»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
without barriers
| Philosophy 101 |
|
without barriers |
|
|
brian madden Member Elite
since 2000-05-06
Posts 4374ireland 
|
Every where there are limits, boundaries that we have built up to make ourselves secure. These boundaries stem from religion and morality. We understand they are there and accept them without question, but should we? Nature does not understand our man made laws or the workings of our society. Have we cut ourselves off from nature, tried to elevate ourselves above the filthy beasts of the land, when we may just be wolves in angels clothing? Can we surpress our natural instincts what would happen if we gave into these instincts ignored the barriers and rules, the expectations and limitations pushed up us over the centuries? I am interested in hearing people's thoughts on this matter. "To the centre of the city where all roads meet, waiting for you,To the depths of the ocean where all hopes sank, searching for you," Joy divison [This message has been edited by brian madden (edited 08-12-2000).] |
||
| © Copyright 2000 brian madden - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
JnR4eva Member
since 2000-08-07
Posts 377Bronx, NY |
hi  well i have taken an interest to the topic and i am a lil unaware of how exactly to approach this...i wish to come from a very objective point of view, yet i am inclined to favor the working of our society for i am the product of it...but i would like to comment on one or two things... i hope it makes sense of the religion and morality ... what a tricky topic b/c for many of us out there in the world, our morality is the direct result of our religion...and for many of us, our morality may stem from our persoanl experiences so thus it would seem silly to say that we must accept beliefs without question...i mean if we did not question and intrepret what we believed then we would seem to be programmed robots who can not think for ourselves and trust what is in our hearts...but not to direspect anybody of that nature, b/c if it is one thing that i have seen personally, is that these doctrines and rules provide an individual with stability in their life..where as many lost souls who believe in nothing are left to wonder aimlessly there whole life.... but it is necessary to question in what we have been taught to believe b/c the rules that we were taught are but laws made by men and men who claim to been inspired by God...but men are fallible...yes it seems very moral that one should NEVER tell a lie...but life expereinces would tell you that sometimes it is NECESSARY to lie... yet does that make me a wrong individual or one who should be sent to damnation? i support those who question what they were taught b/c its not the case that u denounce everything u were rasied to belive...but u have put ammendments to what you believe so that it better suites a realistic life...but at the same time it keeps the fundamental idea of what u were taught. like never tell a lie...one could amend that to say...tell a lie ONLY if it is necessary or if it will produce maximal happiness....i hope this has been made a clear as possible..and i wish not to offend anybody at the same time and i apologize if i have.... of raising above the filthy beast... i really do not how to approach this b/c well....ok it is quite evident that we have detached ourselves over time from our natural instincts (meaning we aren't cave men anymore) the more we have grown the more we think and separted ourselves from nature because we have leanred to use nature and exploit nature....and from that time people such as myself have never learned to use natural instincts b/c we have been taught to use the mind and thought and the creations of man...but my problem is that i do not feel that i am trying to be more advanced than a wolf...we have parallels....as a wolf mother raises her child to survive...the human's parents teach it to survive..BUT BY DIFFERENT MEANS..but this is all an interplay of nature....as a duck can not do what a wolf does...nor can a human do what a duck does... of supressing instincts... if we were brought up with no rules, no guidelines to life...we would be in constant upheavel amougnst eachother...we would ive as the wolf, and the duck...we would just know what our instincts of survival tell us, independent of rational thought.. i hope this has made some sense and i would like to hear back from you |
||
|
brian madden Member Elite
since 2000-05-06
Posts 4374ireland |
Ok Here goes, actually just a sec and I will make a cup of tea to jump start my brain. BRB. Ok, thanks for your reply. Please forgive the scattered thoughts and rant that follows. Hope it makes sense. I agree we need barriers guidelines to live by, but are the one's we have correct? When I am in a large city there is a part of me that thinks this is not right, there is no harmony or balance here, I just get a feeling that we have lost something. We are evolving at a great rate but towards what. I wonder if there are are too many barriers, it seems that from age 1 we are dictated to about what is right and what is wrong, everything is set up and the routines imposed. Granted there are routines in nature, at a certain time of the year birds migrate, at a certain they build a nest but we are not mere animals, we are suppose to at the top of the animal kingdom. We attempting to build Eden, but man's instincts may lie within the darkness of the jungle, what do we do with our instincts to hunt and kill, we have suppressed them, some people channel them (in ways both constructive and destructive). I agree complete morality is impossible we would end up in a 1984 type society, and we are close enough to it already. I think the ideal of God is key to our existence. Animals, as far as I know, don't have a dog but their understanding of the world is mainly in response to their surroundings. We, humans, on the other hand, Interact, response and dissect our environment. I think that is the great gift of Mankind to be able to question and also change things. Yet with that gift comes responsible that I am not sure we are ready for. Addressing one of your points "the more we think and separated ourselves from nature because we have learned to use nature and exploit nature.." I agree we have exploited nature, we have EXPLOITED not borrowed from nature, we take without returning and we do it on a grand scale. This will back fire on us. Anyway to the main point, we have been conditioned to a certain way of life, but should we not challenge these boundaries, it seems the only way to evolve. Totally ignoring our moral instincts what would happen? I could draw upon my usual debate material, "American Psycho." LOL. Without delving too much into the book, the main character lives in a world on routine high expectations and surfaces. Basically a hyper realistic version of our own world. His rebellion against his society is to brutally torture and murder people. He allows his animal instincts to surface, to fill the void of his lack of humanity. I think we should bend some of the smaller expectations. Allow ourselves breathing space. We have attempted to make this world, that we know little about, safe. I think our society has evolved into a routine almost. We have invented distractions to substitute the boredom and voids. We are a highly advanced race whose natural instinct to go forth and explore, though I think somewhere along the line we got caught in a rut. We now turn to technology in order to feed that need to evolve. Still there is so little we know about ourselves. I have probably veered totally away from the main point. LOL . I think if we gave into natural instinct there would be chaos, we would end up killing each other because we do not understand the harmonies of nature. The problem that faces us now in to work towards an Eden and enter with our humanity still intact. "Beyond all this good is the terror,The grip of a mercenary hand,When savagery turns all good reason, There's no turning back, no last stand,"I.Curtis |
||
|
monique Member
since 2000-02-03
Posts 369Louisiana |
Well I am about to have some barrier in my easy life of plenty I will have to cut down to one phone-line O my God! There are people who are starving and i will have to share my phone-line with the computer-line I will suffer énormément I won't be able to read as much poetry And ponder i wish i could write so good And being able to be on the phone at the same time. OLALA! I will have to learn to live without so much money. OUTCH! That will be a lot of barriers to put in my wheel-of-fortune. monique |
||
|
WhtDove Member Rara Avis
since 1999-07-22
Posts 9245Illinois |
Man has been living by instinct from the beginning of time. We have since then also ignored the 'laws.' Look at the Garden of Eden. There was only 1 command, and that was broken. RN, if you think about it we still do use our instincts. When in danger for our lives, it is our natural instinct to do what it takes, and fight to survive. We are above the animals of the earth. We have dominion over them. We were created to think and use logic. When we question things, we learn. It is in our search, that we find. We are supposed to learn what's right from wrong. But when man starts putting limitations on things, we can go too far. If you want to look at it this way, if you obey the 'laws' of God, you'll also obey the laws of the land. If we follow the commandments, which of course we will break, then it shall cover the laws of the land as well. For instance: Thou shalt do no murder (criminal homicide) Man makes a rule, for almost everything. Not an exact quote here, but Ron said something to the effect of, for every rule made, there are more problems caused by it. The more laws we make, the more problems that arise. We are not perfect, our laws are not balanced, because they're made by less than perfect, man. Man has a way of screwing things up. (no gender intended here) I think I'm going to leave off here on this one. |
||
|
Sudhir Iyer Member Ascendant
since 2000-04-26
Posts 6943Mumbai, India : now in Belgium |
hi brian, would have loved to participate in this one... but I prefer to shun myself from coming out my views on religion and its origin etc... for the simple reason of not wanting to offend any believers as I had once done before in my life thus far... I am not an atheist, but simply a non-believer in religionism... sorry, my friend... anything on logic, yes, but on religion, please accept my apologies... regards, sudhir |
||
|
brian madden Member Elite
since 2000-05-06
Posts 4374ireland |
Monique sorry to hear about the one phone line, I am in the same situation myself. WhtDove, I am not necessarily looking towards the religious side. THat does play a part in it, it defines some of our boundaries but my main questions are we trapped in our limits? Should we not be pushing those limits? What would happen if suddenly there were no limits? IN the religious aspect we live in fear that we will be punished for breaking the commandments yet if someone steals they will not expect to put on trial the same as if they murdered someone. What if there were no limits no fear of consequence no responsibility would we have the will power to keep in control to maintain order or would we slip into chaos. If we would slip into chaos then we are trapped we are held in place by not by our morality but the consequences of going against our morality. . Sudhir, feel free to join in as I said earlier this is not strictly about religion. "Beyond all this good is the terror,The grip of a mercenary hand,When savagery turns all good reason, There's no turning back, no last stand,"I.Curtis [This message has been edited by brian madden (edited 08-17-2000).] |
||
|
JnR4eva Member
since 2000-08-07
Posts 377Bronx, NY |
to sudhir... i am shocked that u have not put in your words we would have greatly apprecaited another out look to whtdv of natural instincts.... u have said that we still use our natural instincts....I AGREE WITH U TO THE UTMOST that there still exist in us those moments of time where we react off our instincts, i guess i never did state that i believed so LOL...HOWEVER we have to take something into consideration....when we act off our instinct..lets say a man has a gun to my head...am i not inclide to use my rational thought as an natural instinct?..to try and find the way to prevent him from shooting me is what's in my mind..(or for others other things LOL )..but u see the point i'm making? i wouldn't turn around on the gunman and start jumping on him and beating him like a caveman b/c i worked off my RAW natural instincts...instead i use my rational thought...however...that doesn't make it very natural instinct-ish..or does it? this is our problem with the logic( sudhir or brain jump in )u see we assumed that natural instincts do not work of rational thought.however what if your first instinct was to use or required the uage of rational thought( though it may be a hasty rational thought)? then we have ourselves a contradiction!...but to rid ourselves of that contradiction maybe our assumption is wrong...maybe it IS the case that thinking is a natural instinct? i dont know let me know how you feel whtdv..and like brain said i do not wish to get into God and the workings of religion cause well im trying to be VERY objective..and religion seems to be a subjective matter...sorry i hope i made sense "my love is my motivation my love is my inspiration perception of this poem is your interpretation" -- me |
||
|
WhtDove Member Rara Avis
since 1999-07-22
Posts 9245Illinois |
Sorry guys! It's just my way. I believe in God, and generally refer back to those things I've learned that help make sense of people and actions. Didn't mean to start anything 'religious.' Brain if we had no limits would things turn chaotic? Absolutely! If we were free to do what ever we wanted without the fear of accepting the consequences to our actions, our world be a mess. (well it already is) Do we need limitations? I think so. But I also think we overdo those limitations. It can be a vicious circle. JnR4eva would our natural instinct be to turn on the gun man and beat him? I really can't say. I've never been in that position. I think we would use our rational thinking, to try and get out of danger. And I guess in some ways, when in that danger, our natural instincts are also suppressed because of fear. So we may not act on them. It all depends on the person I suppose and their reaction to the situation at hand. Sudhir, I don't want you to NOT comment because of my statement. I know you've mentioned this once before where I was concerned. I don't consider myself "religious" or of a denomination. God is an every day part of my life, and I guess I relate Him into everything. I was relating to how I saw it. No one has to agree with me. I hope you will comment on the questions on hand, as they are not about religious matters. Again, I didn't mean to keep you from responding, I wasn't trying to make this a 'religious' matter. |
||
|
Sudhir Iyer Member Ascendant
since 2000-04-26
Posts 6943Mumbai, India : now in Belgium |
Hello all, Thank you all for asking me to be a part of this... Well, Here I am and I will attempt to distance from the religion factor as much as I can… This is how I believe things to have come about. Humans survive only as a cluster of beings, be it family, friends, or community with the same range of thoughts, i.e. a society. These were found necessary to increase the chances of survival against the same wolves who within their own packs very seldom hurt or at least hunted other wolves. In the era where the fittest would survive, it was important to imbibe upon certain common grounds, have a common process or flow of thought. This resulted in the definition of morality and a way of living. Cannibalism was abhorred, murder of kith and kin was deemed to be inappropriate etc…The morality itself could not survive because they were loosely connected. Hence came rules as a set of social obligations, very essential at that point in time, and most correct perhaps. So boundaries came into existence. Faith came at its own discretion, because there has to always have been a belief in a superior being… I can easily relate this to the survival of fittest concept. The most superior being was untouched by any one of the world, and if appeased by sacrifice (wealth, happiness, time, thoughts, love, devotion, killing etc) won't harm the rest of the tribe. This obviously did not work with the animals, whom man must have considered as one of his own kind of beings as they moved, had eyes, ate, slept, fought etc… Thus came faith in the sun who showed direction in the day, spreading warmth and let them sleep in the night and so on… similarly the wind whose breeze touched their skin in a soothing way… But see the negatives here, scorching sun left skin burns, forest fires etc… Storms hurt lives… Earthquake (from earth) destroyed lives… so did floods (river) and so they had to be appeased, but they were quietened and would never destroy each day. That helped them think that there is a separation in qualities of life and morals in between creatures… Now coming back to the point. Is it relevant still? Yes, most of the boundaries aimed at better living, and more cohesion in the same cluster of beings (as is now seen pronounced within subgroups of these clusters -called religion, way of thinking etc…). Natural instincts: Survival is still the basic tenet of life. We pray to survive, we help to survive, we talk to survive, and some kill to survive… All these can therefore be attributed to that basic element of life: survival. So we can't exist if we do not have survival guidelines (read as society guidelines) just as much as a single, solitary lamb cannot survive without its flock, or even a single person cannot survive alone in abandonment, without flipping his top. So what is the conclusion for me… We need the boundaries for the purpose of the making of these boundaries were, for our own existence, very useful. But over a period of time, when we became safe from the animals to a high degree, we focussed on other sub-groups within mankind. This destroyed the unity of the whole group, and we started breaking some of the first boundaries to create new revised boundaries, and alienating ourselves from simplicity and being friendlier towards complexity. So much so that my sneezing would affect the mental balance of my neighbour! Yet he would not kill me for that, for he still knows that this is a criminal offence - and animal instinct. So if we can draw parallels with the happenings, we still hold the basic rules of love and life dear to us. But the revised rules (of hypocrisy, division of thoughts due to trends, colour - looks, hair etc…. and many such newly developed and further developing human tendencies) are the ones that have to be controlled and rethought about. And may I say that the seeds of division are quite deep, else one man cannot cause others to be interested in the culmination of a race by propagating a concept of superiority in race… Well, how have I done? Am I confused and in a screwed spiral within myself, or are things having any sense? Thanks for bearing my tirade… and providing me a platform… ... and yes we are what we think we are: angels or wolves are because we differentiate and aim to understand the difference between the WOLF and MAN, the beast and the divine to as best as possible ... My regards and respects, Sudhir P.S. maybe I have certain loose ends there, that I have overlooked, but not because I have not thought of them but mostly because words did not flow while typing this out... |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
