|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2008 8:40 am
 |
|
|
 |
Arson Hiroha Part of the boundless Humanity's very exsistance is an utter joke. Most humans wouldn't stop to help their own species let alone another. Humans are destructive creatures, we take what we can because we can. We destroy things that are inconveint. When one looks at it, it is horribly sad to see what destruction has happened at human hands. The burning of fields, extermination of entire species, pollution which leads to mutation. Fortunatly there is a lot of good people out there, some that would led you the shirt off their own backs. Problem is destroying humanity will result in the destruction of many that deserve life, that deserve the pleasures and pains that come with it. So really the only thing we can do is try to enforce good values on those around us and hope they learn and don't forget what has been taught. As for destroying the whole world I must point out that at the rate we seem to be going with our weapons that may be sooner than you realize. A bit more pessimistic than the way I put it, but something I agree with... As for the weapons, that is very possible, though likely not in our lifetime. Even though human beings can be seen as immoral or mostly immoral by nature, they are also motivated by fear, which is in a sense beyond morals and part of our biology. Mostly these weapons are used as deterrents; the destruction of the human race I wouldn't accredit to the creation of WMDs, or whatever you may call them, but who you give the shiny red button to. However, in America, we definately need an improvement to that one... ((Want to know what the WMD launch codes were from creation until 1975 (rough year)? Later onwhen they were declassified, they were revealed to be 00000000 (although it has been changed to a real code since then). Just look it up, and Enjoy your WMDs.))
lol, thats a bit scary to know that the code was 00000000.
If someone that doesn't care for humanity gets a hold of the shiny red button then we're finished. Lot of sociopaths out there :/ |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:28 pm
|
|
|
|
Arson Hiroha I suppose I'll play the Devil's Advocate here... Who ever said that to eliminate suffering should be the ultimate goal? Yes, sorrow may hurt for the time being, but I'm not fully convinced it's an evil thing, let alone something to destroy the whole world over. Sorrow is something every person deals with, but adversity is one of the greatest trainers in life. Suffering may seem bad at first, but it's the one thing that allows our happiness to truly matter. If an animal was never thirsty, they would never feel joy from drinking water after a long drought. If a lover always succeeded in his triumphs, he would feel no value from that which he loves. In this case, it's that relief from a long period of loneliness that makes you feel truly alive. Casanova, Don Juan, De'Annunzio, they have all learned this. After all of their conquests, they sought the one woman who could resist them like the holy grail. This made capturing them all the sweeter. Casanova even went to the lengths of seducing a nun, in search of that which he was denied. Although in the end, it's far deeper than the pursuits of Casanova or an animal at a brook. The hardships are what make us stronger, and for some of us, even more hopeful than before. Thus, why destroy the world for sorrow and suffering? For in its duality, we hold the greatest treasure ever given to mankind: Hope for the Future. If you were to kill the human race, and all the horrors of Pandora's Box, then perhaps you will end this suffering, perhaps not. Regardless, you would destroy the human race's greatest and most revered wealth. The abundance of Hope for prosperity.
For the most part, I agree what what you said. The only (possibly minor) issue is that of it being a duality. Are the only two options "good" and "evil"? And from those two things must come "non-suffering" and "suffering"? I find myself believing in a wider spectrum with an unknown number of variables rather than two poles between which a certain event can only slide in 2 dimensions.
And is suffering something that must be endured rather than embraced? Even then, it is not for humans to determine whether it should be one or the other. Rather than viewing it as being withheld (sp?) from pleasure (not sure about "happiness" here), I find a more strange type of beauty within suffering by itself, without association to pleasure or even moral values.
There seems to be too much focus on the actions of humans, which I can kind of understand. Part of it has to do with how much influence we have on the earth and part of it has to do with the fact that we're talking about ourselves. Something about this doesn't sit too well with me, but I'm not too sure what just yet. I'll just leave this paragraph open-ended for now. |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 3:11 pm
|
|
|
|
NomNomNominal Arson Hiroha I suppose I'll play the Devil's Advocate here... Who ever said that to eliminate suffering should be the ultimate goal? Yes, sorrow may hurt for the time being, but I'm not fully convinced it's an evil thing, let alone something to destroy the whole world over. Sorrow is something every person deals with, but adversity is one of the greatest trainers in life. Suffering may seem bad at first, but it's the one thing that allows our happiness to truly matter. If an animal was never thirsty, they would never feel joy from drinking water after a long drought. If a lover always succeeded in his triumphs, he would feel no value from that which he loves. In this case, it's that relief from a long period of loneliness that makes you feel truly alive. Casanova, Don Juan, De'Annunzio, they have all learned this. After all of their conquests, they sought the one woman who could resist them like the holy grail. This made capturing them all the sweeter. Casanova even went to the lengths of seducing a nun, in search of that which he was denied. Although in the end, it's far deeper than the pursuits of Casanova or an animal at a brook. The hardships are what make us stronger, and for some of us, even more hopeful than before. Thus, why destroy the world for sorrow and suffering? For in its duality, we hold the greatest treasure ever given to mankind: Hope for the Future. If you were to kill the human race, and all the horrors of Pandora's Box, then perhaps you will end this suffering, perhaps not. Regardless, you would destroy the human race's greatest and most revered wealth. The abundance of Hope for prosperity. For the most part, I agree what what you said. The only (possibly minor) issue is that of it being a duality. Are the only two options "good" and "evil"? And from those two things must come "non-suffering" and "suffering"? I find myself believing in a wider spectrum with an unknown number of variables rather than two poles between which a certain event can only slide in 2 dimensions. And is suffering something that must be endured rather than embraced? Even then, it is not for humans to determine whether it should be one or the other. Rather than viewing it as being withheld (sp?) from pleasure (not sure about "happiness" here), I find a more strange type of beauty within suffering by itself, without association to pleasure or even moral values. There seems to be too much focus on the actions of humans, which I can kind of understand. Part of it has to do with how much influence we have on the earth and part of it has to do with the fact that we're talking about ourselves. Something about this doesn't sit too well with me, but I'm not too sure what just yet. I'll just leave this paragraph open-ended for now.
On the answer of whether suffering and pleasure are a duality, it depends on the question. What is suffering to one person may be pleasure to another (see: masochists). The example may not be as extreme as that, and as simple as different tastes in food. You could also propose that there are different types of suffering and pleasure, but for the moment we're lumping them into two big categories. Both physical, mental, and moral pleasure/suffering could be viewed as having the same duality about them.
Hmm, and embracing suffering... As far as I can see, that would have one of two outcomes: Either A. suffering increases, or B. what was once suffering is pleasurable to you. In the case of those trapped in depression, I would say area A. is more apparent. When I went through my own bout with it I pretty much embraced suffering, as you said, and it made me suffer even more. In the end, it was optimism that brought me back, and later on I tacked on the notion of endurance to prevent it from happening again. I've found that when you show no signs or regrets of pain and go straight for its source you find yourself much happier (like, for example, in fights or in illness). Emotional could be seen the same way, and moral is somewhat more complicated, though I pursue it anyway.
Anyway, to hit back at the original question of that paragraph, if you find beauty in suffering, you could say that it gives you pleasure. Thus, it either isn't your suffering or is not your suffering at the moment you admire it.
As far as the Earth goes, I'm an environmentalist myself, but for that same reason I say it's unimportant to distinguish between the two. If we harm the Earth ("cause it suffering"), we'll do the same to ourselves. The fact that people are so closely associated with the Earth is why I chose not to distinguish between the two.
(Btw, love the username XD) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 10:27 am
|
|
|
|
I still have trouble accepting the pleasure/suffering duality. It's not so much along the lines of the masochism example as that of the tastes in food. I wouldn't be able to place saltiness, as a quality in itself, along a 2-dimensional scale with suffering on one end and pleasure on the other. Other physical sensations are like that as well. And because our experiences are always a combination of physical, mental and moral (spiritual?) sensations, it makes the duality even harder to define....
Which is probably why I suggested embracing suffering, savouring the sensations that life throws at us. It's not so much an embracing that accepts things as they are, without change. What you're saying sounds more like "dwelling" instead of "embracing". Realistically, we know that things always change. It's a constant awareness of what we feel, and because it will not last, it should be savoured and learned from.
I guess what I'm saying is that while it offers a great general picture, the specifics of what "suffering" is makes the word a tad redundant. And going back to the original issue, how can we tell if the destruction of the world/humans is necessarily going to cause the elimination of "suffering"? Or is it the elimination of sensation/consciousness that is being discussed here?
And you're right about not distinguishing between humans and other animals. I guess that's why it felt weird to me.
(Thanks razz )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:10 pm
|
|
|
|
That's useful then, it cuts our problems in half if we don't have to mull through things like masochism. As for taste, that's a peculiar example; I've always wondered whether taste's specific nature was evolutionary. We eat unhealthy foods because they taste good (nomnom), and eat foods that don't taste good because they're healthy. I suppose things like taste are an aesthetic thing; naturally, they vary from person to person, which leads into my next distinction.
I would say the duality isn't in what gives us pleasure or pain, but in the sensation itself. You could phrase it as desire, I suppose. For example, no matter what the pleasurable sensation is, if it's pleasurable enough you suffer without it. That's why in depression, a lot of people describe it as a great void (as I did). This also feeds somewhat into my discussion on the other thread about the purpose of philosophy, where I said that the hedonist's life is full of constant chasing of desires.
When it comes to the mind/body/heart divide, they each connect with each other, and a deficit will affect you differently. A deficit in body is death, a deficit in mind leads to a lack of understanding and possibly death from foolishness, and a lack of heart will lead to you being killed by your fellow human (we are social creatures, after all). However, constantly purusueing desires in each is the same. The hedonist always satisfies one need, becomes bored, and chases another in constant strife (physical). The troubled philosopher chases truth for no purpose, only forming more questions, and possibly even goes mad (mind). The hopeless idealist constantly chases ideals, with no idea of how to get there (heart).
Though, you could also say that these three cases all result from a deficit in one or both of the other needs, showing how closely the three are connected.
It seems like our ideas of "embracing" and "enduring" are the same, because I see endurance as going straight up to your problems and reconciling them. For example, when I feel physical pain I confront it directly and reason that it's just the body's warning system. Thus, I can feel a ton of pain without even changing my expression, which is an interesting thing to display.
As for whether eliminating humans eliminates suffering, I say it's irrelevant. The real arguement should be whether we should do such a thing for suffering, when its alternatives are always present. Keep humanity's shining treasure, even if it means keeping its injustice. People of a coquettish nature in relationships now this a lot, mixing periods of suffering with attention so the attention becomes even sweeter.
(Lol no problem, just don't let your name eat me ;P)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 1:13 am
|
|
|
|
Lets go back to the third grade here
Quote: The 6 Major Kingdoms!Animalia Plantae Protista Fungi Eubacteria Archeabacteria
Q: Where do we fall in?
A: Animalia
We must get off our high horses, and seriously deflate our egos.
It does not go
Quote: Supreme Beings KingdomsHumans The RestAnimalia Plantae etc...
No matter what we do we are all still part of the natural order. A man made dam may be made by man, but man is apart of nature, therefore that damn is still made by a natural force, us. Just like a beaver builds a dam, or a bird builds a nest.
If we remove ourselves from the equation everything would still be natural. whether it is peaceful or not is still questionable. But it would still be natural, everything IS natural.
But look inside what peace itself is. Figure that out before you think it could exist. Figure out what peace means to the rest of our animal brethren. They may not even be in this so called "peace" with each other anyways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 1:11 pm
|
|
|
|
Cannibalistic Suicide Lets go back to the third grade here Quote: The 6 Major Kingdoms!Animalia Plantae Protista Fungi Eubacteria Archeabacteria Q: Where do we fall in? A: Animalia We must get off our high horses, and seriously deflate our egos. It does not go Quote: Supreme Beings KingdomsHumans The RestAnimalia Plantae etc... No matter what we do we are all still part of the natural order. A man made dam may be made by man, but man is apart of nature, therefore that damn is still made by a natural force, us. Just like a beaver builds a dam, or a bird builds a nest. If we remove ourselves from the equation everything would still be natural. whether it is peaceful or not is still questionable. But it would still be natural, everything IS natural. But look inside what peace itself is. Figure that out before you think it could exist. Figure out what peace means to the rest of our animal brethren. They may not even be in this so called "peace" with each other anyways.
Ah, the plant/human discussion again. Let me raise a bigger question, does it matter if they suffer, or how much they suffer, in relation to humans or not? Either way, I'm sure you don't want to kill off the human race for it.
After all, whether peace exists or not right now, the idea is to kill the human race to achieve peace. That sounds like a giant act of war to me, not to mention it kills off the thing that would be experiencing peace. Once again, I don't distinguish with humans and animals in this respect, the idea is the same. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 6:15 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 6:32 pm
|
|
|
|
Arson Hiroha Ah, the plant/human discussion again. Let me raise a bigger question, does it matter if they suffer, or how much they suffer, in relation to humans or not? Either way, I'm sure you don't want to kill off the human race for it. After all, whether peace exists or not right now, the idea is to kill the human race to achieve peace. That sounds like a giant act of war to me, not to mention it kills off the thing that would be experiencing peace. Once again, I don't distinguish with humans and animals in this respect, the idea is the same.
I actually kind of agree with you on the second paragraph, but the first I'm iffy about.
Well, the fact that saying you will kill the human race is gonna bring people that are gonna be hateful and say you are an idiot and maybe if they are idiots, kill you. But to kill off the human race, that means yourself too, and then where is the peace? It's not like Animals don't kill each other (( Ironic how we are animals, and we kill each other constantly )) We live in a Survival of the Fittest society, and currently, we are the top of them all, even though we do get killed by animals lower in the food chain.
I do find it ridiculous that some people think we are completely ALL MIGHTY in the Kingdoms, but don't we get killed by things such as poison from fungus and plants? Doesn't lions bite people and severely injure and/or kill them? To be all mighty, or the complete highest, you'd have to be able to control the rest and not be killed by them. But that is impossible since everything has its own weakness, such as poison and stab/ bite wounds. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 01, 2009 6:51 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 01, 2009 7:31 pm
|
|
|
|
Ketsuyin 27x I wonder if destorying the human race is actually a good way to destroy evil, and create a peacefull place. Any one of us who have seen twelve monkeys might not be so willing to believe this, but consider it. If we all die, the animals live in peace. However animals can still suffer. therefore perhaps destroying the entire earth would be a better soloution. That way everything would be peacefull and perfect. The universe would still have all the beutifull planets, except the one corroupt one. I am not sugguesting that this is an option I would chose, but I have to admit that when I think about it, it has some validity. No it doesn't. The simple implications of such an idea remove all purpose of your argument. If we destroy the earth, how will we know the universe will be better? We'll be dead. And as for the who twelve monkeys thing, how does anybody know humans aren't a necesary part of earth's ecosystem? What if earht's ecology would collapse without humans? Who knows?
Simply put, the universe doesn't nececarily need an ecosystem to be beautifull.
If you've ever seen a good picture of M42, then you'd know what I'm talking about. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2009 9:48 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 12:47 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:13 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:46 pm
|
|
|
|
27x x3 SuGarr CoOkiie We humans are the ones who have defined what "peace" is, if we were to destroy the human race then there would be no peace because there would be no one there who would be able to define what the current state of the earth is. On the contrary. If the human race didn't exist, then there would be no one to plot the destruction of the human race, for example. The whole idea of karma, is that it only affects things that are concous of it. Animals and things are innocent to karma, but we arn't. If we destroy ourselves, then noone is going to come back around and do something to us in revenge, because we'll all be gone. Think about how serene everything would be without anyone worrying about anything, or feeling any pain.
Yes, but the hypothetical was if an individual or individuals destory the human race for peace, would it be a good idea. Given the circumstances, there are people.
My point is if we destory out selves, it wouldn't matter because no one would be there who would be able to fathom the idea of "peace". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
