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 16:11:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1574 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> 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.
> ...
> 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.
> ...
> 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).
> ...
> 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.
Hmmm... I think the problem I have is making any real sort of line. On the one
hand, I agree that reflex reaction certainly seems like it is different from
instinct, as is the learned reaction, but then I have to question what examples
of instinct are, and where in a general sense the line is. I think that's why I
almost *try* to dilute the distinction... I'd certainly think that in some
cases reflex/conditioned response/instinct CAN be moral, but the two don't
always coincide. I think that's some of the base for my relativism. Animals
seem to have some capacity for thought (which isn't instict if we differentiate
the two) and that almost seems to make them worthy of being judged morally; or
perhaps only judgeable on a more minimal scale than us. Some animals have bad
attitudes, etc., some don't... Maybe we can judge them vaguely? But if we
can't, then that would suggest that we can't judge each other morally, and that
seems to be the goal of morality to begin with, so that would be kind of
useless. Anyway, I think in general you're right, but when it gets down to the
specifics, I have a hard time with it. I don't really think I can say anything
very definitly on 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.
Ahhh... ok. No problem.
> > 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.
Odd question for you-- Just about God vs. Nature vs. the Devil... You'd say the
desire to be loved and to see love given come from God (Forgive me if I don't
get that termed exactly right), where do other emotions/wants come from? From
ourselves as natural beings (nature), from ourselves as conscious beings
(ourselves), or from some 'Anti-God' (the devil)?
> I don't think religion and logic *have* to be mutually exclusive.
I would probably push the extreme... not only do they *not* have to be mutually
exclusive, they *have* to be mutually *inclusive* (well, not "inclusive", that
just sounded good... really that they *have* to agree in order to both be
correct)
> Good point. If everyone were *already* perfectly morally developed, there
> would be no need for a universal code.
Interesting idea... I'd agree.
> 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.
Very reminicient of Bhuddism... 'Enlightened' would be the term for people who
know that it's possible to be "fully" matured, and know in theory only what
that would be like. A 'bhudda' would be one who has achieved the goal. How do
you know when you reach the goal? You just do. There's no real 'test', and at
the same time, they don't profess that the goal is unachievable (Christianity
tends to say something like "being like Jesus is the goal... you can't ever
exactly match the goal, but you can go towards it)
Anyway, interesting...
Laterz,
DaveE
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
