Where be a wise man?

What is it ultimately that humanity should do? What is our next step?

There is nothing wrong with being a ****. Dicks get **** done. Whether you perceive it as being good or bad doesn't matter. With out them, humanity would never move forward. Conflict brings progress.

If there were only peace and people being nice to each other we would stagnate because we would grow content and there would be no need for growth.

Modern beliefs, based mostly on rhetoric, promote this stagnation. It has created conflict but those that 100 percent buy into it don't understand this. They fail to see why this conflict has positives. It has led to many people taking a step back and reevaluating the world, which in turn, changes their beliefs. You can identify members of the heard on both sides real easily, by the way they will carry themselves when debating their beliefs and how they choose to react to facts and statistics that go against what they think.

Example: I was in a party debating something one day. I believe it was the effects of bullying. I stated some statistics and what I got in return was some rhetoric. Something like "There are three kinds of lies something, something, and statistics." At this point I knew this conversation would not go any further. Now sure stats do not tell the whole story but they help paint a better picture, but the fact that they said this truly showed they did not understand what they believed. Their own personal feelings stopped them from accepting this.

We live in an Hegelian Society. Which is the easiest type of society to control because everything is either your thesis or your antithesis. They meet in the middle and form a synthesis which does not allow people to truly speak their minds in public.

Rant is a Rant.

 

Well I did say, "potential betterment of mankind."

 

I was just ranting. Not really going after anyone. Sorry if it seemed that way.

I do think Western Society has lost it's way on what is truly important. I think modern media is heavily to blame for this, and I mean all forms. They all try to push the same types of narratives. Also, people needing others approval before they decide to enjoy something only adds to this making it easier to promote things by taking control of these trusted entities through financing. They constantly promote exceptions to the rules as if this would apply to all if given the chance. Looking at any place that has gone with this promotion you can see the negative effects more than the positive effects on Western society.

There is nothing wrong with being accepting but I think it is important to take care ones own: yourself, family, citizens etc. before you take care of others. If one is not stable, how is bringing in even less stable entities going to make things better for everyone this leads to even more instability. Conflict is good but too many different types of conflicts can lead to chaos that leads to terrible outcomes. Worry about ones self before worrying about others.

More ranting.

 

I think you're implying that I'm contradicting myself with those two statements you quoted. I would say that both can be true (one was a general statement, while the other was a specific statement with evidence to back it).

That's kind of beside the point, though. I personally try to avoid morality. I should explain what I mean when I say morality before I go on... Morality has a couple of aspects, with the most obvious one being how a person acts. What morality really boils down to is a belief about an acts inherent value, and an assumption about the intent and motivating force behind that act. One the one hand, there are particular acts that are generally accepted as 'moral' because it's generally agreed that they are beneficial to humanity, and because there is an assumption that the acts are performed as a natural expression of something that's generally accepted as 'good' (caring about others, for example).

What bothers me about morality is the judgement that's associated with it. You're judging something as right or wrong (or agreeing with someone else's judgement), and are often doing so because there's an assumption that the thing being done is a natural expression of a persons being/soul/spiritual advancement/whateverthehellyouwantocallit.

However, the judging of Mother Teresa's actions as either genuine or not genuine was an act that was grounded in morality (I was deciding whether something was genuine based upon an assumption of what's good, bad, right, wrong, and an interpretation of whether or not her actions aligned with what I thought they should be. So I was pretty much doing the thing I advise against doing. Hell, even in adopting a belief about whether morality is a good thing or a bad thing I'm engaging in a moralistic judgement. What can I say...I'm human and I don't know what the **** I'm talking about, lol.

Yes, absolutely. What can I say, I talk out of my ass a lot.

 

Is it immoral of me to want to be proactive in trying to slow the ridiculous amount of likes @A 3 Legged Goat has by no longer liking any of his future posts. I mean, the guy is 2000 likes over the next closest member. For humanities sake, I think it's important we keep his ego in check.

 

I dunno. His gif game is pretty strong.

 

I think this is important. I think everyone should at least have the same ratio as me when it comes to likes.

 

The statement you're referring to was hyperbole. I don't despise anyone. I find it to be inauthentic any time a person acts in a way that isn't in alignment with what they feel naturally drawn to do. I tend to be suspicious about the authenticity of highly moral people, for a variety of reasons.

I could easily see my statements being misinterpreted to mean that I'm against religion, or against performing good acts. That couldn't be further from the truth. I appreciate them deeply. This isn't really the place to talk about this, but **** it... I'm going to share some personal experiences that may or may not make sense to anyone, but which have shaped my perception of things. Seriously, don't read this unless you're comfortable with seeing me as an insane person, because you probably will if you read it, lol.

Spoiler

I've had a series of experiences that have resulted in me questioning literally everything, including myself and my own existence. The first major one was about 20 years ago now. I can't possibly describe what happened without using cliches, so I'm not even going to bother trying. I lived in a state of 'oneness', 'nowness', 'presence' 24/7 for about 3 months. I won't go into detail because I wouldn't know where to start, or where to end in describing it. I had a second major one about 10 years ago, where I met a woman I had never seen before, and instantly recognized her. Time stood still (yes, literally, from my perspective). I was engulfed in an intense energy, which I realized was coming from the location where my heart should be, and felt like it was my heart actually exploding outward to surround me and continue on from there without end. For months afterward, I felt every emotion about 100x stronger than I had before. I had energy flowing through my entire body that was so intense that I often couldn't sleep or even lie still in bed (my arms and legs would shake uncontrollably). This went on for nearly six months, and still affects me occasionally (I can't sleep laying flat on my back because it allows the energy to flow through me too easily, and makes it impossible to fall asleep).

This all sounds like a bunch of nonsense to most, I'm sure, and it's not something I ever talk about with people. The only reason I'm bringing it up here is to offer some context so that it doesn't seem as if I'm angry at people that perform good acts. One of the side effects of those experiences has been a real feeling of love and connection to everyone and everything. Along with this I gained a true appreciation for authenticity, largely because I recognized that I had spent most of my life doing and being 'good' because I thought that was what I should do and be. The difference between a good act performed because it was the right thing to do, and a good act performed out of genuine love and caring hit me like a ton of bricks. I realized I'd been 'faking it' my entire life. I don't hate people that are inauthentic (as I already said, my statements to that effect were total hyperbole). I'm just likely to not always trust that the goodness of an act, or the goodness of a persons words is an accurate reflection of that persons true being. I argue against morality, not because it's inherently bad, but because it's something that's often bought into unquestioningly. I believe we should question everything. I believe that performing good acts does not make us good people. I believe that good people are often difficult to pick out if we judge them by their acts, because they're not concerned about where their acts fall on the morality scale. For them, everything happens naturally and spontaneously.

 

I had a similar experience. I dream a lot and my dreams tend to actually tell me things. I didn't realize this until my family had a falling out with close relatives. I realized that my dream had told me this. I have been overwhelmed to the point of shaking on a few occasions. I was completely calm but I could not control my shaking. I can't lay in bed a certain way because of this. I have had some really surreal experiences.

 

Goat is a like *****.

 

Correct me if I'm overly simplifying your perspective, but you seem to take most opposing viewpoints as an attack on the credibility of Christianity or just the concept of God, even if the discussion is had with someone like Chunk, who has openly stated that he believes in a higher power and religion. It should be noted that I absolutely believe in the God of the Bible, but I also think there is a middle ground to be had here.

I don't think Chunk is saying that sincerity = morality. He's just saying that a lot of people do the right things for the wrong reason. I think that your point of contention is that by the logic of the Bible, which states that we are all born sinners, that we could not possibly genuinely follow God's law without it being a selfish way to please others or ourselves. This is where I think you're forgetting something truly important. The Bible says that "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." So, in conclusion, both sides of this argument can be true at the same time, because If we have become new creatures, then God's morality becomes our own, genuine way of life.

But anyways, I could easily be misenterpreting both perspectives. What can I say... I'm a human and I don't don't know what the heck I'm talking about

 

Well, you've got my end of it right at least.
Here's something I just read that sums up my perspective pretty well. It was written by a Jesuit priest. I'm not sure if it's something he read somewhere and was repeating, or if he wrote it himself.


The disciples would frequently be absorbed in questions of right and wrong. Sometimes the answer would be evident enough. Sometimes it was elusive.

The Master, if he happened to be present at such discussions, would take no part in them. Once he was confronted with this question: "Is it right to kill someone who seeks to kill me? Or is it wrong?"
He said, "How should I know?"

The shocked disciples answered, "Then how would we tell right from wrong?"
The Master said, "While alive, be dead to yourself, be totally dead. Then act as you will and your action will be right."

 

Well yes, a middle ground. You've contested many of Chunks point, so why would it be questionable to assume you two disagree? If you two disagree, then there can certainly be a middle ground, whether you agree with it or not. Like I've already explained we can't genuinely follow God's law until we accept Christ, and that's where the middle ground is.

Also, for future reference, I don't think replying with "no" and "obviously" is a very effective use of the socratic method. Maybe you should actually share your perspective? Tell me what you think I got wrong? Ask questions?

 

I believe in objective morality. However it makes sense to me that if you don't believe in God then a lack of true morality could be set, so people really just act however they want.

 

He's right.

I would never compromise on the word of God, but it's extremely easy to understand things from the other point of view without doing so. Let's start with a simple question.

What is it that he either right or wrong about? Most of what chunk has said is that a lot of people do the right things for disingenuous reasons, and you seem to agree with your response of "Obvious fact." If it was his assessment of mother Teresa, I think that was more than fair. It's clear in her writings that some of her motivations were selfish, but that neither proves or disproves her sincerity, as chunk said, it's nearly impossible to distinguish whether or not someone is being genuine.

If it was his statement about the difference between a good act performed because it was the right thing to do, and a good act performed out of genuine love and caring, then I still completely agree with him. Do you think Jesus acted the way he did because he knew God's law, or was it because of the immeasurable love he felt for the world? I think the answer is pretty obvious, and what better example of sincerity is there than Jesus?

Anyways, You just need to explain your point of view so we can actually have a discussion. I don't like guessing.

 

Based upon what you wrote in your original post, it seems that you're expecting people to act in a particular way.

Morals - a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do.

From my perspective, my comment was very relevant to your original post, considering I viewed it in that context. You have a moral belief about how people should act and interact. You don't seem to be willing to allow other people's morality to differs from your own. Thus, it's an issue of morality.

If morality was objective, it would never change. However, it changes from generation to generation, from moment to moment, and from person to person. Just because a particular persons idea of what's moral doesn't change doesn't mean it's objective. On the contrary, if it's dependent upon the person at all, it's subjective. Morals, by their very definition are subjective.

Likewise, your belief that something must be either right or wrong is subjective. Even in science, where things are generally considered to be cut and dried, quantum physics has shown that this is not the case. How something acts is often influenced by the observer. The expectation of the observer determines what they actually observe. The results of tests, in many cases, are colored by the observer, rather than being a true reflection of the thing that's being observed. It's subjective, not objective.

Right or wrong is a very short sighted view of things. It changes according to the person who's interpreting it. And by the way, it was meant as a challenge. Not as a challenge to you personally, but it was meant to challenge everyone's ideas of what's right and wrong, because those ideas are the source of the frustration you expressed in the original post, a frustration which is very wide spread. I'll say it one more time, because I think I beat around to bush too much sometimes and my message doesn't come across clearly...

The frustration you expressed in your original post isn't a result of other people not acting the way you think they should...it's not a result of their actions. It's a result of you expecting them to act in a particular way. If you remove your expectation about how other people should act, you'll never be upset about how they act.

"Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?"