»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Thinking, Aching
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Thinking, Aching |
|
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Other creatures find peace in this world naturally but we are forever bound, beasts of burden, under ages of thoughts our minds revolve in words swallowing. We form inner governments fronting our own minds shared to find peace, but always impaired. Why do we have to think? Why isn't peace instant, and natural for us too? Is thinking inside us on purpose, or a flaw of nature or accident of God? Why can't we just do the right things offhand as one good nature could move us all to it? Why can women think less but do right thing more than men? I'm curious for my own thoughts cause me too much difficulty and depression, and I wonder if there's any rational way out of the difficulty and depression? Hope you can share some. Thanks. Essorant. |
||
| © Copyright 2002 Essorant - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
'Why can women think less but do right thing more than men?' LOL... I think I'm going to do the 'right thing' by 'thinking less' about this comment and taking as little offense as possible. To quote Ayn Rand, man is a being of volitional consciousness. Man's mind is what distinguishes him from animals- 'Thinking is man's only virtue, from which all other virtues proceed.' In other words, we don't come with a set of rules, we are born only with the ability to think and set those rules for ourselves. Who is John Galt? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
For all our ages of this "virtue from which all other virtues proceed" why then are we so viceful and abusing in what we do in this one? We are in excess as if we never thought a thought like "nothing in excess"-- Everything is in excess and its hard now not to feel afraid of thinking itself that comes in excess to face excess. The hand of thought has impaired nature, polluted sky, water,and cut and cremated forests, caused animals to go extinct, and imposed itself smotheringly on all things abusing its own capacity, always wanting more. Other animals don't think and they find peace, we are beasts of thought who have thought for ages and still can't find peace. Why? And why do we continue to think more and want more, would not less make us smarter at this point? To follow our natures impulse of what is right and just? I believe there is a wisdom that doesn't need to think to do the right thing that thinking often impairs out of joint, maybe we have to seek this wisdom more closely, and create a better balance between it and our thoughts, perhaps then we will finally be able do the right thing and God reward us. [This message has been edited by Essorant (08-13-2002 01:37 PM).] |
||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
I think the answer to our corporate and individual frustration with the mind, has to do with our composite human nature. Biblically speaking, we have three parts that work together... Body, Soul ("psuche" in Greek...or the mind), and Spirit. The problem came to be when the order of submission was lost. Humanity's original state was Spirit, Soul, then Body. The mind and the body were under control of the spiritual side of a person, which was in communion with the Spirit of God. But when the spirit was disconnected from God's Spirit, the proper order and function was lost. When the desires of the body are vaunted above the mind and spirit, we get problems. Likewise when the mind is unduly exalted over the Spirit, thoughts become confusing because the orchestration of the Spirit is lost. It's kind of like individual musicians trying to play in an orchestra without the conductor. No matter what virtuosos are there, a cacophony will result. No matter how insightful, how keen our thoughts are, if we do not find out how to be spiritual, they will lead further and further into confusion and depression. I think that's why perhaps Solomon said "In much wisdom is much grief, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow." The Spiritual side of humanity is the peacemaker and moderator of everything else. It's not that thinking has no place. It just has to be connected right, and in the right order. That's what the scripture means which speaks of "the renewing of the mind", and of "the mind of Christ". It doesn't mean that a spiritual man doesn't think... he just thinks right, or is at least learning to do so, with his thoughts coming in alignment with God's thoughts. That is an awesome concept, that We could have the very same thoughts as God! Amazing. I think you are on to something when you say, " I believe there is a wisdom that doesn't need to think to do the right thing that thinking often impairs out of joint, maybe we have to seek this wisdom more closely", because it is the order of seeking. Seek God and you get true wisdom thrown in. Seek wisdom without God and you get sterile philosophies and ways of thinking that lead to hopelessness and despondency. Since everything proper was lost as humanity rebelled against God (in the archetype of Adam), then everything must be regained through humanity as well. But who can fix such an irreparably tangled situation as this (individually and corporately)? No one, except God. But a human hand dropped the ball, so a human hand must pick it up again, else nothing is fixed and justice is not served. Yep. God became a man and paid the price. We have a new Father, a new Archetype, the second Adam... Christ. This is the way for the corporate restoration of all things, in God's timetable. But it is also the way for an individual's restoration.. a process that is going on as we speak. You are correct. There is a state of being which is right, which we are not naturally, and no matter how smart we get, or how deep we go intellectually, we cannot get it through natural means. Just keep seeking. "Ask and it shall be given, Seek and you shall find, Knock and it shall be opened unto you." Stephen. |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
And to quote Mark Twain, "Man is the only animal that blushes ... or needs to." Pete |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
You're assuming that other animals don't think, which is questionable, and you're assuming that because of that they are at peace, which is highly unlikely. Except where man intervenes, animals typically spend 24 hours a day teetering on the edge of hunger. Or being hunted because of someone else's hunger. We worry about "life," and it's good that we do. Animals mostly worry about survival, not just when they feel pensive, but every waking moment. Peaceful? I seriously doubt it. Excess is never the result of rational thought, but invariably due to the lack of it. And I think peace, like happiness, isn't a state, but rather a moment. Neither people nor animals can be peaceful all the time, any more than they can be happy all the time, for either would inevitably lead to stagnation and death. We strive and grow precisely because we are NOT always peaceful or happy. Peace, when we are lucky and willing to accept it, comes only in brief moments. The setting of the sun, the sound of waves on a rock-strewn beach, the palpable quiet of a sleeping baby. Small slices of our life that exist not just in spite of the excesses, but often because of them and only in contrast to them. Moments. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Okay...sigh... and? I thought that post would make a nice bit of free verse (but they tell me I obsess:  ) but seriously---hmmm...Your answer is in your question: "we form inner governments" YES. From the day we are born--there is a very personal language we develop of symbolism--stare into the eyes of a one month old baby... There is depth, there. They/We learn through assimilation-association. A more perfect language--based on feeling--which is never wrong (feelings have no right of way--they just are...) It is through human interaction--and, it does behoove me to say so, language/WORDS that confuse communication. (<--if ya don't believe that, wait for the reaction....chuckle &  ) Read a bit? Carl Jung--"Dreams, Memories & Reflections" Peace. *damnineedadaisy* |
||
bsquirrel
since 2000-01-03
Posts 7855 |
I think the fact that you posted this in Philosophy rather than Feelings shows the problem right there, Essorant. To try and think on everything is to try and exert a form of control on that which cannot be controlled -- life. It is a tender delusion, but when that delusion gets in the way of life itself ... time to chuck it. Or, write a poem. Mike |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Ron said a lot of what I wanted to say. You call humans 'beasts' of thought.... beast? It is only by the virtue of thought that we are seperated from 'beasts...' we have the ability to reason, of problem solving in capacities greater than that of any other animal. Yes, along with that come the more complicated, and sometimes unpleasant aspects of society... but as Ron mentioned, we can never be wholly at peace. It's better that society has intellectual challenges that all of humankind regress into a nomadic barely-survival. Who is John Galt? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
We seem abandoning our wisdom and knowledge thinking too much and too differently, viciously-that what makes us like beasts of our thoughts--abusing control and pleasure, and are thus becoming more opposite of what we most had in mind to become, because its the root of many depressions and evils. Our anscestors came to simple realizations, truths and knowledge. "moderation in all things" --I can't think of something this age seems to need more and that nature stresses most. What can this world have of peace if it doesn't have balance? And moderation is the maker. The human world is a mess of haste becoming more decadant and less peaceful than it has ever been for all our expertise. What happened to the virtue of modesty? Why don't humans listen to what they know? I I want lighten up but I'm just aching a bit. [This message has been edited by Essorant (08-16-2002 12:47 AM).] |
||
|
MidnightSon Member
since 2002-05-15
Posts 312between the gutter & the stars |
peace is instant now that we have the blender. make a margarita, throw a lawn chair in the sand, and pop in the CD that makes you smile without having to work the skip control. there's a buhdist proverb that says the world is perfect as it is. if you find something is wrong or out of place, then it is inside yourself. make another margarita. find your harmony. simplify. *slurp* it's our struggle for identity that leaves us all unknown |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Okay.... I'm sorry... but I really have a problem with the idea that thinking is the root of all our problems. 'We seem abandoning our wisdom and knowledge thinking too much and too differently, viciously-' What wisdom are we abandoning? How are we thinking differently... what do you mean? How are we thinking viciously... what do you mean? And what wisdom is available to those without knowledge? What do you mean by wisdom? To me, wisdom is the ability to apply knowledge practically- maybe our definitions conflict? Specify... generalities really obscure your point. 'that what makes us like beasts of our thoughts--abusing control and pleasure, and are thus becoming more opposite of what we most had in mind to become,' Abusing pleasure? How can pleasure be abused? I don't understand. What did 'we' have in mind to become? By 'we,' do you mean you? What you had in mind for yourself, and all humanity to become? Because, not to be presumptuous, but by reading this post, I think I can say that what I have in mind for myself to become is vastly different than what you have in mind... and I do think it is very presumptuous for you to make a comment like that for all of humanity. 'because its the root of many depressions and evils.' What evils? What depressions? And how so? I don't understand your point- it seems like you are making shots in the dark without supporting them. Maybe I'm... uh... thinking too much about this? But... you did post a thread maligning thought in a philosophy forum... so... I'm sure this had to be the response you expected? 'Our anscestors came to simple realizations, truths and knowledge. "moderation in all things" --I can't think of something this age seems to need more and that nature stresses most.' Well... as an American, it's my freedom to disagree with the truth of 'moderation in all things.' I practice moderation in some things... but... should we practice moderation in the advance of medical technology? In civil and social rights? In the advancement of skill, in all fields? 'What can this world have of peace if it doesn't have balance? And moderation is the maker. ' I don't understand what kind of balance you mean. Do you mean between the body and mind? Do you mean between the ideaology of different cultures? What exactly do you think is unbalanced that moderation can remedy? Should technologically advanced countries, such as the U.S., hang back and wait for others to catch up? Is that what you mean? Should 'enlightened' cultures wait for others to see the light... or try to show them it, so they can be balanced as well? I really don't understand what you mean here... 'The human world is a mess of haste becoming more decadant and less peaceful than it has ever been for all our expertise.' Really? The world has always been tumultuous, and there has always been war... 'What happened to the virtue of modesty?' I don't accept modesty as a virtue. I also think it's probably a mistake to project your idealogy of virtue as applicable to the entire human race- it's not. 'Why don't humans listen to what they know?' What knowledge is available without thought? I am writing graffiti on your body |
||
|
SimplyGold Senior Member
since 2002-07-10
Posts 1453 |
Ron, thank you. You have summed it up quite well for me. Now, I just need to figure out how to make more space inbetween the moments. |
||
|
SimplyGold Senior Member
since 2002-07-10
Posts 1453 |
Humm..maybe I need less space, longer moments? [This message has been edited by SimplyGold (08-17-2002 11:03 PM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I must go to eat and drink for while to refresh myself that I may duly defend the truth. I'm not prepared to give up and say this is just my own confusion, just because hush has tangled me a bit. I will be back. Essorant. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Hush, I do deem thinking overall a virtue, I just feel thinking most of the time isn't, but that modesty most of the time is. I believe God is in our selves and that we naturally know all good and right, but the more we think, the more we tend to stray farther from God, and educated impulses . I meant too "differently" from philosophies of our ancestors based on realizations, we are asking to be hammered on the head again. Why is it needful? Why do we have to think our way to peace when impulse tends to have better aim? Thinking intrudes and makes sandblind the eye of wisdom, predominatly a rude discourse to life and detriment to the nature of things, it just takes perusing on how we have inflicted ourselves upon things to come to this-- how thought has made our hands harsh. The pollution, global warming, the crime, our outragous lack of abstaining- in substances, in pleasure, in business--this is what I mean by abuse. It is like an indirect communication, less accurate and shouldn't be depended upon over a natural educated impulse. "Should technologically advanced countries, such as the U.S., hang back and wait for others to catch up? Is that what you mean? Should 'enlightened' cultures wait for others to see the light... or try to show them it, so they can be balanced as well? I really don't understand what you mean here..." Our side of the world should stop wasting time and money on its own pleasure and business of entertainment and advancement that is immodestly out of proportion and give just a bit better distribution of these to the other side of the world, that shows needing our help in much areas, instead of just putting hand in and paying attention to them it seems only when menacing war and massacres stand out. No billionaire, or millionaire person or even corporation should exist while there are impoverished ill people and countries in this world. No celebrity or sport should get more attention. It just seems really unfair to me, and I wish I could change it all. Essorant. [This message has been edited by Essorant (08-18-2002 10:28 PM).] |
||
|
Toad Member
since 2002-06-16
Posts 161 |
I agree with almost all of what Hush has said, the only part that offers a glimmer of disagreement is this: quote: My problem is that I’m not so sure whether the nomadic barely-survival lifestyle isn’t one that a large number of people actually yearn for. Almost everyone I know harbours the dream of getting back to nature or self-sufficiency, I admit they’d probably last about two hours left to fend for themselves in the wilderness but it’s the thought that counts. It’s like a mass nostalgia for a non-existent Grizzly Adams past that offers to break the chains forged by the elusive ‘Them’; an easy out to a place where life is simpler and clearly defined. Some people actually do it, most do it at on a part time temporary basis, you see them all the time in tents and camper vans with satellite television and microwave ovens - a safety line back to the real world – just in case. What people are actually yearning for isn’t to turn back the clock it’s mostly to turn their backs on all the crappy things that society throws at them. The place they’re aiming for doesn’t really exist, the wilderness just has a different set of crappy things, most of them with sharp teeth and a lifetimes knowledge on how to use them. It doesn’t stop them thinking about it though. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Thinking so much is like trying to dig your way to Canada from the opposite side of Earth instead of embracing the delights and scenery of travelling there on the surface. But I don't say one shouldn't think at all, nor that I would like to see us exempt and nomadic, or complety governed by the wilderness again even though this would be safer for the world altogether. We obscured from wilderness because thought befell, so we will just have to deal with it as rationally as our impulses can govern their dammed currents and try to find peace best we can notwithstanding. But the only way we can do this is with moderation in these, so that we have moderation in what we do, or else the Human world hurts the natural world trying to control other things too much for lack of controlling itself. Essorant. [This message has been edited by Essorant (08-18-2002 09:08 PM).] |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Essorant- 'I do deem thinking overall a virtue, I just feel thinking most of the time isn't, but that modesty most of the time is.' The way you state this confuses me... you call thinking a virtue... but only some of the time... whereas modesty more often is... but... to my way of thinking... modesty holds us back. If Thomas Edison had said "aww, shucks... little old me can't invent a glass bulb that holds light..." yeah... if it wasn't him, somebody else would have... but... if modesty were such a collective virtue, people in general might say "aww, shucks, we people don't need/deserve a light bulb... candles will do just fine, thanks." And where would we be then? 'I believe God is in our selves and that we naturally know all good and right, but the more we think, the more we tend to stray farther from God, and educated impulses .' I have no desire to start the God debate, but I must say... you pretty much said my point yourself, the only difference is the negative connotation you give to something I see as positive: 'but the more we think, the more we tend to stray farther from God,' I must also say.... since when are impulses educated. I just spent over $500 on a new computer monitor and some other gadgets today.... it was an impulse... educated? LOL... I'd say not. If i were to apply thought to the situation, I would have acted with more moderation, and saved myself a considerable amount of money. By your logic, impulse is the better way to go... but... impulse leads to the satisfaction of desires... which generally isn't covered by moderation... There are no contradictions... one of us needs to check our premises. 'I meant too "differently" from philosophies of our ancestors based on realizations,' There is evidence suggesting that ancient Romans and Greeks knew the world was round. That knowledge was lost in the middle ages. Early explorers believed that the world was flat. It is only by rational thought that mankind rediscovered the truth... it is only by rational thought that we overcame irrational beliefs. 'Why do we have to think our way to peace when impulse tends to have better aim?' We have to think ourselves away form the state that impulse has brought us too. Hitler had the impulse to kill all Jews because of a presonal grudge against them. He also had the impulse to invade russia. those impulses didn't get him very far. Unfortunately, sometimes thinking our way out of a situation includes violence. The Russians thought their way out of an invasion by slashing and burning their crops and letting winter do the rest. I'm sure their impulse would have been to save thier land, their crops and property... but thought overcame impulse, and thought prevailed. 'Thinking intrudes and makes sandblind the eye of wisdom,' I still can't say I know what you mean by wisdom. 'our outragous lack of abstaining- in substances, in pleasure, in business--' I see abstinence as foolish in many cases. I will not abstain from pleasure when it presents itself to me- why would I? Why would I intentionally make my life less fun, less enjoyable, than it can be? Keep in mind that I do mean from a logical perspective- logic would have dictated that I keep my $500 today, if I had only $600 in the bank. Fortunately, however, I am in a poistion that I can afford to spend money on gadgets... so logically, it makes sense for me to please myself by doing so. Money in the bank doesn't make me happy. New stuff does. How can one 'fail to abstain' in business? I just don't get it. What do you mean? Substances are one thing to which I do hold the code of moderation. Can't disagree with you there. 'Our side of the world should stop wasting time and money on its own pleasure and business of entertainment and advancement that is immodestly out of proportion and give just a bit better distribution of these to the other side of the world' No it shouldn't. Nobody's happiness or prosperity should ever come at the expense of mine. If I choose to send money or donations to less fortunate people, that is an act of my own volition... I do believe in giving to others, but I believe in it as a primarily selfish action. It makes me feel good to do it. It makes me happy to do it, therefore, I do it. There is mutual gain- a family is fed by my contribution to a food drive, and I am satisfied that I did my part. See what I mean? But nobody should ever be forced into such a social contract, because not all people see the virtue in giving. Not all people want to share. That's fine too. 'that shows needing our help in much areas,' What do they do to deserve our help? What's in it for us? 'instead of just putting hand in and paying attention to them it seems only when menacing war and massacres stand out.' This is true, and it irritates me to no end. Tossing alms to keep the less fortunate quiet about their plight is wrong, in my opinion. Logic and thought dictate that one would find the root of the problem and remedy it. Laziness and fear on the part of governments leads to 'keep it down' behavior. 'No billionaire, or millionaire person or even corporation should exist while there are impoverished ill people and countries in this world. No celebrity or sport should get more attention.' So, nobody of merit should exist while people who are unable to feed and clothe themselves exist? No prosperity while the poor exist? Better to have the entire world starving than only part? Demanding that people fall down to the lowest denominator gives no guarentee that others will rise for a common good. Instead, it digresses into a common squallor, where each man pleads his need, and no man is willing to disclose his ability, because he knows he will be faced with the burden of feeding another man's family while his own goes without. Who feeds the world then, with all ability eradicated? Toad- 'My problem is that I’m not so sure whether the nomadic barely-survival lifestyle isn’t one that a large number of people actually yearn for.' In theory. Throw people out in the wilderness for two hours, like you said. See how much more they appreciate big business after that. For the most part, we're in agreement here... You are basically saying that people yearn for a nomadic lifestlye but can't let go of 'real' life. I'm saying that people express a desire for social systems that will, ultimately, reduce a society to that level of squallor. They want it indirectly, without realizing exactly what it is that they want. I am writing graffiti on your body |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Hush, I would rather have a world condition with candles than one with weapons of mass destruction. If everything had been slowed down more that would have aided our approach , we wouldn't have missed the good things. It would have given us more time to think less and thus more wit and sharpness to make choices withal. Imagine if Napoleon had been modest? With all that energy. He might have been a saint. I believe one of hightest virtues and priorities of Saint was Modesty itself, in all areas except pledging chaste devotion to religion and to the cause of giving. I'm not saying we should be Saints! But perhaps we should think about them more, these men and women of the past who forewent most personal selfishness and pleasure to give and help others around with out needing something in return knowinng they're helping a need. I feel we shouldn't forget the thoughts, more we shouldn't forget the passions and deeds of these people, but maintain and continue them still somewhat in our own. They are still somewhere within us and needed. If one disciplines oneself to modesty, it will tend to be and become in the impulse that fleet and nimble desire that is like an arrow. Thought usually can't be carried the distance because it is like a too-heavy battering ram--sometimes you need it but most of the time you shouldn't, while you have wisdom, a good sense of direction established. "Hitler had the impulse to kill all Jews because of a presonal grudge against them. He also had the impulse to invade russia. those impulses didn't get him very far." No impulses are ill unless thoughts somehow cause them to be. It was pure radical thoughts that made the grudge that reared and ruled hitler and his empire. He was thoughtful utmost, and in a way that left him with no good and nature, this is an extreme instance of what I mean by thoughts making hands harsh. If he had just thought less and felt more, his energy might have been toward something much different. When inner governments of any shape lack modesty, and moderation extremes become the means and extremes are still the means in many cases of this age. There is a lot of understandable reason on the other side of the world for spite and envy about lack of equality. Look at North American luxury--we have so much we hurt ourselves with it. A lot of us have our shingled roofs, isolation, drainpipes, toilet and sink, paved driveway, sometimes security systems, our electronics and gadgets etc. This is already luxury, but think about celebrities like Adam Sandler and Tiger Woods. While millions of people in the world are living houseless or in shambles, unable to get education, scraping on streets for just a little bit of money so they can by food, or something that can help them just feel less the pain of their condition, here are two people who just act and play games and have attention all over them and pools of money, whereof most is spent on the mortgage for the mansion that could house a hundred, fur coats, security guards, the limo etc.. This is where modesty And where thoughts of saints should come in and influence us just a bit to give more, and perhaps want less. The whole world should be united states, not just United States. United States tend to thinks its the omphalos of the world, that the rest of the world is inferior with less power and pride, but thats not the case, power and pride come in various shapes, and can sometimes come out more in the difficult conditions. [This message has been edited by Essorant (08-19-2002 05:04 PM).] |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
i'm in complete agreeance with hush here as to your presumptions, many of which are based, i think, with good intentions, but are poorly thought out. i believe from what i've read here that your heart is in the right place... but that goes toward discrediting your whole theory. without though, impulses get you nowhere. i think that's been established. take for example this means of communication you're using right now. i have to assume that you have access to a phone line and a computer, are able to read either printed word or braille, and that you're not out in this fabled wilderness mentioned above. that being the case, how in the world do you think you are able to do this? people thought about it, long, hard, and most of the time. if, as you proclaim, you would be willing to trade weapons for candles, then why aren't you trading internet for a few dollars that you could be giving the guy down the street who doesn't work? don't think about it - just do it...? quote:here's where i start rolling my eyes. what you're suggesting is a quasi-communistic community that has less chance of working than the original model, and for the same reason - human nature, baby, human nature. this is suggesting that people who work hard, hone their talents, and succeed, should support those who don't choose to work hard to gain a life for themselves. you can argue six ways from Sunday, but you'll never be able to convince me that most people who are homeless, hungry, etc. in this country, can't get a job and make a better station in life for themselves. to even attempt such a form of society would bring it crashing around our heads - based on the assumption that it could even be forced into existence in the first place which i think as likely as me holding my breath all the way to the moon. you would then have a society where the strong and the proud worked, while the weak and the lazy would simply live off the dividends, procreating in order to have more children who wouldn't work, because what the need? we are a product of our environment... and you would have that environment changed to encourage decadence? *shaking head* from Ayn Rand again: "I shall live my life for no man, nor ask that any man live his life for me." We all have the opportunity to stand on our own feet and make our mark in this world as we see fit. This is not a guarantee for success. Yet sitting at home, living off of Tiger Woods' salary isn't getting you anywhere either. Live your life, think about it, and you can achieve great things. Sit at home, complain about the upper class, and you can achieve nothing but continuance of monetary, emotional, and mental stagnation. [Edit] Oh, and you might want to pick on Rich Beem this year, he won the PGA Championship yesterday by a single stroke (ten under par) for a modest prize of $990,000.00. Tiger came in second, and the poor guy only recieved $594,000.00. [This message has been edited by Christopher (08-19-2002 06:59 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
I have to agree with essorant on the point of the need for moderation. Moderation is an interesting term... the latin root word is moderatus which means to restrain or control. And to restrain is alot different than to abstain. Moderation is the balance somewhere between Epicureanism and Stoicism. In my opinion this is where life is most liveable. But in modern society it is valid to ask the question, which side do we tend to lean toward? I think it is more than obvious that we (especially in the west) lean more toward an Epicurean way of life. If there are two ditches, one being a monkish life of sackcloth, sand, and water, and the other being oversated palaces of pleasure, which one do we drift towards the most? The blind lead the blind, and they both fall into the ditch. What if there have been men and women in history who have seen the dangers of excess both individually and corporately, and they are somehow meant to be "eyes" to us? The fact is, there have been countless who have seen this danger. And for any who are prejudiced against Christian influence, this idea doesn't come from just Christianity but from many world-views. Siddhartha Guatama (who began what is known as Buddhism) also saw the dangers of excess, unbridled pleasure, and amassed wealth. As a matter of fact it's what sent him on an agonizing search for the answer of human suffering. Now as a Christian, I do believe Guatama came to the wrong answer, but I believe he had the right question, and also saw many truths. The valuing of temperance is in most every world religion... why? May I venture to say, it's because it is real wisdom. And wherever people have sought wisdom it has been found by them in some degree. It might be foolhardy not to take into consideration what many respected and devout thinkers have repeated over and over throughout history, and say "well there's nothing to that". As to the area of thinking... I am not in agreement that thinking is evil. In many cases not thinking is evil. I think what may be detrimental is a prideful intellectualism. This is different than thinking, or even being thoughtful. It is raising the intellectual aspect of humanity to the place where it is the arbiter of everything. When it is the sole consideration, a problem arises ... morality gets left out in many instances. Because ethics do not always support what is most "profitable", or what yields the greatest immediate returns. In fact the moral aspect of mankind says that it is always more profitable to be moral in the long run even when you can't see it. I guess that's where the word faith comes in, because it takes a degree of seeing the unseeable. But in reality we have had so many examples throughout history and so many teachers who have had wisdom, that the faith aspect is smaller than ever. We can see the profit if we look closer. If the spritual side is ignored, our thinking always goes awry. If the spiritual side is discovered as a "pearl of great price", we don't quit thinking... we just "think different". Stephen. |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
quote:Very well stated Stephen. |
||
|
Toerag Member Ascendant
since 1999-07-29
Posts 5622Ala bam a |
I'm not sure where you got the "women think less and do the right thing" from...so maybe ya should just ask someone brilliant like Anna Nicole Smith?....besides, I'm a man, and unlike the animals that may or may not think, I think I'll go get a steak and a beer.....just pondering of course, don't guess animals ponder either...do they?....sometimes "thinking" is carried to an extreme then we get mixed up on whats correct or incorrect....then we have indecision....(women call this procrastination in men)...LOL....women have that motherly instinct stuff...but men figure out ways to get around that.....good luck, and don't get too depressed...if you get too depressed, leave your woman.... |
||
|
Toad Member
since 2002-06-16
Posts 161 |
quote: And travelling there on the surface wouldn’t involve thinking? Not thinking is a neat trick, the fact that it’s impossible is probably the biggest hurdle we need to get over before we master it. That was my point earlier with the wilderness thing “It doesn’t stop them thinking about it”. We can’t not think, even instinct in stressful situations involves a thinking process, the higher levels of the brain that give you options and choices are suppressed leaving the lower levels to issue rapid commands. If these thinking functions are the ones you mean for us to use there’s another slight hitch. The lower brain functions on simple commands commonly concerned with rapid response to emergency situations, they’re quick because they aren’t interested in weighing the pros and cons, the situations they deal with require action NOW, it’s a last gasp 50/50 decision that in such situations is worth the risk. This is where things can, and often do, go wrong. Ever caught a rabbit in your car headlights? The rabbit isn’t hypnotised by the light, it isn’t frozen with fright, it’s just come up against one of those emergency situations, the higher levels of it’s brain, the options, are closed out and it asks it’s lower level functions to tell it what to do. The lower brain sees two white objects three-foot off the ground travelling at thirty mph, works out it can’t outrun them and shouts FREEZE. Have you ever caught a rabbit in the headlights of your car that just turned casually and hopped out of the way? Well they’re the intelligent ones. BTW Chris You sold me on the quasi-communist society idea, living the high life and all that procreation and no work to boot? Where do I sign Comrade? [This message has been edited by Toad (08-19-2002 06:13 PM).] |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Essorant- 'I would rather have a world condition with candles than one with weapons of mass destruction. If everything had been slowed down more that would have aided our approach , we wouldn't have missed the good things.' I can't argue with you here, because this all comes down to personal values. Presonally, I feel that the good things technology has brought us outweight the bad by far. But that's a feeling, not a qualitative value... 'It would have given us more time to think less and thus more wit and sharpness to make choices withal.' More time, to me, seems to indicate time for more thought, rather than less. Also... I'm still really, really struggling with your concept that less thought gives us more wisdom, and wit??? Huh??? Please, please explain this to me, because I don't see how this conclusion can possibly be possible. 'Imagine if Napoleon had been modest?' Interesting point. But it can be made about anybody. Imagine if Shakespeare had been modest. 'But perhaps we should think about them more, these men and women of the past who forewent most personal selfishness and pleasure to give and help others around with out needing something in return knowinng they're helping a need.' Selfishness is inherent in human nature. there is no truly selfless action. The person who gives does so because it pleases their moral standards, correct? If saints believe it right to give, they do so, and because of this, they gain a sense of happiness. I mean, when's the last time you heard a saint say "Man, you know, I really just hate helping others!" That's preposterous... and sickening. Selfishness motivates us to live up to our moral standards, because of the satisfaction we derive from it. They aren't foregoing their most personal selfishness and pleasure... they are indulging it. Furthermore... this is a good, healthy, natural, beautiful process... people dealing by mutual consent, and for mutual gain. 'I feel we shouldn't forget the thoughts, more we shouldn't forget the passions and deeds of these people, but maintain and continue them still somewhat in our own. They are still somewhere within us and needed.' Do you think people should be forced to help others, or that we should ahve a choice? I believe in choice. If there is a man dying on the street of starvation, it is my right to turn my back and state "It isn't my problem." My personal set of morals would promote me to help the man.... give him some money, a sandwich... a smile... because it would make me feel good to help another human being. But... it is still my right to ask whether the needed services are also deserved, and act accordingly. 'No impulses are ill unless thoughts somehow cause them to be.' Huh? This makes my head hurt. So... I'm a forty-year old man. Is my impulse to have sex with my ten-year-old daughter only bad when thought is applied? The impulse, in and of itself, is nothing to worry about, just a normal feeling men have? Give me a break. 'It was pure radical thoughts that made the grudge that reared and ruled hitler and his empire.' I disagree. Do you think any line of reasonable thought can lead someone to believe that Jews are all inferior, (as a rationalization [read- defense mechanism] against the fact that they thought his art sucked) Germans are superior, and that in order to propogate these beliefs (not thoughts- beliefs) he had to launch a plan to take over the world? I think Hitler felt slighted and went on an insane power trip to make himself feel better. Not that I'm an expert on the subject, but from what little I know, that's what seems to be the case. 'Look at North American luxury--we have so much we hurt ourselves with it.' How? I really can't recall the last time having roofing shingles did me any harm. In fact... it only did good... we got a nice roof, and our roofer got paid a handsome sum to do the job. Mutual consent and mutual gain. No roofs... all roofers lose their jobs. No entertainment industry? Your quest to de-throne celebrities doesn't account for all the movie theaters, music stores, makeup artists, roadies, bookies, stadiums, and countless other people/venues that would lase their means of survival. Does it make sense to throttle the livelihood of thousands just to 'be fair?' 'This is where modesty And where thoughts of saints should come in and influence us just a bit to give more, and perhaps want less.' On a personal basis, perhaps. A lot of people do believe this. However, you can't apply personal morality to all people. I still have the freedom to not help... ans that's essential. Really enjoying this debate, BTW. I am writing graffiti on your body |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Thought is to heart as machine is to hand. Do you call the machine superior? Wiser? Will you trust it more? It isn't something that ammends of itself, we in feeling and impulse ammend thought, and it often demonstrates the kenspeckle tendencies to go menacingly out of joint and kilter if you don't condense and moderate the usage of it. Just like too much machine and reliance on machine in the real world is hazardous and smothering to natures health and symmetry, so is too much thought and reliance on it most of the time, in ourselves hazardous to our own personal nature and natural stability. Often If we slow down I feel when we have more time to feel more naturally we can ammend our thoughts better so that they can work less hard and harsh and as long, and condense more to to get where we want to go with them, sharper. More time and less haste would make healthier feelings and thus, healthier thoughts in less thinking. I wasn't saying at all anyone should be forced to do anything, as you will say it is moral, cultural, and I agree with Hush inevitably somewhat selfish choice to give or not to give to a need, a needing person, and we duly have the right to what choice soever. I am speaking just straightforward the bend of my opinion of a choice I wish more persons would make here and there because the world seems needing it-- the choice of giving more attention to the less fortunate people and countries, and reducing this our predominate state of luxury, not even a lot, but just a bit more, in order to give a bit more to those who just need a living. We are the people who are really making most of the millionaires, Aren't we? And they mostly come from North america. But do many of these people like actors and sport players and such entertainers, really deserve to be swimming in so much attention money and luxury as they do? Does this not also take the integrity out of these things a bit too? Some how shouldn't choices be made to tone down these people a bit who are enertaining and wanting, and give a bit more tone to those whom are begging and needing. I know many help, but think most hoard. Celebrities deserve their fame but it is given ad nauseum overmuch nowadays. I know nothing can be completly equal, but we are the fattest part of the world, we can afford to give more and want less, so we should. Essorant. [This message has been edited by Essorant (08-20-2002 07:31 PM).] |
||
|
Toad Member
since 2002-06-16
Posts 161 |
Essorant quote: By heart do you mean the thought processes that produce compassion, morality and a sense of ethics? quote: As has already been pointed out – we amend thought and the decisions we make by thinking more, not less. quote: As I said earlier, without the higher levels of thought we are left with only the reptilian brain function –instinct- which has a 50/50 chance of us all ending up as roadkill. quote: I can understand the slowing down part, not rushing into things, THINKING them through, but if you’re saying just slow down, relax and DON’t think I can’t see where any thoughts, healthy or otherwise are going to come from. The next bit is all about the semi-communist state, similar to the ethos that existed in early American settlements. The problem is it doesn’t work when you scale the model up to the size needed to deal with modern societies. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Hush, You said: "Selfishness is inherent in human nature. there is no truly selfless action. The person who gives does so because it pleases their moral standards, correct?" Just some thoughts... When you say that "there are no truly selfless actions" what exactly do you mean? Are you saying that when a person does a good deed for another person, that there is without exception an ulterior motive behind it? That would mean that every act that is called virtuous would be in reality only a link in the chain to get somewhere else... the place of pleasant feelings which commonly follow doing something "good". I understand where you are coming from. But If those feelings of satisfaction which tend to come from performing selfless deeds are the only goal, then theoretically, if those feelings could be obtained some other way, they would. This is especially true if being selfless involves discomfort, effort, and sacrifice, or any kind of pain. If helping someone is only a means to another ends then the path of least resistance will be taken no doubt. Why trouble with all the stretching exertion of reaching out to someone else if (theoretically) the same desired results could be found down an easier path? I think most often, selfless deeds are done against a flood of human emotions and desires in the contrary direction. It's like salmon swimming upstream. You are definitely right when you say that selfishness is inherent in human nature. It think there are many examples in present life (and history) of people who help others at a great cost. Now you may say that these deem the reward of doing something virtuous as greater than the cost it imposes. And I would agree. But where I would not agree is in the assertion that this is being "selfish". It's kind of hard to explain but there is a subtle difference here. Usually when people do deeds that are truly virtuous, they are not harboring ideas of reward actively in their minds. At least it seems to me (you may disagree here), that my best actions are when I have forgotten myself completely for the moment. I know there are times (much fewer than there should be) when I have done things for others with no conscious thoughts of pleasing myself by doing it. My thoughts were absorbed in the person(s) recieving my affections. In fact if I had begun to think about rewards and pleasure etc... I would have found ample reason not to do it. This may be an example (for Essorant ) where thinking plays a lesser role in the scheme of things. I'm not saying that thinking isn't involved. But to be honest with you, if I am thinking in terms of returns and profits for myself, I can find a much more pleasant path for myself than being loving and selfless. I think the difference in what you are saying may involve the order of events, or the source of things. Some believe that the source and incintive for good deeds is the moral satisfaction they bring. But turn that around. What if the source of the satisfaction is actually the good deed...or more accurately the motive behind it in union with the deed? What if the only way to get any lasting moral satisfaction is not really to have it as your main concern? What if these rewards only flow from a heart that genuinely wants the wellbeing of someone else and would want it even if the good feeling somehow didn't come? Now here is where it is clear to me what people are really saying who don't believe in any truly "selfless" action. It is the disbelief that anyone could be genuinely desirous of the good of another for that reason alone. To put it more simply it is being skeptical that love really exists. It is for some people (I am not saying so in your case because I don't yet know you personally) a suspicion that no one can be really selfless because, they themselves cannot be really selfless. Not finding it inside often makes it a struggle to find it anywhere else. It can be a projection of ourselves. But if you are merely saying that good feelings and satisfaction flow from doing what is right, I agree. If you want to call that "selfish", I say it's either one of two things. 1) Semantics- because the one who values (but not supremely) the satisfaction of welldoing, may be in some sense called "selfish", in which case I agree, but would not agree with your choice of words. or 2) there is a disallusionment with the ability of humanity to have any virute. I like to think love really exists. In fact I am certain. I have seen it too often in others. But to concede here Hush, I agree that there is often (and should be) mutual benefits involved in relationships. Love is best when it is returned. I'm just not so sure we should refuse to dispense it when it is not. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (08-20-2002 05:47 PM).] |
||
|
Toad Member
since 2002-06-16
Posts 161 |
Stephanos That was a well presented and thought out argument. However quote: OK I better hold my hand up, I’m guilty as charged. I’ve never in my life done anything that I consider selfless, I’ve done a few things that other people have regarded as such but none where I can’t pinpoint the exact reason why I did it and what I got out of it. I’ll go one step further, I can’t imagine ever doing anything that was selfless or didn’t benefit me in some way. Let me give you an example: About seven years ago I was driving along one Sunday morning when I noticed the van in front of me was weaving a lot, I slowed down to put some distance between us. The next minute the van veered sharply to the left (we drive on that side btw), hit the grass verge and did a full 360+ in mid-air. I pulled up, ran to the van, which was on its side leaking petrol and steam. I climbed up onto the top of it and dragged the driver, who was unconscious, out of the side window. After I’d put him down a safe distance from the vehicle I went back and removed the battery to prevent any electrical short igniting the petrol. By this time a crowd had gathered, after checking the driver was ok and as the emergency services arrived I got into my car and drove home. The accident and the ‘mysterious selfless hero’ were all over the local news for days, the only people I told were my family. There was a good reason for me to do what I did, two in fact, the first is that I knew I could do it, and the second is that I was the only one there at the time that could. The selfish part in all this is that I didn’t want to spend the rest of my life working out why I didn’t, if I could have guaranteed it wouldn’t have haunted me, I’d have kept on driving. I remember thinking as I ran towards the van that if I slowed down a bit the tank might blow before I got there and the only person that would know would be me. Looking back I also recall thinking that if I did it may blow while I was on top of it so I selfishly ran as fast as I could. My point is that one reason people do things that are considered selfless is the avoidance of the consequences of doing anything else. They don’t gain as such, they just don’t lose anything, that anything can be something as small, or as big, as self respect. [This message has been edited by Toad (08-20-2002 06:50 PM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Toad- "By heart do you mean the thought processes that produce compassion, morality and a sense of ethics?" By heart, I mean the feeling processes that alloy into and produce compassion, moralities, sense of ethic, and philosphy, the seat of highest government. These are what should be the legislators and ammenders of thought. Without these the mind is a cold world governed by machines alone. When we get too absorbed in mechanics of machinery it alter our state so that we start staring too much time away at the machines waiting for solutions somehow to come out of these alone rather than going back to the original wisdom, the direction we meant to keep programmed into them to begin with. I say from my bad experience. The wisdom was good, but the machines we have depended upon so much couldn't hold onto it the distance, and now have deviated into immodest and destructive ways. It is time to go back to the original wisdom. We could use less machine, our hands a bit more directly. Essorant. [This message has been edited by Essorant (08-21-2002 12:03 AM).] |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Essorant- 'Thought is to heart as machine is to hand. Do you call the machine superior? Wiser? Will you trust it more?' If the hand is my banker's, and the machine is a computer, and the object of the work being done (interesting you didn't mention that in your analogy?) is the entire sum of my personal finances... yeah, I think I trust the machine more. If the hand is a rescue worker's, and the machine they are hooking to me is a ventilator... I think I trust the machine to give me consistently good air more than I trust mouth-to-mouth breathing. Intentions are nothing without means to accomplish them. Stephan- By no truly selfless act, I mean that there is no (volitional) action possible that does not benefit a person in one way or another. We choose the best option available, simply because self-destruction isn't in our natures... and in the case of a suicidal or self-harming person, I maintain that the choice to harm oneself brings a relief from whatever conditions caused that impulse. One of my points is this- wouldn't the world be a much sadder place if all the poeple who did help others did it truly selflessly? Without any gain or satisfaction to show? With only loss and unhappiness as their payment? 'Usually when people do deeds that are truly virtuous, they are not harboring ideas of reward actively in their minds.' I never said that people consciously choose helpful actions for rewards. I do not consciously write with my right hand because it's easier than doing so with my left. Better example: I do not consciously think of the satisfaction I will gain from helping another person, the same way I do not think to take offense at sexist remarks. It just happens. Morality, once cemented, is second nature... like the hand you write with. 'In fact if I had begun to think about rewards and pleasure etc... I would have found ample reason not to do it.' My father is leaving me all of his finances when he dies, because my brother hasn't bothered calling in years. Now, I call my father because I love him, and I help him when he needs help because my moral code demands that I help a person I love... but I am not unaware of my financial benefits. When he goes, I'm going to accept the money happily... no facade of selflessness will cause me to feel guilt... or say "No, really, I don't want financial security... or (gasp) luxury..." By your logic... I should not call my father anymore, because I am thinking of my payments. Doesn't make much sense to me. 'It is the disbelief that anyone could be genuinely desirous of the good of another for that reason alone.' I do think that desire exists. It is the fulfillment of that desire that is the selfish action. 'To put it more simply it is being skeptical that love really exists.' I strongly disagree here. I think love is a bad word to use in this situation, anyway... because while I would help a stranger in need... I would not love that stranger. 'It is for some people (I am not saying so in your case because I don't yet know you personally) a suspicion that no one can be really selfless because, they themselves cannot be really selfless.' That's my point! I can't be really selfless... Toad already made this point for me... I don't think anyone can. I don't think it's the actions, or the motivations that differ between me and you- I do think this is a semantics issue. I call all actions selfish. You call them selfless. Scenario: Homeless man, begging for alms. Well-to-do man gives him twenty bucks. I call it selfish- the well-to-do man is sating his desire to see good done to other people. You call it selfless- man is giving up hard-earned money for the cause of goodness to another man. There is, however, a line between selfish and greedy. Selfish is normal and healthy- greed is where ulterior motives come into play... greed is what makes a person want to benefit at the expense of another, rather than at the benefit of another. Greed is taking what you don't deserve... greed is the homeless man expecting alms, and robbing the man who won't volunteer them. There is a big difference between the two terms. I am writing graffiti on your body |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Hush, I think the commonly held definition of "selfish" is what you are attempting to change. But how can you divorce a word from it's negative denotation? Look the word up in a variety of different dictionaries and see what you get ... I don't think the dictionary itself is all-authoritative, but I do think it gives us a pretty good idea of how people have made use of a word. I would challenge you to show me one (preferably non-speculative, non-philosophical) text where the word selfish is not used with the negative denotation. What you and others are seemingly doing is taking a word and making it mean something else. If you mention a healthy self interest being ingrained in everything we do ... I agree. I just will not call it selfish, because they describe two different things. Selfishness exists, and so does healthy self-interest. Admittedly, the difference is one of degree ... as in the difference between hunger and gluttony. Both involve the root principle of eating. But sharing the same principle doesn't mean they are alike. All bad actions are a perversion or an excess of what is otherwise good. Take anger for example... It is not always a bad thing to be angry. In fact sometimes it would be more wrong not to be angry. But anger taken to the extreme of rage, or unforgiveness is not good. That must be why the bible says "Be angry and sin not". . . indicating that the wrongness lies in the inappropriate reaction to anger, not the anger itself. This brings me to my next point... First, I would like to use just a couple of exerpts from the bible because it provides illustration for what I am trying to say. "Take care not to make public performance of your goodness, with the intention of letting everyone see how good you are. If you do, you can expect no reward from your Father who is in Heaven. When you are going to perform an act of charity, do not annouce yourself with a fanfare of trumpets, as those whose religion consists in ostentatious play-acting do in the synagogues and on the streets, to win popular applause. I tell you truly, they have all the reward they will ever get. But when you perform an act of charity, your left hand must not know what your right hand is doing. Your aim must be to keep your charitable giving secret. And your Father who sees what is done in secret will give you your reward in full." (matthew 6:1-4). The idea of reward being a motive for doing what is right is a good thing. On that point I am in total agreement with you. The world would be a sad place if there were no benefit in helping others. This is not a bad thing. I think it is the way God set it all up, so that following his moral law would yield blessing ... both for the giver and the reciever. But the above text illustrates the possibility of there being a different kind of reward... A selfish kind of reward. What if someone feeds the hungry because the recognition of it helps them politically? Oh yeah, the hungry being fed might not bother them in the least. They like to see others prosper well enough. But that isn't the heart-motive. At a heart level, if all recognition were stripped away, that person would not be feeding the hungry. There is nothing strong enough inside to motivate that kind of action and energy ... it all came from the outside. That's why it's possible to do a spectacular philanthropic act for the wrong motive ... spiritually and morally it profits the giver nothing. Physically, on the side of the recievers there may be much benefit. But the person who did it has no lasting reward. Now if the person (genuinely) wasn't looking for recognition, and it came anyway, then that person would not lose his spiritual reward. You said "I call my father because I love him, and I help him when he needs help because my moral code demands that I help a person I love... but I am not unaware of my financial benefits. When he goes, I'm going to accept the money happily... no facade of selflessness will cause me to feel guilt... or say "No, really, I don't want financial security... or (gasp) luxury..." By your logic... I should not call my father anymore, because I am thinking of my payments. Doesn't make much sense to me." Now what you are saying seems to be that you did it because you love him, and that your love demands that you help him... but you also may benefit in a material way. I have no problem with that. I never said that anyone should avoid any benefits that come. They just can't be the only motive, or even the primary motive. My question to you would be, Would you do what you are doing even if your Father had no money to give you? If you say yes and mean it, I would say this is a sincere act of kindness. If you say no, then I would call that selfish, even deceptive. If you really would do it without the money, then there is no shame in recieving what is given to you. It is a gift. Part of love is being able to recieve as well as give. I am not into self-flagellation ideologies, where it is deemed wrong to recieve blessings. The way I see it, if I do what is right and good to myself comes with it, then I won't refuse it. It is God's gift to me. I have never refused benefits that came naturally from doing what is right. Have you ever heard the saying "It is more blessed to give than to recieve"? To say that something is MORE blessed than something else, implies that the other thing spoken of is also blessed. But if we deem recieving to be the supreme goal, we will seek recieving for it's own sake. If we make temporal benefits the reason for doing good deeds, then we lose the best reward. This brings me to my final point. A person who would give without consideration of material benefit for himself... still gives mindful of a reward. This reward involves those feelings of satisfaction which come from helping others, the meeting of the need to express love and be needed, and the need to find out what it means to be "good". But these are the "rewards" that God has inherently put into the nature of things. You can say that is selfishness, but I say that it is right. There has to be something to make being good attractive, or else it is useless. These things flow from goodness intrinsically. That is healthy self-interest. I think this does deal mostly with Semantics... We may agree more than we actually disagree. But, whether or not people can be truly "good" without the Spirit of Christ would take another thread. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (08-21-2002 12:33 PM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Hush, I agree completly. I was just pointing out that the center of wisdom is not in the machine but in that "hand" that operates. Essorant. [This message has been edited by Essorant (08-21-2002 02:46 PM).] |
||
|
Toad Member
since 2002-06-16
Posts 161 |
Stephanos Selfless – Having no regard to self Selfish – Concerned unduly over personal profit or pleasure Collins New English Dictionary. (1956 edition) I’ve been digging around, spurred on by your challenge to Hush and I’m not sure semantics is the main problem, or even an answer to the problem. I agree that the meaning of selfish can be taken and viewed in two separate ways but the definition or word choice doesn’t change the fundamental difference in our belief of why an action was undertaken and the mechanics that determined that action. The thing that stops us dead in our tracks is semantics itself, language ends up being the constraint and suppresser of communication, take the above definition of selfless. As I see it this definition isn’t exactly what you mean by selfless, a closer proximity would be the opposite of the definition of selfish as given above: NOT concerned unduly over personal profit or pleasure. Strangely enough the definition of selfish isn’t exactly what I mean by selfish either, a closer match would be the exact opposite of the above definition of selfless. Closer still would be the use of another connected derivative of self – selfism – exclusive devotedness to ones owns interest. Semantics can’t change the fact that I believe that every perceived action I undertake is based around reasons of self interest whereas you maintain that acts can be undertaken that are not determined by the same means. You can say those actions aren’t selfish and I can argue that they aren’t selfless either, we can both agree that it’s probably down to semantics and the definition of the words and we’re probably both right, but that can’t be true, can it? Either I do everything based on reasons of self-interest or I don’t. We’re probably never going to agree in any case but I’d rather communication was halted in a friendly stalemate and agreement on a separation of belief than halting it because we’re struggling to find a suitable definition for separate acts. Going back to the original topic. I keep reading references to a distinction of acts guided by the heart and those, presumably, guided by the head, I can’t see any distinction or evidence of such a distinction, apart from mans fabrication along lines of descriptive type. This distinction seems to be mirrored by the machine and the hand analogy, surely where cognitive thought is concerned the machine and the hand are the same thing, the act of thinking. In the same way that thoughts by the heart and thoughts by the head are, apart from distinctions of type, products of the same thought process. I believe that there is no difference between thoughts from the heart and thoughts from the head regarding mechanics, apart from those created as a descriptive label of type regarding associated acts. Thank you for the chance to read and reply. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Toad, My intent of pointing out the definition of the word "selfish" was merely to show that applying it to a healthy self-interest was incorrect based on the denotation of the word itself. You are right in that the meaning of words does not solve the fundamental problem of how we view motives of actions. It was just a foundation I introduced before I made my main point. You said: " Either I do everything based on reasons of self-interest or I don’t." My point again is that there may be another division that you are not seeing. You seem to be saying there are only two categories ... self interest or no self interest. I would say that the category of self interest is divided into two more categories... Proper self interest and self-seeking. The desire to do good and the moral satisfaction that it brings, the need to love others, the need to be needed, the need to discover in day to day life human goodness ... these are all legitimate things to be desired. Are these the same thing as the desire to be applauded for doing a good deed, or the desire for monetary gain, or the desire that others would see themselves as indebted to you for your help, etc...? There is a vast difference to me. In the scripture I quoted above, Jesus talked of two different kinds of rewards... one more spiritual in nature, one carnal and selfish in nature. And which one a person gets depends on which one he desires. When a person seeks to do good for goodness sake, other blessings may get thrown in alongside as a suppliment. But if a person does "good" for other reasons the spiritual reward is withheld. Now your assertion is that a man who does well in order to obtain moral satisfaction is in the same category as a man who does well merely to promote himself. I disagree. The difference is not in the fact that they both seek something. I agree with you that there is a seeking of something in all instances. And I agree that there is nothing done which is purely "selfless". My assertion is that one is the proper thing to seek in doing good, while the other is not. One grasps for his own life, the other finds his own life by losing it. Two different categories here. One will only do good if personal gain is involved. The other will do good even if personal gain is not guaranteed. You may say that the later is also selfish in seeking rewards for doing good. But if that's the case, you can call it selfish, but it's still different. It's the reward that God has given us to seek. I am glad that in blessing someone, we get blessed in return. Okay bottom line... if you insist on calling both of these examples "selfish", how do we make a distinction between their obvious difference in character? You must either concede that selfish (in the etymological understanding of the word) isn't the right word, or deny the difference. Denying the difference is understandable. Because spritual truths are not always easy to see. But I think most people who deny such a difference do so because they don't understand it. But even then, there is often the suspicion of a definite difference somewhere, albeit nebulous and hard to define. Do you not see a difference between the character of a man who feigns kindness to his aging mother (who he actually hates) in order to procure a fat inheretence, and the character of man who loves his mother and shows it in true deeds even though she doesn't have a penny to her name? Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (08-22-2002 02:05 AM).] |
||
|
Toad Member
since 2002-06-16
Posts 161 |
Well at least we’re making progress. Now we have actions that are selfless, of which there are no examples and actions that are dictated by reasons based on self-interest, which are split into two sub-categories divided into right or wrong. quote: Actually no I don’t, both actions produce the same result and are based upon self-interest which produces a reward of some kind for the individual. Separating the type of reward into right or wrong after the event may create a subjective difference based upon moral standards or personal ethics but the mechanics of the actions in both cases are identical. A judgement of the morality and ethics involved in the action has already taken place, the individual found no ethical or moral reason not to undertake the action at that time or came to the conclusion that such reasons that did exist were subservient to the reward. If you asked that individual whether it was right to do what he/she was doing they would say yes, this would make your categories of right and wrong redundant as far as the individual is concerned. Am I saying that no action can be classed as wrong on an individual level? Yes, but only at that time and sometimes only in the mind of the individual. Take the case of the man who is trying to procure a fat inheritance, at the time his actions must have been deemed right as far as he was concerned. At a later time he may reassess his actions and come to the conclusion that his decision to feign kindness was unethical, at that time he’s right as well. There is another way to look at this example which encompasses a wider morality, you say that the difference is one of wrong or right and seem to be categorising this man into the compartment tagged wrong. This decision is based upon the motive for the action and lends no thought to the action itself, the correct decision according to your rules would have the man openly expressing his hate for his mother or at least totally ignoring her. An action of this type could be seen as even more morally or ethically wrong than the action he originally took, in such a case what would be the right thing to do? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Toad, You said: " Take the case of the man who is trying to procure a fat inheritance, at the time his actions must have been deemed right as far as he was concerned. At a later time he may reassess his actions and come to the conclusion that his decision to feign kindness was unethical, at that time he’s right as well." "deemed right" in the first half of the scenario is far different than "right" in the second half. In hindsight, this person is looking back and seeing that his decision was based on what was wrong. No one looks back at something they did in the past which they now think is unethical and says "I am now right as well", as if the conclusion was two correct answers ... one preferable to another. Why do we balk at admitting that we can be in the wrong? you also said: "There is another way to look at this example which encompasses a wider morality, you say that the difference is one of wrong or right and seem to be categorising this man into the compartment tagged wrong. This decision is based upon the motive for the action and lends no thought to the action itself, the correct decision according to your rules would have the man openly expressing his hate for his mother or at least totally ignoring her. An action of this type could be seen as even more morally or ethically wrong than the action he originally took, in such a case what would be the right thing to do?" What you may not be seeing is that the example of the person feigning love when there is hate, involves two wrongs. One is deception for personal gain. If he acted according to his true feelings, you are right, the results would be much worse. Because a mess that is covered-up appears aesthetically much better than a mess in open view. But then again, unless a mess is uncovered it cannot be cleaned. Sometimes things have to get worse before they can get better. The second wrong is the hatred itself. And no doubt this is the worse of the two vices ... but the cover up prevents it from being looked at. " Separating the type of reward into right or wrong after the event may create a subjective difference based upon moral standards or personal ethics but the mechanics of the actions in both cases are identical." And this after all is the point I will always make... that right and wrong is not wholly subjective. The one who created us has placed within us an unescapable reminder of where we came from. It is but an imperfect image of his own moral law. It may undulate between cultures and individuals as a reflected image will distort in moving water, but it is directly connected to the original and therefore not subjective. "When the heathen who do not posses any law do by natural instinct what the law demands, although they possess no law, they are their own law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts. On the day when God judges the secrets of men through Jesus Christ, as my gospel says he will, their conscience will agree with the verdict, and their own inmost thoughts will accuse them, or even sometimes excuse them." Romans 2:14-16 So regardless of the fact that the "mechanics" of two differing actions are the same, it is what is internal that matters. ie the "secrets of men". The mechanics of a hand mixer, and a hand drill are pretty much the same I guess. But the motive of the men who designed them determines the definition of their use. And they are not the same. So it doesn't bother me that self interest is involved in every decision. It has it's proper place. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (08-22-2002 10:43 AM).] |
||
|
Toad Member
since 2002-06-16
Posts 161 |
You can remove both “deemed” and “in hindsight” if they bother you so much, neither changes the fact that at each specific point in time the actions were correct for that person at that time. If a man makes a decision to carry out a certain action, at that time and for that individual, that action HAS to be the right one, if he thought it was the wrong one he’d not undertake the action. The fact that you, or he, reaches the conclusion that it is wrong at another point in time does not affect it being correct for that individual at the earlier specific time. Why do we balk at admitting that we can be in the wrong? Probably because we can’t, as far as individual actions are concerned, until after the fact. Nobody has ever consciously chosen to do the wrong thing in preference to the right thing, the wrong thing wasn’t wrong at the initial point for that individual or they wouldn’t do it. quote: That was exactly my point, the man in question was stuck between two decisions that were morally wrong. You say he made the wrong decision I say it was his choice but whichever decision he made had to be the right one at that time as far as he was concerned based upon his own self-interest. quote: Playing the God card isn’t, I believe, really relevant, it doesn’t matter where the information, moral or otherwise, originated that was used to determine the action. The question is - were the actions of the man based upon self-interest and were they the right choice, for that individual, at that time. I maintain they were. The upside to all this is that both of our opinions can be judged in the same way. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
"If a man makes a decision to carry out a certain action, at that time and for that individual, that action HAS to be the right one, if he thought it was the wrong one he’d not undertake the action. The fact that you, or he, reaches the conclusion that it is wrong at another point in time does not affect it being correct for that individual at the earlier specific time." You are suggesting that just because someone "thinks" it is the right decision at a certain time means that it was? This is usually in direct contradiction with a person's present assessment of a past mistake ... If someone says "I know now that I was wrong in doing such and such", could you reasonably come and suggest to them that "no, you were right for that particular time and mindset you were in"? The only way that what you are saying could be true would be if there were no possiblity to have any true moral insight that matters. So that the realization that "I was wrong" would be merely a different alignment of molecules, a different color, a change that some may prefer, but not a true progression of anykind. At a base level, it comes down to the belief that true moral knowledge or wisdom is not possible. In which case a child molester would be no less wise than a builder of orphanages. "Why do we balk at admitting that we can be in the wrong? Probably because we can’t, as far as individual actions are concerned, until after the fact. " It is the realization that we are wrong which occurs "after the fact", not the wrongness itself. "Nobody has ever consciously chosen to do the wrong thing in preference to the right thing" Nobody consciously chooses what is wrong? I know this is absolutely false from my own standpoint not to mention the countless testimonies of others. Sometimes I do wrong things with full knowledge that it is the wrong thing to do (usually for a selfish reason) and even with knowledge that I will regret it. The deception that plays on the mind during such a temptation is that I will be better off doing things my way as opposed to the true moral insight which God has provided. Of course sometime later, I always come to admit that I was in error, because the truth can only be painted in a corner for so long. "the wrong thing wasn’t wrong at the initial point for that individual or they wouldn’t do it." Again you are making an unsupported (at least so far), assertion... that we cannot make a mistake. You've given no convincing reason as to why I should believe that an action cannot be wrong unwittingly, or that a wrong action cannot be done if the person has knowledge that it is wrong. Getting out of the world of philosophy for a moment, I have heard countless testimonies of repentance that say otherwise. If your view were to be followed then we would have to say that every vile, despicable, hateful action and crime that has ever been carried out under the sun was right. According to this view, any punishment, or consequence imposed even by a justice system is unjust, because it was right for that person for the moment, how can we hold them accountable for what was "right". If a stranger brutally attacked your best friend for no good reason and ended his or her life, would you want to say that was right for that person to do it? Was Hitler's massacre of the Jews right for him? Or was it really an abominable action to be despised by all humankind, as a crime against humanity? I guess it boils down to this issue. . . Is it possible to have any true moral insight or is it all a matter of preference. But again I maintain that inside where the conscience works, we know that morality is not anything we want to make it. And God has his own card to play ... I just try to help others to see it. Stephen. |
||
|
Toad Member
since 2002-06-16
Posts 161 |
quote: Yes, at that time for that individual it was the right decision. quote: No, I’d have to give my honest opinion on the situation as I saw it but that isn’t to say that I don’t believe that action was undertaken because that person believed it was the right action. People make mistakes but they don’t purposely set out to make them, to that person the action is right, it may be obviously wrong in my eyes but it’s right for him at that time otherwise he’d recognise it as a mistake and not do it. quote: Or an assessment of the situation based upon a changed or different data set. quote: Wisdom and morality are two separate issues, one is not a necessary requirement to posses the other, if by true moral knowledge you mean one unified code of morals ,shared by all individuals, then no, in my opinion that is not possible. quote: If the child molester builds an orphanage they would be equally wise, if you mean two separate people either could be more or less wise than the other. quote: Yes, but it only becomes recognisably wrong at that time, before that time it is, to all intents and purposes, right. quote: So you are saying that despite having an alternative that you considered better you still decided to act against such a better judgement? I’d be interested to hear an example of one instance with details. quote: But at the time you were convinced it was the right thing to do, so sure it was right that you actually did it, does that not suggest that at that time for that individual (you) the action was the right one. That only ‘sometime later’ did you change your assessment and decide that the action was wrong. That change is important, change can only take place from one state to another, on becomes off, up becomes down and right becomes wrong. Accepting that a change of state has taken place infers that the opposite state was in effect before such a change occurred, in the case of an action this would require that action was at one point right. At one point it was right to believe that the earth was flat, no other belief was thought possible, now most people accept that that belief is wrong but at one point it WAS right to believe to earth was flat. quote: I never said we can never make a mistake, let alone assert that fact, I said no person has ever consciously decided to do the wrong thing in preference to the right thing, there’s a big difference. If I gave you a series of numbers and asked you to add them together it is possible for you to arrive at an answer that is incorrect, would the answer, to the best of your knowledge be the right one, even though I recognise it as being wrong? If I asked you to add a series of numbers together and you arrived at two different numbers but knew that one of them was right which one would you give me as your answer? From your earlier statement you would have me believe that you would choose the wrong answer while in full knowledge and possession of the right answer. It may be possible but I find it hard to comprehend it ever happening. quote: It was an abominable act, but do you actually believe that Hitler woke up one morning thinking ‘this is the worst crime against humanity anyone can ever commit it’d be the biggest mistake a single person could undertake – I’ll do it”. Or do you think he actually believed that what he was doing was right? The fact that every other person on the planet since, and probably at the time, thought it was wrong doesn’t mean he didn’t think it was right. With respect to punishment, the individual belief of right or wrong isn’t a factor, Hitler was guilty of doing something wrong according to the judgement of society, and the fact that he believed he was right has no bearing on such a decision. quote: It’s all a matter of preference in my opinion, that isn’t strictly true, to be more exact it’s impossible to define a true moral insight due to the fact that everybody owns a different set of morals and they are constantly in flux. You seem to infer that God has instilled in man a set of moral rules, rigid since time immemorial and clear for all to see. If that is the case why is morality subject to change and why are immoral acts committed? [This message has been edited by Toad (08-22-2002 06:52 PM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
We already have to sleep usually one third of lifetime away...Why didn't God fashion us so we could do all this business of thinking in our sleep and then wake up with everything figured out for the day???! [This message has been edited by Essorant (08-23-2002 01:33 AM).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Glancing at the last three of four posts, I like the discussion between Toad and Stephen but I think we can combine Essorant's last comment. While I'm pretty sure I agree with Toad (no surprise there), I'm not sure he's phrasing it correctly. I would say that one's decisions are his or her responsibility regardless of whether they thought it was right or wrong. After the fact decisions of right or wrong do not in any way release an individual from that responsibility. There are times when it seems people are trying to do just that. I've only had a little time to peruse some of their arguments so forgive me if I'm going out on a limb here but if you look at Essorant's post, where does responsibility enter in? She doesn't want to know right from wrong, she wants everything decided for her in her sleep, she wants the paradise of a zombie or a robot. I don't think either Toad or Stephan would accept that. I'll try to get more specific later if I have the time. Brad |
||
|
Toad Member
since 2002-06-16
Posts 161 |
Brad As long as you tag on the disclaimer that the individual believed he was right, your explanation pretty much covers it. Getting back to the original topic sounds a good idea, sometimes these threads wander off in all directions, and though interesting don’t usually deal with the original point. quote: I accept this with only one or two slight reservation, the use of the word zombie is one, robot isn’t much better but at least it allows for enough complication and progression to be a closer substitution. My acceptance is based on a belief that this is almost exactly the way things are at present. I’d be stupid not to accept that a large proportion of thought takes place during the day but it’s only the nightly indexing and data updates that allow us any progression of thought. I’ll need a couple of free hours to put my reasoning into words and get it anywhere near understandable but I’ll be back. Craig [This message has been edited by Toad (08-23-2002 03:05 PM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Who is this "she" you refer to?? she might like to "think" with a man like me then! [This message has been edited by Essorant (08-23-2002 02:01 PM).] |
||
|
Toad Member
since 2002-06-16
Posts 161 |
Brad does that now and then, I can’t make my mind up whether it’s an attempt to depersonalise his comment by aiming it at a third person or whether it’s designed to throw you off your train of thought. (For all those watching in black and white that was my failed attempt at a humorous remark) |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Sorry, I gave too much credit to the thing writing. perhaps 'it' is the better pronoun. How does one treat someone who believes that we shouldn't treat each other as human? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
If you don't believe in a saying I can appreciate that but smite the saying not the sayer.You don't even have to treat me like a human, but you could at least treat me with respect. It just wasn't very pleasant to find your comment. It makes me feel I would rather be treated like nothing than like that. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
You don't have a choice. You don't want to think? Then stop. I'm showing you the world without thought (which is never what you wanted, you wanted other people to stop thinking.). I think and you can't tell me to stop (which is what you were really asking). You can stop. How does it feel? There is no respect in a world without thought. There are only 'its'. Instead, why not give me a little respect? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
By the way, I want a world with weapons of mass destruction, I just don't want to use them. |
||
|
Toad Member
since 2002-06-16
Posts 161 |
To be honest I thought that Brad was referring to me with the ‘it’ and ‘thing’ comment. I took it to be part of the debate and an example of life without thought rather than an example of a lack of respect towards me as an individual. I guess it just goes to show how easily language and meaning can be misunderstood when using this medium which lacks the subtle inflections and supporting visual signals of face to face conversation. I still think I got the meaning spot on but the fact that I misinterpreted the target proves how easy it is to grasp the wrong end of the stick based upon a few words. Back to the topic I’m sure Essorant didn’t want a world totally devoid of thought, my understanding of the initial thread was that a mad rush towards technological and advancement was a bad thing if not balanced by compassion towards humanity and the environment. The stumbling block seemed to be the method that was suggested, namely thinking less, equating a lack of thought with compassion (and respect). Essorant wants more humanity not less, but unfortunately MORE thinking not less would seem to be the answer. The later post about doing all our thinking at night as we sleep seems to turn that stumbling block into a veritable mountain, we cannot remove or divorce thinking from acts of compassion, or humanity, thinking is the vehicle that gets us there in the first place. There is though some evidence to suggest that things can be purposefully overcomplicated a sort of reverse Okham’s razor theory. Two examples I remember reading about concerned the space race, both NASA and the Russin space agency had different ways of solving the same problems. NASA threw money and technology around like confetti, Russia, on a fixed budget went retro. The first problem was that the helmets worn by the astronauts/cosmonauts had to be checked for a complete seal front and back while in flight. NASA designed and implemented a sophisticated system of miniature CCTV cameras that each Astronaut could use to check their helmets. The Russians fitted two mirrors. The second problem was that they needed to take a lot of notes during the flight, unfortunately gravity, or the lack of gravity, meant that standard pens wouldn’t function. NASA commissioned pens that pump the ink to the tip, regardless of orientation or gravity. You may have seen the spin off in your local shops, pens that write even upside-down. The Russians gave their cosmonauts pencils. Btw Brad I think the fear of weapons of mass destruction is due in part to the fact that we don’t have much choice as to whether they’re used or not. A computer in their study is controllable and avoidable if that’s what they want, 500 ICBM’s in the hands of God knows who is neither controllable nor unfortunately avoidable. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Hey guys, I'd really like to address some of the points that Craig and Brad made, and bring in some other concepts, but I'm working the weekend (I'm an RN and work long hours -weekends only)... so bear with me. I'll be back monday evening. Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Brad, No matter how much I can't help disrespecting a disrespect you might show forthright toward not a flaw I seem to show, a thought, my saying/philosophy, but me- myself, I am not going to think about and question a wisdome I have already learnt and established about respecting you personally nothwithstanding. You were not born disrespectful ,evil disposed, it can only be a wretched thought in you that displaces and ravages your nature. I will point my smites and reproach at that exeriorizing and outstanding, but my respect to you yourself abides in educated impulse forever, it is an oath I made ages ago already and I am not prepared to trample it, poke you in the eye just because you poked me in the eye, even if you did it thoughtfully, poking eyes just moves to poking eyes right out eventually when I would rather have us see each other and respect each other better.  [This message has been edited by Essorant (08-25-2002 02:36 AM).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
First, as Toad knows well, I did not intend any disrespect, I was trying to show you the world you want. You assume that a world without thought has no disrespect, I assume that there can be know respect without thought. Does a lion or a wolf respect an antelope or a deer? Do they say I'm sorry before they eat? That is the natural way of things. Second, you can't be offended by what I say unless you think. A cat will see black and white and nothing more (and there is evidence to believe that they don't even see that). You are not encouraging an unthought, you are encouraging a specific type of thought. Your belief in Nature is destroyed by the fact that you were indeed offended. You can't deny that you were offended, therefore you are not practicing what you preach. I was just trying to show you what you preach. You could have jumped on it, you know? I gambled and thought would do exactly what you did. I'm not angry at you, I do have respect for you, but you must realize, I hope, the folly of attempting what you are trying to attempt here. To attempt this is mistaken. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Sorry. I deleted my comment. I will be back later after I have a hot bath, to restore my wits if thats possible. take care, Essorant [This message has been edited by Essorant (08-25-2002 04:33 PM).] |
||
|
The Napkin Writer Member
since 2002-06-28
Posts 70 |
I understand some of the points that Essorant is trying to make here, but I also think that like me, sometimes too many words can delude the actual point that is being made. I wasn’t sure at first how to get into this thread without voicing support of something that wasn’t that clear to me, and at the same time respond to something that is easily recognizable. Older people could probably remember nighttime soap opera Dynasty. Well there was this big debate over one of their shows, where Linda Evans was to call Joan Collins a bitch. Up unto that point in television history the mere thought of using such four-letter-words on television was “a no no!” Today, at almost any point throughout ones day, they can turn on the television and find some woman groping, and twisting her body in some form of sexual submission. Even in our commercials there is a certain amount sexual disobedience we as society has invited into our homes. I would consider asking myself how did we get to the point where it’s okay to turn on the television and accept the “four-letter-words” and “sexual influences” to influence our children to believe that this is the norm of societal morality, when it’s not. And then everyone is running around saying things like; “we don’t know what’s wrong with our children!” There is a certain television commercial that is sports related, where three cheerleaders are running from the field, and as the camera focus on them running down the tunnels at the end of the commercial, you can clearly see this woman butt, (and I don’t mean a cheek-peek either)! Now she may have been wearing a thong, but she clearly wasn’t wearing any panties. I was talking with one of my twenty-one year old nephew a couple months ago about girls. We got into this debate over how men talked to women in my day, compared to today, and got close to them, (if you know what I mean). He was laughing at the style of dress of the women of my day. I was telling him that I “thought” there was nothing left to be desired of most women today, that everything you may want to desire, can get entangled sometimes in the lust you may feel at your first meeting. So how are men to look at women, except as a sex object? That it is in general, like going to a deli, or something. With the styles that women wear today, you know everything before you even know their names. You can see all the once tattooed men names she’s had removed from her body. Her private parts are just about jumping out at you. The clothes are so tight they can barely bind over to tie their own shoes, (if they are wearing clothes that day and not underwear). The hairpieces are stacked so high on top of their heads they have to stoop to get through doorways. And some have on so much make-up, you have to carry a switchblade, and become a wood carver to see what they look like. The sad part in this is that a lot of men accept it, except when it comes to their woman, or wife, and then men want to beat on them for it, yet, they go to clubs and influence it! Maybe I should use a couple of “we’s” in this, but I don’t get into that, so I won’t take possession of it. I don’t mean this as a harsh thing against women, I love women, but turn on your television to one of that so-called reality shows, open your window and watch the little children in your neighborhood imitating what they are seeing on television. Turn on the news and listen to the amount teenage pregnancy around the nation. We have become a shallow nation with no regards as to what we are passing on to our children, as long as we get what we want. The ideal that a child has to be dressed up, get made up, or go lying up, to be liked, is exactly what our children are learning, why; because that’s what we are teaching them, that’s what they see on television and that’s what they see us do. Between the trashy reality shows and infomercials, I barely have a choice but to go watch PBS. And I know that somewhere there are people praying that enough of these kids come out all right to run this country in the coming years, because at the rate we’re going, a lot of us aren’t going to make it. I think what Essorant is trying to say is that morally we have lost our edge of influencing morality in our children, each other, and the rest of the world. And if that isn’t what she is trying to say, that’s what I get from her initial thread, and subsequent “likenesses” of defenses. As far as the amount of money someone makes in their profession, I think it’s stupid for someone to pay one man one hundred million dollars a year to play baseball. This ball player is being paid one billion dollars over a ten-year period, to play baseball. This one man can’t pitch the ball and then run out to center field and catch the hit, and throw the ball to second base, and run down and catch it! Now one man cannot win you a championship, but one man can be the catalyst to spark your team to a championship, like Karem in Milwaukee and later in L.A., and Michael in Chicago. The sad part is when you think, what in the blue blazes do this particular man have to strike about? What more can you give him? And if they do get more, who’s footing the bill, the fans right? Now if I was a professional athlete, and someone offered me a one billion dollar ten year contract, would I take the money? Hell yes! Would I strike? I may not be on the picket line, but I wouldn’t cross that picket line either. But, while I do understand what I get from the original thread, I really wouldn’t want to turn back the hands of time, to a time of darkness in the wilderness. I wouldn’t want to go out onto the edge of the Forrest a dig out-house holes. I don’t want to go back to the days of the horse and buggy either, but I do understand what I believe you are trying to say Essorant. “We have changed the meanings of words so much over the years that morality doesn’t mean morality any more. As to what it means now, pick one, any one definition you want! If you ask a thousand people what morality is suppose to mean today, you are almost guaranteed to get a couple hundred different definitions! I think Essorant has honor in this thought, but that just isn’t the way most of society “thinks” anymore. I believe that our thinking has been diluted with greed, lies, disrespect, dishonor, evil, uncaring, and mostly a bunch of confused individuals who don’t know what to “think!” Essorant, this is just my opinion, but I “think “ a career in the non-profit sector, could have your name written all over it, if, you are not already there. Anyway, God bless you; you truly are a dying breed in your “thinking.” |
||
|
Toad Member
since 2002-06-16
Posts 161 |
quote: I personally have no idea what to think but strangely enough I find myself compelled to continue. It doesn’t make me any less confused, but it seems better than the alternative. Napkin Writer Are you describing a sudden erosion of moral values or a gradual evolution or change? It sounds as if you believe that morality has remained constant; one universal list of right and wrong that every man possesses, which has only recently been abandoned or ignored. |
||
|
The Napkin Writer Member
since 2002-06-28
Posts 70 |
One of the reasons I try not to quote someone unless I believe I have to, in getting a point across, is that sometimes people are easily offended by an opinion that they are not responsible for. My opinion is what “I think” not what the world or any individual has to cling to. I gave my opinion of what I believed Essorant was saying. It doesn’t necessary means that it is what the original thread meant, but it’s what I got from it. If Essorant replied to me saying no, that’s not what I meant then I would have to accept the fact that, that just was not what was meant. Sounds confusing? The point is I can’t give Essorant an opinion, I can only voice my own, but if you have some knowledge that we can benefit from, by all means share it with us. Because there have been times when an event took place in my own environment, and I didn’t know what to think of it, but that in itself was “the process of thinking.” Confused thinking, but never the less, “thinking,” so please enlighten us. As to what I said, it cannot stand alone without everything else that I believe, because this part of what you quoted is supported by everything else I said. I think Essorant has honor in this thought, but that just isn’t the way most of society “thinks” anymore. I believe that our thinking has been diluted with greed, lies, disrespect, dishonor, evil, uncaring, and mostly a bunch of confused individuals who don’t know what to “think!” And even this paragraph cannot stand alone without some sort of explanation. If you take a look around at the recent events over the last year, you will find that people are still confused as to what to make out of these events. I try to keep up with events of the day. I watch the news shows where experts are called in to give the listener a better insight of these events, and there have been times when the experts don’t know what to “think.” |
||
|
Toad Member
since 2002-06-16
Posts 161 |
Napkin Writer Ok so you think the quote was taken out of context, it’s not the part that interested me the most in any case so ignore it if that helps, I'm still a little confused as to who is supposed to be offended though but that’s normal. Here’s the bit I was interested in. Was your earlier post describing a sudden erosion of moral values or a gradual evolution or change? It sounded as if you believe that morality has remained constant; one universal list of right and wrong that every man possesses, which has only recently been abandoned or ignored. [This message has been edited by Toad (08-26-2002 06:43 PM).] |
||
|
The Napkin Writer Member
since 2002-06-28
Posts 70 |
What would my reply to the original thread have “you think” of a sudden erosion of moral values or a gradual evolution or change? Are you getting this? It’s what you think, not what I think! Because what I think is mine! Do you have your own thoughts on this matter? I am not going to take responsibility for your questions to the world, nor am I going play this game of bait with you! If you have an opinion, give it! If not, move on to someone else! |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Toad, you replied to Napkin writer ... "It sounds as if you believe that morality has remained constant; one universal list of right and wrong that every man possesses, which has only recently been abandoned or ignored." I still find it amazing that one might believe humanity's moral value systems so fundamentally different that one underlying moral influence would be incredible. consider this quote ... "I know that some people say the idea of a Law of Nature or decent behavior known to all men is unsound, because different civilizations and different ages have had quite different moralities. But this is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks, and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own. Some of the evidence for this I have put together in the appendix of another book called The Abolition of Man; but for our present purpose I need only to ask the reader to think what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of doublecrossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to- whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or everyone. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you like." _C.S. Lewis, from "Mere Christianity" I still assert that the evidence is in overwhelming favor of a fixed moral value system within us all, imperfectly percieved, though still recognizable as a continuity. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (08-29-2002 09:30 PM).] |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
