*When rabbits self-sacrifice to a disguised Buddhist deity borrowed from Hinduism...
- Thread starter GB-GIL Trans-global
- Start date
Raithere:
Damn you, using logical arguments to demolish mine!
You're right.
Any coercion is an attack on my freedom, and thus destructive.
Interesting. I really never thought of it this way.
Depends. It's simply a matter of how far one is willing to go to pursue pleasure.
Analogous to the woman who diets (sacrificing the pleasure of, say, that porterhouse steak) in order to gain the pleasure that having a slim figure brings.
Yes, you are right.
Hmmm, thought of in those terms, the rabbit's action is very laudable.
Whether one thinks of it as stupid or enlightened is really just a question of values. But now that I think about it, I respect the rabbit's action, whether or not I disagree with it.
Tiassa:
While I wouldn't put it that strongly, I agree with you in sentiment. It is only when one has nothing that one can give nothing.
Giving is an affirmation of the fact that one has things to give.
Of course, looking at it this way makes giving to be a act that is not purely altruistic. But then, was it ever?
P.S: Raith, you're right about the WW2 example.
Damn you, using logical arguments to demolish mine!
You're right.
Any coercion is an attack on my freedom, and thus destructive.
Interesting. I really never thought of it this way.
Depends. It's simply a matter of how far one is willing to go to pursue pleasure.
Analogous to the woman who diets (sacrificing the pleasure of, say, that porterhouse steak) in order to gain the pleasure that having a slim figure brings.
Yes, you are right.
Hmmm, thought of in those terms, the rabbit's action is very laudable.
Whether one thinks of it as stupid or enlightened is really just a question of values. But now that I think about it, I respect the rabbit's action, whether or not I disagree with it.
Tiassa:
While I wouldn't put it that strongly, I agree with you in sentiment. It is only when one has nothing that one can give nothing.
Giving is an affirmation of the fact that one has things to give.
Of course, looking at it this way makes giving to be a act that is not purely altruistic. But then, was it ever?
P.S: Raith, you're right about the WW2 example.
Destructive behavior for the greater good? Sometimes we must tear down before we rebuild.
It's important to do so. The Inquisition is a marvelous example. Granted, some of the inquisitors were simply sadistic assholes on a power trip but there were individuals who honestly thought they were doing what was best for those they tortured and killed. Some wars as well. Certainly I should defend my countrymen from harm but the attitude of "my country, right or wrong"? Absolutely, not.
"The end justifies the means" is one of the most dangerous ideas around. We must perceive clearly what the costs of those means are. We must be diligent in our evaluation. We must seek the greatest good using the means that involves the least amount of destruction. Thus to reach accord is better than to resort to coercion. Reason is better than force. Etc.
A little light bondage and hot wax? A bit of dominant/submissive role-playing? The physiological excitement caused by such games can intensify the sexual experience. I would say that it's dependent upon trust and honesty, knowing your limits and respecting those of your partner. The more serious players often use a ball which is dropped if those limits are being crossed.
Insofar as the choice to participate is solely that of the individual; yes. But the woman choosing to diet is an issue of self-control. An entirely different matter IMO.
Regarding it in a strictly literal sense... it is absurd. I mean if we all went around cooking ourselves up as a meal for someone else the world would be even more fucked up than it is. But, as you say, it's about values. It says that God rewards those who are willing to sacrifice what they have for the good of their fellow travelers. And that those who are willing to sacrifice everything are honored above all others.
While I don't believe in God, I find the principle holds true. Religions contain some very important concepts and while I often find the paradigm problematic I think it's important to recognize and evaluate those concepts and not to discard them out of hand because of their source. One of the problems of religion is its use of often unexplained parables like this. Rather than a reasoned justification of an important concept we get a story that, on the surface, is absurd. This will cause some to instantly reject it. Worse, others will mistake the meaning but regard it as truth.
~Raithere
Raith:
Destruction for destruction's sake.
Reason is better than force? By my values, yes. However, reason unaided ain't worth jack shit.
After all, what are the unreasonable persuaded by but force?
And you also presume that reason would teach us to act for the greater good. I really don't have time now to go into it, but the Marquis de Sade did a rather decent job showing that reason doesn't always suggest the greater good.
She's denying herself a form of pleasure in order to seek a form of pleasure she values more. Just as a masochist would submit to being abused in order to glean pleasure thereby. Both involve self control.
Blah, I'm talking like an Oxford intellectual.
Anyways, yeah, power isn't always destructive to both partners if people share power/feed each other/one feeds the other/whatever.
Power is, after all, highly creative and life-affirming and yadda yadda yadda [insert Nietzschean crap here]
And values are, of course, arbitrary. I don't regard sacrifice as highly as the Buddhists did. As far as I'm concerned, people often sacrifice themselves in order to gain something thereby.
Such sacrifice is rather dishonest, and I regard self-honesty very highly.
Destruction for destruction's sake.
Reason is better than force? By my values, yes. However, reason unaided ain't worth jack shit.
After all, what are the unreasonable persuaded by but force?
And you also presume that reason would teach us to act for the greater good. I really don't have time now to go into it, but the Marquis de Sade did a rather decent job showing that reason doesn't always suggest the greater good.
She's denying herself a form of pleasure in order to seek a form of pleasure she values more. Just as a masochist would submit to being abused in order to glean pleasure thereby. Both involve self control.
Blah, I'm talking like an Oxford intellectual.
Anyways, yeah, power isn't always destructive to both partners if people share power/feed each other/one feeds the other/whatever.
Power is, after all, highly creative and life-affirming and yadda yadda yadda [insert Nietzschean crap here]
And values are, of course, arbitrary. I don't regard sacrifice as highly as the Buddhists did. As far as I'm concerned, people often sacrifice themselves in order to gain something thereby.
Such sacrifice is rather dishonest, and I regard self-honesty very highly.
Sometimes the unreasonable can be made to see reason. But, yes, at times force is necessary.
Then one needs to examine his premises. I'm not very conversant with his argument but I would bet that I could offer a good counter argument to the premises upon which his conclusion relies.
We're getting further away from the premise. Power, Force, Energy are not all equal and interchangeable terms.
I don't believe this is so. Not all premises are valid. Some can be supported better than others. A person may choose their values arbitrarily but like an irrational argument the inherent fallacies may be exposed.
People sacrifice of themselves toward that which is of greater value to them. What's dishonest about that?
~Raithere
Raith:
We see very closely. However, I do not think that power is destructive at all.
Acton said that "All power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely".
I disagree. I think that power only corrupts the corrupted.
That said:
One should note that the second mistake people make when reading de Sade is taking him seriously. If you're interested, I'll try.
I disagree. I think they're very interrelated, although not interchangable.
Power is a form of "energy" - although we get metaphysical here - and force could be defined as the expression of power.
This is true. But it requires that we accept logic as a tool. It requires that we accept the value that acting logically is better than acting illogically.
Absolutely nothing. The problem is that many deny that they are getting anything of value in return.
That pisses me off.
We see very closely. However, I do not think that power is destructive at all.
Acton said that "All power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely".
I disagree. I think that power only corrupts the corrupted.
That said:
One should note that the second mistake people make when reading de Sade is taking him seriously. If you're interested, I'll try.
I disagree. I think they're very interrelated, although not interchangable.
Power is a form of "energy" - although we get metaphysical here - and force could be defined as the expression of power.
This is true. But it requires that we accept logic as a tool. It requires that we accept the value that acting logically is better than acting illogically.
Absolutely nothing. The problem is that many deny that they are getting anything of value in return.
That pisses me off.
I'll bring a more thoughtful response later when I have more time but for now a couple of quick responses:
~Raithere
As I cannot seem to go for long in this area without quoting Dune, I shall: "All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not power that corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which they are quickly addicted." - "Chapterhouse Dune" by Frank Herbert
I have noted a sense of irony in some of his writings. I'd enjoy hearing more.
I can agree with that... various uses or expressions of energy.
I tend to agree. I have a feeling that the Universe works is such a way that one cannot give without receiving or receive without giving... or perhaps that's just how we work. I need to think this one out more.
~Raithere
Raith:
[Dead horse beating]
I think I agree. I've seen the corruption of a vicious man exhibited in his use of power, and the purity of a good man exhibited in his use of power.
Hitler and Roosevelt had almost equal amounts of power at one time. Look how their actions differed.
Power isn't the enemy. The person who weilds it is.
[/Dead horse beating]
Sure.
He's first and foremost a satirist.
Basically, his argument against "reason acting for the greater good" is this:
What is the greater good? Why should I sacrifice my pleasure in order to avoid harming my fellow?
He would surely not do this for me. Even if he would, that would be his own choice to make and does not affect my choice. I owe nothing.
What gain would I get? A bit of pleasure in living ethically? Bah, I'd get more pleasure from living wickedly.
Because he is my brother? Even if he was my biological brother, why would I owe him any consideration because we shared a womb?
I don't owe anything to anybody. Nor will I gain any pleasure from refraining from harming others. Since I am born to pursue pleasure, I should pursue what gives me most pleasure - i.e to live wickedly.
(He also says that conscience is easily defeated and that God is a fiction)
Good. Now, do you agree with this:
Energy and life are interchangable?
I agree to an extent. I'd say that both giving and recieving bind people to each other.
However, I don't agree that the good are rewarded or the bad punished.
I believe in elevating one's Will beyond reward and punishment systems, but this is off topic.
[Dead horse beating]
I think I agree. I've seen the corruption of a vicious man exhibited in his use of power, and the purity of a good man exhibited in his use of power.
Hitler and Roosevelt had almost equal amounts of power at one time. Look how their actions differed.
Power isn't the enemy. The person who weilds it is.
[/Dead horse beating]
Sure.
He's first and foremost a satirist.
Basically, his argument against "reason acting for the greater good" is this:
What is the greater good? Why should I sacrifice my pleasure in order to avoid harming my fellow?
He would surely not do this for me. Even if he would, that would be his own choice to make and does not affect my choice. I owe nothing.
What gain would I get? A bit of pleasure in living ethically? Bah, I'd get more pleasure from living wickedly.
Because he is my brother? Even if he was my biological brother, why would I owe him any consideration because we shared a womb?
I don't owe anything to anybody. Nor will I gain any pleasure from refraining from harming others. Since I am born to pursue pleasure, I should pursue what gives me most pleasure - i.e to live wickedly.
(He also says that conscience is easily defeated and that God is a fiction)
Good. Now, do you agree with this:
Energy and life are interchangable?
I agree to an extent. I'd say that both giving and recieving bind people to each other.
However, I don't agree that the good are rewarded or the bad punished.
I believe in elevating one's Will beyond reward and punishment systems, but this is off topic.
Such fun. I can see why they kept locking him up... I keep envisioning Priests running around in a frenzy, "He said what?" and "Burn him!".But his assertion that "I don't owe anything to anybody" Is invalid (not to mention narcissistic). A failure to recognize that we are interdependent. But I can see how such an exploration, particularly, in his time is valuable both as an attack against the Catholic paradigm and as a somewhat perverse exercise of reason in an age when self-declared "men of reason" thought far too highly of themselves. Irreverence is a wonderful tool. I wonder how much of his story is true and how much is fabrication. Certainly, I do not believe that we can divorce ourselves from our bodies (this is the primary problem I have with the concept of a soul/spirit) but I do find that the pleasures of the mind are far more rewarding. Of course, de Sade, himself belies this in the very fact that he pursued the reasoning behind his purported actions. I can see the allure.
Not really. Life is a self-sustaining pattern. The pattern relies on energy but energy without pattern cannot be life.
I agree with both statements. However, I do find that the karmic principle has a great deal of validity. I think that problems arise when we see ourselves as separate from the world and from each other. We affect the world and the world affects us. We cannot divorce ourselves from this reality. Therefore increasing the amount of misery and pain in the world increases the amount of misery and pain that we experience.
I couldn't agree more. "Reward and punishment" is a pathetically weak and ultimately degrading foundation to build a system of ethics upon. It does nothing to elevate us. Which, of course, is why I find it irresoluble with any valid expression of God.
~Raithere
Raith:
Neapolean called 'Justine' "the most abominable book ever engendered by the most depraved imagination" (obviously, having never read the Bible )
He was that good.
Interdependent, yes. But the fact that I am connected to a person doesn't mean that I owe him anything.
It's ironic to note, though, that while de Sade's characters could get away with murder, poor Donatain couldn't even get away with whipping the occasional hooker without being imprisioned in Vincennes and the Bastille.
For good and for evil, society has power. We can't get away with offending it for too long before it imposes this on us.
However, we still don't OWE anyone anything. Just because a thief can get my wallet at gunpoint, does not mean I owe him my wallet. Might does not make right. Society can imprison the Marquis. That doesn't mean that society has the right to.
I'm sorry?
Would you say that life is an organization of energy?
I disagree. To an extent, you're right. If poverty is instrumental in provoking theft, I'm obviously exposing myself if I ignore a high poverty rate.
However, one can insulate oneself from the painful consequences of our actions. Mengle died swimming in the Atlantic. Hundreds of kings and queens starved their peasentry and got away with it. Ad infinitum.
I agree completely.
Neapolean called 'Justine' "the most abominable book ever engendered by the most depraved imagination" (obviously, having never read the Bible
)He was that good.
Interdependent, yes. But the fact that I am connected to a person doesn't mean that I owe him anything.
It's ironic to note, though, that while de Sade's characters could get away with murder, poor Donatain couldn't even get away with whipping the occasional hooker without being imprisioned in Vincennes and the Bastille.
For good and for evil, society has power. We can't get away with offending it for too long before it imposes this on us.
However, we still don't OWE anyone anything. Just because a thief can get my wallet at gunpoint, does not mean I owe him my wallet. Might does not make right. Society can imprison the Marquis. That doesn't mean that society has the right to.
I'm sorry?
Would you say that life is an organization of energy?
I disagree. To an extent, you're right. If poverty is instrumental in provoking theft, I'm obviously exposing myself if I ignore a high poverty rate.
However, one can insulate oneself from the painful consequences of our actions. Mengle died swimming in the Atlantic. Hundreds of kings and queens starved their peasentry and got away with it. Ad infinitum.
I agree completely.
Don't worry, bunnies are cute! I like to pet them.
So you don't have to worry
Xev:
I read the Necronomicon long ago, due to a similar 'criticism'. Anything that invokes such a reaction deserves consideration.
But more often we mean owe in an ethical sense. I believe we can find a rational basis for this as well. To take without giving creates an imbalance, too much of an imbalance and the system collapses. The thing is we are rather transient creatures so it is quite possible for an individual, or a few individuals, to get away with this kind of behavior throughout their lives. But in the long run such behavior will become self-defeating, a system based on this will collapse. This is demonstrated quite nicely in pretty much every government and society that has ever existed... the power imbalance increases until the system destructs.
~Raithere
What a wonderful recommendation.
I read the Necronomicon long ago, due to a similar 'criticism'. Anything that invokes such a reaction deserves consideration.It depends upon what we mean by 'owe'. Do symbiotic creatures 'owe' each other anything? On a strictly biological basis they do, it's their nature, they cannot exist without this transaction. We can stretch this principle across the board in a strictly physical/biological sense. There is no escape, we will give what is 'owed' no matter what we wish to do.
But more often we mean owe in an ethical sense. I believe we can find a rational basis for this as well. To take without giving creates an imbalance, too much of an imbalance and the system collapses. The thing is we are rather transient creatures so it is quite possible for an individual, or a few individuals, to get away with this kind of behavior throughout their lives. But in the long run such behavior will become self-defeating, a system based on this will collapse. This is demonstrated quite nicely in pretty much every government and society that has ever existed... the power imbalance increases until the system destructs.
This will occur within purely natural systems as well.
I think this correlates with our agreement regarding ethics based on power. I think it also ties in with what I am suggesting above. I think the measure of a society and, in particular, its governing structure can be measured by the imbalances it creates.
He states that he doesn't owe anything to anyone and that he seeks only pleasure. Why then bother rationalizing his belief? It seems to me he seeks justification beyond that of pleasure.
Yes, I think that would be an accurate, if incomplete, definition.
Exactly my point, they "got away with it". There is an implicit acknowledgement in that statement.
~Raithere
Raith:
Indeed.
In which case, this is simply as "nature intends".
But de Sade's characters do not seek a system. They realize that if everyone acted as they did, life would be miserable.
They also realize that not everyone will act as they do.
Indeed, the two societies that imprisioned de Sade collapsed.
This gives me hope for democray and the "rights of man".
To piss off the society that imprisioned him.
We must not, however, confuse de Sade with his libertines. He's not advocating anything, he's destroying everything.
Or trying to.
By my standards, what they did was - I hate to say "wrong" - well, it was not cricket.
But they got away with violating ideals I find use in.
Indeed.
In which case, this is simply as "nature intends".
But de Sade's characters do not seek a system. They realize that if everyone acted as they did, life would be miserable.
They also realize that not everyone will act as they do.
Indeed, the two societies that imprisioned de Sade collapsed.
This gives me hope for democray and the "rights of man".
To piss off the society that imprisioned him.
We must not, however, confuse de Sade with his libertines. He's not advocating anything, he's destroying everything.
Or trying to.
By my standards, what they did was - I hate to say "wrong" - well, it was not cricket.
But they got away with violating ideals I find use in.