SM,Simple Minded wrote:.... a very Buddhist/Randian approach.
I hadn't thought of that fusion, but it is there.
Alex.
SM,Simple Minded wrote:.... a very Buddhist/Randian approach.
Alex,manolo wrote:SM,Simple Minded wrote:.... a very Buddhist/Randian approach.
I hadn't thought of that fusion, but it is there.
Alex.
Parodite wrote:Are Rand-ian Selfists only one step away of giving up their massive ego and become Buddhists?
Seems to me a good thing that people want to give up something.. better make sure it is huuuuuge. Makes the deed more dramatic and heroic!
Analogy in Christianity: better be the Son of God if your sacrifice wants to mean something, i.e. impress orthers.
The ultimate sacrifice would be if God committed suicide just for our own sake. We want a general who himself dies in the front lines to save us. (It could be though, that God is not that powerful to even be able to kill himself. To have your son killed instead as a meaningful sacrifice would then indeed be the second best option left.)
Rand-ians might better opt for finding a stand-in sacrificial lamb instead of handing themselves over to Buddhism and get annihilated. Did Ayn Rand have kids, a daughter maybe? If no Daughter of God available... maybe some Randian acolyte volunteers are willing to offer themselves to Buddha? Given the huge belly of Buddha he seems to have a good general apetite. I suspect he loves Randians as a regular snack.
Christianty has the Jonah and the Whale story... and now we also have the Ayn Rand and the Buddha Belly story. The similarities become spooky... something is going on.
Parodite,Parodite wrote:Are Rand-ian Selfists only one step away of giving up their massive ego and become Buddhists?
Your Christian analogy is based on childish and superstitious interpretations. It's understandable since so much of what is promoted as Christianity is childish and superstitious, so allow me put this on track.Parodite wrote:Are Rand-ian Selfists only one step away of giving up their massive ego and become Buddhists?
Seems to me a good thing that people want to give up something.. better make sure it is huuuuuge. Makes the deed more dramatic and heroic!
Analogy in Christianity: better be the Son of God if your sacrifice wants to mean something, i.e. impress orthers.
The ultimate sacrifice would be if God committed suicide just for our own sake. We want a general who himself dies in the front lines to save us. (It could be though, that God is not that powerful to even be able to kill himself. To have your son killed instead as a meaningful sacrifice would then indeed be the second best option left.)
Rand-ians might better opt for finding a stand-in sacrificial lamb instead of handing themselves over to Buddhism and get annihilated. Did Ayn Rand have kids, a daughter maybe? If no Daughter of God available... maybe some Randian acolyte volunteers are willing to offer themselves to Buddha? Given the huge belly of Buddha he seems to have a good general apetite. I suspect he loves Randians as a regular snack.
Christianty has the Jonah and the Whale story... and now we also have the Ayn Rand and the Buddha Belly story. The similarities become spooky... something is going on.
Quite right. But they are still alive massively and kicking around in thousands of churches. Not something of the past at all. But maybe I consider more to be childish and superstitious than you do. For instance do you personally believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus after he died? Born from a biological virgin? For starters...Nonc Hilaire wrote:Your Christian analogy is based on childish and superstitious interpretations.
I don't believe there is an evil that corrupts the good by means of government. It is just another superstitious thought that there is some invisible evil thingie or persona-like evil identity hungrily roaming around the planet trying to find cracks like governments (or weak hearts, desires of the flesh et-al) and corrupt what is good. At least, that is what your way of saying it suggests. I even think it is "evil" to scare people with such imagery.It's understandable since so much of what is promoted as Christianity is childish and superstitious, so allow me put this on track.
In discussing the presence of evil in the crucifixion of Jesus the big take-away is that good people used the law to persecute and execute a completely innocent person. Evil corrupted the good by means of government (also see the book of Daniel, the crusades and contemporary Israel) and by concrete, literal interpretation of Scripture. It is quite easy for good people to do evil things with the best of intentions, and even while trying their best to serve God.
The Christian definition of evil is the absence of good, and anything not 100% good is partially evil. If you know of a government which is perfectly and wholly good, I am interested in hearing about it.Parodite wrote:Quite right. But they are still alive massively and kicking around in thousands of churches. Not something of the past at all. But maybe I consider more to be childish and superstitious than you do. For instance do you personally believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus after he died? Born from a biological virgin? For starters...Nonc Hilaire wrote:Your Christian analogy is based on childish and superstitious interpretations.
I don't believe there is an evil that corrupts the good by means of government. It is just another superstitious thought that there is some invisible evil thingie or persona-like evil identity hungrily roaming around the planet trying to find cracks like governments (or weak hearts, desires of the flesh et-al) and corrupt what is good. At least, that is what your way of saying it suggests. I even think it is "evil" to scare people with such imagery.It's understandable since so much of what is promoted as Christianity is childish and superstitious, so allow me put this on track.
In discussing the presence of evil in the crucifixion of Jesus the big take-away is that good people used the law to persecute and execute a completely innocent person. Evil corrupted the good by means of government (also see the book of Daniel, the crusades and contemporary Israel) and by concrete, literal interpretation of Scripture. It is quite easy for good people to do evil things with the best of intentions, and even while trying their best to serve God.
Perhaps. It depends what your intentions are and how seriously you address the questions the demons present. Traditions arise from specific conditions. In highly embedded, contextual societies, getting away to sit for a time in zazen or whatever may give a deeper perspective on their own failings and limitations away for their collective given in these matters, but in the West, where most people are already isolated in their own heads, I am not sure it really promotes real insight for many other than some temporary calm, but it may have more enduring help for some. I just haven’t seen it. While Kant is right, you can’t overcome something you have not made the hard and chastening journey to intimately know.manolo wrote:kmich,kmich wrote:As Ivan observed in the Brothers Karamozov, “I think if the devil exists, man has created him in his own image and likeness…” Evil is nothing but our own construct, and, depending on your particular frame, what one considers good another can consider evil and vice verse.
Yes, Alex, there is evil in the world, evil arises from all our efforts to rid the world of it – and ultimately to rid ourselves of our own inner demons that we project onto others.
I'll agree with you on the projection and the ridding. However, an attempt to overcome 'inner demons' is not wasted, even if it does result in long periods of zen meditation or even some praying. Immanuel Kant thought, wisely, that morality lies in our effort to overcome damaging inclinations.
Alex.
I don't think your definition is "the" Christian definition, since there are many different Christian definitions of what "evil" is or means, in the past and also today.Nonc Hilaire wrote:The Christian definition of evil is the absence of good, and anything not 100% good is partially evil. If you know of a government which is perfectly and wholly good, I am interested in hearing about it.
But why bother before a hellish reality presents itself? Maybe it won't come? Maybe it will be totally different from what I imagine it to be? I don't see much use in preparing myself for situations where I can only speculate if they come and what they might be about/do to me.kmich wrote:The terrors of life have much in store for us that we now can only dimly imagine. Life will dispense of our beloved convictions and pretensions quite easily. If you don’t believe me, just wait and see. Being in a protected society gives us the space to not take the challenge seriously. That is quite nice until your season in hell arrives, and it will in time.
kmich,kmich wrote: The test of faith is whether on can keep an open mind and heart in the face of death, meaninglessness, or a life unfulfilled.
Parodite,Parodite wrote: Surely enough, death will wipe all of these free of charge considerations from a lazy arm chair, as it will end the struggle and pains of death of our final hour. Everything neatly solved.
Yes, Augustine's definition of evil is orthodox Christianity. It is a sharp contrast with the Manichean/Zoroastrian definition of good and evil as similar but oppositional forces. It is like saying the definition of dark is the absence of light.Parodite wrote:I don't think your definition is "the" Christian definition, since there are many different Christian definitions of what "evil" is or means, in the past and also today.Nonc Hilaire wrote:The Christian definition of evil is the absence of good, and anything not 100% good is partially evil. If you know of a government which is perfectly and wholly good, I am interested in hearing about it.
That aside, my point was not that gvts can be "wholly good", just that suggesting there exists some independent source or form of "evil" itself I find "evil", or lets say: counter productive. And if I take your word for it that the Christian definition of evil is the absence is good... then it is a redundant one. Like saying that the definition of red is the absence of other colors.
Warmth is the absence of cold. Joy is the absence of sadness. Etc. There is no information there. Just an abstract redundancy.Nonc Hilaire wrote:Yes, Augustine's definition of evil is orthodox Christianity. It is a sharp contrast with the Manichean/Zoroastrian definition of good and evil as similar but oppositional forces. It is like saying the definition of dark is the absence of light.Parodite wrote:That aside, my point was not that gvts can be "wholly good", just that suggesting there exists some independent source or form of "evil" itself I find "evil", or lets say: counter productive. And if I take your word for it that the Christian definition of evil is the absence is good... then it is a redundant one. Like saying that the definition of red is the absence of other colors.
No, the topic is if evil exists. Which first demands a definition. You subscribe to evil being the absence of good. That there is evil as there is darkness in as much as there is light not present. If without much else, I would call this poor poetry. But of course if used intentionally poetical.... words like evil, bad, good, dark, light, hell, heaven.. can be nice words to use. They are in fact used that way in most cases. They are descriptive of pain, happiness, joy, hope, just a way to express yourself.Nonc Hilaire wrote:The topic is evil, not pain.
We wouldn't confuse apprehension and misapprehension as equivalents, and it is the same with good and bad choices.Parodite wrote:No, the topic is if evil exists. Which first demands a definition. You subscribe to evil being the absence of good. That there is evil as there is darkness in as much as there is light not present. If without much else, I would call this poor poetry. But of course if used intentionally poetical.... words like evil, bad, good, dark, light, hell, heaven.. can be nice words to use. They are in fact used that way in most cases. They are descriptive of pain, happiness, joy, hope, just a way to express yourself.Nonc Hilaire wrote:The topic is evil, not pain.
Primitive superstitious religious ideas, in my opinion, take poetic descriptions erroneously literal. Beyond the poetic descriptive, there is no "evil" in this world.
Btw... reading theology makes me think now that we speakov evill, of darkness. There is of course this riddle that if God is 100% good.. how can there be evil in this world. The conundrum cascades on and on where various theologians try to solve or mend the loose ends in the theological construct. In sum total it easily takes 1000s pages of written text. It reminds me of what happens when people are looking in the dark for a flash light or something. "Has anyone a lighter, some matches at least?" It is assumed here that darkness is the default situation... then of course it would make sense to try find or create some light in that darkness. But did anyone consider the option there there was actually light... enough of it.. but that theology switched it off? That theology creates darkness... OMG. Evil!
Don't know what we you refer to but it sounds good.NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:We wouldn't confuse apprehension and misapprehension as equivalents, and it is the same with good and bad choices.Parodite wrote:No, the topic is if evil exists. Which first demands a definition. You subscribe to evil being the absence of good. That there is evil as there is darkness in as much as there is light not present. If without much else, I would call this poor poetry. But of course if used intentionally poetical.... words like evil, bad, good, dark, light, hell, heaven.. can be nice words to use. They are in fact used that way in most cases. They are descriptive of pain, happiness, joy, hope, just a way to express yourself.Nonc Hilaire wrote:The topic is evil, not pain.
Primitive superstitious religious ideas, in my opinion, take poetic descriptions erroneously literal. Beyond the poetic descriptive, there is no "evil" in this world.
Btw... reading theology makes me think now that we speakov evill, of darkness. There is of course this riddle that if God is 100% good.. how can there be evil in this world. The conundrum cascades on and on where various theologians try to solve or mend the loose ends in the theological construct. In sum total it easily takes 1000s pages of written text. It reminds me of what happens when people are looking in the dark for a flash light or something. "Has anyone a lighter, some matches at least?" It is assumed here that darkness is the default situation... then of course it would make sense to try find or create some light in that darkness. But did anyone consider the option there there was actually light... enough of it.. but that theology switched it off? That theology creates darkness... OMG. Evil!
indeed. So many ways to die.. in an unnounced instance or years long struggle of sorts..at least it is never boring.manolo wrote:
Parodite,
In a serious motorcycle accident 2 years ago I suffered much injury and a concussion. No memory of the event. This has gradually changed my view of death.
The gap in memory is complete, from before the accident to being in hospital. It is different from sleep, as there was no dreaming, shallowness, half consciousness. For me, it just didn't happen. I can easily accept that a fatal stroke or heart attack could be as simple and easy, once consciousness is lost.
As you say, "Everything neatly solved."
Alex.
“Death, therefore, the most awful of evils, is nothing to us, seeing that, when we are, death is not come, and, when death is come, we are not.” - Epicurus
therefore, death is not evil, since we never experience it?Nonc Hilaire wrote:“Death, therefore, the most awful of evils, is nothing to us, seeing that, when we are, death is not come, and, when death is come, we are not.” - Epicurus
'We' as in humans on this terraferma.Parodite wrote:Don't know what we you refer to but it sounds good.NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:We wouldn't confuse apprehension and misapprehension as equivalents, and it is the same with good and bad choices.Parodite wrote:No, the topic is if evil exists. Which first demands a definition. You subscribe to evil being the absence of good. That there is evil as there is darkness in as much as there is light not present. If without much else, I would call this poor poetry. But of course if used intentionally poetical.... words like evil, bad, good, dark, light, hell, heaven.. can be nice words to use. They are in fact used that way in most cases. They are descriptive of pain, happiness, joy, hope, just a way to express yourself.Nonc Hilaire wrote:The topic is evil, not pain.
Primitive superstitious religious ideas, in my opinion, take poetic descriptions erroneously literal. Beyond the poetic descriptive, there is no "evil" in this world.
Btw... reading theology makes me think now that we speakov evill, of darkness. There is of course this riddle that if God is 100% good.. how can there be evil in this world. The conundrum cascades on and on where various theologians try to solve or mend the loose ends in the theological construct. In sum total it easily takes 1000s pages of written text. It reminds me of what happens when people are looking in the dark for a flash light or something. "Has anyone a lighter, some matches at least?" It is assumed here that darkness is the default situation... then of course it would make sense to try find or create some light in that darkness. But did anyone consider the option there there was actually light... enough of it.. but that theology switched it off? That theology creates darkness... OMG. Evil!