Originally posted by kirksey957I share the view that Michael Jackson should not be ridiculed.
I think it makes more sense than your joke. Maybe it just makes more sense to me. Kirk
He was born human.We put him on a pedestal.We gave him lots of money.He has shown he is human,and paid the price.
Linda
Originally posted by castlewallThanks for your support.
Yes your right! Most normal humans hold there children over the side of a balcony, and have so much plastic surgery that they look like a gitl with facial hair.😠
Don't get me wrong.I think he is a very silly person.
That publicity thing.You are right.People like me and you are not made judges.
I still believe we can judge only behaviour.
I will never judge another person.
Linda
Originally posted by missleadIt has been put forward (most famously by Sartre) that a person IS the sum total of all his actions. In that sense you could not divorce a persons actions (or behavior) from his essential character. Who he is has been determined by all the choices he has made over the span of his life. Existence precedes essence...there is no central "being" that can be analyzed independantly of the actions and choices that a person has made.
Thanks for your support.
Don't get me wrong.I think he is a very silly person.
That publicity thing.You are right.People like me and you are not made judges.
I still believe we can judge only behaviour.
I will never judge another person.
Linda
Originally posted by rwingettInteresting, so if I had decided to have Thai food for lunch instead of the Indian food which I indeed had, I would have been a different person?
It has been put forward (most famously by Sartre) that a person IS the sum total of all his actions. In that sense you could not divorce a persons actions (or behavior) from his essential character. Who he is has been determined by all the choices he has made over the span of his life. Existence precedes essence...there is no central "being" that can be analyzed independantly of the actions and choices that a person has made.
Originally posted by bbarrPerhaps, but not in any significant way. Your choice of lunch is of little consequence, as one lunch is as good as another. But if a man has acted cowardly or foolishly, he would have defined himself as a coward or a fool.
Interesting, so if I had decided to have Thai food for lunch instead of the Indian food which I indeed had, I would have been a different person?
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettSuppose there are two fellows, Smith and Jones. Smith acts compassionately whenever given the opportunity because he feels it is his moral duty to do so. Jones also acts compassionately whenever given the opportunity but, unlike Jones, Smith acts compassionately only because he fears divine punishment. If we cannot seperate the analysis of a man's character from his actions, then it appears the characters of Smith and Jones are on a par. But this doesn't seem to track our intuitions about what constitutes a good character. Surely we must take into account not only the actions of a man but also his intentions, his will, etc. Aren't these factors the real determinants of character?
Perhaps, but not in any significant way. Your choice of lunch is of little consequence, as one lunch is as good as another. But if a man has acted cowardly or foolishly, he would have defined himself as a coward or a fool.
