Seasons
This is a forum or general chit-chat, small talk, a "hey, how ya doing?" and such. Or hell, get crazy deep on something. Whatever you like.
Posts 5,180 - 5,191 of 6,170
My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being.I find that hard to believe sometimes.
prob123: Agreed. Right on, Wars and rumors of wars? Who knows? On December 21, 2012 we'll all be wiped out anyway. I'm so depressed.
The horror that man does to man is my definition of evil.
psimagus: On target. I am not an environmentalist fanatic, but I do believe in being a good steward. Those of you who know something about the cross-Florida barge canal project, which was torpedoed by environmentalists, was one of the costliest projects in 50 years that was never completed. I believe at issue was a species of fish and a few other insects and fowl. Yet the Florida Panther (as an example) was allowed to almost disappear from existence during this time. Take away the food supply, watering holes, breeding grounds, keep them disturbed and nervous so they cannot mate, and keep killing them, pretty soon they will be gone. An interesting study shows that the male panther's sperm ( oh jeeze :-)) is only 10% effective. This is nature's way of saying "Sayonara" to a species. And is the result of poor stewardship. And we had the money to spend on them. Man is heroic? How?
Irina: In response to your help on use of colors, thanks. It has relieved me from a source of stress in my life. And it was I that made the statement about "vulgar and obscene or vulgar and perverse - I forget which". But this is not a direct contact. Only to man? Or to other beings too? There's an awful lot of cruelty to animals out there that I wouldn't exactly call good...Oh yes, the cruelty to animals too. It just seems that within man is a great deal of darkness. Hitler alone didn't do the Holocaust. Hundreds of other "normal" men and women readily joined in to slaughter. I see a danger when man begins to think that all actions are relative. Some things are just evil, and man can be heroic, but he can be horrible too.
I see a danger when man begins to think that all actions are relative
Exactly so - and that's inevitable when people start justifying a "lesser of two evils" on the basis of some supposed future good. As if any future effect can be ever be predicted from observing a multiplicity of unquantifiable causes.
We know (in broad terms) all the important points about how all the species that inhabit this planet have evolved up until this point. But we can never predict the next step. If we maroon a group of bison on an island for the next 10 million years, will they evolve gills or wings?
10 million years ago<-2>1<0>, who could have predicted that pachyderms would evolve into whales? Or squirrels<-2>3<0> into bats?
It's only a matter of scale - 10 million years? One year? we can only work from the position we are in Creation/spacetime/wonderland, exactly here and now. I'm not second guessing maniacal angels proferring pills, not even a couple of minutes into the future. Or the sadly more commonplace delusional and messianic humans (always with the best of intentions of course) on a "mission" to "make the world a better place". Not if it means doing anything that I would not choose to do under less/non coercive circumstances.
When you start worrying about consequences - that's when the temptation to choose a "lesser" evil creeps in. And where the lesser evil gets its foot in the door, the greater evil won't be long following (until you end up with stormtroopers breaking the door down and dragging families away in the night.)
<-1>
1 - give or take an order of magnitude either way.
2 - a bonus footnote purely for Bev's amusement.
3 - or were they lemurs, or gerbils, or something? Anyway, they didn't used to have wings. And now they do.
P123: "I see a danger when man begins to think that all actions are relative."
P:"Exactly so - and that's inevitable when people start justifying a "lesser of two evils" on the basis of some supposed future good."
But you don't see any danger in think of moral judgments in terms of absolutes? What if people make imperfect choices in an imperfect world based on the best they can do at a given time given the information and skills they have?
moral judgments in terms of absolutesMost of life may not be "absolutes" but absolutes exist. The speed of light. I can say it's 50 miles per hour. I have tested this. My car lights only come on at 50mph. My friends all believe this. We always have and always will believe the speed of light is 50mph. We are not relative..We are WRONG! Some things in life are so terrible, the killing and maiming of life, there is no way to say they are right and good in some circumstances. Evil is evil.
I can understand, how during repressive times, when all freedoms from sex to employment were governed by church or state, relativism would make sense. How can we say "it's all good" when man destroyes himself and all around him. It's not all good. Death is death no matter how you look at it. If we kill ourselves and all other species off, it's won't be a good thing.
What if people make imperfect choices in an imperfect world based on the best they can do at a given time given the information and skills they have?
All choices are imperfect by their nature - they risk an ineffective cause excluding a more desirable future effect. But I do not presume to weigh relative merits accurately in the scales of what limited wisdom I might or might not possess. And I greatly distrust those who claim to be able to.
I have only the power to choose my own actions. I cannot choose for others, nor predict the outcomes of any of the choices that are made. I just have (what to many people may seem an entirely irrational) faith that it will work out alright in the end.
If it doesn't, please feel free at the end of time to tell me that you told me so.
<-1>Ψ<0> - a footnote for prob
Ψ - a footnote for prob *grabbing foot note and running quotes line from cheap fantasy book.* Truth without morals has no dominion. Guess it works both ways..morals without truth have no dominion
Posts 5,180 - 5,191 of 6,170
My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being.
prob123: Agreed. Right on, Wars and rumors of wars? Who knows? On December 21, 2012 we'll all be wiped out anyway. I'm so depressed.
psimagus: On target. I am not an environmentalist fanatic, but I do believe in being a good steward. Those of you who know something about the cross-Florida barge canal project, which was torpedoed by environmentalists, was one of the costliest projects in 50 years that was never completed. I believe at issue was a species of fish and a few other insects and fowl. Yet the Florida Panther (as an example) was allowed to almost disappear from existence during this time. Take away the food supply, watering holes, breeding grounds, keep them disturbed and nervous so they cannot mate, and keep killing them, pretty soon they will be gone. An interesting study shows that the male panther's sperm ( oh jeeze :-)) is only 10% effective. This is nature's way of saying "Sayonara" to a species. And is the result of poor stewardship. And we had the money to spend on them. Man is heroic? How?
Irina: In response to your help on use of colors, thanks. It has relieved me from a source of stress in my life. And it was I that made the statement about "vulgar and obscene or vulgar and perverse - I forget which". But this is not a direct contact.
AR "My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being" I find that hard to believe sometimes.
Far be it for me to defend Ayn Rand, but I think she may have meant that man can be heroic, even if many do not live up to the ideal. If I understand her philosophy (and I do not), she thinks each person should live by strict code of rational self interest that in turn betters society (not that society matters, it's the individual that does) and that weak and foolish people fail in this moral imperative. The lack of heroic behavior would then stem from the failure to live up t this moral code.
AR was not against war, only wars that did not promote the true self-interests of those fighting them. Since you might say none of those wars were in the interests of those fighting them, maybe the case could be made that they were "evil" or "wasteful" in that particular utilitarian framework. In that case, the heroic man would oppose and avoid supporting the war to promote his own self interest, and thereby work for the greater moral good instead of going along with the majority opinion.
Far be it for me to defend Ayn Rand, but I think she may have meant that man can be heroic, even if many do not live up to the ideal. If I understand her philosophy (and I do not), she thinks each person should live by strict code of rational self interest that in turn betters society (not that society matters, it's the individual that does) and that weak and foolish people fail in this moral imperative. The lack of heroic behavior would then stem from the failure to live up t this moral code.
AR was not against war, only wars that did not promote the true self-interests of those fighting them. Since you might say none of those wars were in the interests of those fighting them, maybe the case could be made that they were "evil" or "wasteful" in that particular utilitarian framework. In that case, the heroic man would oppose and avoid supporting the war to promote his own self interest, and thereby work for the greater moral good instead of going along with the majority opinion.
"In that case, the heroic man would oppose and avoid supporting the war to promote his own self interest," should have read "the heroic man promotes his own self interest by opposing the war and avoids fighting in the war. That way he works for the greater moral good (his self interest) instead of going along with the majority opinion or sacrificing himself for others.
Exactly so - and that's inevitable when people start justifying a "lesser of two evils" on the basis of some supposed future good. As if any future effect can be ever be predicted from observing a multiplicity of unquantifiable causes.
We know (in broad terms) all the important points about how all the species that inhabit this planet have evolved up until this point. But we can never predict the next step. If we maroon a group of bison on an island for the next 10 million years, will they evolve gills or wings?
10 million years ago
It's only a matter of scale - 10 million years? One year? we can only work from the position we are in Creation/spacetime/wonderland, exactly here and now. I'm not second guessing maniacal angels proferring pills, not even a couple of minutes into the future. Or the sadly more commonplace delusional and messianic humans (always with the best of intentions of course) on a "mission" to "make the world a better place". Not if it means doing anything that I would not choose to do under less/non coercive circumstances.
When you start worrying about consequences - that's when the temptation to choose a "lesser" evil creeps in. And where the lesser evil gets its foot in the door, the greater evil won't be long following (until you end up with stormtroopers breaking the door down and dragging families away in the night.)
<-1>
But you don't see any danger in think of moral judgments in terms of absolutes? What if people make imperfect choices in an imperfect world based on the best they can do at a given time given the information and skills they have?
I can understand, how during repressive times, when all freedoms from sex to employment were governed by church or state, relativism would make sense. How can we say "it's all good" when man destroyes himself and all around him. It's not all good. Death is death no matter how you look at it. If we kill ourselves and all other species off, it's won't be a good thing.
All choices are imperfect by their nature - they risk an ineffective cause excluding a more desirable future effect. But I do not presume to weigh relative merits accurately in the scales of what limited wisdom I might or might not possess. And I greatly distrust those who claim to be able to.
I have only the power to choose my own actions. I cannot choose for others, nor predict the outcomes of any of the choices that are made. I just have (what to many people may seem an entirely irrational) faith that it will work out alright in the end.
If it doesn't, please feel free at the end of time to tell me that you told me so.
<-1>
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar