If you enjoy something, does it matter how many or how few feel the same?
Sure, it's nice when you have shared interests with others, but it's doesn't matter if they're not. Your interests do not have to define who you are, do not have to define how you interact with others. Preconceived notions of worth based on popularity will only cloud your view of what's enjoyable to you.
Everyone is likely to have a mix of niche and mainstream interests, when they stop concerning themselves with fitting into a narrow vision of who they are.
Can you still be a non-conformist if you have similar interests to the mainstream?
You can be a non-conformist and have mainstream interests, but just as a conformist will neglect non-mainstream interests for the sake of conformity, a non-conformist will do the reverse.
Now people will get labeled by others as conformist or non-conformist based on outward signs, and this will often be overly inclusive since someone who is neutral to conformity cannot, in some cases, easily be distinguished outwardly from a conformist, if their interests are mainstream, or a non-conformist, if they are not.
To me, most labels we attach to ourselves requires a certain level of maintenance. If I call myself a geek I have attached that label to certain interests I have, if those interests change does the label lose its meaning?
What I'm really saying is that a self-identified non-conformist has influenced their tastes in the future, whether they admit it or not. If that label is applied by others then it need not have the same effect.
It can be a sign of how original your thoughts are and whether you were just conditioned to enjoy that something, plus whether there's a huge universe of other things there (even more enjoyful and/or benefitional) that you were not told about as you just go with the flow of other people/fashion/etc.
I'm not trying to be intentionally difficult, but what does it matter how original an idea is, why measure it in that way? Is the idea satisfying, that's more interesting.
And it's important if you believe that living your life as a non-questioning-anything person that automatically follows what everybody else does and doesn't explore other avenues is not the optimal way to live it.
If you don't believe that, then it doesn't matter how original an idea is. Heck, in that case, as long as you're OK with it, then doesn't even matter if you're living in some religious sect, conditioned by some BS-artist leader to do whatever he wants.
Originallity is something for us people who believe that finding the "real you" etc is worth it to worry about. If this sounds circular it's because it is. Ultimately lifestyle choices come to a value judgement not dependent upon other things.
Worth worrying about? Nothing is worth worrying about.
I think we both agree that it's good to have an open mind, but we disagree on the importance of originality. I don't care if an idea is mine or yours or anyone else's, I don't care if it's the first time anyone has thought about it or whether it has been thought of a million times before, the only question for me is is the idea satisfying, is it an idea I enjoy.
There's a difference between a compelling idea and the source of that idea. If I've come up with compelling ideas before I don't see that as 'me' or part of me. Genius can come from anywhere and from anyone, it's not a measure of your worth as a human being. The best you can do to encourage it is to be open to it, to prepare yourself for ideas that are new to you.
If we start from that premise, death, life being meaningless etc, maybe. But in that case replying to my comment is not worth it either, and me replying to yours even more so.
So clearly we either take this conversation as people who think there is stuff worth worrying about, or we don't have it at all, and go either have fun or kill ourselves.
>the only question for me is is the idea satisfying, is it an idea I enjoy.
Would you be OK to be confined for the rest on your life in a hospital bed, being fed a drug that would make you enjoy your every moment tremendously? From your perspective you'd be totally happy. You might not enjoy some part of the idea now, but you'd totally enjoy it when given that drug. Would you go with that?
If not, then you agree with me that enjoyment is not the be all end all in life, so whether an idea is "satisfying" is not "the only question".
>There's a difference between a compelling idea and the source of that idea. If I've come up with compelling ideas before I don't see that as 'me' or part of me. Genius can come from anywhere and from anyone, it's not a measure of your worth as a human being.
Again, I'm not talking about original as in "unique"/genius or whatever, but in original as in "autentic" (yours).
The distinction between taking your own decisions or merely and with little resistance and pause following fashion or what your father told you or what the official at the church of scientology or the cool kid at school told you to do...
I believe life is what you make it, the value you get from it is directly related to what you put into it. So in some sense, life can be meaningless if you choose to make it so, and life can be meaningful if you choose to make it so. Some people don't like that view, which is fine, variety is the spice of life.
"But in that case replying to my comment is not worth it either, and me replying to yours even more so."
I'm not debating with you because I'm worried, I'm debating because it's fun.
"So clearly we either take this conversation as people who think there is stuff worth worrying about, or we don't have it at all, and go either have fun or kill ourselves."
So the alternatives to worry are to either have fun or kill yourself? I think you're a little confused about what self-reflection is, self-reflection and worry are not the same thing. For example, it's possible to self-reflect and laugh at the absurdity of your own views, it's possible to self-reflect without passing strong judgement, etc... .
"Would you be OK to be confined for the rest on your life in a hospital bed, being fed a drug that would make you enjoy your every moment tremendously? From your perspective you'd be totally happy. You might not enjoy some part of the idea now, but you'd totally enjoy it when given that drug. Would you go with that?
If not, then you agree with me that enjoyment is not the be all end all in life, so whether an idea is "satisfying" is not "the only question"."
I find it interesting that you mix satisfaction with falsehood. However, if you change the question to... Would you want to live a life where you regularly encountered moments that were genuinely satisfying/fascinating, then the answer would be yes, I would want that, I believe that'd be fun.
"Again, I'm not talking about original as in "unique"/genius or whatever, but in original as in "autentic" (yours).
The distinction between taking your own decisions or merely and with little resistance and pause following fashion or what your father told you or what the official at the church of scientology or the cool kid at school told you to do..."
Let me put it to you like this, can an idea that started from someone else be just as good for you as one that started from you?
(And no, this is not a "no true scotchman" fallacy. This is going with an a priori definition of non-conformism -- in fact, the standard dictionary/common language one--, and judging whether people fit that criterion or not, whereas the "no true scotchman" fallacy is based on changing the criteria).
Besides, even buying "pre-packaged lifestyle goods" could still qualify you as a non-conformist, if you buy it from small providers that not many people use.
Being a non-conformist is not about creating your lifestyle totally yourself (that you be the extreme version), it's about not going with the majoirity lifestyle choices (whether they are considered typically "conformist" (like a Hugo Boss suite) or "non-conformist" (like some hipster beard or a tatoo).
Going with the flow only makes sense for a large flow -- not some small niche of a current that's alien to 99% of the population.