1. Hmmm . . .
    Joined
    19 Jan '04
    Moves
    22131
    29 Jan '16 01:13
    Whether you treat others well or badly,
    I only wish you upon yourself.
  2. Standard memberkaroly aczel
    the Devil himself
    Brisbane,QLD
    Joined
    11 Apr '09
    Moves
    91680
    29 Jan '16 02:131 edit
    Originally posted by vistesd
    Whether you treat others well or badly,
    I only wish you upon yourself.
    Thing is I dont always want people to treat me exactly the way i treat them.

    It's just more of a declaration of non violence and basic human freedoms

    edit: your "Golden Rule" has a ring of truth and has given me some food for thought. thanks
  3. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29835
    29 Jan '16 03:26
    Originally posted by vistesd
    Whether you treat others well or badly,
    I only wish you upon yourself.
    That might work as an encouragement or rebuke to someone else for their behaviour, but explain how it would govern your own beahviour. Perhaps I am missing some aspect of what you are getting at here.
  4. Hmmm . . .
    Joined
    19 Jan '04
    Moves
    22131
    29 Jan '16 04:375 edits
    Originally posted by FMF
    That might work as an encouragement or rebuke to someone else for their behaviour, but explain how it would govern your own beahviour. Perhaps I am missing some aspect of what you are getting at here.
    It’s simple, really: Would I wish me upon myself (based on how I actually treat others)? Why or why not, to what degree? And can that thought inform my future behavior?

    Yes, it can certainly be taken as a rebuke (and, in the original, more sharply specific form in which I first came across it, it was just that). But I intend it more as a sharp personalization—for whomever reads it—in the face of facile recitations of this or that version of “the golden rule”. And this version struck me as one that seems to embody a certain “karmic” justice. That seems to me to be something of a twist on the way that many people seem to think of it.

    I personally have always favored Hillel’s version: “What you do not like done to yourself, do not do unto others.”

    But who can really object to it? “However you treat others, I only wish you upon yourself.” Seems pretty straightforward. And you (that’s the general “you” ) can decide for yourself about what is treating others “well or badly”. If you don’t wish to have you wished upon yourself—then change, so that you would be fine with it. [Again, the general “you”, there.] Or don’t.

    It also stands against attempts at deflection: I’ll worry about me—it’s only you that I wish upon you, not myself with my judgments.

    Now, that stands as the kind of long-winded explanation that I was not going to do—but, with you (the personal “you” here: FMF), I take it as an honest question that may address something that seems missing. On the other hand, I think that there are any number of such questions that can be prized out of that simple statement—if people are actually willing to consider it seriously—without my explanations.

    And so, I will not myself wander further afield—

    Whether you treat others well or badly,
    I only wish you upon yourself.

    ________________________________________

    EDIT: Maybe one could assume, for argument's sake, that my wishes are, in just this case, efficacious. 😉
  5. Hmmm . . .
    Joined
    19 Jan '04
    Moves
    22131
    29 Jan '16 05:10
    Originally posted by karoly aczel
    Thing is I dont always want people to treat me exactly the way i treat them.

    It's just more of a declaration of non violence and basic human freedoms

    edit: your "Golden Rule" has a ring of truth and has given me some food for thought. thanks
    Hi, Karoly. Long time. Hope you;'re well.
  6. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29835
    29 Jan '16 05:59
    Originally posted by vistesd
    It’s simple, really: Would I wish me upon myself (based on how I actually treat others)?
    Are you suggesting that your "Kind of Golden Rule" is different in any significant way from 'Do to others what you'd have them do to you' i.e "The Golden Rule"?
  7. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Infidel
    Dunedin
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45641
    29 Jan '16 06:45
    Originally posted by vistesd
    Whether you treat others well or badly,
    I only wish you upon yourself.
    I prefer the Golden Rule.
    I wouldn't wish myself on anyone!!!
  8. Hmmm . . .
    Joined
    19 Jan '04
    Moves
    22131
    29 Jan '16 15:05
    Originally posted by FMF
    Are you suggesting that your "Kind of Golden Rule" is different in any significant way from 'Do to others what you'd have them do to you' i.e "The Golden Rule"?
    In the sense that the versions you cite merely offer a kind of general instruction. With a reminder that I (intentionally) put a question mark on the thread title, what I am saying is (and I am trying different revisions, in hopes of further clarity)—

    Insofar as how you choose to treat others,*
    just so, I wish you upon yourself.

    [*Whether by the golden rule or not.]

    As you noted, surely one needs also to turn that on oneself as well. In either case, rather than just a generalized instruction, it embodies a kind of karmic test. For example, if one has a problem with the sentiment, then the place to look is at one’s own behavior.

    (Thanks for helping me clarify.)
  9. Hmmm . . .
    Joined
    19 Jan '04
    Moves
    22131
    29 Jan '16 15:352 edits
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    I prefer the Golden Rule.
    I wouldn't wish myself on anyone!!!
    Perhaps this makes both my point and FMF's. What I've suggested is not really a version of the golden rule--more a kind of "karmic test". Like a Zen koan, one can spend a lot of time examining what all it might be about, rather than letting it point directly (especially if that is uncomfortable). Thanks.

    _____________________________________________

    EDIT: "Karma" perhaps implies just desserts for past behavior. I mean this in the present tense: as you change your behavior, it is the now-You that I wish upon yourself. We hopefully have the possibility of changing our behavior, such that we are each, individually, more willing to accept such a sentiment from others, as well as from ourselves (FMF's point about also applying it in the first-person).
  10. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    29 Jan '16 16:16
    I generally dislike putting morality into rules. Much better to simply be empathetic. Rules are most often used as excuses not to do something empathetic and much more rarely as direction to actually do something empathetic.
    Rules are most frequently used for admonishing others rather than a guide for oneself.
    When used for oneself they tend to be of the form: you only need to do this much and you won't feel guilty any more.
  11. Hmmm . . .
    Joined
    19 Jan '04
    Moves
    22131
    29 Jan '16 17:07
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I generally dislike putting morality into rules. Much better to simply be empathetic. Rules are most often used as excuses not to do something empathetic and much more rarely as direction to actually do something empathetic.
    Rules are most frequently used for admonishing others rather than a guide for oneself.
    When used for oneself they tend to be of the form: you only need to do this much and you won't feel guilty any more.
    Another reason why I now think the answer to the question in the thread title is "No."
  12. Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9651
    29 Jan '16 18:25
    Originally posted by vistesd
    Another reason why I now think the answer to the question in the thread title is "No."
    After reading through this thread I think you're right. The thing with the golden rule (biblically speaking) is, is that it is in the affirmative tense, i.e., to "do" unto others what one would have done unto themselves as apposed to not "doing". It assumes that one would do well unto others.

    "Whether you treat others well or badly, I only wish you upon yourself". I think you defined it well above. It's not necessarily a bad way to put forth the idea of treating others well for one's own sake.

    How are you vistesd?
  13. Hmmm . . .
    Joined
    19 Jan '04
    Moves
    22131
    30 Jan '16 00:30
    I'm well, Joe, thanks. How are you?
  14. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    78570
    30 Jan '16 01:56
    Originally posted by josephw
    After reading through this thread I think you're right. The thing with the golden rule (biblically speaking) is, is that it is in the affirmative tense, i.e., to "do" unto others what one would have done unto themselves as apposed to not "doing". It assumes that one would do well unto others.

    "Whether you treat others well or badly, I only wish you upon y ...[text shortened]... ad way to put forth the idea of treating others well for one's own sake.

    How are you vistesd?
    I don't think that the "Do unto others..." formulation rules out inaction, since a valid answer to the question "What are you going to do?" in this kind of context might be "Leave them alone.". Interestingly it allows for negative feelings since "Never speak to again." is unfriendly, but if one is happy with the other never speaking to one again then it fits the formulation.
  15. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    30 Jan '16 12:31
    Originally posted by vistesd
    Whether you treat others well or badly,
    I only wish you upon yourself.
    Unless you are a fetus, infidel, vermin Jew, etc., but I think that is only common sense.
Back to Top