Theology III

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Lief, glad you and I agree on so many things Replace "truth" with "axiom", "belief" or whatever. As long as you get my point

Yes, I agree with it.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Their perception of an issue is of course totally real and correct to them. But not everyone will agree. Thus one can argue whether anyone can ever claim they see an issue "as it really is".

Here you're shifting topics from whether anyone can actually know anything to whether or not someone can claim to actually know something. I still think people can know things, but I don't think they can know that they know those things . Lol.

I don't think we really can claim that we "know" the truth. For all I know, I might be in the Matrix, so I can't "know" that I know anything. But I can believe things based upon the available evidence. And one person's evidence supporting his belief can be stronger than another person's evidence. People can have beliefs about the truth, and those beliefs might be right, but they can't necessarily know that they know the truth. One belief can be more supportable than another, though.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Well you're right about this one.
I think it's always a good thing if you try to understand different views and don't just think "I can't get how people can have these opinions!". Because often, you actually can if you think a little. For instance, I'm pro-abortion but I can see perfectly well why other people aren't. But Lief, you are correct that there are views that one simply cannot respect.

So we agree, here.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

That's when insults start pouring

Yup.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

But that's my whole point. It isn't about the "logical conclusion", it's about what happens along the way.

Even along the way, there's a heck of a lot of misery. If there's no good outcome, that's pretty grim. And what happens along the way is relative, with all morality systems invalid. Anything goes, without divinely revealed truth.

If all ends in dust, people had best do whatever they think makes them happy. The cost to other people shouldn't matter. That's one logical conclusion about the journey. Everything comes down to what I think is best for me. That kind of selfishness leads to horrible places.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I don't reject Jesus, I just see him as one among a long line of deep and thoughtful human thinkers. I embrace his words, just not his divinity.

Those of his words people embrace, I think they profit from. I don't think anyone can be very good at it, though, without divine intervention.

I don't think it's possible to use a dirty rag effectively at all, when trying to clean a dirty table. Humans are no different. Seeing as humans are the ones who are faulty, their efforts to fix themselves will be tainted by their inherent faultiness. Hence, I think people must reject Jesus, even if they want to accept him. People must accept Jesus' divinity and submit their lives to him, asking for forgiveness for their sins, for he died for our sins and was resurrected to bring us new life. He can enter our lives and recreate us as new, holy people, something only he can do for he is clean, but which we can't do for we are (without him) unclean.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Have you read The Fisherman and his Soul?

It's one of my all-time favorite stories.

No, I haven't gotten there . I've actually read very little of his work, though that of it which I have read, I've greatly enjoyed. I've seen the films of "The Ideal Husband," and "The Importance of Being Earnest," and I've read the play by Wilde of the latter two or three times. I've also read most of "De Profundis." That's it.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Even along the way, there's a heck of a lot of misery. If there's no good outcome, that's pretty grim. And what happens along the way is relative, with all morality systems invalid. Anything goes, without divinely revealed truth.

If all ends in dust, people had best do whatever they think makes them happy. The cost to other people shouldn't matter. That's one logical conclusion about the journey. Everything comes down to what I think is best for me. That kind of selfishness leads to horrible places.

Yes and no. As I've said elsewhere, humans are social animals. We need one another in order to survive. If you go down the "do whatever pleases me" path you'll get kicked right off of the journey before it even starts.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Those of his words people embrace, I think they profit from. I don't think anyone can be very good at it, though, without divine intervention.

I don't think it's possible to use a dirty rag effectively at all, when trying to clean a dirty table. Humans are no different. Seeing as humans are the ones who are faulty, their efforts to fix themselves will be tainted by their inherent faultiness. Hence, I think people must reject Jesus, even if they want to accept him. People must accept Jesus' divinity and submit their lives to him, asking for forgiveness for their sins, for he died for our sins and was resurrected to bring us new life. He can enter our lives and recreate us as new, holy people, something only he can do for he is clean, but which we can't do for we are (without him) unclean.

I think humans are what we are, and thoughtful ones from Buddha to Jesus to Lincoln to Ghandi are simply representations of how amazing we can be.

Maybe, at it's heart, I set the bar a lot lower, as opposed to measuring us via perfection. I see humans as intelligent animals, and all the positive things we have accomplished as an incredible progression from the extremely local and tribal mentality of our past to a world today where many humans really do care about other humans they have never even, and probably never will, meet.

Sure, there is misery, but what impresses me is all the joy and goodwill that, from a purely self-centered point of view, has no real reason to exist. You didn't see that a few thousand years ago, or maybe even a few hundred. Human society, as a whole, is greater than the sum of it's parts.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Yes and no. As I've said elsewhere, humans are social animals. We need one another in order to survive. If you go down the "do whatever pleases me" path you'll get kicked right off of the journey before it even starts.

Fear is the only impulse you appeal to here, to keep people in line. The state of reality is really grim, if that's all we logically have by this worldview, to keep us in line.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I think humans are what we are, and thoughtful ones from Buddha to Jesus to Lincoln to Ghandi are simply representations of how amazing we can be.

Maybe, at it's heart, I set the bar a lot lower, as opposed to measuring us via perfection. I see humans as intelligent animals, and all the positive things we have accomplished as an incredible progression from the extremely local and tribal mentality of our past to a world today where many humans really do care about other humans they have never even, and probably never will, meet.

I'm always surprised that WW1 and WW2 haven't shocked you out of that belief in mankind's progression. WW2 was only sixty years ago.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Sure, there is misery, but what impresses me is all the joy and goodwill that, from a purely self-centered point of view, has no real reason to exist. You didn't see that a few thousand years ago, or maybe even a few hundred.

This, you'll have to prove to me. I think joy and goodwill in people have always existed, and I don't think they're increasing nowadays.

Originally Posted by CNN

LONDON, England -- Nearly one in six people in the world do not get enough to eat in an age of "unprecedented plenty", a UN report on world hunger has revealed.

http://edition.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/eu...ger/index.html

Originally Posted by AHN

Rome, Italy (AHN) - The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) on Thursday said that nearly two-thirds of the world's population could face absolute water scarcity by 2025. Speaking at a conference in Rome to mark the 22nd World Water Day, FAO Chief General Jacques Diouf said coping with water shortage in countries around the world presents the biggest "challenge of the 21st century."

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7006837848
The UN report also said that international warfare over water was likely, if the current trends are not changed.

There also is the fact that a few extremists who will gladly die for their cause can now get their hands more and more easily on WMDs, and would use them.

The misery in our day and age, and the threat of greater misery, is still huge and is very likely to spike far above what it now is, with Global Warming and world thirst preparing to sink their teeth in, and WMD holocausts becoming more and more feasible for the future.

We may see a lot of joy and goodwill up here in the West, but in world history, there have many times been periods where one civilization or a few civilizations and groups of people were on the top and thus saw great joy and goodwill. It's easy to feel that comfortable and pleased, on the top. Not that I'm saying it's wrong for people on the top to feel joy or goodwill, though I'll soon in this post get into questioning how real our joy and goodwill are, but I'm just saying our perspectives are limited.

I know you're not trying to make the suffering of humanity look like it's less than it is, and by posting this, I don't mean to make it look that way. By bringing up some of these issues, though, I'm hoping to point out first of all the extent of humanity's trauma, and second that humanity doesn't have anything better to expect from its future, according to the currently available data.

The "goodwill" in the West is not enough for us to feed Africa, even though we easily have the resources. We have aid organizations and many individuals give, and our countries give aid on a small level, but our goodwill doesn't extend far. Neither does it extend far enough for us to take much stand against easily treatable diseases that are killing millions. I believe that God will judge our Western countries for that selfish callousness one day, among other things.

I don't think that the Western civilization's use of its wealth and power in modern times indicates that mankind is moving forward. We have not gotten beyond intrinsic selfishness, and hence 1/6 of the world's population go hungry.

It's easy for people who are well fed, healthy, technologically sophisticated and well provided for to seem to have "goodwill." They're happy, and I'm happy, and so when us different happy people meet, we get along well. So we all are happy and nice, and goodwill and maybe even "joy" seem to be everywhere. Simultaneously, though, most people don't want to think about the world's problems and would rather live in their own happy, prosperous world without thinking about the millions dying of hunger and thirst. So those millions continue to die of hunger and thirst, and us westerners continue to be happy and nice.

I don't see much joy in modern culture. "Goodwill," maybe, though when one looks at how our democratic nations are behaving in the world, the reality of the goodwill of those countries' populations becomes doubtful. "Joy," though, I do not think is commonplace at all. "Joy" is a very, very strong word, and I don't see it in many people.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Human society, as a whole, is greater than the sum of it's parts.

And, unfortunately, far worse too.

[Jonathan]

I'd say it's a positive kind of selfishness rather than fear.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Even along the way [of life], there's a heck of a lot of misery. If there's no good outcome, that's pretty grim. And what happens along the way is relative, with all morality systems invalid. Anything goes, without divinely revealed truth.

I believe morality can be just as valid without guidelines from a divinity.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

If all ends in dust, people had best do whatever they think makes them happy. The cost to other people shouldn't matter. That's one logical conclusion about the journey. Everything comes down to what I think is best for me. That kind of selfishness leads to horrible places.

I think your conclusion is faulty. The cost to other people always matters whether it all ends in dust or in heaven. We can thank our selfishness for that.

I have attended lectures by Stefan Einhorn, the author of The Art Of Being Kind ("Konsten att vara snäll"). Here is a quote from an article:

'When you do a good deed for someone it's not just that person who benefits, it's you as well,' Einhorn said.

But the fact that kind deeds are also egotistical does not detract from their goodness. 'We have every right to be selfish,' he insisted. 'It is entirely human to be good for egotistical reasons. It is not the thought that counts, but what we do.'

Basically, this kind of selfishness leads to good things, not "horrible places" like you said Lief.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

I believe morality can be just as valid without guidelines from a divinity.

How so? It's all arbitrary. Everyone's belief about morality is equally valid. Who's to say one belief is better than another?

Originally Posted by Jonathan

I think your conclusion is faulty. The cost to other people always matters whether it all ends in dust or in heaven. We can thank our selfishness for that.

Please explain. I don't see how this makes sense.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

I have attended lectures by Stefan Einhorn, the author of The Art Of Being Kind ("Konsten att vara snäll"). Here is a quote from an article:

Quote:
'When you do a good deed for someone it's not just that person who benefits, it's you as well,' Einhorn said.

But the fact that kind deeds are also egotistical does not detract from their goodness. 'We have every right to be selfish,' he insisted. 'It is entirely human to be good for egotistical reasons. It is not the thought that counts, but what we do.'


Basically, this kind of selfishness leads to good things, not "horrible places" like you said Lief.

He is terribly wrong when he says, "it is not the thought that counts, but what we do." Our thoughts create our actions. Our thoughts are a huge part of our identity, and our actions come from that identity. So to separate the two is simply absurd.

Ego leads to being out of touch with reality and to a sense of superiority over others that often leads one to trample on people in various ways. It may create good for others, but it also creates a lot of bad, including in the psychology of the giver who supposedly benefits. He may gain friends temporarily, but ego usually leads to behavior that is destructive in a variety of ways. I doubt he'll keep the friends he's bought, and as his ego removes him from being in touch with reality, he'll feel superior, thus hurting people around him and psychologically self-damaging himself. It's a very, very messy cycle.

Far better is a person who is selfless, who just gives to others out of genuine compassion, without interest in a return. This person is not egotistical and is not doing this act in order to feel good, to gain friends, or for any selfish reason. This kind of act is not divorced from thought. Act and thought are fused together. The act might yield no return for the giver, and the giver might have had no thought of return or desire to feel good or anything else. He may have simply given out of love for the other person, and his return is simply the pleasure of knowing the other person's happiness, rather than the pleasure of feeling his own personal merit or return gifts or friendship. This kind of person does exist, and his or her act is not destructive to himself or to anyone else.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

How so? It's all arbitrary. Everyone's belief about morality is equally valid. Who's to say one belief is better than another?

We make it valid. People may not always agree on everything about morality but then Christians don't always agree on how to interpret God's words either.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Please explain. I don't see how this makes sense.

I think I already explained it by quoting that author

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

He is terribly wrong when he says, "it is not the thought that counts, but what we do." Our thoughts create our actions. Our thoughts are a huge part of our identity, and our actions come from that identity. So to separate the two is simply absurd.

I think you're missing the point. He means that thought without action is not enough. Image in it's your birthday and I say:
"I was thinking about buying you a present. But I didn't. Anyway, it's the thought that counts!"
That isn't nearly as kind as it would have been if I had actually bought you a present.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Ego leads to being out of touch with reality and to a sense of superiority over others that often leads one to trample on people in various ways. It may create good for others, but it also creates a lot of bad, including in the psychology of the giver who supposedly benefits. He may gain friends temporarily, but ego usually leads to behavior that is destructive in a variety of ways. I doubt he'll keep the friends he's bought, and as his ego removes him from being in touch with reality, he'll feel superior, thus hurting people around him and psychologically self-damaging himself. It's a very, very messy cycle.

This is a slippery slope fallacy that I simply don't buy.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Far better is a person who is selfless, who just gives to others out of genuine compassion, without interest in a return. This person is not egotistical and is not doing this act in order to feel good, to gain friends, or for any selfish reason. This kind of act is not divorced from thought. Act and thought are fused together. The act might yield no return for the giver, and the giver might have had no thought of return or desire to feel good or anything else. He may have simply given out of love for the other person, and his return is simply the pleasure of knowing the other person's happiness, rather than the pleasure of feeling his own personal merit or return gifts or friendship. This kind of person does exist, and his or her act is not destructive to himself or to anyone else.

It is a common conception that kindess should/must be selfless. However Stefan Einhorn argues that kindness out of selfishness is okay and good as well. The question of which is better, selfless or selfish kindness, may be of less importance as long as you still are a kind person. To quote this article again:

Einhorn, however, believes it is time for a shift in the way we view kind people. Being nice, he maintains, has nothing to do with being spineless, letting yourself be exploited by others or volunteering to do things that are against your nature. The majority of kind people are driven by various egotistical motivations, such as improving their own self-image, their relations with other people and society.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

We make it valid. People may not always agree on everything about morality but then Christians don't always agree on how to interpret God's words either.

This argument is just saying to me, "you do the same thing," (and by "you," I mean Christians) but that evades my argument rather than responding to it argument directly.

I'd like to respond to your argument regarding Christianity, but I will save that until you have responded to my point directly .

Originally Posted by Jonathan

I think I already explained it by quoting that author

I don't think that he touched on this. Einhorn argued that kindness comes from selfishness and ego, and he argued that that's fine, but he didn't say that either kindness or selfishness matter. You said, "the cost to other people always matters whether it all ends in dust or in heaven." I haven't seen any support for that in those of Einhorn's statements that you quoted.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lief Erikson
He is terribly wrong when he says, "it is not the thought that counts, but what we do." Our thoughts create our actions. Our thoughts are a huge part of our identity, and our actions come from that identity. So to separate the two is simply absurd.


I think you're missing the point. He means that thought without action is not enough. Image in it's your birthday and I say:
"I was thinking about buying you a present. But I didn't. Anyway, it's the thought that counts!"
That isn't nearly as kind as it would have been if I had actually bought you a present.

I agree with you if you're saying what I think you're saying, that it's not thought alone that counts, but rather thought + action.

I'm not convinced that that's what he's saying, though. His words indicate to me that he's saying it's all action, and the thought doesn't matter at all. I think he argues this because he's saying that the thought is self-centered and egotistical, and so not laudable at all.

But the fact that kind deeds are also egotistical does not detract from their goodness. 'We have every right to be selfish,' he insisted. 'It is entirely human to be good for egotistical reasons. It is not the thought that counts, but what we do.'

In this quotation, it really looks to me like he's saying the reason we do good is not important, but rather it's the good we do that matters.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

This is a slippery slope fallacy that I simply don't buy.

It's a logical sequence. But I guess you're right that it does look like a slippery slope fallacy, because I didn't prove it but merely asserted it. It's easy to provide evidence supporting it, though.

Originally Posted by World English Dictionary

Ego:

2 An exaggerated sense of your own importance and a feeling of superiority to other people.

The fact that this sense of one's own importance is "exaggerated" shows that the person is out of touch with reality, and the fact that the person feels superior to other people is naturally going to harm relations.

Bolds below are added.

Originally Posted by CBS News

Today's college students are more narcissistic and self-centered than their predecessors, according to a comprehensive new study by five psychologists who worry that the trend could be harmful to personal relationships and American society.

[ . . . ]

The researchers describe their study as the largest ever of its type and say students' NPI scores have risen steadily since the current test was introduced in 1982. By 2006, they said, two-thirds of the students had above-average scores, 30 percent more than in 1982.

Narcissism can have benefits, said study co-author W. Keith Campbell of the University of Georgia, suggesting it could be useful in meeting new people "or auditioning on 'American Idol.' "

"Unfortunately, narcissism can also have very negative consequences for society, including the breakdown of close relationships with others," he said.

The study asserts that narcissists "are more likely to have romantic relationships that are short-lived, at risk for infidelity, lack emotional warmth, and to exhibit game-playing, dishonesty, and over-controlling and violent behaviors."

Twenge, the author of "Generation Me: Why Today's Young Americans Are More Confident, Assertive, Entitled — and More Miserable Than Ever Before," said narcissists tend to lack empathy, react aggressively to criticism and favor self-promotion over helping others.

So according to psychologists, reported by a reputable news station, ego is spreading and can damage American society.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n2519593.shtml

Originally Posted by World English Dictionary

Narcissism
1. Excessive self-admiration and self-centeredness.
2. In psychiatry, a personality disorder characterized by the patient’s overestimation of his or her own appearance and abilities and an excessive need for admiration.

The definition of narcissism is directly tied to self-centeredness and ego. Ego's "exaggerated sense of your own importance," means excessive self-admiration, and ego's "feeling of superiority to other people," is directly tied to the "excessive self-centeredness" of narcissism, and the "overestimation of his or her own appearance and abilities."

The study considered important enough to be discussed by CBS News shows that there are nasty results for egotistical and self-centered behavior. A few positive results, but a lot of nasty ones.

Originally Posted by CBS News

The study asserts that narcissists "are more likely to have romantic relationships that are short-lived, at risk for infidelity, lack emotional warmth, and to exhibit game-playing, dishonesty, and over-controlling and violent behaviors."

Originally Posted by Jonathan

It is a common conception that kindess should/must be selfless. However Stefan Einhorn argues that kindness out of selfishness is okay and good as well. The question of which is better, selfless or selfish kindness, may be of less importance as long as you still are a kind person.

Yes, because he judges based upon results alone and not upon motivations. He is looking at too narrow a selection of the egotistical person's actions. Ego may cause a person to act in certain good ways, to give money to the poor, for instance. Einhorn, from what you've shown me, seems to look at those actions selectively and say that ego produces good. However, he doesn't take into account the rest of what ego will do in the person.

It's as though he took the article from CBS that I quoted and selected out only the part about ego being able to cause people to more easily form new relationships with other people, and then concluded based on that selected information that ego is good. However, it's only one side of the story.

In the same way, the "good" actions that can come from ego are only one part of the story, and ego harms the egotistical person psychologically (by definition of the word) and will make the person more likely to harm others too, as supported by the CBS article I quoted.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Fear is the only impulse you appeal to here, to keep people in line. The state of reality is really grim, if that's all we logically have by this worldview, to keep us in line.

I'd call it love. At it's heart, love is the desire to enjoy life with other human beings. I guess one could be a pessimist and say that love is really just a result of the fear of being alone, but everything in life has two sides, thus one can choose to approach it from the positive point of view just as logically.

On the rest, while there are plenty of poor and destitute throughout the world, I highly doubt it is anywhere near the percentage of the population that it was 1000 years ago. We certainly could do more, and I am confident that we will.

Even those in third world nations receive a good deal of help they never did in the past, and the poor in second and first world nations would appear as nobles to the serfs of the middle ages.

Once again, humans are a social animals, but they are also tribal animals. This means that they protect those they see as part of their "tribe" and tend to consider those outside of that tribe enemys or, at best, people to be wary of. Technology has expanded what people consider their tribe from the size of a small town some thousand years ago to entire nations today. Eventually, with some growing pains, we may realize that the entire globe is the tribe of humanity, and we will care for them as such. Much like we care for groups we associate ourselves with today, like "americans" or "christians" or "westerners".

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

On the rest, while there are plenty of poor and destitute throughout the world, I highly doubt it is anywhere near the percentage of the population that it was 1000 years ago. We certainly could do more, and I am confident that we will.

The Economist devoted its double issue at the New Year to "Happiness (and how to measure it)". We aren't going to cover all THAT material, here. But some of the more pertinent areas include that "If people are bad at recalling their feelings, they are worse at predicting them." (pg.33) and a nice discussion of how economics "thinks of labour as a chore."(pg.35)

If you're going to use "poor and destitute" you're going to have to define it in a way that makes sense. Certainly, my grandparents didn't anticipate that their grandchild would use a home computer comparable in power to the ones that planned the manned space flights. But am I therefore "more wealthy" than they were?

Depends on what you're counting, doesn't it?

[elven dragonrider]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I agree that heretical teachings were prosecuted, but sunstar is also quite right that monasteries were centers of learning and education for the lay people. The same was true of churches.

Agreed. I come to a truce of center agreement.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

The Economist devoted its double issue at the New Year to "Happiness (and how to measure it)". We aren't going to cover all THAT material, here. But some of the more pertinent areas include that "If people are bad at recalling their feelings, they are worse at predicting them." (pg.33) and a nice discussion of how economics "thinks of labour as a chore."(pg.35)

If you're going to use "poor and destitute" you're going to have to define it in a way that makes sense. Certainly, my grandparents didn't anticipate that their grandchild would use a home computer comparable in power to the ones that planned the manned space flights. But am I therefore "more wealthy" than they were?

Depends on what you're counting, doesn't it?

One measure would be average lifespan, assuming that experiencing more life is a good thing. In Roman times, it was around 25 years. In 1900, 30 years. Today, around 62 worldwide, though in places like parts of Africa, where AIDs has hit hard, it is around 35 years. But still better than "the old days".

[D.Sullivan]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

One measure would be average lifespan, assuming that experiencing more life is a good thing. In Roman times, it was around 25 years. In 1900, 30 years. Today, around 62 worldwide, though in places like parts of Africa, where AIDs has hit hard, it is around 35 years. But still better than "the old days".

The key words, there.

I can read both BrownJenkins and Lief and find something I agree with in their posts.

I think it's fair to say that more people are beginning see the pain and suffering around them and beginning to care about ending it. More and more organizations seem to be popping up dedicated to helping people in need, and thanks to people like Bono(though, I would say he's a good example of someone doing selfless deeds for the wrong reasons), more people are becoming interested in such organizations.

But I think that the ratio of people who care to people who don't care, not to mention hateful people who wish pain on others...well, I think it's going to be a while before it's even 50/50. We're getting there. I do believe we're moving forward. Just don't expect it to change over night.

I agree whole heartedly with Lief's last post. A good example of a person needing a healthily modest mind in order to truly help someone is if you were trying to help someone who was trapped inside of thier ego. Someone who had built themselves their own little Matrix in their head, which they couldn't escape from because of how much their self-centeredness limits them as a person. Someone suffering from a similer problem isn't going to know the first place to start in helping that person.

I believe in order to truly help someone be happy, you first need to have some idea of what happiness is(what I would call being a balanced human being), and hopefully be happy yourself. And I think being egotistical has never made anyone happy. However well someone can delude themselves of their superiority in comparison to others, deep down they know it's not true. The brain knows when it's lying to itself.

[brownjenkins]

My assumption is that most people are generally "good". They are not going to go out of their way to help someone else, but they aren't going to go on a rampage of wanton destruction either.

The old systems, which centered around authoritarianism due to our tribal past, are very strong. But slowly, reason is overcoming that animal instinct. Society evolves over time when people realize that it is in their own best interest to at least tolerate one another. And, as time goes by, to actually work with one another for mutual gain.

As I said, this dynamic has always existed in the family and extended family, and time and technology has extended the bounds of family. During WW2 the Japanese were painted by Americans as evil savages, and their point of view of us was not much better. Why? Because we simply did not know them and it was easy to buy any stereotype a leadership figure with his own motivations wished to paint upon them.

Today's world is much more connected. We know so much more about those far away places that use to just be names in history books. We post on forums with people from the other side of the world. And it is much harder to demonize those we are familiar with. I can only expect this trend to continue. It won't necessarily mean universal good will, but it will lead to a level of tolerance and understanding that pales in comparison to that of the past.

It's far from perfection, but it's a hell of a lot better than it use to be.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Welcome to the conversation.

BJ, I think you're being a-historical, here. You need to tell me exactly which "old authoritarian systems" you have in mind. Because there's plenty of evidence that actually "old" systems weren't authoritarian at all. Language development, for example, seems based on cooperative, rather than competitive, behavior. There may even be evidence that the evolutionary value of the whites of human eyes is due to cooperation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/13/op...b94183&ei=5090

As far as long life being a good thing... I dunno. From a religious point of view like Lief's, for example, postponing your trip to Heaven is clearly not a good thing. Depending on your physical and mental condition, extended life might be more burden than benefit. Look at laws regulating "hemlock" behavior, for example, or "living wills" to safeguard your DNR wishes. If longer life was so clearly a benefit, those laws would be irrelevant, kwim? Everyone would know the right course of action.

I would disagree that modern people know more about the rest of the world, either. They don't know much about the rest of their states, that I notice. Mass media, including the net, may give a false sense that one is informed, but it's subject to so much manipulation that it actually divorces people from real understanding, particularly when on-line relationships replace local ones.

When I arrived here, everyone was free to form an opinion of me. They did this in a way that was more or less flattering or accurate, depending on their own bias, and the limitations of my presentation. Yet people are secure in that evaluation, in a way they would not be, seeing me irl. Multiply that "observers bias" times a million to see how our view of Iraq is even more skewed than the WWII view of Japan, which at least was based on an original fact, that the country had attacked American soil.

Media gives us more access to bias than we like to imagine.

I have a great source for some discussion of modern academic evaluations of altruism and cooperation, but, since it's a darn pdf, I have to link it.

Enjoy.

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/anthro/fa...d/Fyssen99.pdf

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

When I arrived here, everyone was free to form an opinion of me. They did this in a way that was more or less flattering or accurate, depending on their own bias, and the limitations of my presentation. Yet people are secure in that evaluation, in a way they would not be, seeing me irl. Multiply that "observers bias" times a million to see how our view of Iraq is even more skewed than the WWII view of Japan, which at least was based on an original fact, that the country had attacked American soil.

I appreciate your presence greatly, and without today's technology, I wouldn't know it at all, or anyone else here for that matter. Don't sell yourself short.

It's a glass half empty argument in my mind. If you are dying of thirst a few drops are like heaven, but when water is plentiful you can argue the merits of Perrier vs. Evian with surprising conviction.

We incarcerated thousands of Japanese during WW2, and while we have been far from fair to Muslims these days, we have not, and will not take things that far in today's America. It's certainly two steps forward and one step back, but it is moving forward for those that can see the forest beyond the trees.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Between being joined with the body and being rejoined, where is it?

Your guess is as good as mine.

Originally Posted by Tessar

I never studied that part much, but as I recall the 'rejoining' (at least as I was taught it) is with a new body, not your old one.

Nope. It is with the old body, transformed.

Originally Posted by elven dragonrider

THis is a sad world. It is to bad some people have to make it that way. I haven't seen this thread before, so I was reading the first page. Monks were the onlyones allowed to read so the catholics would have complete control over their people. Like the slaves in America.

As I said in the abortion thread:

Originally Posted by Hisself

Ahem...no.

Originally Posted by sunstar

Many, many people in the Middle Ages were able to read apart from monks. In fact, monastries were usually great centres of learning and often the only providers of education for lay-people. The idea that no one was "allowed" to read except the clergy is a complete myth.

Thank you.

Originally Posted by elven dragonrider

Objection! It was not complete myth. Many catholics were prosecuted for writing. The problem was not general writing about your family pet, but writing about the stuff the church doesn't want. Like science, or the world not being the center of the universe. (Not exactly that, it was just the thing on the top of my head.)

A) We were speaking of reading, not writing.
B) If we had been speaking of writing, we would have said "No-one was allowed to write except for monks", which would be complete myth.
C) The Church had a vast involvement in science throughout the Middle Ages; it was hardly something the Church didn't want.
D) The world not being the center of the universe was first written of by Copernicus, not Gallileo; Copernicus was a Catholic clergyman, and supported by cardinals and bishops. The problem with Gallileo was not what he said, but how he said it.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Love Oscar Wilde . I also greatly admire the real life Leif Ericsson .

He's currently my favourite author/personality. I've read Dorian Gray as well as his short stories, poems, plays, and whopping big letter. De Profundis is such a powerful read; Lief, when I saw you quoting that as 'written from prison', my heart skipped a beat. My favourite short story was the Nightingale and the Rose. As my room-mate put it, 'With that story he reaches for all the heart-strings, and yanks hard'. So magnificently tragic. The Fisherman and the Soul is very good too, though. And of course, I love the Selfish Giant.

Salome is an amazing play. I want to see it produced at my college.

Originally Posted by sun-star

it's not possible to talk about the medieval period as if nothing changed between 500 and 1500.

I'm constantly astounded at just how possible it is to talk that way.

The thing is, it's nonsensical.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I think humans are what we are, and thoughtful ones from Buddha to Jesus to Lincoln to Ghandi are simply representations of how amazing we can be.

Gonna have to disagree about Lincoln, there...

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Much like we care for groups we associate ourselves with today, like "americans" or "christians" or "westerners".

Try to associate meself with "Americans" as little as possible.

[Lief Erikson]

I like Jonathan's way of arranging quotes .

BJ: Yes and no. As I've said elsewhere, humans are social animals. We need one another in order to survive. If you go down the "do whatever pleases me" path you'll get kicked right off of the journey before it even starts.

Lief: Fear is the only impulse you appeal to here, to keep people in line. The state of reality is really grim, if that's all we logically have by this worldview, to keep us in line.

BJ: I'd call it love. At it's heart, love is the desire to enjoy life with other human beings.

Plenty of evil people are content to enjoy life with certain human beings will slaughtering others. So that clearly isn't enough to keep people in line.

But by the way, on a sidenote, your definition doesn't take into account the broad variety of forms love can take. Aside from loving people, people can also love money, God, fame, ideas, and many material things such as a captain his ship or a farmer his land. They can also love any (or just many, whatever, but I think any) of these things more than they love people.

You won't find, looking at history, that most exceedingly violent and wicked people liked to live in total separation from society. Some did, though so did some exceedingly loving human beings who dwelt in monasteries, but many evil folk love and loved company. They are happy to enjoy life with certain human beings (Hitler had a mistress) while killing others. Would you say Hitler was loving?

I just think it's far murkier and more complex than your definition allows.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

On the rest, while there are plenty of poor and destitute throughout the world, I highly doubt it is anywhere near the percentage of the population that it was 1000 years ago.

I really couldn't say. Though I guess it partly depends what one means by "poor," since that's a relative term, and many people who were "rich" in the past would be considered "poor" by modern standards. If someone is going hungry, though, it seems safe to say that by any standard, that person is poor.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

We certainly could do more, and I am confident that we will.

We could feed the world right now, easily. However, it doesn't pay, so we don't. That is unchanged, selfish human nature.

If fewer people are poor now than in the past, that is the result of technological advance and not the result of an increase in human goodwill. That is quite clear from the fact that civilized nations don't feed the Third World, though they easily could.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Even those in third world nations receive a good deal of help they never did in the past,

And a good deal of exploitation. The increase in help tends to largely be the result of globalization and the increase of technology, though. If historical wealthy nations could have reached all the poor nations, they might well have given to them. The Church in the Medieval Ages felt it had a responsibility to give to the poor, and in a lot of cases it did. Monasteries certainly did, though perhaps that changed around the 13th or 14th centuries some (I'm not sure if any change occurred there; just guessing because the monasteries became more opulent around then).

There has always been both exploitation and giving. Humans haven't really changed. It's just technology that has changed.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

and the poor in second and first world nations would appear as nobles to the serfs of the middle ages.

That is a fair point. Technology, IMO, is the cause of this. But technology also is producing major disasters right now, like Global Warming, and the great risk of WMDs, the destruction of our fresh water through pesticides and other pollutants, and the destruction of our oceans. Humans are at least as selfish as they ever were.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Once again, humans are a social animals, but they are also tribal animals. This means that they protect those they see as part of their "tribe" and tend to consider those outside of that tribe enemys or, at best, people to be wary of. Technology has expanded what people consider their tribe from the size of a small town some thousand years ago to entire nations today. Eventually, with some growing pains, we may realize that the entire globe is the tribe of humanity, and we will care for them as such. Much like we care for groups we associate ourselves with today, like "americans" or "christians" or "westerners".

I just can't see this IMO idealized view of human nature at all, when I look at history or modern times.

WW2 was just sixty years ago. Other, potentially even more cataclysmic crises for the world are already developing, as I already pointed out in my post. And also, many cultures have historically given to their poor and been kindhearted where their influence could be felt, as well as at other times or simultaneously being corrupt and exploitive. That is not unique to our modern time. Humans have always been that way- only now globalization and technology enables both exploitation and goodwill to exist on a larger scale.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The Church in the Medieval Ages felt it had a responsibility to give to the poor, and in a lot of cases it did.

The Catholic Church has always felt it has a responsibility to give to the poor. As a Catholic, that's one of the major reasons I have become so disillusioned with the Republican party.

[Lotesse]

I thought all good Catholics were supposed to be Democrats! Seriously; take the great John F Kennedy, for example. Best President Ever, and devoutly Catholic, and decidedly not a Republican. Simplistically put, I've always seen Republicans being mostly Presbyterian- or Calvinist-type church based christians (when they're Christians, that is, obviously) and Democrats being mostly Catholic, some Episcopalians in both camps though. Maybe Episcopalians more Republican. And Baptists, Baptists are predominantly Democrats, no? and Fundamentalists, Republican?

And yeah, I do have to concur with you Gwai re: the tradition of the Catholic Church to give to the needy, they definitely got that going for them which is nice, and they bloody well should give a little, my god the Vatican is the single wealthiest institution on planet Earth, they can afford to give back a little. Actually they can afford to give a hell of a lot more than they do, way way more. For real. well anyway.

*Lotsy looks around, slightly disoriented. 'hmm, wait - where am i?' she thinks to herself. 'Is - is this the theology thread? Oh, no, no, wrong door!! Wrong door! where's the emergency exit around here?!' *