Originally posted by vistesdIf I were to grant there is only meaning in this life, afterwards death
First, part of my seeing value in the lives of others is the recognition that they are in the same boat as me—human beings in the human condition. That arouses a sympathy (in the underlying meaning of that word, not some mushy-mushy feeling) in me. Also, as Starrman pointed out, living in social relationships with others is part of our human condition—exce ...[text shortened]... Okay, then I’ll believe in that afterlife!” I have to do my best with what, in fact, I believe.
brings all thing to nothing, than as I see this, who picks what is
important? People scream when they see companies looking at the
bottom line over some lives, how can that be wrong? People get
upset that others will simply rob others to make their own lives better,
how can that be wrong, some where along the way someone is putting
up lines that if these lines are crossed, this becomes bad or good,
and those lines are drawn by whom?
Do we call someone selfish who looks out only for themselves, or
can we drawn the line a little bigger and say no you have to look
after your family, or do we draw the line a little bigger and say
look after your community, or do we say your state, your country,
your planet? Who are we to tell another, where they must put thier
lines? Our lines of right and wrong, die with us, another's will die
with them in the end all lines end up the same way, all things
that were cared about no matter many, few, or for how long all
come to naught in the end too, they would all go to the same place
nothing.
If all values come to naught in the end what does it matter what
those values were, what does it matter why you cared for another?
Kelly
Originally posted by StarrmanI can break a window and the glass can remain shattered long after
If you can't make it clear what you are trying to say the first time round, how do you expect people to discuss the issue with you?
So you don't think your legacy lives on after you are gone? This is clearly untrue, we have electrical equipment thanks to Faraday's legacy, beautiful music thanks to Beethoven's legacy and so on. Perhaps you should try to clarify what exactly you do mean as you sound confused.
I'm dead, so what? I can move a rock and it stays where I put it
300 years after I die, so what? Nothing I do would go with me, and
nothing I do even if I created music that lasted 1000 years after
my life ended would be as meaningful to me after death. It would
all be as important as moving a rock; it would be for nothing in the
end.
Legacy only matters to the living not to the ones becoming nothing,
this changes nothing I have said. You can be a part of a meeting at
work daily, you die, they pause a minute or two out of respect, and
move on. You can create a great song; you die people like the song,
you’re dead and nothing, so what? You are loved by millions, you
die, they mourn, so what, your hated by millions you die, they
rejoice, so what? All that matters only matters in life! What you
place value on and call important does not translate into much more
than vanity.
As far as making myself clear, this has been a discussion I have
been in for sometime with a few people here, sorry you didn't see
the first pass through it.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayThat's a very selfish (self-absorbed) view on life. Just because you can't take it with you doesn't mean it's not worth doing. Part of the pleasure of being alive is doing things with and for other people. You might give a tramp $20 on a whim, and forget about it shortly after and never see that tramp again. It doesn't make the action any less worthy, to the tramp it matters a great deal.
I can break a window and the glass can remain shattered long after
I'm dead, so what? I can move a rock and it stays where I put it
300 years after I die, so what? Nothing I do would go with me, and
nothing I do even if I created music that lasted 1000 years after
my life ended would be as meaningful to me after death. It would
all be as important as m ...[text shortened]... n for sometime with a few people here, sorry you didn't see
the first pass through it.
Kelly
EDIT: Even if all he spends it on is crack.
Originally posted by StarrmanTo appropriate the old Bud Light commercial, "Why ask why?"
Now that is an interesting question, no idea yet. I have hunches, but nohting I can come up with a solid hypothesis for.
Even when we think we have approximated the beginning, we are pushed to another question. Natural revelation, it seems, is only 'so' forth-coming.
Apes in the jungle couldn't care less if they found a water fountain in the middle of their path. Their curiousity wanes far short of a successful resolution. In fact, their 'idea' of a successful resolution is something along the lines of, "Huh," and then, they move on.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI'm not sure that's true, every animal learns from experience, even if the questions are not cognitive functions as such. The fact they say 'huh' at all to themselves is an indication of theneed for understanding on whatever level may be applicable. For us, far more mentally advanced as we are, there are more questions of a more detailed nature.
To appropriate the old Bud Light commercial, "Why ask why?"
Even when we think we have approximated the beginning, we are pushed to another question. Natural revelation, it seems, is only 'so' forth-coming.
Apes in the jungle couldn't care less if they found a water fountain in the middle of their path. Their curiousity wanes far short of a successfu ...[text shortened]... a successful resolution is something along the lines of, "Huh," and then, they move on.
Originally posted by StarrmanThe idea being, of course, that animals are far more easily satisfied than man. Why is man so curious? Playing devil's advocate and assuming man made up the concept of a being beyond anything measurable, why did he feel the need to do so. Further, why the need to do so collectively?
I'm not sure that's true, every animal learns from experience, even if the questions are not cognitive functions as such. The fact they say 'huh' at all to themselves is an indication of theneed for understanding on whatever level may be applicable. For us, far more mentally advanced as we are, there are more questions of a more detailed nature.
While we can readily see collective self-delusion on large scales (Hitler's Germany is an immediate example), why has this one thing--- religion--- pervaded man's entire written history?
Originally posted by KellyJayFreaky was right: I mis-read you Kelly. Sorry.
If I were to grant there is only meaning in this life, afterwards death
brings all thing to nothing, than as I see this, who picks what is
important? People scream when they see companies looking at the
bottom line over some lives, how can that be wrong? People get
upset that others will simply rob others to make their own lives better,
how can that be ...[text shortened]... t does it matter what
those values were, what does it matter why you cared for another?
Kelly
Maybe you’re right. I draw the lines where I draw the lines, as I see it. If someone wants to violate my lines because they see it differently, my telling them they’re wrong is unlikely to accomplish anything. They already disagree with me. I can only act against what I see as a threat—to me, my loved ones, my environment, the social conditions that I feel enhance living the way I see it.
These things do matter in life. But, you’re right. After I die it will no longer matter to me what I did, or whether I was right or wrong.
Part of the problem is that you’re asking “we/they” questions that I can only answer in the first-person singular. In general, that is the only kind of answer I feel that I need. For example, if I think someone is going to try to harm my wife, I will have no compunction about taking their life. Whether or not such an action fits with some general moral theory about reasonable-response, or that since he only intends to harm, not kill her, my killing him is unjustified—such questions will not matter to me at all. If I could be sure of preventing harm to my wife by some other means (e.g., having him arrested, and supporting laws that would permit that), I would use those means—but not at the risk of my wife. In such a case, I am not protecting or defending anyone’s “rights”—I am only protecting one I love from harm. My success or failure will not matter to me after I die—it matters to me now.
Now, if you want to say that my actions regarding my wife are just a matter of “taste,” so be it. I am not defending my decision. I am only stating it. Whether or not you regard it as right or wrong will have no bearing on my decision.
Of course, most people live as though they ARE immortal, even though they know it not to be true. How often do you say to your families "when I get back from the shops we'll ..."? I don't know anyone who says "IF I get back from the shops, we'll ..."! The important point, I guess, is that there doesn't NEED to be any rhyme or reason for life, people are exceptionally good at continuing to live simply out of force of habit. Get over the idea that there needs to be a reason!
Carpe diem!
Originally posted by KellyJaySo why does a belief in something after death negate this? Why should an afterlife make your argument here any different?
If I were to grant there is only meaning in this life, afterwards death
brings all thing to nothing, than as I see this, who picks what is
important? People scream when they see companies looking at the
bottom line over some lives, how can that be wrong? People get
upset that others will simply rob others to make their own lives better,
how can that be ...[text shortened]... t does it matter what
those values were, what does it matter why you cared for another?
Kelly
All values do come to naught in the end, but it matters because we aren't there yet. We're alive, and so are quite a few others, and we have to live with each other, interacting with each other, no matter how abhorent that might be to some ... so by sheer necessity we are forced to develop social contracts, ways of living with each other that make life tolerable.
You use religion to structure your framework.
I don't, but it doesn't mean I don't have one.
Originally posted by amannionAnd, in a limited sense, you are conceding that society (and individuals within) act very God-like, in their self-restraining virtues.
we are forced to develop social contracts, ways of living with each other that make life tolerable.
You use religion to structure your framework.
I don't, but it doesn't mean I don't have one.
Originally posted by amannionYou claim God to be a human construct, and then further that by citing society's self-restraints as being humanly constructed. How does a practising atheist reconcile their beliefs with human constructs? That is, how do you justify living within the limits imposed by others?
Not sure what you mean by that ...