A Philosophical Question

[Maquise]

Which would you rather experience:

A series of calamitous events which, when all is said and done, you realize were entirely not your fault and beyond your control.

Or

A series of calamitous events which, when all is said and done, you realize were the result of one error, one clear mistake you made.

[Alent]

Personal experience as an IT contractor leads me to believe that these two choices are the same thing, with the mistake being the action that put you in the events in the first place.

To answer the question more strictly, I guess I'd rather it not be my fault?

[Thrawn4]

Well I guess that depends on whether I should have known better and whether the events could repeat themselves.

[Seto]

First one.

Even though feeling like the world hates you is not pleasant, it either breaks you or forces you to rise to the challenge, gives you a sense of adversity and therefore a sense of unity of the self.
But if it's your fault, it does exactly the reverse : it divides your being between the part that wants to complain and the part that lashes out at it. You feel like you're your own enemy, and it makes you unable to efficiently face the series of calamitous events.
Of course not everyone handles guilt the same way, but there's only one sweet spot that would make the second option better : the level of guilt that makes you feel just responsible enough to actually deal with the events and try to make it better, without beating yourself up. But that's hard to attain. And that's assuming, of course, that the events can be faced and dealt with ; if it's impossible to make it better, then in any case option 1 is the better one.

[Cespenar]

First option would be default. Who would want to feel guilt anyway?

Let's regard the situations where one would choose the second one, because I believe it would make the specific cases.

Control. "Even if the consequences were the same, at least it was in my hands."

Altruism. "I'd not want this burden to weigh on anyone else."

Extreme responsibility & self-confidence. "At least I know I can learn from this and improve. Another person wouldn't."

I exclude other, less "good" characteristics because they are rather obvious.

[Aspiration]

Depends on whether other people are affected. "Calamitous" to me implies a non-personal scale. If it's only bad things happening to me, I think I'd rather be able to learn from them. But I wouldn't want to feel responsible for things that happened to someone else.

[Tridax]

I prefer the first one. It is indeed more comforting to know that the responsibility does not lie on your shoulders, however selfish that may sound. It is quite usual for people to avoid such things; see "bystander effect", where when a hypothetical person is injured and a crowd gathers around him/her, everyone will consider that the responsibility to call an ambulance lies on others.

[Lheticus]

I actually prefer the second. Being utterly helpless to affect a huge disaster in any way is worse to me than if I could take responsibility for it somehow.

[veti]

I don't think there's much difference in what I'd learn from the two experiences. Both of them will make me aware of a whole series of things that I'm not adequately protected against. In addition, the second one also tells me one thing that I should be wary of in future, but the odds are it's something that will never come up again anyway (else I'd already be aware of it), so really the added "learning" is nothing of value.

So I'll take the first one - I learn just as much, and probably earn a good deal more sympathy.

A more confident person might benefit more from the first option (as a corrective to their arrogance), but in all modesty, I don't think I am that person.

[Anarion]

Mentally, I'd prefer the first. If really bad things happen as a result of a mistake that you made, it's going to result in a lot of time beating yourself up about it (at least it would for me). I'd rather know that even if the consequences are bad, I acted correctly leading up to them.

As a question of reality though, I think the 2nd situation is almost always the true one. I say almost because there are occasionally huge natural disasters or similar that are nobody's fault. But in the vast majority of circumstances, the reality is that when the disaster happens there are decisions you made that, had they been different, could have mitigated the problem.

[Lheticus]

I really am confused as to just what's different about my mentality that I'm the only one that picked the second option. If I got placed into a "series of calamitous events" I'd assume that I'm directly affected calamitiously as well, and if there was literally nothing I could have done about it, well...the raging against the heavens would be epic. It's actually comforting to me to know that it's MY fault, even in part, that I'm in whatever disasterous situation I'm in from this calamity.

[McStabbington]

I really am confused as to just what's different about my mentality that I'm the only one that picked the second option. If I got placed into a "series of calamitous events" I'd assume that I'm directly affected calamitiously as well, and if there was literally nothing I could have done about it, well...the raging against the heavens would be epic. It's actually comforting to me to know that it's MY fault, even in part, that I'm in whatever disasterous situation I'm in from this calamity.

You aren't alone. Without going into details, I've faced both events in my life. The first time was the latter option. Facing it gave my life a sense of clarity and purpose that, to be honest, scared the willies out of other people, but gave me a sense of purpose. I had learned my lesson, I had made myself a better person, and I had faith that the universe would reward my transformation so long as I held to my new strength and focus.

And then I faced the former option.

Today, I am better than I was in some ways. I do things that are decent and kind because they are decent and kind, not because "this is the action of a virtuous man." But I lack the focus and purpose I once had. I lack faith. I could live for a thousand years doing kind deeds, or I could put my computer down right now and walk in front of a semi, and either way it amounts to the same. No matter what virtue I have or lack, no matter what twist the story takes next, the gain will not be worth the forfeit. And the universe will continue to turn, regardless of who it grinds under or raises high.

The latter gave my life meaning. The former revealed that meaning for the foolish pretension it always was. Would you rather have a lie that gives you a sense of meaning, or a truth that reduces the sum total of your actions to ash in your mouth? Having crossed that event horizon, I would unhesitantly take the lie. Always, forever, the lie. God, if you exist, and if you have one shred in you that cares for justice and kindness, grant me one wish: give me back my precious lie for one more day, then give me death. Do not make me live in the light. I have seen the truth, and I live in terror of every day that I must bear of the weight of it.

[VincentTakeda]

I'd also go with option 1. I prefer learning from someone *else's* mistakes.

[SiuiS]

I really am confused as to just what's different about my mentality that I'm the only one that picked the second option. If I got placed into a "series of calamitous events" I'd assume that I'm directly affected calamitiously as well, and if there was literally nothing I could have done about it, well...the raging against the heavens would be epic. It's actually comforting to me to know that it's MY fault, even in part, that I'm in whatever disasterous situation I'm in from this calamity.

Ditto, personally. But then that's a specific thing I conditioned myself for...

[Cespenar]

The latter gave my life meaning. The former revealed that meaning for the foolish pretension it always was. Would you rather have a lie that gives you a sense of meaning, or a truth that reduces the sum total of your actions to ash in your mouth? Having crossed that event horizon, I would unhesitantly take the lie. Always, forever, the lie. God, if you exist, and if you have one shred in you that cares for justice and kindness, grant me one wish: give me back my precious lie for one more day, then give me death. Do not make me live in the light. I have seen the truth, and I live in terror of every day that I must bear of the weight of it.

I would rather not only accept, but also revel in the truth. Existential nonimportance is by itself a neutral concept, so why would I ascribe bad connotations to it and depress myself, where I could do the opposite and live relatively happier? Where, when experiencing bad things, I could selectively learn all the lessons from them but pass the crippling guilt; and when experiencing good things, I could pass the intoxicating pride and be humble about it? It's all possible when one looks beyond the illusion of control.

This is rather philosophical, of course, and my own thoughts if anything. I wouldn't belittle your real life experiences.

[SiuiS]

Why? Because you're human.

[Cespenar]

Why? Because you're human.

Of course it's human to feel that way. The "why" was a philosophical why, not an "obvious" or "judging" one. Though it also wouldn't be inhuman to not feel that way.

[Closet_Skeleton]

I'd say 2 on the theory that you'd learn a lesson but if its a really calamitous sequence of events then its probably not repeatable so the lesson would probably be useless like "next time I'm in a traffic jam with Gavrilo Princip".

The experience of the events would probably overshadow the cause anyway, making it kind of irrelevant. Surely what one does during the events is more important?

Many people can name Florence Nightingale, almost nobody can name the instigators of the Crimean War, or even really know what the Crimean war even was. When you came to write your autobiography the start of the calamity would probably not be the most interesting part.

If you were actually in this situation you'd have other things to worry about.


so why would I ascribe bad connotations to it and depress myself, where I could do the opposite and live relatively happier?

Easier said than done.

You're also assuming some level of Utilitarian-esque ethics when you imply that happiness is a important criteria or even something that can be put on one side of a binary choice, however relative you claim that is. I don't mean to start a probably off topic debate on Utilitarianism, merely point out that an alternate ethical system would render your argument incoherent.

[sleepy hedgehog]

I would take option 2.

My outlook on life has always been, "I want enough control over my life to succeed because of my decisions. By implication, I want enough control over my life to fail because of my decisions."

I want my success to be because of me.
I want my failures to be because of me.

When I have to deal with problems that are out of my control, I get annoyed. I have to deal with *this* and there wasn't anything I could do about it.

[skypse]

Noone else is responsible for my actions and I don't believe that our future is pre-determined or guided by a higher being/power. I would prefer to know that everything fell apart because I screwed up so I could also learn something from my mistake.

[Jay R]

" I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, 'wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them?' So now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe. "
- Marcus Cole, Babylon 5