|
|
|
|
Lisa
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
 Posted - 05/02/2002 : 13:29:57
|
This is sort of hand in hand with the Significant Others thread, but I hate polls.
Suppose your spouse or significant other suddenly "changed". This person announces they want to join Amway, Scientology, get baptised, etc.
Would you dump your SO faster than you can say "divorce lawyer"?
Lisa
If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much room.
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2002 : 13:53:16 [Permalink]
|
That would depend wouldn't it? It would depend on the strength of the relationship overall, length of the relationship, the degree that the SO was involved with a group/organization, how you felt about that group they had joined, the effect it had on them etc.
I think most people, if the relationship was decent overall, would stick it out until they simply couldn't stand it anymore. If the relationship itself was bad then something like that could end up being the catalyst for a split but might not be the actual cause.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
 |
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2002 : 14:02:41 [Permalink]
|
I suspect that not all changes are created equal. If my wife suddenly chose to attend schul on the holidays or Unitarian Church services on Sundays, we could probably work through it. If she decided to become a Scientologist, we'd no doubt get a divorce. If she joined Amway, much would depend on the product line and my discount ...
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2002 : 16:29:30 [Permalink]
|
Mine did and dumped me. Ultimatly, I ended up with the kids, so from my point of view, it worked out ok.
I am still fond of the ex and we have a pretty good friendship. As long as we stay five states and a mountain apart, we get along just fine. A couple of visits a year can actually be pleasent.
f
"He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice."
- Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
Omega
Skeptic Friend
Denmark
164 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2002 : 17:35:22 [Permalink]
|
It depends, yes. In a longer relationship, I doubt one part would become religious over-night. There would probably be other “signs” of a growing delusion.
As with a good friend, I'd see if I could do anything to help the person in question. Be rational, ask why the sudden need for “faith” etc.
If that failed… Hm. Good question. I think it would be difficult to live with someone suffering from delusions, whether they're culturally accepted or not. Not just because my SO become religious as such, but because it has an awful lot of consequences. Debates and discussions would end in heated arguments, as I'd find it hard to accept “God says so” as an argument. Also because my SO now is a fairly rationally thinking man. A trait I like in people. If he suddenly traded that away for “hallelujah” he'd not be the same anymore.
"All it takes to fly is to fling yourself at the ground... and miss."
- Douglas Adams
Edited by - Omega on 05/02/2002 17:36:13 |
|
|
|
Mr. Spock
Skeptic Friend
USA
99 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2002 : 17:51:36 [Permalink]
|
I think that sharing your life with a person who agrees with you on everything would be very boring. On the other hand, I'd never be in one of those pscycho relationships where niether partner is happy unless there is some thriving disagreement.
My wife and I have discussed this several times. I think that it depends on the relationship. There are certain differences which would be no big deal for some people, but are great matters of principle for others. (For instance, we both agree that it would all be over if either of us became a country music fan).
Religion can be tough. When we first married, we were both disgruntled Christians in name only. She has found her way to Asatru, whereas I have become an atheistic-leaning non-theist. While I'm sure that we don't understand each others viewpoints entirely, neither of us is zealous to the point of excluding people with other convictions from their lives. With fundamentalist religion and cults, however, such exclusion usually occurs. My wife and I, on the other hand, can maintain our "smart asses against the world" togetherness despite our other differences.
The fact is, however, people can and do change (an essentialist notion of selfhood is most un-skeptical). A person who has taken an extreme departure from where they stood when you first met has become a different person. (I, for one, am not the same person I was 10 or even 5 years ago, though I do share the same memories and many of the same tastes and mannerisms with those prior "me's"). It is not as if you don't love "them" any more, they person "they" were has left and become another person. As long as you have a good idea of who "you" currently are and see irreconciliable differences with the new "them," it might just be time to move on in such circumstances.
I hope that what I just said is not too muddled or confusing. Fortunately, I'm no Ann Landers.
"Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what is right." --Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
Omega
Skeptic Friend
Denmark
164 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2002 : 18:22:51 [Permalink]
|
MrSpock> You don't have to believe in an anchored unchanging selfhood, to accept a basic core of a personality, which has been established somewhere in our 20s.
While my friends and family can and do change, there is this basic core of their personality, which has remained the same for years and years now. It's the basis of our friendship in a way. Overlapping interests, hobbies, thoughts and ideas.
Of course differences create dynamics, can strengthen a relationship etc. But if there are too many differences, what's the basis of the friendship/marriage?
Nervous breakdowns, mental diseases, shock or traumas can alter that core of the personality.
I view a rational approach to life as a basic trait. It or the absence of it will colour the rest of the personality and choices being made.
"All it takes to fly is to fling yourself at the ground... and miss."
- Douglas Adams |
|
|
|
Mr. Spock
Skeptic Friend
USA
99 Posts |
Posted - 05/03/2002 : 04:36:26 [Permalink]
|
"The self is not something ready-made, but something in continuous formation through choice of action." --John Dewey
Omega: I have the hunch that we probably agree substantially. Of course, someone who changes drastically in a short amount of time probably needs psychiatric care. And there are reasonably reliable models for quantifying "selfhood," even if only functionally defined, rather than pointing to some mysterious "soul." Without such tools, modern psychology would be impossible to practice.
However, I would also say that these methods only provide useful snapshots of a person and his or her dominant modes of behaviour at a given time, rather than revealing a core "self." To be sure, people with an exceptionally strong self image or those whose basic world view is never seriously challenged (or never allow it to be) may seem to possess some more static type of selfhood. However, the exceptions illustrate that there is no such thing.
For instance, many of my childhood friends and I have indeed "grown apart." Neither of us is who we were, and that is probably part of personal growth in the world today. I know that when I went to college and found out that all of the fairy tales about religion, morality, politics, etc., that I had learned as a child were not necessarily true, I changed in some fundamental ways. Similarly, battling with alcohol abuse has also changed me--the drinking "me" and the sober "me" are very different people.
I find this more pliable notion of selfhood (where I actually have a choice in constructing who I am) to be very liberating, although it does fly in the face of the more romantic notions we almost uncritically accept in the Western world.
"Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what is right." --Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
Omega
Skeptic Friend
Denmark
164 Posts |
Posted - 05/04/2002 : 17:06:57 [Permalink]
|
MrSpock> I think we agree, we just have different ways of expressing ourselves.
Not being a psychologist myself, I don't have a clue how basic personality or selfhood is even defined. As I wrote in my previous post, I've just observed that parts of the people I know and have known for a long time, remains the same.
From childhood to somewhere in the 20's there is a lot of changes. You're absolutely right that childhood friends may grow apart, but I'm talking about a base-personality that has formed somewhere (vague, I know, but it's the best i can do) in the 20's.
Maybe we'd have a batter basis for discussion if we could DEFINE personality. Some traits are more vague than others, they're changed more easily. Some, once they've settled in, are almost impossible to change.
Alcoholism is currently being studied as a chemical disorder, and it, to me, classifies as one of the drastic ordeals a person can go through.
The rational people I know today, were also rational a few years go. And I can't think of why or how that should change, short of a traumatic experience. The people quick to go off on something and charge the wind-mills still do their Don Quixote imitations.
I think the point I'm trying to make is, that when we discuss theism versus atheism, it's more than just having your SO suddenly switch either way. Believing or NOT believing in the supernatural is something fundamental to the personality. There is no in-between. Either you believe or you don't.
If my SO were already believing but suddenly decided to attend church every Sunday, that step is not so drastic, as going from not having any supernatural beliefs to suddenly having them.
I'm reminded of this “I took an Aspirin and prayed to God, and God cured my headache.” Currently the both of us are atheists, and view the world sceptically. He did come to the relationship with a notion of ufos being flying saucers, but accepted my scientific walk through astronomical distances, the speed of light, technology and Einsteins theories and discarded that.
Therefore, as I said above, I view a rational approach to life as very important. And believe (uh!) it is a core personality trait. If that changed the core changes, and my SO would no longer be the same person.
"All it takes to fly is to fling yourself at the ground... and miss."
- Douglas Adams |
|
|
|
Mr. Spock
Skeptic Friend
USA
99 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2002 : 04:24:04 [Permalink]
|
We can never shed the skins of our past selves 100%. Perhaps my likening myself to a Pheonix of sorts is overstated.
Still, I have no problem as seeing myself as a more or less cohesive almagamation of hard-wired genetic traits, learned behaviours, acquired mannerisms, memories, personal consciousness (whatever that is, I choose to define it physiogically). These are all manifestations of a physical body, which, while maintaining its same basic form, is also always in transition. There is no need to posit a "self" as the glue that holds it all together. I think that viewing selfhood in this way--as a collection of such elements--provides a better safeguard for the value and uniqueness of the individual than any occult notion can provide.
On this, I think we agree. I guess the question is: at what point does the alteration of any number of these factors make you a different person? Does the question even make sense? You are quite right in stating that changes are usually gradual and cannot wipe out everything we previously were. At the same time, we seem to be able to recognize when people have changed in some fundamental way.
This brings up the more philosophical question: What do I mean when I say "I" or "me." I guess that you could say that I am that unique mixture of qualitative traits that makes me distinguishable from other people, at least when speaking of personality, etc. Certainly, I can identify traits that go back to childhood, but one, or any number of traits, in and of themselves, do not make me who I am at any given point in time. Is there a certain threshold of change, after which it makes sense to say that we are now "different" then we previously were?
I agree with your examples, and believe that we are on the same page on this topic. I'm just brining up some questions for further discussion, if anybody (possibly someone more qualified in this area than I am) wants to run with this topic.
"Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what is right." --Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
