Is it possible to do good things?

niffer said:
I'm just saying that it seems like a lot of the premise of what you're arguing is based on humans doing things that are not natural. I'm asking why you're asserting that natural is equatable to good. (And actually if you think about it, acting on sexual urges is kind of a sort of natural thing to do, so it's in no way relevant to any point you'd be aiming towards proving, if it seemed like you were aiming at anything at all.)

Also, by ceasing to be average, that would have meant not only removing yourself from negative behaviour, but trying to become a positive force. I also disagree with the notion that just because one is working to bring the score back up to zero rather than positive, this is not "doing good" or contributing value. Maybe not in the grander scale of things, but they're still working for the opposite of bad.

PS I don't know why you're thumbs downing me when you're the one aggressively asking a 19 year old girl if she'd like to be raped and killed rather than asking for clarification on my completely non-aggressive post.
Click to expand...

is he supposed to feel ashamed for interacting with a 19 year old or something?
 
Gul Dukat said:
If you think it's a dumb question then why would you even respond? I'm sorry I wasted your valuable time with my pointless rambling, but wouldn't you have felt a lot better if you had privately rolled your eyes and moved on? And you make it sound like I was uttering threats or stalking you... congrats on being a 19 year old girl and I'm sorry I exploited your delicate vulnerable condition. I'm also sorry that you didn't like my analogy, but I still think it's a pretty fitting one when you think about the impact that humans have had on the planet. But obviously it was a pretty poor choice if your only reaction to it is mentioning your age and gender, as if being 19 and a girl in 2013 means you're some sort of precious innocent who isn't constantly bringing up all kinds of nasty shit just to shock people anyways.

I don't know how you could ever possibly argue that having 9 billion human beings on the planet is in any way good for anyone, including other people. I don't know how anyone can argue that any one species has a right to take every single aspect of the planet and wrangle it into something that suits their tastes, without ever taking into consideration whether or not it might be seriously damaging things for everyone else... which is pretty much what people do. That was the purpose of my analogy... but yeah, keep throwing the creep card around because it's always a winner.

I suppose I have defined 'good' in a really negative way as far as people (including myself) are concerned... I'm not sure how other people would define 'good', but it seems to me that if you define it as humans empowering each other in any way, then you're actually defining something that is contributing to the most destructive force that the world has seen, possibly in its entire history.

There has never been so much death on this planet at one time-- even the asteroids that killed the dinosaurs took millions of years... and we're doing it in hundreds. This is seriously it, this is the worst disaster that the living world has ever faced (except maybe the oxygen catastrophe)... and everyone thinks the best way to deal with it is to do whatever we can to feel good all the time. Dismissing it as melodrama doesn't even approach a valid argument... insisting I'm wrong isn't an argument either. Not that it matters, however... people tend not to agree unless what you're saying feeds into their need to feel good about themselves, or be entertained.

And yeah, I guess it is something of a rant, but I'm mostly interested in how people can keep going about their lives as if it's all good and we all deserve happiness and love and fulfillment while also directly contributing to something which, by all accounts, is a global extinction event.
Click to expand...

If every human died then who'd enjoy what's left?If we kill everything on the planet including ourselves what difference does it make? What is your solution to the problem?
 
Gul Dukat said:
Even though I'm sure it's going to sound melodramatic, I'm not convinced that it's possible to do good things in the world... mostly because as a species (or more accurately as a species controlled by unbridled self-interest), we've long surpassed the point where we need to worry about having a natural equilibrium with our surroundings... and natural things like death and pain are considered unforgivable whenever they happen.

Just being a human being with an average western lifestyle already makes you a liability. Just by doing what everyone around you does, you're hurting other people, you're hurting the future generations, and you're hurting the rest of the planet. On top of that, it seems like our topmost priority and what we consider to be 'good' revolves around other people, and possibly animals that we like... and not around being natural. In fact, we actually fear the natural side of our being and from birth we're set on a course that is mostly dictated by large corporations-- we might have an ironic distance from that or even potentially a few microscopic victories that still cheat our ability to be equals with nature.

Seriously-- how do we as human beings continue to live with ourselves?
Click to expand...

You are assuming that we and all our activity are not a part of nature.

On the grand scale of things, every living thing in this solar system will eventually be destroyed when our Sun goes red-giant.
We humans share, with every other life form on this planet a carbon-based chemistry utilising DNA, or RNA. Perhaps our biggest contribution to life on our planet will be to spread it beyond this solar-system. Instead of worrying about one life-form or another, we should concern ourselves with the very unique DNA/Carbon life, which as far as we know is only found here.
 
Flavus Aquila said:
You are assuming that we and all our activity are not a part of nature.

On the grand scale of things, every living thing in this solar system will eventually be destroyed when our Sun goes red-giant.
We humans share, with every other life form on this planet a carbon-based chemistry utilising DNA, or RNA. Perhaps our biggest contribution to life on our planet will be to spread it beyond this solar-system. Instead of worrying about one life-form or another, we should concern ourselves with the very unique DNA/Carbon life, which as far as we know is only found here.
Click to expand...

Our activity is not a part of nature, though the ability to act is derived from nature.

When the sun goes red-giant it probably won't be because the sun decided it was a good idea to do so.

The Tao is infinite, eternal.
Why is it eternal?
It was never born;
thus it can never die.
Why is it infinite?
It has no desires for itself;
thus it is present for all beings.

The Master stays behind;
that is why she is ahead.
She is detached from all things;
that is why she is one with them.
Because she has let go of herself,
she is perfectly fulfilled.


Empty your mind of all thoughts.
Let your heart be at peace.
Watch the turmoil of beings,
but contemplate their return.

Each separate being in the universe
returns to the common source.
Returning to the source is serenity.

If you don't realize the source,
you stumble in confusion and sorrow.
When you realize where you come from,
you naturally become tolerant,
disinterested, amused,
kindhearted as a grandmother,
dignified as a king.
Immersed in the wonder of the Tao,
you can deal with whatever life brings you,
and when death comes, you are ready.
 
sprinkles said:
Our activity is not a part of nature, though the ability to act is derived from nature.

When the sun goes red-giant it probably won't be because the sun decided it was a good idea to do so.

The Tao is infinite, eternal.
Why is it eternal?
It was never born;
thus it can never die.
Why is it infinite?
It has no desires for itself;
thus it is present for all beings.

The Master stays behind;
that is why she is ahead.
She is detached from all things;
that is why she is one with them.
Because she has let go of herself,
she is perfectly fulfilled.


Empty your mind of all thoughts.
Let your heart be at peace.
Watch the turmoil of beings,
but contemplate their return.

Each separate being in the universe
returns to the common source.
Returning to the source is serenity.

If you don't realize the source,
you stumble in confusion and sorrow.
When you realize where you come from,
you naturally become tolerant,
disinterested, amused,
kindhearted as a grandmother,
dignified as a king.
Immersed in the wonder of the Tao,
you can deal with whatever life brings you,
and when death comes, you are ready.
Click to expand...

I don't get it. We aren't natural because we make decisions, or because one school of philosophy said so?
 
niffer said:
I don't get it. We aren't natural because we make decisions, or because one school of philosophy said so?
Click to expand...

Because we make anthropocentric decisions based on some illusory understanding of how things work.

Nature is something that will work without conscious decisions. Nature is in this sense objective. There's a sense of authenticity outside of sheer willful action.

Remember the other thread where we were talking about how some people pay tons of money for modern art paintings, just for the prestige and not because they are legitimately moved that much by the painting? It's like that.

Or when somebody claims to love some kind of music in order to fit in with a scene but they are not natural about it - they probably wouldn't like it if it were not 'cool'. This is evidenced so much by peer pressure, perceived mental disorders, identity crisis, etc. etc. all stemming from a delusional self that wants to mess with things that don't necessarily need messing with.
 
sprinkles said:
Because we make anthropocentric decisions based on some illusory understanding of how things work.

Nature is something that will work without conscious decisions. Nature is in this sense objective. There's a sense of authenticity outside of sheer willful action.

Remember the other thread where we were talking about how some people pay tons of money for modern art paintings, just for the prestige and not because they are legitimately moved that much by the painting? It's like that.

Or when somebody claims to love some kind of music in order to fit in with a scene but they are not natural about it - they probably wouldn't like it if it were not 'cool'. This is evidenced so much by peer pressure, perceived mental disorders, identity crisis, etc. etc. all stemming from a delusional self that wants to mess with things that don't necessarily need messing with.
Click to expand...
Why must it be authentic to be nature? I think it's probably just a difference in mental categorization, but IMO by the principle of it, humans are one with nature because we are in and come from nature and exist within the natural world where physics and biology apply just as much to us as to anything.
 
niffer said:
Why must it be authentic to be nature? I think it's probably just a difference in mental categorization, but IMO by the principle of it, humans are one with nature because we are in and come from nature and exist within the natural world where physics and biology apply just as much to us as to anything.
Click to expand...

But humans believe they are in charge of their selves and will disregard their own physics and biology to this end.

Nature must be authentic because it cannot be inauthentic since inauthenticity requires consciousness. Can you trick a stone? Can a stone trick you? Maybe some times you think a shiny stone tricks you but in actuality you were just mistaken about the stone.
 
[MENTION=3998]niffer[/MENTION]
Also when you were making yourself throw up, wasn't that just from physics? And when you made yourself stop, wasn't that also physics?

Whence comes the ambivalence and pain from this? Physics doesn't fight itself. When you tell a bomb to blow up, the bomb won't tell you it's a bad idea. It won't feel guilty. It will just blow up because nature does what it does flawlessly.
 
sprinkles said:
But humans believe they are in charge of their selves and will disregard their own physics and biology to this end.

Nature must be authentic because it cannot be inauthentic since inauthenticity requires consciousness. Can you trick a stone? Can a stone trick you? Maybe some times you think a shiny stone tricks you but in actuality you were just mistaken about the stone.
Click to expand...

We can try to disregard it but it still applies to us lol.

Some animals are pretty clever and able to "trick" each other or people for food or whatever so it doesn't just apply to humans. Plus, this inauthenticity comes from an authenticity of naturalness, or an ability that nature gave us as you said. Conceptually what we are doing may seem to be non-natural but if the source and environmental constraints are both natural then if we are talking about if our human decisions are natural or unnatural in a non philosophical sense and purely in the sense of comparing ourselves as organisms to the rest of the universe, then they are definitely natural.
 
sprinkles said:
@niffer
Also when you were making yourself throw up, wasn't that just from physics? And when you made yourself stop, wasn't that also physics?

Whence comes the ambivalence and pain from this? Physics doesn't fight itself. When you tell a bomb to blow up, the bomb won't tell you it's a bad idea. It won't feel guilty. It will just blow up because nature does what it does flawlessly.
Click to expand...

Decisions and ambivalence and pain all come from physics and stuffs going on in my brain as a result of previous things that happened. Obviously the things that happened to make me react in these ways are complex but it's not like normal physics doesn't keep its place..
 
niffer said:
We can try to disregard it but it still applies to us lol.

Some animals are pretty clever and able to "trick" each other or people for food or whatever so it doesn't just apply to humans. Plus, this inauthenticity comes from an authenticity of naturalness, or an ability that nature gave us as you said. Conceptually what we are doing may seem to be non-natural but if the source and environmental constraints are both natural then if we are talking about if our human decisions are natural or unnatural in a non philosophical sense and purely in the sense of comparing ourselves as organisms to the rest of the universe, then they are definitely natural.
Click to expand...

As far as we know though, this trickery was not consciously developed, so it isn't actually trickery. Trickery is a human idea.

Things are only unnatural via perspective but perspective is what contributes to suffering. Philosophy is just the invented ladder to get us out of the nonexistent pit that we believe we have thrown ourselves into. Once you get out, you find there was no pit, and no ladder.

niffer said:
Decisions and ambivalence and pain all come from physics and stuffs going on in my brain as a result of previous things that happened. Obviously the things that happened to make me react in these ways are complex but it's not like normal physics doesn't keep its place..
Click to expand...

Hence karma.
 
sprinkles said:
As far as we know though, this trickery was not consciously developed, so it isn't actually trickery. Trickery is a human idea.
Click to expand...
Perhaps..

Not being consciously developed implies that evolution played a hand at the ability, whereas "idea" implies that we assigned a name to the concept. Our abilities both to trick and to assign a concept to it are intertwined with the results of evolution.

Things are only unnatural via perspective but perspective is what contributes to suffering. Philosophy is just the invented ladder to get us out of the nonexistent pit that we believe we have thrown ourselves into. Once you get out, you find there was no pit, and no ladder.
Click to expand...

Ok.

Hence karma.
Click to expand...

What?
 
niffer said:
Perhaps..

Not being consciously developed implies that evolution played a hand at the ability, whereas "idea" implies that we assigned a name to the concept. Our abilities both to trick and to assign a concept to it are intertwined with the results of evolution.
Click to expand...
Sense of good and bad also comes from evolution doesn't it? But we've discarded both of those as an illusion already in the thread?

Yet at the same time, survival also depends on sense, which is also evolved. The tendency to say things are unnatural should also itself be evolved, shouldn't it? So is it thereby natural to say things are unnatural if all things are natural? Is it natural to be contradictory?

Probably. But what do we do about it, and why should we do anything to begin with?


What?
Click to expand...
Hopefully my recent message to you will illustrate this.
 
sentientsixpence said:
This is where we have the idea of "human nature," which is often thought to be an oxymoron.
Click to expand...

It's not an oxymoron. It's just emergent and changing.

Basically it's like this:
Humans have dislikes and aversions by nature.
Humans by nature have their ideal, and by nature complain about things of nature (sickness, death, violence and so forth)
Humans have a tendency to see nature as a positive or negative, a relationship which we've already determined to not exist. e.g. organic foods are good for you and being sick is bad, which is not necessarily in line with the concept of good and bad not existing (unless you're fully aware of it and do it anyway)

Another prevalent idea is the one that something being subjective in itself also makes it somehow inferior, leading those to rage about objectivity and logic, but objectivity and logic are only subjectively important.
 
[MENTION=6917]sprinkles[/MENTION] Despite our different manner of functionality - can we realistically claim to be so different from anything else on this planet?

ie. Is the fact that we can have a concept of nature the one thing which separates us from it?
 
Flavus Aquila said:
[MENTION=6917]sprinkles[/MENTION] Despite our different manner of functionality - can we realistically claim to be so different from anything else on this planet?

ie. Is the fact that we can have a concept of nature the one thing which separates us from it?
Click to expand...

Thinking we are separate separates us from it.

Hence the prevalent "I am me and you are other" and to suggest otherwise will often get a disagreement, and people quite regularly poopooing the idea that self is an illusion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top