an eagle if you’re hanging around a bunch of turkeys and chickens. Come on now! People, places, and things have the capacity to keep you where you’re at, bring you down, or lift you up. It is important to surround yourself with positive, successful people—people of affluence—so that you will be inspired and lifted up to see, be, and accomplish more. Successful influences will rub off on you creating more success and affluence in your life.

(Location 168 - Kindle version)

The author has named this concept of seeping through the positivity or negativity of one's associates into one's self as 'Osmosis by Association'. This has been said by many philosophers and religious leaders too, to be associated with either superiors or peers, but never with inferiors (this is totally based on spirituality, knowledge and ideas but not with anything like money, cast or social status).

I personally agree with this. Your friends can be a big factor in determining your future. But I have always thought how this can happen in both ways, benefiting both sides of the relationship. Just think I befriend with a spiritually superior one. In return he is getting associated with someone inferior to him. So this relationship will have a negative impact on him while I get all the positive impact. Do you see this as I see or did I miss something? What do you think about this concept of Osmosis by Association?

[PoeticUniverse]

I hang out here with lofty philosophers for 'osmosis'.

In this lost haunt on the Orion arm
Of the galaxy, safe from the core’s harm,
We philosophers meet in this forum,
As sleuth-hounds unweaving the Cosmic yarn.

We search for the Start of the Universe,
The End, the Before, the After, the Kinds,
The Measures, and All That Lies Between:
The Music of the Spheres’ Magnificat.

We follow every single avenue,
Whether it’s brightly lit or a dark alley,
Exploring one-ways, no-ways, and dead-ends,
Until cornered where the Truth is hiding.

Since we all became of this universe,
Should we not ask who we are, whence we came?
Insight clefts night’s skirt with its radiance—
The Theory of Everything shines through!

[Sushan]

I hang out here with lofty philosophers for 'osmosis'.

In this lost haunt on the Orion arm
Of the galaxy, safe from the core’s harm,
We philosophers meet in this forum,
As sleuth-hounds unweaving the Cosmic yarn.

We search for the Start of the Universe,
The End, the Before, the After, the Kinds,
The Measures, and All That Lies Between:
The Music of the Spheres’ Magnificat.

We follow every single avenue,
Whether it’s brightly lit or a dark alley,
Exploring one-ways, no-ways, and dead-ends,
Until cornered where the Truth is hiding.

Since we all became of this universe,
Should we not ask who we are, whence we came?
Insight clefts night’s skirt with its radiance—
The Theory of Everything shines through!

Seemingly you get a lot of philosophical thoughts and ideas by just hanging out with the fellow philosophers. So the osmosis theory really works. But what if a non-philosopher hangs too much with the philosophers. Will the philosophers loose their philosophical ideas and stop discussing philosophical questions, and just become ordinary people who agree with things that are told by someone?

[PoeticUniverse]

Seemingly you get a lot of philosophical thoughts and ideas by just hanging out with the fellow philosophers. So the osmosis theory really works. But what if a non-philosopher hangs too much with the philosophers. Will the philosophers loose their philosophical ideas and stop discussing philosophical questions, and just become ordinary people who agree with things that are told by someone?

There's no going back to the regular human condition after the philosopher has come to understand it and more, having looked into all sides in depth.

Answers often come to the seekers, they braving the attempted devouring flames of what is ‘just said’ by those presuming their fiats, and so they delve deeper into the situations beyond the sit-com dogmatic folk tales.

The quests take them to many daring adventures, through dimly lit avenues, dark-alleys, dead-ends, one-way streets, and even one-way dead-ends, through which journey they risk never feeling the same again, after the unexpected truth is cornered.

The philosophers, theorists, and scientists are the triad of wise men who continue to herald the birth and growth of the Age of Illumination and the Downfall of Fantasy, this done whether they fear or not what gets shown to be true.

[LuckyR]

This topic is about the September 2021 Philosophy Book of the Month, If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your But's by Mark L. Wdowiak

Sleep with dogs and you will end up with fleas. You will never soar like an eagle if you’re hanging around a bunch of turkeys and chickens. Come on now! People, places, and things have the capacity to keep you where you’re at, bring you down, or lift you up. It is important to surround yourself with positive, successful people—people of affluence—so that you will be inspired and lifted up to see, be, and accomplish more. Successful influences will rub off on you creating more success and affluence in your life.

(Location 168 - Kindle version)

The author has named this concept of seeping through the positivity or negativity of one's associates into one's self as 'Osmosis by Association'. This has been said by many philosophers and religious leaders too, to be associated with either superiors or peers, but never with inferiors (this is totally based on spirituality, knowledge and ideas but not with anything like money, cast or social status).

I personally agree with this. Your friends can be a big factor in determining your future. But I have always thought how this can happen in both ways, benefiting both sides of the relationship. Just think I befriend with a spiritually superior one. In return he is getting associated with someone inferior to him. So this relationship will have a negative impact on him while I get all the positive impact. Do you see this as I see or did I miss something? What do you think about this concept of Osmosis by Association?

Association is way more important than osmosis. Osmosis implies passive acquisition of skills/traits. Association implies either instruction or mimicking.

[Sushan]

Seemingly you get a lot of philosophical thoughts and ideas by just hanging out with the fellow philosophers. So the osmosis theory really works. But what if a non-philosopher hangs too much with the philosophers. Will the philosophers loose their philosophical ideas and stop discussing philosophical questions, and just become ordinary people who agree with things that are told by someone?

There's no going back to the regular human condition after the philosopher has come to understand it and more, having looked into all sides in depth.

Answers often come to the seekers, they braving the attempted devouring flames of what is ‘just said’ by those presuming their fiats, and so they delve deeper into the situations beyond the sit-com dogmatic folk tales.

The quests take them to many daring adventures, through dimly lit avenues, dark-alleys, dead-ends, one-way streets, and even one-way dead-ends, through which journey they risk never feeling the same again, after the unexpected truth is cornered.

The philosophers, theorists, and scientists are the triad of wise men who continue to herald the birth and growth of the Age of Illumination and the Downfall of Fantasy, this done whether they fear or not what gets shown to be true.

Philosophers, theorists, and scientists are all wise men, and there is no argument about that. But even their minds and thinking patterns can be influenced by thier contacts. I think such an influence is minimal to scientists since they work more with data, facts,and experiments rather than ideas and thinking. But philosophers who mainly analyze questions and theories in their own mind can be influenced by the ones who are close to them, and even totally change the thinking patterns. It may not change him being a philosopher, but his philosophy can be affected.

[Sushan]

This topic is about the September 2021 Philosophy Book of the Month, If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your But's by Mark L. Wdowiak

Sleep with dogs and you will end up with fleas. You will never soar like an eagle if you’re hanging around a bunch of turkeys and chickens. Come on now! People, places, and things have the capacity to keep you where you’re at, bring you down, or lift you up. It is important to surround yourself with positive, successful people—people of affluence—so that you will be inspired and lifted up to see, be, and accomplish more. Successful influences will rub off on you creating more success and affluence in your life.

(Location 168 - Kindle version)

The author has named this concept of seeping through the positivity or negativity of one's associates into one's self as 'Osmosis by Association'. This has been said by many philosophers and religious leaders too, to be associated with either superiors or peers, but never with inferiors (this is totally based on spirituality, knowledge and ideas but not with anything like money, cast or social status).

I personally agree with this. Your friends can be a big factor in determining your future. But I have always thought how this can happen in both ways, benefiting both sides of the relationship. Just think I befriend with a spiritually superior one. In return he is getting associated with someone inferior to him. So this relationship will have a negative impact on him while I get all the positive impact. Do you see this as I see or did I miss something? What do you think about this concept of Osmosis by Association?

Association is way more important than osmosis. Osmosis implies passive acquisition of skills/traits. Association implies either instruction or mimicking.

I get association as an alliance of people with common goals and ideas. The author is speaking about the succeeded ones getting together, and how a less successful one can just be in such an alliance and passively acquire their motivational ideas. Acquiring something actively is more encouraging and long lasting. But for demotivated ones this concept of osmosis will be a good alternative.

[PoeticUniverse]

change the thinking patterns.

A More General Osmosis

Selves and beliefs are constructed mostly
Out of happenings that come from the outside,
And not as much from what begins inside;
Thus, our identity—our self—is shared.

A Kind of a Reverse Osmosis

Your self also blooms from other people,
When they bring out more that is within you.
Strangely, it’s hard to be a self alone;
It’s friendships that makes you individual!

Love as an Example of an Improving Identity

Love is the mutual creation of identity.
To be in love is not a loss of independence,
But rather a shared accordance with the lover
That does not submerge the self of the other.

[FranknBerry]

Notions of superior/inferior is entirely subjective. Perspective based. While such perceptions can influence what behaviors we mimic the act of mimicry occurs devoid of such notions. We take on aspects of everything we are exposed to. The degree of which and in what way is influenced by many things including perceptions of superiority/inferiority. The author may refer to this as "osmosis by association" but it's just another label for a perception that has been labeled hundreds of different ways over time. Association, adaptation, mimicry, mirroring, chameleon effect, etc. The author is gluing a seashell on the forehead of a horse and calling it a unicorn.

[PoeticUniverse]

— The Prison —

I can never share a mind directly,
For there is no access; we are alone.
Mind melding works only for the Vulcans.
This loneliness leads us to company.

— Loneliness —

The unbearable solitude of consciousness
Is relieved by literature, social clubs,
Movies, caring, friendships, discussion, writing,
And other sharing acts, but, mostly, by love.

[Sushan]

change the thinking patterns.

A More General Osmosis

Selves and beliefs are constructed mostly
Out of happenings that come from the outside,
And not as much from what begins inside;
Thus, our identity—our self—is shared.

A Kind of a Reverse Osmosis

Your self also blooms from other people,
When they bring out more that is within you.
Strangely, it’s hard to be a self alone;
It’s friendships that makes you individual!

Love as an Example of an Improving Identity

Love is the mutual creation of identity.
To be in love is not a loss of independence,
But rather a shared accordance with the lover
That does not submerge the self of the other.

People are social beings. So no one can act alone or live alone. Though they have the ability to do both of them alone, they are responsible for the impact of the result towards the rest of the world, and the laws will necessarily bind them. But I don't think none of these factors will hinder the thinking pattern, or a change of that of an individual. Yes, it is true that even your thinking is influenced by people who are around you. But one has to be brave enough to think and do the correct thing without following the band wagon.

[Sushan]

Notions of superior/inferior is entirely subjective. Perspective based. While such perceptions can influence what behaviors we mimic the act of mimicry occurs devoid of such notions. We take on aspects of everything we are exposed to. The degree of which and in what way is influenced by many things including perceptions of superiority/inferiority. The author may refer to this as "osmosis by association" but it's just another label for a perception that has been labeled hundreds of different ways over time. Association, adaptation, mimicry, mirroring, chameleon effect, etc. The author is gluing a seashell on the forehead of a horse and calling it a unicorn.

People can mimic what they usually see and hear, intentionally as well as unintentionally, and that is how children behave alike their parents. But I think the author is trying to speak about something deeper than a mere mimicry. He is telling us how one can be motivated by being around successful people, and how the opposite too can happen. Thinking can never be a mere mimicry. The mere presence of successful people surrounding a person making that person motivated to go for higher achievements is much more different than as well as important than mimicking. So I don't think the author has created a unicorn, but actually seen one and trying to show that to the others too.

[Sushan]

— The Prison —

I can never share a mind directly,
For there is no access; we are alone.
Mind melding works only for the Vulcans.
This loneliness leads us to company.

— Loneliness —

The unbearable solitude of consciousness
Is relieved by literature, social clubs,
Movies, caring, friendships, discussion, writing,
And other sharing acts, but, mostly, by love.

Imprisonment is for the body but not for the mind. Imprisonments are used to isolate the nuisances to the society from the rest of the world to protect the world from them as well them from the world. Some will be depressed by the punishment, but some will find new ways to think and their entire thinking pattern will change, changing their behaviours as well, making them better people. And that is why some of these prisoners are released prior to the completion of their total sentence because of the good conduct. In this socially interconnected world, being alone too can be for the benefit of some people in that way.

[FranknBerry]

Notions of superior/inferior is entirely subjective. Perspective based. While such perceptions can influence what behaviors we mimic the act of mimicry occurs devoid of such notions. We take on aspects of everything we are exposed to. The degree of which and in what way is influenced by many things including perceptions of superiority/inferiority. The author may refer to this as "osmosis by association" but it's just another label for a perception that has been labeled hundreds of different ways over time. Association, adaptation, mimicry, mirroring, chameleon effect, etc. The author is gluing a seashell on the forehead of a horse and calling it a unicorn.

People can mimic what they usually see and hear, intentionally as well as unintentionally, and that is how children behave alike their parents. But I think the author is trying to speak about something deeper than a mere mimicry. He is telling us how one can be motivated by being around successful people, and how the opposite too can happen. Thinking can never be a mere mimicry. The mere presence of successful people surrounding a person making that person motivated to go for higher achievements is much more different than as well as important than mimicking. So I don't think the author has created a unicorn, but actually seen one and trying to show that to the others too.

We can only think (i.e.; react) based on what we are exposed to. In this sense it is mimicry. That aside, I indicated mimicry as being just another word, alongside adaptation, mirroring, and association that all represent the same thing perceived in different ways. Even if we don't use the same exact words that others do what we say is still "mimicry". The author may be using different words, but he is still simply repeating what others have said countless times prior in other books. Being around "successful" people motivates us to become "successful" ourselves because we are, in a sense, mimicking what we are exposed to. This is the whole essence of what creates a culture. A celebrity wears a certain designer outfit or hat and people observant to it desire it for themselves. We want what others have. Everything we are exposed to influences our own decisions (i.e.; reactions). We perceive others as though they are reflections of ourselves and act in accordance.

However, what the author is saying can be new to certain individuals who haven't yet been observant to any such perceptions. It's new to you so it's perceived as a unicorn. It's old and vastly repeated to me and so it's a pig in lipstick from my perspective.

The gist of what the author is saying isn't wrong, per se. I've just heard it too many times now with nobody ever adding anything new to explain the why of it all.

[Sushan]

Notions of superior/inferior is entirely subjective. Perspective based. While such perceptions can influence what behaviors we mimic the act of mimicry occurs devoid of such notions. We take on aspects of everything we are exposed to. The degree of which and in what way is influenced by many things including perceptions of superiority/inferiority. The author may refer to this as "osmosis by association" but it's just another label for a perception that has been labeled hundreds of different ways over time. Association, adaptation, mimicry, mirroring, chameleon effect, etc. The author is gluing a seashell on the forehead of a horse and calling it a unicorn.

People can mimic what they usually see and hear, intentionally as well as unintentionally, and that is how children behave alike their parents. But I think the author is trying to speak about something deeper than a mere mimicry. He is telling us how one can be motivated by being around successful people, and how the opposite too can happen. Thinking can never be a mere mimicry. The mere presence of successful people surrounding a person making that person motivated to go for higher achievements is much more different than as well as important than mimicking. So I don't think the author has created a unicorn, but actually seen one and trying to show that to the others too.

We can only think (i.e.; react) based on what we are exposed to. In this sense it is mimicry. That aside, I indicated mimicry as being just another word, alongside adaptation, mirroring, and association that all represent the same thing perceived in different ways. Even if we don't use the same exact words that others do what we say is still "mimicry". The author may be using different words, but he is still simply repeating what others have said countless times prior in other books. Being around "successful" people motivates us to become "successful" ourselves because we are, in a sense, mimicking what we are exposed to. This is the whole essence of what creates a culture. A celebrity wears a certain designer outfit or hat and people observant to it desire it for themselves. We want what others have. Everything we are exposed to influences our own decisions (i.e.; reactions). We perceive others as though they are reflections of ourselves and act in accordance.

However, what the author is saying can be new to certain individuals who haven't yet been observant to any such perceptions. It's new to you so it's perceived as a unicorn. It's old and vastly repeated to me and so it's a pig in lipstick from my perspective.

The gist of what the author is saying isn't wrong, per se. I've just heard it too many times now with nobody ever adding anything new to explain the why of it all.

Well, since you have seen this (heard this) as a fact for some time, what do you think the reason for this osmosis of success (or the need to succeed) by mingling with successful people?

And my big issue, how successful people remain in their same status when they are associated with less successful people? (When less successful ones get associated with successful ones for osmosis purpose, the opposite happens to the successful ones)