Independance or Dependance?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Social Sciences » Independance or Dependance? » Independance or Dependance?

Independance or Dependance?
Which is better?

Independance or Dependance?

Bob Hamm
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 21, 2006
Total Topics: 27
Total Posts: 136

0 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 06/24/08 - 09:20 PM: Subject: Independance or Dependance?	#1
Which is better?? Is it better to be dependent upon a trusted source? Or totally independant? Worst case would be becoming dependant upon a source with ulterior motives and plans.

carbonated_dude
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 24, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 12

Posted 06/24/08 - 09:28 PM:	#2
It is better for survival to be completely independent, as even a trusted source could become untrustworthy eventually. However... you might get kind of lonely or disenchanted/disenheartened in your attempts to avoid all dependency. So perhaps some dependency is good for one's life.

Bob Hamm
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 21, 2006
Total Topics: 27
Total Posts: 136

Posted 06/24/08 - 09:40 PM:	#3
Children don't seem to mind it until they get older. Becoming dependant on luxuries can lead to them becoming nessesities..and the provider can then use them as a controlling force.

Wink2tall
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 4

Posted 09/23/08 - 09:18 PM:	#4
I think that they all equally important because being independent gives us a certain prideful feeling but like carbonated dude said: "However... you might get kind of lonely or disenchanted/disheartened in your attempts to avoid all dependency. So perhaps some dependency is good for one's life." Being dependent also allows for us to be the one that others depend on, which is also sometimes a good feeling.

Occam's Raison
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 13, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 4

Posted 09/25/08 - 12:49 AM:	#5
^^^^ agreed. Although, i should add. We are all dependent in some way on somebody. Probably the only people who have a secure identity devoid of all dependence on others are psychopaths who operate within their own systems of logic and own systems of ethics, rational thought processes etc. Since they view things in such an unpredictable light almost incomprehensible to us they do not depend on others in order to establish their human identity. They are happy within their own mind. Normal people are not. Has anybody here read 'Into the Wild' by Jon Krakauer? It's about a guy who gives up all his possessions to get away from society and dependence. I think it'd be of interest to some of you.

Jokelamaniac
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 27, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 4

Posted 09/27/08 - 11:56 AM:	#6
Ludwig Feuerbach wrote once, that I can't emerge without You. This means, that the world without others would be dead and empty. Psychiatrist R. D. Laing described in The Divided self people living in the threat of mental illness. First the saw their internal world as rich and important - but after they turned inwards, the internal world transformed into horrible prison, haunted by the splitted parts of former ego. So this illustrates maybe what Feuerbach said. Of course to relating, to be dependant, has also some dangers. These have been described f.e. Martti Siirala. From Siirala's point of view, man is always a co-man, a social being relation to others. But this social field also have some threats, that can sometimes dominate co-existence. So what I think is that there is no really independent man/woman, one finds oneself in relations to others. But this doesn't mean that every relation is really a benefit.

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 2703

Posted 09/27/08 - 01:47 PM:	#7
A bunch of mumbo jumbo talk. You can only be worse off being dependent. Independence is not the same thing as being isolated. It is not the same thing as being a psychopath.
All about making money Free Europe Now How to fix your country The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin If my sons did not want wars, there would be none - Gutle Rothschild It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes - Josef Stalin

Nihilistic Locomotive
Copraphagic coprophobic

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 27, 2003
Total Topics: 58
Total Posts: 1563

Posted 09/27/08 - 02:55 PM:	#8
Dependence implies an unequal exchange (flow) of resources, in the way that a parasitic biotroph taxes the nutrient resources of its host plant. In nature the host of this kind of relationship can't help itself beyond its evolutionary defenses. With people, dependence is more likely to take the form of mutual agreed upon interdependence between parties. One person might supply another with food or supplies while receiving nothing but a promise of loyalty or payment with interest in return. The time for the exchange to become equal maybe delayed or each party mutually will the exchange despite the nature of the exchange (allowing it to occur). Or, in the case of a parasite, the host is not entirely able to prevent the unequal exchange from happening. What about competition between parties for a trusted resource? If one party has access to this resource, which is exterior to and equally valued by all parties involved, by some kind of innate agency which excludes the other party from acquiring the resource, then some kind of economic format for exchange arises. The party who has a full or majority access to the resource, and a surplus, gets to use it as leverage for a economic exchange. This just points us back to a model of interdependence. If the other party gauges its needfulness for the said resource as of high priority it maybe willing to pay a lot more of one kind of good it produces for a little bit of the other resource which it couldn't get ( and this is relative to each of the parties needs for each good). The ability to exploit a specific resource might be relative to the familiarity, use and subsequent adaptation over time for acquiring it. This is obvious if my illustration is sensible, I think. One who is said to be dependent for all things and has nothing of value to trade would seem to lack leverage (they are often the poor). In nature, unless the relationship is a truly parasitic one, a lack of leverage for access to goods necessary for survival would be unfortunate to the continuation of the species, or the distinct agency in question (its leverage might be a genetic trait that becomes more common due to natural selection in a somewhat static setting).
Be outrageous but don't be an ass.

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.