Passion wears may hats

We go on at great lengths about the need for world peace and in a microcosmic way our circle of friends is an attempt to see if a group of friends can stay together and still remain friends.

Whenever a circle of friends gets smaller ,we feel we have failed in a tiny way.

To keep the friendships growing we are mindful of not stepping too hard on people's beliefs and dreams because we know these things are integral to themselves and their inner comfort.

So with in a circle of acquaintances ( work, business…); arguments usually stay on a civilized level by common agreement. [self discipline?] Does this make us a passionless people?

Would the world have to be a passionless place to have world peace?

Absolutely not! Peace is not necessarily our natural condition, and we must work diligently and passionately to achieve it. It takes a real effort to tolerate someones actions that we do not agree with. Ideally, everyone would live by the golden rule, and would not require the force of others to reprimand or punish them for doing otherwise... as after all, judging and punishing are the antithesis of the golden rule.

How are we expected to learn from those in power and respect them, if they themselves must break their rules, to enforce them?

I would say that it is the lack of passion for doing what is right which has prevented world peace from being our current condition.

Would civilization even advance the same without passion…. It depends on what we are passionate about:

Good passion --love of the common good.?

Indeed! Love of the common good, I like that. When we realize that all our actions are ultimately aimed at ourselves, no matter how much we appear to be projecting them onto others, it becomes so much easier to treat others how we'd prefer them to treat us. It's not easy at first, but it does get easier, and can become infectious. Just try smiling at someone and see if it isn't catching

Bad passion -- what ? Greed?

Well, sure, anything which is selfish at the cost of (an)others enjoyment/time/expense. That's not to say that arousing another's passions isn't a worthwhile course of action. Guess it basically comes down to intention. What might be objectionable or ‘sinful’ (not my favorite choice of word, but does the job) for one, might be altruistic and sacrificial for another. After all, giving up ones life for another is probably the least selfish and most altruistic action a person could ever do, yet suicide is considered the least altruistic and most selfish. All depends on the intent.

I always find strongly opinionated people to appear extremely foolish therefore I do not wish to be one, but opinions are like children , of ones own making.

I suppose no-one really wants to be thought a fool, but it is our personal differences which make us who we are.

A friend once told me, other people's opinion of you are none of your business (or to paraphrase, other people's opinions of me are none of my business).

With this realization, you can stop worrying so much about your reputation and simply stand up and shout out about what you think is right: where you think something is wrong, and where injustice is carried out by those whose job is to uphold justice; with the idea of true democracy, we are all equally responsible for doing so.

Of course, I also understand that not every discussion is supposed to be all about that, and I accept that there are many discussions that others would be passionate about that I am not. I suppose that I for one try hard to stick to the topic of a discussion, and try not to focus on the personality of others

Taking sides and arguing is not the sort of passion I was considering, but I suppose it is a form . I know some who enjoy a good debate, but some people are just as passionate about bird watching.

Assuming there is room for different interests and gifts, I can understand that someone has a passion for debate, just as others have a passion for friendly banter.

When I attend certain concerts, I am often moved to tears and...ummmmm arousal. I would consider myself a passionate listener....compared to those that are drumming their fingers waiting for it to be over

I can't speak for others, but perhaps giving up passion for comfort and security is not exactly correct.

Perhaps our passions have helped us arrive at our current level.

Emotional and sexual passions seem to derive from youth and as you age , you discard certain passions that no longer provide fulfillment or you deem unnecessary for personal growth.

But even as we age , passion remains powerful ... even though we may decide it isn't worth the acrimony to convince others of our passion.

Debating opposing opinions taught me to think , to be tolerant , to ask myself why I hold such opinions .

Debating, arguing or discussing varied topics here and many , many other forums often lead to digression. Once you expect and accept that fact , perhaps you will find enjoyment in my passionless discussions.

I'm pretty sure I'm living comfortably and have inner peace because of my passion .

I can argue passionately on the net with people I've never met. I can share an opinion and listen to others, as long as I'm not being talked down to as if I am the "dumb liberal" or the "dumb republican" (using politics is just an ex)

I've always found conversing a great way to debate. Plus, I feel I get to know people better - quicker

Arts have always been associated with arousal. Opera singers for instance, are known to have orgasms at the height of their performance, the effort --the tragic story --or happy ending-- all affect these necessarily passionate people.

If you want to hear a really passionate song have a couple of wines and get lost in Freddie Mercury's "Barcelona." The first time you hear it you may find it a bit " in ya face" with it's loudness but give it a second go and listen to the female opera singer who gives it her all. Best heard alone

I also think debate between male and female is necessarily a sexual skirmish there's always that little frisson of excitement there. If you dispute that you are fibbing or dead.

I think passion in debate does depend on age and level of tolerance.

Perhaps fighting or even debating isn't exactly what I look for here, Friendship is of course a very admirable resource one can never have too much (or many) of, but I would really like to see something a bit more groundbreaking; I may be the male strutting the stage looking for dominance and agreement with his viewpoint that really arouses the passions of others. For that, I guess, a dedicated, respectful "enemy" is often a most valued object.

But it seems my ideas are sometimes too much for others to address. Maybe I'm just such a strongly opinionated fool and I scare some people off?

Can you be passionate about neatness and organization? They must seem rather dry qualities to some. I guess I am zealous about the simplicity and balance in things…

Big Think
Sponsored by Lumina Foundation

Upvote/downvote each of the videos below!

As you vote, keep in mind that we are looking for a winner with the most engaging social venture pitch - an idea you would want to invest in.

Keep reading Show less

Essential financial life skills for 21st-century Americans

Having these financial life skills can help you navigate challenging economic environments.

Photo by Jp Valery on Unsplash
Personal Growth
  • Americans are swimming in increasingly higher amounts of debt, even the upper middle class.
  • For many, this burden can be alleviated by becoming familiar with some straightforward financial concepts.
  • Here's some essential financial life skills needed to ensure your economic wellbeing.
Keep reading Show less

How to flirt: 7 tips backed by science

When it comes to flirting, love meters have nothing on these researchers' findings.

(Photo from Wikimedia)
Sex & Relationships
  • Flirting is an important part of life. It can be a fun, adventurous way to meet others and develop intimate relationships.
  • Many people find flirting to be an anxiety-ridden experience, but science can help us discover principles to be more relaxed while flirting.
  • Smiling and eye contact are proven winners, while pick-up lines are a flirty fallacy.
Keep reading Show less

New fossils suggest human ancestors evolved in Europe, not Africa

Experts argue the jaws of an ancient European ape reveal a key human ancestor.

Surprising Science
  • The jaw bones of an 8-million-year-old ape were discovered at Nikiti, Greece, in the '90s.
  • Researchers speculate it could be a previously unknown species and one of humanity's earliest evolutionary ancestors.
  • These fossils may change how we view the evolution of our species.

Homo sapiens have been on earth for 200,000 years — give or take a few ten-thousand-year stretches. Much of that time is shrouded in the fog of prehistory. What we do know has been pieced together by deciphering the fossil record through the principles of evolutionary theory. Yet new discoveries contain the potential to refashion that knowledge and lead scientists to new, previously unconsidered conclusions.

A set of 8-million-year-old teeth may have done just that. Researchers recently inspected the upper and lower jaw of an ancient European ape. Their conclusions suggest that humanity's forebearers may have arisen in Europe before migrating to Africa, potentially upending a scientific consensus that has stood since Darwin's day.

Rethinking humanity's origin story

The frontispiece of Thomas Huxley's Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature (1863) sketched by natural history artist Benjamin Waterhouse Hawkins. (Photo: Wikimedia Commons)

As reported in New Scientist, the 8- to 9-million-year-old hominin jaw bones were found at Nikiti, northern Greece, in the '90s. Scientists originally pegged the chompers as belonging to a member of Ouranopithecus, an genus of extinct Eurasian ape.

David Begun, an anthropologist at the University of Toronto, and his team recently reexamined the jaw bones. They argue that the original identification was incorrect. Based on the fossil's hominin-like canines and premolar roots, they identify that the ape belongs to a previously unknown proto-hominin.

The researchers hypothesize that these proto-hominins were the evolutionary ancestors of another European great ape Graecopithecus, which the same team tentatively identified as an early hominin in 2017. Graecopithecus lived in south-east Europe 7.2 million years ago. If the premise is correct, these hominins would have migrated to Africa 7 million years ago, after undergoing much of their evolutionary development in Europe.

Begun points out that south-east Europe was once occupied by the ancestors of animals like the giraffe and rhino, too. "It's widely agreed that this was the found fauna of most of what we see in Africa today," he told New Scientists. "If the antelopes and giraffes could get into Africa 7 million years ago, why not the apes?"

He recently outlined this idea at a conference of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists.

It's worth noting that Begun has made similar hypotheses before. Writing for the Journal of Human Evolution in 2002, Begun and Elmar Heizmann of the Natural history Museum of Stuttgart discussed a great ape fossil found in Germany that they argued could be the ancestor (broadly speaking) of all living great apes and humans.

"Found in Germany 20 years ago, this specimen is about 16.5 million years old, some 1.5 million years older than similar species from East Africa," Begun said in a statement then. "It suggests that the great ape and human lineage first appeared in Eurasia and not Africa."

Migrating out of Africa

In the Descent of Man, Charles Darwin proposed that hominins descended out of Africa. Considering the relatively few fossils available at the time, it is a testament to Darwin's astuteness that his hypothesis remains the leading theory.

Since Darwin's time, we have unearthed many more fossils and discovered new evidence in genetics. As such, our African-origin story has undergone many updates and revisions since 1871. Today, it has splintered into two theories: the "out of Africa" theory and the "multi-regional" theory.

The out of Africa theory suggests that the cradle of all humanity was Africa. Homo sapiens evolved exclusively and recently on that continent. At some point in prehistory, our ancestors migrated from Africa to Eurasia and replaced other subspecies of the genus Homo, such as Neanderthals. This is the dominant theory among scientists, and current evidence seems to support it best — though, say that in some circles and be prepared for a late-night debate that goes well past last call.

The multi-regional theory suggests that humans evolved in parallel across various regions. According to this model, the hominins Homo erectus left Africa to settle across Eurasia and (maybe) Australia. These disparate populations eventually evolved into modern humans thanks to a helping dollop of gene flow.

Of course, there are the broad strokes of very nuanced models, and we're leaving a lot of discussion out. There is, for example, a debate as to whether African Homo erectus fossils should be considered alongside Asian ones or should be labeled as a different subspecies, Homo ergaster.

Proponents of the out-of-Africa model aren't sure whether non-African humans descended from a single migration out of Africa or at least two major waves of migration followed by a lot of interbreeding.

Did we head east or south of Eden?

Not all anthropologists agree with Begun and his team's conclusions. As noted by New Scientist, it is possible that the Nikiti ape is not related to hominins at all. It may have evolved similar features independently, developing teeth to eat similar foods or chew in a similar manner as early hominins.

Ultimately, Nikiti ape alone doesn't offer enough evidence to upend the out of Africa model, which is supported by a more robust fossil record and DNA evidence. But additional evidence may be uncovered to lend further credence to Begun's hypothesis or lead us to yet unconsidered ideas about humanity's evolution.