Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Manchu wrote:I cannot understand what you mean, at least when you put it this way. How can "happiness," the abstract quality of being happy, ever become less happy? Further, I don't know what connection you're making between this and the limitation of self-perception to limit one's perceptions of others, if I'm even stating that correctly. And how is this related to whether optimism is possible for all people, medical conditions aside, even those who have suffered greatly?

Let me review this thread real quick.

You took yours down. Oh, now my gentlemanly owl doesn't make sense.

Sorry about that, I am not sure I have clearly explained myself.

Such is the nature of OT. Rally your forces, sir, should you wish to continue. I shall eagerly await your next volley, huzzah!

I can understand how we could express similar emotions, given the same stimuli, but in general I feel that the degree of that happiness varies greatly from person to person. The fact that we have a general way of showing each other how we are 'feeling' doesn't have a direct connection to how it is understood.

All I can do is assume that someone is actually what they appear to be. This is not accusatory statement, I am simply pointing out that people are generally layered quite intricately in their psyche. Ever felt two different emotions at the same time? Four emotions? At what point do I have to clearly express my thoughts, rather than package them in pre-conceived patterns that are generally accepted to be true.

Your happiness and my happiness, are two entirely different things, even though they may be similar in general. It is not as if we are talking about fingers and toes here.

Wrexasaur wrote:Your happiness and my happiness, are two entirely different things, even though they may be similar in general.

I disagree with you deeply on this matter. I don't think there is really anything I can say to convince you, however, that my way of thinking more accurately represents reality. I have perceived in my own experience that happiness is something that is shared between individuals. I guess that's why we're on this toy soldier thread right now. Well, I don't have to guess for myself.

Just because two things are different, does not mean they cannot be shared. On that note, I would just add that it can be shared, not always shared. A lot of happiness can't be shared in my experience. I see a lot of people that find joy in things that absolutely bore me to death, and vice-versa for that matter. Not to say that they would not be sharing that with people besides myself.

I guess I mispoke with the word "share" and instead meant to communicate that it is my belief that happiness proceeds not from the individual but from the closing of the distance between individuals in community and intimacy.

Wrexasaur wrote:I can understand how we could express similar emotions, given the same stimuli, but in general I feel that the degree of that happiness varies greatly from person to person.

From stimuli to stimuli perhaps. Going to philosophy lectures makes me pretty happy. I find them really entertaining. I imagine you don't feel the same way. However, through observation I could probably find something that you enjoy as much as I enjoy philosophy lectures, and thereby compare the sensation through analogy. The sensation itself is unlikely to have changed, only the things we associate with it. In terms of both stimuli, and relevant descriptors.

People don't differ all that much, rather it is the things that they associate to, and use to describe, their emotions which vary wildly. That isn't to say that people are all exactly the same, only that the actual difference in terms of chemical sensation doesn't seem as great as the variance of descriptive terms. Granted that's simply a guess based on my experience, we've only just started to scratch the surface of neuroscience.

Wrexasaur wrote:
All I can do is assume that someone is actually what they appear to be. This is not accusatory statement, I am simply pointing out that people are generally layered quite intricately in their psyche. Ever felt two different emotions at the same time? Four emotions? At what point do I have to clearly express my thoughts, rather than package them in pre-conceived patterns that are generally accepted to be true.

Really they're the same thing. Words have accepted meanings so that we can understand what you're talking about. If what you're feeling is not consistent with your understanding of the word, then you need to learn more about the word, or find a way to create a new one (which is much harder).

Wrexasaur wrote:
Your happiness and my happiness, are two entirely different things, even though they may be similar in general. It is not as if we are talking about fingers and toes here.

It seems to me that we are. After all, toes can vary quite a bit in size, or shape while still clearly remaining toes. They can also be deformed to the point that they are only toes in terms of expectation, which would be analogous to insanity.

Manchu wrote:I guess I mispoke with the word "share" and instead meant to communicate that it is my belief that happiness proceeds not from the individual but from the closing of the distance between individuals in community and intimacy.

I suppose I see emotion as a bit more faceted then. Perhaps the degree of the emotion is the important part, but I do feel that this changes the meaning/purpose of (the) emotion in a few different ways. Mainly, how that emotion plays a role in my life, and others.

I have also had some of the happiest times of my life, all by myself. (and Manchu says: "Oh, I am sure you have ")

dogma wrote:
From stimuli to stimuli perhaps. Going to philosophy lectures makes me pretty happy. I find them really entertaining. I imagine you don't feel the same way. However, through observation I could probably find something that you enjoy as much as I enjoy philosophy lectures, and thereby compare the sensation through analogy. The sensation itself is unlikely to have changed, only the things we associate with it. In terms of both stimuli, and relevant descriptors.

I am generally not a fan of lectures, but I have been to a few rather interesting ones. If we are simply talking about general enjoyment, then I completely agree with you; it is just when people start using words like 'happiness', and 'sadness'. Not words like 'mania', and 'depression', which have a very solid meaning. I am pretty sure I just contradicted at least one sentence of what I have said in this thread, with that last sentence...

People don't differ all that much, rather it is the things that they associate to, and use to describe, their emotions which vary wildly. That isn't to say that people are all exactly the same, only that the actual difference in terms of chemical sensation doesn't seem as great as the variance of descriptive terms. Granted that's simply a guess based on my experience, we've only just started to scratch the surface of neuroscience.

People can be astoundingly similar, and I can state that just from experience with watching marketing campaigns. There is a whole lot of psychology going on there.

It seems to me that we are. After all, toes can vary quite a bit in size, or shape while still clearly remaining toes. They can also be deformed to the point that they are only toes in terms of expectation, which would be analogous to insanity.

If anything, we are talking about hands, and feet; if not arms and legs. It does make a good amount of sense just to approach the topic with a standard, I must admit. My opinions on these kinds of things are usually very open. I would consider 'deformed toes', to me more along the lines of emotional imbalance, or madness in general. Depending on how you approach it, the way that we learn to express our emotions is most likely ingrained from a young age. Whether or not those toes are deformed through the process, or were deformed to begin with, is always a pretty tricky question.

Wrexasaur wrote:I suppose I see emotion as a bit more faceted then.

Or less, depending on how you look at it.

Wrexasaur wrote:I have also had some of the happiest times of my life, all by myself. (and Manchu says: "Oh, I am sure you have ")

This reminds me of a conversation I had with one of those really, really really religious types once.

Him: So, what church do you go to?
Me: I don't go to church.
Him: You should.
Me: Why?
Him: To praise God.
Me: There is no God.
Him: ........................How can you say such a thing?
Me: Because I just don't think there is.
Him: But why?
Me: Because I am turned off by religion.
Him: I don't understand.
Me: Really religious people like you, church, the bible, it just creeps me out, like the bad guy in a really well-made horror movie.
Him: You should come to my church, we'll make sure you have a personally relationship with God in no time.
Me: I already have a personal relationship with God. It's sort of like the relationship some kids have with that weird Uncle who secretly touches them where grown-ups shouldn't touch kids.
Him: (Stomps away, tears freely flowing.)

There you go. You should be glad that I don't believe in God, because if I did, I would be at war with him and all of his followers. As it stands, I just pity the fools.

I had that same conversation with someone when I was about sixteen. I don't regret it, makes me realize how much I've learned since.

Wrexasaur wrote:A powerful, non-intervening being, that may or may not be taking action to help or harm us. I will call this being an alien to make this an even field. A 'superior' being in generals.

This alien who has the power to help, but chooses not to, is hardly an icon I would be keen to worship. If this alien happened to reign hellfire down upon us, and the only way to stop it from doing so was to worship it, then so be it. The problem with that, is the being is no longer a caring figure that I have respect for, it is an icon that represents oppression and fear mongering.

Remember, this is not talking about 'god', it is talking about a 'superior' being that is above us in every way, and has within it's grasp, immeasurable power.

Wrex, mate, I could not (and clearly have not ) said this better myself. If this higher being is able to intervene and prevent horrible things happening and CHOOSES not to, then he is not really one to be respected or loved.

@Luna: Yes, ones attidue does have a lot to do with how they come out of a situation. But in regards to your 'sad wounded vet' vs your 'happy wounded vet' in both situations I would call getting your legs blown off (then maybe getting abandoned by the government) as a crap situation. Their outlook can make the best of it, but it still sucks.

Look at it this way:

You see a woman being attacked in a rape attempt on the street corner. You could easily intervene, run out and stop this vile act. Not even that, the phone is right next to you, so you could call the police. No one else can hear this womans sceams. (Aside from the offender) you alone hold power over what this situation turns into.

1: You do the honourable thing. Why wouldn't you? This woman is clearly in danger, and about to be taken advantage of. You stop this madness, or at least call for help from others.

2: You don't do anything. You watch. Maybe you got a sick luagh out of it. Maybe you take pictures. Maybe you tell yourself 'It's all how she mentally recieves the rape'. Doesn't change the fact that you could have helped this person, at no cost to yourself, but you didn't.

I say again. "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing."

I think it is fun to apply human attributes and morals to non-human, omnipotent concepts.

Emperors Faithful wrote:If this higher being is able to intervene and prevent horrible things happening and CHOOSES not to, then he is not really one to be respected or loved.

And if this kind of God intervenes to undue all the bad that people freely choose to inflict upon the world and each other, what happens to our freedom? The same question could be asked of a theoretical perfect government. If the government could make all the right choices about how you should live, would accept being its slave? If so, then you are not what I would call a morally responsible person.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:I think it is fun to apply human attributes and morals to non-human, omnipotent concepts.

Whoops, you just missed the point of Judaism and Christianity. Oh, and Islam.

Emperors Faithful wrote:
1: You do the honourable thing. Why wouldn't you? This woman is clearly in danger, and about to be taken advantage of. You stop this madness, or at least call for help from others.

Risk. In either case you risk discovery by the perpetrator who is in process of proving himself to be comfortable with violence. Taking it to another level, if this rape is already in process, calling immediately will not change the fact that the woman is going to be raped. No matter how quickly the police can arrive they will not be in time to stop her assailant. By calling the cops you are effectively acting only to assuage your own conscience, rather than working to save the woman.

Emperors Faithful wrote:
2: You don't do anything. You watch. Maybe you got a sick luagh out of it. Maybe you take pictures. Maybe you tell yourself 'It's all how she mentally recieves the rape'. Doesn't change the fact that you could have helped this person, at no cost to yourself, but you didn't.

You could also attempt to save the woman at massive cost to yourself. Say you move to stop the man only to discover that he's armed. This leads to you being shot, and killed. The woman may or not be raped in the aftermath, she may be killed as a witness, or the perpetrator may flee immediately; leaving her alive and relatively unscathed. You've just sacrificed your life, to prevent psychological traumatization, and possible murder, of this unknown woman. Is that worth it? Will your family believe that it was worth it? Even if you were their only source of income? The list of variables is nearly endless.

Now, I'm not telling you that rape isn't wrong, or that its right to stand aside as it happens. I'm simply telling you that the issues is infinitely more complicated than you've made it out to be. That is the nature of ethics, and by extension faith. There are no easy answers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:
Whoops, you just missed the point of Judaism and Christianity. Oh, and Islam.

No, you've got it backwards. Those religions apply heavenly morals to earthly concepts. The believers serve as God's instruments, and means of interacting with the world. In a broad sense anyway, Judaism doesn't work exactly that way. But Christianity and Islam certainly do.

@dogma: I would disagree with your "nature of ethic and by extension faith" comment (the logic of the phrase "be extension" utterly baffles me) but agree otherwise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:No, you've got it backwards. Those religions apply heavenly morals to earthly concepts. The believers serve as God's instruments, and means of interacting with the world. In a broad sense anyway, Judaism doesn't work exactly that way. But Christianity and Islam certainly do.

Well, I can only tentatively disagree with what you are saying because I'm not exactly sure what you are saying. But here's what I meant: the God of the three monotheistic world religions reveals Himself to His people in a way that is on their terms. All three, moreover, place special significance on the idea that man was made in God's image. In other words, God is not totally unlike us and we not totally unlike Him--nevermind whatever Kierkegaard might have said. I believe this idea is most compellingly taught by Christianity. for Christians, God does not reveal Himself in law (Judaism) or the written word (Islam) but rather through a person, a fully human being, Himself.

Manchu wrote:@dogma: I would disagree with your "nature of ethic and by extension faith" comment (the logic of the phrase "be extension" utterly baffles me) but agree otherwise.

That's just me being an existential nihilist. A proper theist would probably phrase it in reverse, but I tend to speak from a discipline, and to a practical concept.

Take it to mean: ethics and faith are deeply intertwined as one tends to feed into the other.

Manchu wrote:
Well, I can only tentatively disagree with what you are saying because I'm not exactly sure what you are saying. But here's what I meant: the God of the three monotheistic world religions reveals Himself to His people in a way that is on their terms. All three, moreover, place special significance on the idea that man was made in God's image. In other words, God is not totally unlike us and we not totally unlike Him--nevermind whatever Kierkegaard might have said. I believe this idea is most compellingly taught by Christianity. for Christians, God does not reveal Himself in law (Judaism) or the written word (Islam) but rather through a person, a fully human being, Himself.

All I'm saying is that the monotheistic religions claim to derive their moral codes from God. They aren't applying their morals to God, God is expressing his morals to us by using a convenient vehicle for communication. Even if 'hearing' that expression occurs only when the believer is listening, it is still the 'voice' of God doing the speaking; telling the listener what God would if he happened to be human. Of course, God is not human (even if humans are like God), so it makes little sense for man to postulate what he would if he were God (I like this bit from Islam). Why would the inferior being tell the superior being how to be superior?

@Manchu: Ah, this reminds me of another thread a long time ago, in a forum far, far away...

Basically it went along the lines of "Would you prefer a society where the society was unfiar and most lived in poverty but there were lots of rights, or a society where everyone lived decently enough, but there was more restriction on peoples rights?"

I chose the 'greater good' option. I found it surprising that by far people would want a society where poverty ruled, but there were lots of rights. (Funnily though, someone pointed out that, when posting, none of these people thought that THEY would be the poor ones)

In a more direct approach to your question, God doesn't have to do anything. He could take away our free will, I suppose, but why would he? According to the OP he's getting too much of a luagh out of our failing. It's not really what would happen if he did, it's more WHY DIDN'T he? Does he think it's for our own good?

Another question that may boggle your mind.

Could God make a stone so heavy even he could not lift it?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:
1: You do the honourable thing. Why wouldn't you? This woman is clearly in danger, and about to be taken advantage of. You stop this madness, or at least call for help from others.

Risk. In either case you risk discovery by the perpetrator who is in process of proving himself to be comfortable with violence. Taking it to another level, if this rape is already in process, calling immediately will not change the fact that the woman is going to be raped. No matter how quickly the police can arrive they will not be in time to stop her assailant. By calling the cops you are effectively acting only to assuage your own conscience, rather than working to save the woman.

Emperors Faithful wrote:
2: You don't do anything. You watch. Maybe you got a sick luagh out of it. Maybe you take pictures. Maybe you tell yourself 'It's all how she mentally recieves the rape'. Doesn't change the fact that you could have helped this person, at no cost to yourself, but you didn't.

You could also attempt to save the woman at massive cost to yourself. Say you move to stop the man only to discover that he's armed. This leads to you being shot, and killed. The woman may or not be raped in the aftermath, she may be killed as a witness, or the perpetrator may flee immediately; leaving her alive and relatively unscathed. You've just sacrificed your life, to prevent psychological traumatization, and possible murder, of this unknown woman. Is that worth it? Will your family believe that it was worth it? Even if you were their only source of income? The list of variables is nearly endless.

Now, I'm not telling you that rape isn't wrong, or that its right to stand aside as it happens. I'm simply telling you that the issues is infinitely more complicated than you've made it out to be. That is the nature of ethics, and by extension faith. There are no easy answers.

Ah, the joys of debate.
Really quite a well formated response, and I wouldn't really have thought of it that way, but I was using as broad an example as possible. You must remember that this is an omniniscent, omni-potent being that we would be talknig about here. He would be facing zero-risk from this aggresor. So, having nothing to lose, why would he not act? Does he believe that there is something to be gained from the rape of this woman? (assume that she is, all-in-all a good person and by no means deserves to be raped)

Manchu wrote:for certain sects of Christians, God does not reveal Himself in law (Judaism) or the written word (Islam) but rather through a person, a fully human being, Himself.

Fixed that for you. Should avoid speaking of Christians as if they all think the same and act the same. It is an extremely varied group with radically different beliefs and approaches to the faith between groups.

@EF: You also have to remember that Christianity teaches that the struggle, suffering, and deprivation of this life do not have the "final word" over a person's destiny. Think of Christ's death--he was told that he must obey the authority of the state under pain of death. Basically, the state said to him what it says to us today: "You must do what I command or I will hurt you." And Jesus responded by letting the state do its worst. Now did the authorities really torture and murder him? Yes. And was that all real suffering not alleviated by any kind of divine intervention? No, there was no intervention. And did Jesus die? Yes, he did. So the state made its point? No. Because that is not the end of the story. Three days later, the tomb is empty. What can happen to you/be done to you here in this temporal existence is not the final expression of justice or absurdity. Pain and sorrow--and ultimately death--are not the destiny of human beings. Our dignity does not simply crumble against the irresistible unfairness or indifference of a brutish and insensible universe. In freedom, the essential expression of our very own identities, we trace out the paths of our own destiny.

The person who says they would be a slave as long as they are a well-fed slave has abandoned responsibility for himself. He can no longer talk about right and wrong because he has abdicated that capacity to someone else as a premise for his content living. In other words, he is pretty much an animal. Thank goodness this kind of situation is only an illusion that people convince themselves of in order to escape dealing with hard questions. The truth is that you cannot escape from your freedom.

As for paradoxes, they are not mind-blowing. You must keep them in their proper contexts. For example, if I told you that Zeno's paradox about the infinite amount of numbers between any two numbers actually meant that an arrow would never reach its target in real life, you think it was absurd. Clearly the arrow reaches its target and the paradox simply illustrates the point that concept and reality are not the same thing. This is the ultimate lesson about the paradox you mentioned, as well.

I suppose that I believe that functionally, our 'universe' really only consists of the thoughts within our heads. It all comes down to whether we believe we are master of them, or they are the master of us.

Ceci n'est pas une pipe.

Ahtman wrote:Fixed that for you. Should avoid speaking of Christians as if they all think the same and act the same. It is an extremely varied group with radically different beliefs and approaches to the faith between groups.

Not so much as people like to claim who have not bothered to take a serious look at theology. (It's no use trying to claim that you have. If it was the case, you would not have made that statement with regard to the revelation of God in the person of Jesus.) I think you'll find that the the Doctrine of the Trinity is one of the definitive elements of Christianity. Those who speak of Jesus but not the Trinity, like Mormons, do not consider themselves "Christians" as such and are not considered to be so by Christians.

Albatross wrote:I suppose that I believe that functionally, our 'universe' really only consists of the thoughts within our heads. It all comes down to whether we believe we are master of them, or they are the master of us.

Ceci n'est pas une pipe.

Or, as you are getting hit by an asteroid, your last few thoughts represent the rest of eternity to you, while being little more than a speck, in a field of specks; long since lost in the fabric of time.

Albatross wrote:I suppose that I believe that functionally, our 'universe' really only consists of the thoughts within our heads. It all comes down to whether we believe we are master of them, or they are the master of us.

Ceci n'est pas une pipe.

You read Camus! And then looked at some Magritte. Those things aren't British!

Emperors Faithful wrote:
You must remember that this is an omniniscent, omni-potent being that we would be talknig about here. He would be facing zero-risk from this aggresor. So, having nothing to lose, why would he not act? Does he believe that there is something to be gained from the rape of this woman? (assume that she is, all-in-all a good person and by no means deserves to be raped)

He might. At this point we're essentially debating priorities, and intent. I suppose we should assume that God is benevolent (not omni-benevolent, that term doesn't really mean anything). We can also assume that we need a reason to worship God, which can be established by the fact that he must be benevolent towards us (at least part of the time). From here we can presume that God would want to create a world which can be described as good, or whatever near equivalent 'word' God would use.

That's where the problem comes in. What constitutes 'good'? No one can answer that question objectively. You could say something about granting all subjective desires, but that just takes us back down into the dirt of humanity where subjective desire includes the desire to kill and main. You could then claim that God could have never implanted those desires into us, but at that point it starts to get awfully hard to imagine what sort of 'us' is being discussed. From there we get to "Why create the universe at all?", to which the answer is simply anthropic (we're here, so we must have been the best choice).

Ultimately, if you believe that God is omniscient and omnipotent there will be a way to justify any possible 'choice' it makes by dearth of perfect knowledge, or absolute power. We don't know what its like to be God, but God knows what its like to be us. That's the leap of faith.

Manchu wrote: I think you'll find that the the Doctrine of the Trinity is one of the definitive elements of Christianity. Those who speak of Jesus but not the Trinity, like Mormons, do not consider themselves "Christians" as such and are not considered to be so by Christians.

My father is a Christian minister and theologist who considers Mormonism to be a component of the larger Church. I know of many other theologists with similar positions. While the Trinity may be widespread, it certainly isn't something which is discussed explicitly within the Bible.

Manchu wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Fixed that for you. Should avoid speaking of Christians as if they all think the same and act the same. It is an extremely varied group with radically different beliefs and approaches to the faith between groups.

Not so much as people like to claim who have not bothered to take a serious look at theology. (It's no use trying to claim that you have. If it was the case, you would not have made that statement with regard to the revelation of God in the person of Jesus.) I think you'll find that the the Doctrine of the Trinity is one of the definitive elements of Christianity. Those who speak of Jesus but not the Trinity, like Mormons, do not consider themselves "Christians" as such and are not considered to be so by Christians.

You have trouble understanding things outside your own narrow views don't you?

Is it really the voice of God? Or Alan Rickman, because he can sound an awful lot like a certain knowitall.

Ahtman wrote:You have trouble understanding things outside your own narrow views don't you?

FLAME WARRRRRR! Not taking the bait.