Why turn your back on the wisdom of the ages?

[FrostyBoy]

Everything Jesus does is selfless - Jesus would be the ultimate person to become, and it's not because of his Godlike powers. (This is just an example of someone who does things selflessly).


In order to actually DO anything selfless, you first need to train your mind to become someone who is humble with all things. You cannot just say "right, today I will do something selfless". It would take years of self-awareness, experience and understanding in order to become a person who is humble with all things and only then will everything you do, become selfless.

[Dr. Nick]

Just wait till his kids reach adolescence...

[Lorizael]

Everything every person does is selfless. People's actions are all motivated by evolution. Evolution seeks to improve our species as a whole. Therefore everything everyone does is for other people.

The problem is that what we perceive to be good for the species as a whole is warped by the person we are. And the person we are is based on our environment.

And the problem is that evolution encourages competition in order to create a population of better organisms. So you get people that step on other people in order to rise to the top. But they only want to rise to the top, because at their biological, evolutionary core, they want to improve the species.

At least those are my musings.

[CygnusZ]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


Yes well this is all very clever but its the outcome that matters not the motivation.

I never said the deed wasn't good, but that the motivation for good deeds are indeed selfish.

Of course you can argue Jesus, but for that to work you're going to have to find some 100% irrefutable mathematical arguement that he is the son of God

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Lorizael
Everything every person does is selfless. People's actions are all motivated by evolution. Evolution seeks to improve our species as a whole. Therefore everything everyone does is for other people.

The problem with this is evolution is being viewed as the instigator, thus the action is it's own, not the person's. As it's actions are directed at achieving it's goals, evolution's actions are selfish. If the person is viewed as a part of evolution, then evolution's goals would also apply as the person's goals. This would be instinct. It's a personal motivation on a different level of consciousness, but still selfish.

Now you could argue that causality is the instigator of all things, so it's actions are selfish, but any other entity is just a tool. We as humans cease to be selfish from that view. We become slaves to the laws of interaction. I'm not sure if this works, as we would have to be viewed as seperate from mechanics of causality. If we are part of the causal process, then just like being part of the evolutionary process, the motivations become our own.

An example would be a person falling due to gravity. Is this selfish? I can't see how it is unless gravity is part of an entity which has sentience. So it has no motive, no goal, and could be considered a selfless action? I'm not sure.

Is that like what you were getting at with selfless action by evolution?

But they only want to rise to the top, because at their biological, evolutionary core, they want to improve the species.

The term 'want' doesn't fit with selfless. Any want or desire which instigated the action would make that action selfish.

[CygnusZ]

Originally posted by Lincoln


Considering that the founders of many of the major fields of science were Christians I think you missed something there.

Not really. The persecution of the man in your quote is a direct result of overzealous christians, protecting the word of the bible. How about the church banning the work of Decartes? What about that Coperneicus fellow? For Civilization could only rise from the ashes as the church lost its power.

This has nothing to do with modern day, as the church is only a battered and pathetic form of its former self. I am thankful we live in an age where religion is forced to fit into the box that science has set for it, and not the other way around.

I will make one concession. I don't mind any religion as long as it provides no interference into science. If you choose to believe in Christianity as it is just a religion and not forced upon the sholders of those who do not believe, I have no arguement or complaint.

[Lorizael]

Evolution is not an entity. It is a... force. It doesn't have a goal persay, but the way it works, the laws that govern it, mean that it end up doing a certain thing. It's interesting to think of evolution as a being.

And our actions are our own. They are based on two things.

The need to follow evolution.
And out environment, which dictates who we are.

In the end, all of our actions are just the laws of physics operating the way they should with what is present in our universe. If you don't believe in a god or soul anyway.

And yah, want doesn't fit. But the person is motivated to rise to the top because of the selfless compulsion to improve humanity.

Language is imperfect.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by CygnusZ


Not really. The persecution of the man in your quote is a direct result of overzealous christians, protecting the word of the bible. How about the church banning the work of Decartes? What about that Coperneicus fellow? For Civilization could only rise from the ashes as the church lost its power.

Oh give me a break - I hardly think orgainsed religion has a monopoly on censorship and oppression. Lol, next you'll sprouting the opiate of the masses stuff.

This is a very tired argument you are putting. Run out of ideas have you?

[CygnusZ]

Evolution is a scientific concept, not an individual. The idea of a force of nature doing something selfish or selfless is a bit of a misnomer.

Besides, I believe somebody can UNINTENTIONALLY do something selfless. Let's say that I'm walking out of a restaurant and I open the door walk out but still holding the door decide to look up at the night sky. While I'm holding the door open a man walks into the restaurant.

It's a good deed, no doubt. And I had no selfish motivation to do it either. Since we don't intentionally evolve, it stands that evolution could be selfless (although as I stated before I believe this to be a misnomer anyway...).

[Lorizael]

Ah but there was motivation! You liked the view of the night sky. And it gave you pleasure to view it. Why it gives you pleasure is still a mystery to me, though.

And it is unintentionally selfless, yes. But it's not really selfless at all. Because your holding the door open was completely unrelated to the person that walked through it.

Hmm, the intentions of nonsentient forces are difficult to comprehend.

What is sentience, lol.

[CygnusZ]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


Oh give me a break - I hardly think orgainsed religion has a monopoly on censorship and oppression.

No, but it has a controlling share

You should know that I wrote this in response to somebody who made an agreement to your original philosophy (which you have since discarded yourself), and stated that the Age of Enlightenment was the start of all this evil.

Of course, I oppose all censorship and oppression, religious or secular.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse

Sorry I didn't read your philosophy - I don't read long posts

That would explain why you found it similar to others. They all sound the same if you don't read them. Not that I claim ownership of these ideas, or that there aren't similar philosophies.

And, my post wasn't much longer than your own.. (that's becoming a facial twitch)

Yes well this is all very clever but its the outcome that matters not the motivation.

I don't think this has to be an either/or type of situation. Motivations do matter, and so do outcomes. The key to reaching an outcome from it's motivation is ability. Ability would be actual physical ability to work towards the desired outcome, and the intellectual ability to know how to do it. A philosophy can't cut it on it's own, just as ability with no direction isn't going anywhere. A flaw in either of these two things will most likely lead to a flawed outcome. So understanding our motivation and ability is important in being able to achieve our desired end.

To say that only outcomes matter is all very well and good, but the means to those outcomes are just as important.

I think I heard someone say once that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."

I agree, but I doubt it's for the same reason that you do, or the original author of the statement! God paved the road to hell, without him there would be no us, and no hell (at least for us). I'm giving God the benefit of the doubt here and assuming his intentions were good.

Go and read the constitution of the Soviet Union, all very worthy and high minded, probably some of the strongest guarantees of personal liberty and human rights ever written. All very well meaning.

Any ideology can be implemented or administrated poorly. It isn't necessarily the fault of the ideology, but the people who are placed in charge of it. When designing a system, the people who will be placed in charge, and the people under the system, should always be considered. The USSR's system didn't really fit with their personel, at least from a common standpoint. With the right people, who sadly don't seem to be very abundant or motivated for leadership roles, it could have worked out well.

The trouble with your kind of obsession with motivation is that it leads to self absorption and a kind of moral paralysis. It justifies topor, ennui and doing nothing.

It can certainly be taken too far. Moderation in all things. Another very sound idea which needs a .

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Lorizael
In the end, all of our actions are just the laws of physics operating the way they should with what is present in our universe. If you don't believe in a god or soul anyway.

Ok, this is what I was talking about with causality. I was a bit thrown off by the term evolution, as we are a part of evolution, and thus our motivations are it's motivations, or rather vice versa.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Aeson


Moderation in all things.

Ah - this is what I am talking about. Its actually an ancient idea but still relevant - do you know the antecedence?

As for the rest of you, please don't line me up with the religious right. As I said in my first post, I'm not plugging any particular religion or philosophy - though I am attacking one that is very prevalent today.

[Lorizael]

We are not a part of evolution. We are a product of it. Evolution is a force or "entity" unto itself.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Lorizael
We are not a part of evolution. We are a product of it. Evolution is a force or "entity" unto itself.

I'm not so sure of this. I can see what you're saying, but is life a product of evolution, or is evolution a product of life? I can imagine a lifeform that doesn't evolve, but can't imagine evolution without a lifeform. There would still be change no doubt, but I don't think evolution applies to rocks wearing away to sand and such things. If you broaden out the term 'evolution' to 'causality' or 'laws of nature' it becomes clearer.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


Ah - this is what I am talking about. Its actually an ancient idea but still relevant - do you know the antecedence?

Are you talking about a passage in the Bible the phrase was in (or derived from)? It's a proverb isn't it? (really rusty on my Bible passages, so be kind if it isn't )

[Lorizael]

Were the first self-replicating strands of amino acids life?

And while the first life may have spurned evolution, we are not the first lifeforms. Countless generations have passed. And now we are at the sentient, environment questioning level of humans. Evolution controls much more than ourselves. And we would not exist without it. And we do not affect it indepdently, for we are controlled by it.

Arg, chicken and the egg. It's late, I'm tired, and my brain hurts.

[Aeson]

It depends on your definition of life of course. By lifeform I was just meaning any biological material in whatever form.

The key question is whether evolution exists as a natural force, or if it is just an effect of 'life'. I guess the same argument could be made for any of the physical laws of nature. Do they exist independant of the matter they act upon, or does the existance of matter bring them into being.

Yes, it's a chicken and the egg, sorry. I do like your everything is selfless argument though.

[Seeker]

This is what comes of not starting at the base of Descartes.

Everyone should try to craft the best personal philosophy they can from a starting point free of as many preconceptions as humanly possible, striving for total self-honesty.

For example, someone who says "I am a Kantian. Kant is essentially correct." I would not respect intellectually as much as someone who incorporates ideas of Kant (or whoever)into their personal philosophy/belief system.

No one should try buying a belief whole, out of the box, 'no assembly required'.

[Lorizael]

Oh no, I love philosophical arguments like this. But I'm running out of steam. I'll probably fall over in a few minutes.

And... you like my idea... whoa...

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Aeson


Are you talking about a passage in the Bible the phrase was in (or derived from)? It's a proverb isn't it? (really rusty on my Bible passages, so be kind if it isn't )

HELL NO!

"Moderation in all things" is actually an ancient Greek idea and summarises their philosophy of life

[Lorizael]

Don't have anything to add but...

Moderation in everything? That's an awful lot of moderation. Shouldn't moderation be moderated as well? Afterall, it isn't nothing.

[Aeson]

That's why it's deserving of the Lorizael.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Lorizael
Don't have anything to add but...

Moderation in everything? That's an awful lot of moderation. Shouldn't moderation be moderated as well? Afterall, it isn't nothing.

*horse mutters*

[Aeson]

Was there any Greek text which specifically coined the phrase "moderation in all things"? I can't seem to find a reference to it. Moderation is a prevailent theme in the Bible though, mostly applied to food and drink though. I guess moderation of some things would definitely not be in the Bible though (moderate respect for God being one).

[Alexander's Horse]

Its attributed to Aristotle.

[Aeson]

The golden mean of moderation?

I like Aristotle's ideas by the way (how's that for being daring ), though I can't really get involved in his writting because of the style. A lot of what I've been saying in this thread can be found in his writings.

[Alexander's Horse]

I think the biblical equivalent might be "fanatical in all things" - though Paul does pick up the moderation line. He, like most of his time including Jesus, was heavily influenced by Greek ideas.

[Seeker]

It's from Aristotle's discussion of the virtues.

It's a long list of virtues which have a spectrum, example 'courage' which runs from cowardice to rashness, one should pick the happy medium...

Of course Aristotle was either ignoring how subjective the proper 'level' is or was merely stating a commonplace.