Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

Happy Camper · 11-15-2006 01:52 PM

My eleven-year-old brother comes in to my room crying every single night. He's usually fine during the day but he seems to totally break down and crawl into my bed, asking what's wrong because he know's something's wrong and he can't put his finger on it. I try to convince him that there's no buglar outside and that he'll be fine in the morning. I try and tell him we'll all be safe for the night and tell him that nothing is abnormally wrong.

He answers me that something is wrong somewhere. Not necessarilly here but somewhere in the world, someone just died. And another and another. Someone was just mugged. Someone was just raped. Something bad happened. A bomb just went off. We may be safe but other people are suffering and it won't let his mind rest at night.

I realize he's right and that I'm depressed and suffering anxiety for the exact same reason.

I'm noticing a pattern where many teenagers seem to take the road of apathy while others become overly-sensitive and aware. Is the apathy just an avoidance technique? Which would you rather be?

Doc Johnson · 11-15-2006 01:58 PM

I'll take the pain and fear. It keeps me human. Apathy seems to be a turning inward or away, but it's always a kind of denial. In most people, the fear is still there. It just gets worked out in other ways, manifesting as other things.

11-15-2006 02:05 PM

I would rather have apathy, in the original sense of the word. It is not indifference or turning away from the world but controlling yourself above emotions. Remember that the truly courageous person continues on even in fear.

Marcus Aurelius Wrote:If you are distressed by any external thing, it is not this thing which disturbs you, but your own judgment about it. And it is in your power to wipe out that judgment now.

**SoulRiser** · 11-16-2006 12:37 AM

I'd rather have a bit of both... just enough apathy to prevent me from going nuts, but I don't want to avoid anything. I'd prefer to feel rather than not to. But I want to be able to control it if it becomes excessive (like if it's preventing me from doing something I need to do)...

Aya · 11-16-2006 02:37 AM

I'd rather be over sensitive, because something can be made out of it. For me when I see a problem, it will bug me to a point where I can't deal with it anymore, so I'll try to change it. You can't do that with apathy.

Rebelnerd · 11-16-2006 07:07 AM

i'm gonna have to go with apathy here. not saying you should completely ignore your emotions, but you can at least master them and be able to tune them out when it would hurt to listen. of couse there is a lot of bad stuff going on, and if you're too sensitive then the world's going to suck for you even more. apathy keeps you sane and also allows you to get a better idea of what's going on.

11-16-2006 12:09 PM

Don't get rid of the pain, get rid of the suffering. Pain is physical or emotional harm but suffering is our reaction to it. To be human we need pain, anguish, and fear. But we do not have to cower when negative feelings appear. We should not ignore these feelings or get rid of them, but control our response to them.

Dark Soul X · 11-16-2006 04:06 PM

Kirby Wrote:Don't get rid of the pain, get rid of the suffering. Pain is physical or emotional harm but suffering is our reaction to it. To be human we need pain, anguish, and fear. But we do not have to cower when negative feelings appear. We should not ignore these feelings or get rid of them, but control our response to them.

You're right. I've been through enough pain in life, to the point of it messing up my mind. Like Soul, I would prefer a mix of both.

SleeperAwakes · 10-05-2010 04:46 AM

There is too much wrong with the world, I think is the problem.
Yes, one response is apathy, but that might be because a number of people are not sure exactly how to respond to the problems that arise, or that one, perhaps, might have seen too much of the problems already. What do you tell yourself when you see or hear something shocking happen? Do you feel that it is nothing new, or does it strike a cord that makes you want to push it aside? Do you want to do something about it?
I'm not sure which side I count for with this question. On the one hand, I feel useless. A murderer is loose, someone was killed, a child was kidnapped before school. What can I do? Is the advice simply to stay indoors? On the other hand, if I were to do anything, is it possible that it will do any good? Will the situation become worse?
And, what doesn't help is that this applies to more than just the things that happen abroad or beyond ones reach. How do we know what to do when a friend needs help? How can we do anything? When do we know?

Loxor · 10-05-2010 04:55 AM

How did you even revive this thread? I would never have found it.

I think Apathy is more just really just treating everything like an everyday event.

It's like having someone poke you constantly tell you get used to it.

So, depending on what happens you will originally be really sensitive, then just stop caring.

AWOL · 10-05-2010 08:27 AM

I'd prefer apathy. Sensitivity sucks. It actually causes you to become apathetic if you fuck up. Even. Once.

Sensitivity sucks balls and you should all just deal with it.

Sociopath · 10-05-2010 08:35 AM

Apathy. Why care at all? None of it matters. Sensitivity is for people who don't WANT to hear the truth.

AWOL · 10-05-2010 08:35 AM

Finally I agree with you Laugh

.

CrayolaColours · 10-05-2010 11:00 AM

Sensitivity. I like my apathy every now and then, but I can't seem to shake sensitivity.

The way I see it though, is you can't live your life crying over things you can't change. It wont help anyone. Plus, the person that probably just died, unless they were a narcissistic asshole, wouldn't want the world to stop for him.

This was such an epic thread.

AWOL · 10-05-2010 03:51 PM

Screeeeeeeew sensitivity.

Rebelnerd · 10-05-2010 11:12 PM

Of course, who says we have to choose between these two extremes? You can't go to pieces over everything but you can't just shut out the whole world. Apathy will probably keep you sane longer, but there's got to be a happy medium somewhere.

AWOL · 10-05-2010 11:33 PM

Uncaring, rather than ignorance, is best. Hence apathy.

CrayolaColours · 10-06-2010 07:17 AM

But then the world is dull and depressing.

HeartofShadows · 10-06-2010 08:27 AM

With Awol and sociopath on this one.

AWOL · 10-06-2010 01:27 PM

CrayolaColours Wrote:But then the world is dull and depressing.

Not really, no. The world is dull and depressing because it's dull and depressing.

CrayolaColours · 10-06-2010 01:35 PM

Yeah, because people have fuck you attitudes. It wouldn't be as dull and depressing if people looked out for each other.

AWOL · 10-06-2010 01:37 PM

I was talking about the world, not humanity. Humanity's fucked.

Seriously, not that hard to entertain yourself.

**SoulRiser** · 10-08-2010 03:30 AM

Wow. Epic thread from the past.

My answer is still pretty much the same: I'd go for a bit of both. Although lately I'm leaning more towards sensitivity, because I've gotten better at controlling my emotions. Like I can still feel whatever extreme emotion, but I can prevent it from doing things to me. To some extent, at least... I'm still not all that good at it.

But it is pretty interesting. Imagine feeling extremely sad about something, and then suddenly you realize "Hey, I feel extremely sad"... and then the extremity of the sadness starts fading. And you can still be sad, but without really feeling that bad. It's hard to explain...

CrayolaColours · 10-08-2010 07:54 AM

I'm not talking about entertaining myself. The whole point of sensitivity is you aren't thinking about yourself constantly. I can't be happy if everyone around me is miserable.

AWOL · 10-08-2010 11:49 AM

I can. In fact it's a way of entertaining myself.

CrayolaColours · 10-09-2010 01:25 PM

Good for you.

AWOL · 10-09-2010 06:24 PM

Quite so.

Nah · 11-09-2010 07:55 PM

Sensitivity. I love loving people. Crayola is right, the world is boring if you don't pay attention to other people. Though I can certainly understand why people wouldn't care about anyone else. Most people, if not all, deserve it. But the way I see it, any love that is only given because the person deserves it is conditional love, which sucks. Unconditional love FTW.

AWOL · 11-09-2010 07:59 PM

Unconditional love is stupid. It also doesn't exist, the exception being people with fucking brain damage. Unconditional love would involve me beating the shit out of you, torturing you physically, mentally and sexually, depriving you of socialization and you still loving me like a moron. It's stupid.

As for the rest of the post. Why go out of your way? I care about people if they mean something to me. Unlike you guys, I make that mean something. I'm not going to bullshit around the fact that 90% of my 'friends' are just sources of entertainment. My reason for caring about them is that the world becomes a slightly less entertaining place. The other 10%? I care because it would impact on my emotional state.

Also, let this thread die already.

HeartofShadows · 11-10-2010 06:43 AM

AWOL Wrote:Unconditional love is stupid. It also doesn't exist, the exception being people with fucking brain damage. Unconditional love would involve me beating the shit out of you, torturing you physically, mentally and sexually, depriving you of socialization and you still loving me like a moron. It's stupid.

As for the rest of the post. Why go out of your way? I care about people if they mean something to me. Unlike you guys, I make that mean something. I'm not going to bullshit around the fact that 90% of my 'friends' are just sources of entertainment. My reason for caring about them is that the world becomes a slightly less entertaining place. The other 10%? I care because it would impact on my emotional state.

Also, let this thread die already.

Amen to that resident sociopath.
When people pull up this bullshit it just makes me want to laugh my ass off.
Also oops bump

Threaded Mode \| Linear Mode Apathy and Sensitivity
Author	Message