Re: RE: I would rather live m
The acid might be it, since I have never posted on this board before.
Said1 said:
The acid might be it, since I have never posted on this board before.
I would rather live my life as if there is a God
- Thread starter iamcanadian
- Start date
[quote="Ocean Breeze]constructive/productive ......vs destructive/counterproductive[/quote]
Good vs Bad/Evil; Ying vs Yang; Devil vs God; its all describing basically the same thing as you quote, Breeze.
People get hung up on lables and fail to see the natural concepts at work.
What has really changed in the last 2000 years in the war between Yiong and Yang? I don't think all that much. We change weapons and practices but the fight continues unimpeaded, as it always must.
Good vs Bad/Evil; Ying vs Yang; Devil vs God; its all describing basically the same thing as you quote, Breeze.
People get hung up on lables and fail to see the natural concepts at work.
What has really changed in the last 2000 years in the war between Yiong and Yang? I don't think all that much. We change weapons and practices but the fight continues unimpeaded, as it always must.
what is with the reference to only the last 2000 years?
what is with this reference to "pockets of evildoers"?
the natural concepts are quite different from the human construts you are throwing around. the natural concept is of survival and as such everything becomes referenced to what is beneficial and not beneficial to the observer (be that an individual or a group).
it is the inability to accept the relativistic nature of life and instead insisting on false absolutes that wars are started.
what is with this reference to "pockets of evildoers"?
the natural concepts are quite different from the human construts you are throwing around. the natural concept is of survival and as such everything becomes referenced to what is beneficial and not beneficial to the observer (be that an individual or a group).
it is the inability to accept the relativistic nature of life and instead insisting on false absolutes that wars are started.
good point.
maybe it should NOT be good VS bad .....maybe it should be the embracing the two as part of the same phenomena. .....and the natural laws of checks and balances.
Re: RE: I would rather live my life as if there is a God
Do you really believe that only unethical people are capable of succeeding or accomplishing anything? Do you believe that all rich or successful people are responsible for keeping the masses from the trough of excesss?
iamcanadian said:
Do you really believe that only unethical people are capable of succeeding or accomplishing anything? Do you believe that all rich or successful people are responsible for keeping the masses from the trough of excesss?
i think we all have good and evil tendencies in us, and only circumstances dictate how we will act. Call it free will-for lack of a better term. Just because I choose now to not act badly doesn't mean that i haven't in the past[and I was a bad one in my time!]
Good and Evil are, of course, real. Just like the space shuttle, they are human constructions.
Interestingly all but a few of peoples throughout recorded history agree on what constitutes "good" (mercy, courage, love,honesty, justice, integrity) and "evil" (hypocrisy, sadism, hatred, dishonesty).
The fact that individuals so often fail to put this knowledge into practise is another issue. All religions have a version of the "golden rule", which is considered good. True, like so many words, "good" and "bad" are hard to define, but everybody understands what someone --even from another culture-- means when they use them, even if they don't believe that they are being applied correctly.
Anyone who tries to argue that there is no "good" or "evil" is, in my opinion, like the person who tries to argue that there is no objective reality: it's a cute exercise for teenagers exploring philosophy for the first time while sharing a joint, but that's about it.
If we didn't agree on the reality of these words, we'd have no reason to criticise Bush or Stalin
.
Interestingly all but a few of peoples throughout recorded history agree on what constitutes "good" (mercy, courage, love,honesty, justice, integrity) and "evil" (hypocrisy, sadism, hatred, dishonesty).
The fact that individuals so often fail to put this knowledge into practise is another issue. All religions have a version of the "golden rule", which is considered good. True, like so many words, "good" and "bad" are hard to define, but everybody understands what someone --even from another culture-- means when they use them, even if they don't believe that they are being applied correctly.
Anyone who tries to argue that there is no "good" or "evil" is, in my opinion, like the person who tries to argue that there is no objective reality: it's a cute exercise for teenagers exploring philosophy for the first time while sharing a joint, but that's about it.
If we didn't agree on the reality of these words, we'd have no reason to criticise Bush or Stalin
.
the simple answer, pastafarian, is that as social biological organinisms, humans evolved to recognize traits and behaviors benefitial to the survival of the individual which includes survival of the "tribe". At this basic level, most humans will accept what is benefitial to survival as something labelled "good" and what is detremental as something labelled "bad". Beyond that though, what is benefitial and not benefitial becomes relative to the individual or group, and thus "good" and "evil" are relative terms and are merely labels for what one considers benefitial or not benefitial in a particular context. They are abstract constructs and not real. Remember that when 2 fight over something, both think they are doing what is benefitial to them and thus see their actions as "good".
There is no need to agree on the reality of these words to criticise bush, for example. group one can see his actions as not benefitial to them for reason 1, while group 2 can see his actions as not benefital for reason 2, while group three can see his actions as benefitial for those very reasons groups 1 and 2 see them as not benefitial. Thus bush's actions are good and bad at the same time. It is all a matter of persective.
There is no need to agree on the reality of these words to criticise bush, for example. group one can see his actions as not benefitial to them for reason 1, while group 2 can see his actions as not benefital for reason 2, while group three can see his actions as benefitial for those very reasons groups 1 and 2 see them as not benefitial. Thus bush's actions are good and bad at the same time. It is all a matter of persective.
There are far too many people that enjoy doing harm to others for personal gratification.
Things like jealousy and envy which cause people to do harm is very real and an ever present danger to people of good character and competence.
Things like jealousy and envy which cause people to do harm is very real and an ever present danger to people of good character and competence.
the caracal kid, here is where we will disagree. I agree with everything else in your post and I think I understand why you distinguish between "abstract constructs" and "real" things.
From my point of view, "minds", "virtues", "neutrinos" and "electrons" are all abstract concepts whose "reality" comes to us from effects on other things we agree to be real: various objects and such. My position is that "Good" and "Evil' are like all things that are "real": we can always find a small subset of people who are unwilling or unable to perceive the reality of these things, but that they will be affected by these things whether or not they choose to believe in them.
I believe that this is one of the things that makes humans unique: our thoughts become "real".
Will "good" and "evil' disappear when humans disappear? Of course. Doesn't affect their 'reality' one bit as far as I'm concerned.
I should add that implicit in my perspective is the idea tha for us humans, "reality" is about 40% mental construction.
Re: RE: I would rather live my life as if there is a God
You're lucky you're not living in 1603, or you'd have been flayed alive and burned at the stake for making such heretical statements as that...
No, God is an entity, hence my ability to deny his/her/its existence...the religion that props up this mythical being is where your guide to morality is rooted...
Hey, I have an idea, why not throw out the concept of deities and devote our energies to furthering universal peace and understanding...God should have died after the dark ages anyway, but no, instead we got a crazy Arab saying that he is the prophet of the only God, and that you can curry favour by killing disbelievers...much like the God of Abraham had said...there were a lot of disbeliever-killing in those days...
Tell that to all those who would commit terrible attrocities in the name of their god...
The age of fairytales is nearing its end, and I find it hard to suppress the inevitable smirk at all those who have been duped into blissful obeisance...
iamcanadian said:
You're lucky you're not living in 1603, or you'd have been flayed alive and burned at the stake for making such heretical statements as that...
iamcanadian said:
No, God is an entity, hence my ability to deny his/her/its existence...the religion that props up this mythical being is where your guide to morality is rooted...
iamcanadian said:
Hey, I have an idea, why not throw out the concept of deities and devote our energies to furthering universal peace and understanding...God should have died after the dark ages anyway, but no, instead we got a crazy Arab saying that he is the prophet of the only God, and that you can curry favour by killing disbelievers...much like the God of Abraham had said...there were a lot of disbeliever-killing in those days...
iamcanadian said:
Tell that to all those who would commit terrible attrocities in the name of their god...
The age of fairytales is nearing its end, and I find it hard to suppress the inevitable smirk at all those who have been duped into blissful obeisance...
"good" :wink: post , Vanni.
aka....effective, constructive and well thought out.
.........some excellent points have been brought out by others here too.
"good " and "evil" do not have a universal definition. What might have been "good" in one era/culture /group perception is usually no longer so in another. Or the opposite in another. Some "believe " that killing Americans is "good". Others "believe" that doing so is "evil". The human factor (and much else) are the variables ...
it still come down to "belief" vs REASON........(rational /logical thought)
both terms are value judgement and have far too much latitude to make precise sense......and are used far too liberally to have any precise meaning. If someone is dishonest (lies , cheats etc)......than the adjective DISHONEST fits..... (why brand him/her as "evil".. ??? Something about witchcraft comes to mind with such terms too.)
aka....effective, constructive and well thought out.
.........some excellent points have been brought out by others here too.
"good " and "evil" do not have a universal definition. What might have been "good" in one era/culture /group perception is usually no longer so in another. Or the opposite in another. Some "believe " that killing Americans is "good". Others "believe" that doing so is "evil". The human factor (and much else) are the variables ...
it still come down to "belief" vs REASON........(rational /logical thought)
both terms are value judgement and have far too much latitude to make precise sense......and are used far too liberally to have any precise meaning. If someone is dishonest (lies , cheats etc)......than the adjective DISHONEST fits..... (why brand him/her as "evil".. ??? Something about witchcraft comes to mind with such terms too.)
Yes but there can't be rules for everything. So dishonesty is not enough.
People who to harm for pleasure are not being dishonest, they are being evil, and usually driven by incompetence and lack of self-esteme to put others down so they can feel superior.
People can do quite a lot of harm without breaking rules and laws; such as acting unethically and unreasonably. In the past people like that were tar and feather and thrown out of town, or worst depending on who they ran up against.
Today more and more people are using unethical behaviour to advance their self-interests while not breaking any rules beyond acting immoral, which is not always illegal or capable of being dealt with by courts or tribunals.
It is not as cut and dried as you make it out.
Belief in something is important, whether its mother nature, gaia, mankind, or whatever, without a possitive belief in something people can reason away all types of malpractive and misconduct.
People who to harm for pleasure are not being dishonest, they are being evil, and usually driven by incompetence and lack of self-esteme to put others down so they can feel superior.
People can do quite a lot of harm without breaking rules and laws; such as acting unethically and unreasonably. In the past people like that were tar and feather and thrown out of town, or worst depending on who they ran up against.
Today more and more people are using unethical behaviour to advance their self-interests while not breaking any rules beyond acting immoral, which is not always illegal or capable of being dealt with by courts or tribunals.
It is not as cut and dried as you make it out.
Belief in something is important, whether its mother nature, gaia, mankind, or whatever, without a possitive belief in something people can reason away all types of malpractive and misconduct.
they are being SADISTIC. Ya see there are more precise adjectives for human conduct now. 'evil" is far too general.......(IMHO) and can easily be a catch term to cover all kinds of behaviors.
and no this is not splitting hairs.......just a different perspective.
that is not "reason".........that is RATIONALIZATION......and perpetual 'justification". ...........for this one : think the cave man in the oval office. He has personified "justifying" and rationalizing his actions ......which have been cruel, illegal, unethical and based on lust for power.
reason has to do with cause, effect./logic (IMHO