At this point, I'd like to start a thread that is based on Timesurfer's reply here on the nature of human morality, but it seems obvious that one would first have to examine an apriori assumption. We would have to decide whether we think human is 'inherently good, or s/he is inherently bad/evil'. Quite possibly, we could decide that s/he is both, which would increase the complexity ten fold and raise all sorts of fun issues such as free will and determinism..... Therefore I would like to ask, are we good, bad/evil, or both, or neither? How do we know that?
Know this, there is no good and evil just different perspectives. Why do rabbits eat their babies, are they inherently evil ?
Animals do not share our nature, which is open to both "good" and "evil" - they simply are what they are and if they are in tune with their environment, then they are "successful" and if not, they are extinct... We, on the other hand, create our own "environment" and in the process "ourselves" and that is (a part of) our "nature"... Do not (!!!) mix up the two! P.S. Ernst Bloch once famously mused that even such a position (that we are open to both good and evil) already "always reifies", alluding to the fact we do not know how exactly we would behave/feel/think if we were brought up outside of the constraints of Capitalism and so on... We are always already "brought up", "formed", "moulded" etc. etc.
We are rational and created small rules for living. These rules define what is good and evil. Ethically speaking, of course.
I would put to you that in all its strictness, the English Victorian Age sense of morality, fairness and benevolent yet demanding gaze upon the humanity as such, is unparalleled and superior to any "morality" we see today.
Externally, somebody should explain it to the "colonies", the American Indians, the invention of "concentration camps" and whatnot... Internally, to the working classes, children working, women being heavily exploited for even less and so on and on and... All in good spirits, of course... (Crikey!)
Already had a thread on ethics but you couldn't step up to the plate so you pretend to to have better angle to approach such heartfelt questions yet without heart/god this thread was started as was the "God" thread There is life in it's way that is perceived being harmonic in nature or chaotic thus there was cosmic intention to explore such evil choices to support and embody domination vs. sharing and caring Judgements are of anything but opinions do not necessarily create an event or situation but they might keep that situation going like history keeps going cause the masses fear being ostracized by saying that the system is corrupt and falsely segregated in nature So dumb lol You can't create environments as anything that comes off of the planet is the environment just humans create temporary situations (historical cycle) within that invironment Humans pretend they created something new but the earth was already there as was air and water, etc... Humans are just stupid to create besides god and nature as are they doomed in creating unsustainable situations and raping the world Animals are clearly smarter for not trying to outdo god or nature as do they not create war or pollution Yet we think we're smarter ...lol If we we're so smart we would be waring and destroying the planet and life on earth Animals are not doing this, the dolphins are not doing this Animals are just like any creature at the effect of God being in sync with himself or the opposite Scriptures state clearly that all life fell from spiritual realization during the historical cycle so it's as the bible says adam and eve had two trees to choose from A. Book of life - Do what values all life equally B. Book of knowledge - Do whatever History is pure oppression as to follow another's lead as to choose whether to value all or some?
Actually it was way deeper than that and History only recalls the bad'ish things. We have an obligation to - better ourselves - help those who have less - promote democracy and free trade etc... Yes, StarTrek Federation thoughts as well, but same basic principles
Okay T.S, do you suggest that man is neither nor, but has the capacity for both. In a religious sense, is this capacity for good and evil a quality of God-given? Is it a genetic trait or situation dependent? Do the holy books describe accurately the state of man? And what do you do with the free will?
Timesurfer, there is no one dumber on this forum than you! It is mind-boggling just how dumb, ignorant, intransigent and ill-natured you are...
No, humans are not inherently good or bad. Good or bad exists because of current human reason. Animal mind at all is below that dualism and hence it seems they are more reasonable. They have no idea of a own individual which could be 'reasonable'... Good or bad, both determine each other. They have only one 'sense'.... to become included and transcended. Another (higher) level of reason which is closer to reality is recognizing both as the same phenomenon. In the higher is the real being of the lower made more explicit and conscious of its being. In other words to know 'how' and 'that' they determine each others is of more reason than to determine something as (absolute) bad or (absolute) good. But this transcendental process can happen now and only now and not in the future....to think it happens in the future is an illusionary idea. This applies to any dualism.
I wasn't trying to prescribe spiritual or religious understanding in particular, just interested in the apriori assumptions we have to make. Our spiritual and religious views may certainly add color to our understanding of our basic nature, but we should not limit the discussion to those narrow viewpoints entirely. There are other ways of looking at our basic nature outside of spiritual or religious grounds. Edit. What if all the choices provided to humans were actually the wrong thing? Then how would you even be able to do a right thing?
Sid. My statement is even based on Hegel. The term "transcendental" is not owned by spirituality. The bit about the future is not conform to Hegel, though. I wrote earlier that I was very surprised reading some stuff about Hegel's dialectical process...it is conform to Vedanta and my personal experiences..except the 'absolute reached in future' bit..... To your edit: Are you trying to assign the attribute 'wrong' solely to any choices we'd made? How should that work? Who 'provides' = (all the choices provided) = any choices made are wrong? There must be an observer recognizing it as wrong. And the observer must have an idea of right. Without the idea of right, there is no wrong. To have anything decided wrong can be only an illusion. What do you mean, an 'provider' outside...something like 'god'? Or the observer = the one who chooses wrong? That happens to some. It must be like hell...leads to depressions..... suicide, probably. If the idea of wrong cannot be seen as one side of the same medal and as a own relation (not an absolute attribute), then the one is lost, yes the one is unable to do the right thing, because anything is perceived as wrong, absolute horror. Our observations are mostly focussed on the manifest part of a dualism. But there is no existence without their counterparts. There is no wrong without right. There are no stars without space. There is no (living)room without its space. Most perceive the objects in the room and recognize it as i.e. living room. But the living room itself is not its objects 'alone'. There are no objects without empty space. There is no phenomenon (movement, event) without stillness (background from where it appears). These seem to be the major dualisms. In Physics they are manifest as the 4 fundamental forces. (2 pairs), but the 'not manifest' is usually ignored... empty space and stillness have no definition. Both are 'nothing'...
No offence Yen but this has nothing to do with Hegel. You do not understand Hegel at all, if you claim this sort of stuff is "his"... Btw, the fact Humans are open to both good and evil means no automatic "dualism"... Especially in Hegel, as anyone who studied him with any seriousness knows all to well!!!! He starts from Unity, breaks it all down (notion of Labour and Labour of notion), only to unify it again, at the end. This is known as (methodically speaking) a speculative position. Sweet dreams...
No offense taken, you are the pro and have studied Hegel. Thanks for pointing that out. Well I referred to: http://forums.mydigitallife.net/thr...ot-free/page77?p=835802&viewfull=1#post835802 From where I reposted from my post which you have quoted and commented with : OKI, so far so good... I related only to the part (of which I thought is conform to him, not from him) you have quoted by yourself..but I know when something is out of context it can become distorted and gets a wrong meaning. Good night to you, too.
You're very welcome! Indeed, all of those "moments" have a systemic place and role in his grand scheme of things... He lives to "pacify" all those "tensions", to unify dichotomies and so on... He is nothing without a complete "Unity" of all the parts in the end!
A complete 'unity' as 'goal' you find at my posts, too. It has a different 'origin' and terms there, though. 'The ONE life', the 'absolute'. But to me it's the current moment, the now which has 'already all parts'. It cannot gain, it cannot lose. It has both absolute attributes, infinity and eternity. One only needs to reeducate the common way to focus awareness. It is ridiculed in western societies, but practised by more and more. It is quite simple but needs a lot of constant efforts, because it is not our common way. I post about what 'happens' when doing that and I am familiar with replies such as.....you must have taken 'something'.....this is not provable......or just mocking replies.....