In article <doraymeRidThis-8A3C80.08424903012008@news-vip.optusnet.com.au>, dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > > Cynicism isn't helpful, it's crippling. > > > > > > Bullshit. True cynicism is a valid approach to life. I don't think > > > _anyone_ acts out of anything but self-interest. > > > > Yes, it's valid. I didn't say otherwise. > > What I said is that it is crippling. It is. Building a specific > > attitude for approaches to ideas while excluding other attitudes is > > intrinsically self-limiting. There is no other way to see it. > > > > Therefore, it is not _helpful_ as an approach to ideas. > > It may be easier, it may be simpler, it may even be contextually > > correct. > > Why do you say it is valid? What would be an invalid approach to > life?
Maybe the word is misleading: I'll say instead that cynicism is a consistent and self-supportive approach; it makes some sense as a psychological state.
But it is not a rewarding or effective approach (to life, to effectiveness, to efficiency) to ignore information or situations just because they have a positive implication.
I sense an example is useful: If you come across a table of food, it is not rewarding to ignore it, assuming there is some obligation or punishment for eating food from it. Cynicism requires you to be suspicious. You may avoid an obligation by eating of the food. You won't ever get the benefit of the free food if you assume there is a reason to suspect the opportunity, and avoid it.
