Subject:
|
Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 13 Sep 1999 15:20:02 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
johnneal@uswest*Spamcake*.net
|
Viewed:
|
1419 times
|
| |
|
|
<37DC9866.54DFFFBB@uswest.net> <FI02Gr.9tx@lugnet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
David Eaton wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> > What about the desire to survive? I would say that this is the #1 desire of
> > animals, and residually, of humans, too. I, however, don't know if desire and
> > instinct are interchangeable terms or not. Instinct is a wild concept to me;
> > does it direct the animal to merely survive, or is it broader than that? Is
> > instinct a perfect moral code? For animals I'd have to say yes. But we are
> > animals, too...
>
> Well, I'd classify that under what I said, actually... I was trying to pick out
> the root desire-- And I'd certainly qualify living as one of the things we
> want. Another way to look at it is that happiness presupposes survival. We
> can't easily be happy if we're dead :)
Unless we're in heaven;-)
> . Anyway, I think I'd say that survival
> is encompassed within the "want of what we want".
>
> Instinct is tricky. I think the traditional view of instinct is partially
> flawed, though. We tend to think of instinct as that which results without
> thought. We pull our hand away from the hot stove out of instinct, not because
> we thought about it.
That would be reflex, an involuntary response. In your hot stove example, one can
overcome that reflex (see intro to Kung Fu;). But when taken by surprise,
however, I think reflexes are automatic.
> However, I think that instinct goes to different levels.
> When someone points out an error you've made, you might have an inital reaction
> of disbelief, before you actually qualify what the person is saying.
We might be dealing with semantics here, because I would call a reaction like that
a learned one. I look at instincts as behaviors with which animals are born in
order to survive. Most animals in the wild don't have the time to learn the stuff
necessary to survive, or the mental capacity to teach it. Instinct takes care of
that.
> Or you
> might have an instinct towards anger or sadness when you see people being
> harmed. Certainly we've seen this last one reflected in animals, who supposedly
> only have capacity for instinct and not for thought. Where is the line between
> instinct and reflective thought? I'm not sure there is such a definite line.
I agree. It is gray. I find it especially muddy in human sexuality. Seems to
me that it is in this area where we as a society seem to think it is fine to
regress to giving in to base (instinctive) desires (watch TV for about 2 minutes).
> One might actually call the action of thought instinctive to humans, which
> makes even all the things we think about instinctive. It's certainly one way to
> look at it.
Yes, but for me it dilutes the distinction between the two. I see humans as
creatures attempting to *rise above* instinctual behavior in an attempt to be more
fully human.
> As for it being the ultimate moral code? I'd have to say no. (Not
> just because I discredit the ideal of having an ultimate moral code, though)
> Mostly because instincts within humans and within animals differ so greatly
> from one to another. My instincts and your instincts differ easily, I'd think.
> Also, instinct might lead us towards self-preservation when I think the
> ultimate moral code would lead toward societal preservation (charity being one
> aspect of that)
I meant that instinct is a perfect moral code *for animals* I think inapplicable
to humans. *Because* we can reason and think for ourselves, we have
outgrown/evolved beyond that moral code. Much of our problems as a race of beings
stem from the fact that we are caught in the middle, being pulled by two sets of
directives. And I would say that letting oneself be directed by instinctual
behaviors is the easy way, requiring little thought or introspection. Also don't
have to take a lot of responsibility. Trying to become (what I would call)
authentically human takes work and diligence AND, as I believe, requires help from
God. How this occurs other than by following the example and teaching of Jesus I
cannot explain, but I believe it does.
> > I think the Libertarians are fixated here [towards a view of ethical
> > equality], and think this is their ultimate goal.
>
> I'm not sure I know too much (anything actually :) ) about Libertarian views
> (any Libertarians out there want to comment?) but it's certainly a lofty and
> worthwhile goal. Truth be told, I think I've seen people who hold other
> people's wants higher than their own, and even more that have held other people
> lower than themselves, but I'm not sure I've met anyone who actually has a
> perfect balance. I don't remember what the biblical quote was... it was either
> "love thy neighbor as thy brother" or "love thy neighbor as thyself" (or maybe
> it was neither, but it was similar) I'd say the latter is more 'correct',
> though, in a sense unlike it was intended. The idea of the quote being to get
> people to love others more. For those who hold others above themselves, they
> need to learn to love themselves more. Basically, ultimate equality. Very
> difficult, very noble. Possible? Maybe. I can't say
> > Dave, I like the way you have shown the progression of morality because it
> > implies to me that, as we mature, we become *more* human and less animal. I
> > think it is a process that takes place between the ears and fleshed out in our
> > daily lives; a journey to being fully human along which are many stops. Most
> > do not reach this step of charity which I also see reflected in Jesus'
> > teaching. True, His ethic is a radical one, but that leads me to believe that
> > it is the *ultimate* one as well. By the same token, I can see how morality
> > can be relative to the moral development of the person involved. But I see
> > God calling everyone to this higher morality as reflected in Jesus' teaching,
> > especially in the sermon on the mount (see Matthew 5-7).
>
> I'm glad you like what I've said-- I find that most religious people (or just
> people that have faith in God) don't like this type of lead-in towards
> morality. They usually tend to want an emotional lead towards morality, coming
> from God, dictated by faith, rather than a mainly logical approach. I guess
> one could argue that the steps taken with emotion could be deemed as from God,
Ahh, that's *exactly* what I'd argue. I would say that the desire to do/be good
is from God and not from us. And I would say that our desire for pleasure can be
broken down into the desire to be accepted and loved perfectly, which I would say
can only be done by God. Miserable human attempts such as carnality (seeking
pleasure through sex), materialism (possession of *property*) and hedonism in
general are dead ends in an attempt to find love or meaning in this life.
> but religious people I've known don't let me get that far before they object.
> They objcet to the logical method altogether. It's a relief to be allowed a
> logical argument :).
I don't think religion and logic *have* to be mutually exclusive.
> Anyway, as for an ultimate ethic, I suppose that I would
> agree that once the sense of equality and charity, etc., were fully developed,
> this would result in an ultimately ethical person, but according to my own
> relativism, I'd say that this person, although accomplished ultimately in terms
> of ethics, doesn't have a universal moral code. What s/he holds may or may not
> work for other people; but this person could be 'perfectly' morally developed.
Good point. If everyone were *already* perfectly morally developed, there would
be no need for a universal code. I would say that no one in this lifetime will
reach that point (though I would say Jesus was there). But I think the point of
this life is to attempt to get there and help others get there, too.
-John Neal
> > It has been fun to read your (lengthy;) posts as well. Thank you for the time
> > and effort you have put into them. *I* have appreciated them:-)
> >
> > -John Neal
>
> I'm glad they were well recieved, even if they are a bit long :)
>
> laterz,
> DaveE
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
277 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
