marriage and government

Quote from ARogueTrader:

It is not heartless, it is pure animalistic.

We wouldn't expect a savage wild beast to have compassion, to have a heart as wild undomesticated animals function on pure instinct for survival, not reason.

Tiki apparently has nothing going on beyond animal instinct either.

Those who exist in pure animal consciousness, pure hedonistic consciousness, pure survival consciousness, and 100% self centeredness know nothing of the joys of freely giving, freely sharing, nor compassion or other virtues of the heart.

Since people like this lack these experiences, and are unwilling to take the necessary steps to experience them, how can an argument be made that they are wrong, that they are missing out on the higher pleasures of genuine humanity?

Simple, and Immanuel Kant has done so brilliantly without the need for a moral authority apart from one's own developed sense of reason.
More...

Now now dont get personal here.

Then, the pleasure of giving freely and the virtues of heart are all virtues set by society. For you coming from XYZ it would be a virtue to give freely, for ancient MAYA's it was a virtue to sacrifice a young virgin a day.

I am allright with you drawing your happiness from such kind of acts, but I prefer to draw them from acts that run along better with the animalistic urges we have. I can assure you it feels real good to satisfy your biological AND set urges at the same time, once you get past the protests of the moralists

Tiki
 
Quote from tikipoki:

Now now dont get personal here.

What is personal by defining what you have already stated?

Then, the pleasure of giving freely and the virtues of heart are all virtues set by society.

The pleasure derived from watching someone else smile is instinctive, not a product of socialization. It is an innate quality of the heart to experience joy, and survival is not joyful. It may be necessary, but not joyful nor heartfelt.

For you coming from XYZ it would be a virtue to give freely, for ancient MAYA's it was a virtue to sacrifice a young virgin a day.

Ancient Mayan culture lived without the abundance of energy, food, etc. that modern man in advanced cultures has, and they lived in a survival mentality as a culture.

As the process of human evolution away from pure survival takes place, the mind is free to explore pleasures beyond those of pure sensualism and pure instinctive animalistic survival.

I am allright with you drawing your happiness from such kind of acts, but I prefer to draw them from acts that run along better with the animalistic urges we have.

That is your right to stay in an unevolved state. You don't know what you are missing though. The majority of people will tell you that their happiest times in life were not in states of animal survival consciousness, when they had appeased their animal and survival instincts, but rather found joy in states of abundance and sharing of that abundance with others.

Your choice.

I can assure you it feels real good to satisfy your biological AND set urges at the same time, once you get past the protests of the moralists.

It feels good to stop hitting your head against the wall too.

It has been argued by philosophers that most people's idea of "feeling good" is really just the absence of pain, rather than the bliss and joy of pure pleasure.

They explain it like this:

There are four states: pain, cessation of pain (relief), pure neutrality in which one feels no pain, no pleasure, nor relief from pain, and pleasure.

The example given follows:

1. Smelling something foul causes pain.
2. The cessation of smelling something foul gives rise to the relief of the pain, but is not pure pleasure.
3. A neutral state of no pleasure, no pain, no relief from pain.
4. Smelling something enjoyable brings pure pleasure, not the relief of pain.

When one is constantly driven to satisfy urges, the completion of the urge is considered "pleasurable" but in fact it is not purely pleasure but relief from pain.

Real pleasure can only come from a state of no pain.

You confuse real pleasure with the cessation of pain. Evolved states of human development give rise to real pleasure, not just the animalist's relief from the cessation of pain.




Tiki [/B]
More...
 
D
Quote from tikipoki:



I agree, these are ALL moral issues, and the 'problem' that makes our views so radically different is that I think morals are bullshit.

The statement above IS very heartless, but so is nature, it doesnt care how you feel about it, it cares about who wins the ever-going race.

The laws of nature, I am sorry because this is going to sound vague but I will try to give it as clear as possible. The laws of nature are, to me, the way other animals go through their life.

Their #1 priority is to SURVIVE. no altruism at all ever seen with animals. If there is a threat to their survival, they will either RUN (like a mouse will run from a cat; it can impossibly beat it) or try to DESTROY it (like 2 snakes fighting).

Their #2 priority is to Procreate.. well thats simply that. we are more discussion the survival part here.

then, the most important of all. NO altruism. they will ONLY help another animal if it is in their direct interest (like a group of wolves have to stay strong, and if they dont help each other the group will be dead in no time).
More...

Note that I'm not agreeing with most of your post here, but even if we accept it as true, why should humans have to take their cue from "the other animals"?

Isn't our capacity to reason and to have genuine love and respect for our fellow humans, families, societies and countries -- love and respect that many times go beyond our selfish self-interests -- a sign of greater advancement than "the other animals" (who themselves are not some monolithic group, but show varying levels of the above)?

Is your own mission in life mere survival?

I doubt it.

Human kind secured the basic ability to survive in his realm quite a while ago. You can check your history books to verify that. Alternatively, switch on your heater, put on your sweater, open your fridge or turn on a tap.

Heard of Maslow? Remember his hierarchy of needs? Where did satisfaction of basic phsiological needs (food, water, shelter) and security come? Right at the bottom. Were humans satisfied? No. We show a natural aspiration towards higher emotional satifsaction, coming in the form belonging, love, esteem etc. (Although the order can be debated.)
 
Quote from alfonso:

D

Note that I'm not agreeing with most of your post here, but even if we accept it as true, why should humans have to take their cue from "the other animals"?

Isn't our capacity to reason and to have genuine love and respect for our fellow humans, families, societies and countries -- love and respect that many times go beyond our selfish self-interests -- a sign of greater advancement than "the other animals" (who themselves are not some monolithic group, but show varying levels of the above)?

Is your own mission in life mere survival?

I doubt it.

Human kind secured the basic ability to survive in his realm quite a while ago. You can check your history books to verify that. Alternatively, switch on your heater, put on your sweater, open your fridge or turn on a tap.

Heard of Maslow? Remember his hierarchy of needs? Where did satisfaction of basic phsiological needs (food, water, shelter) and security come? Right at the bottom. Were humans satisfied? No. We show a natural aspiration towards higher emotional satifsaction, coming in the form belonging, love, esteem etc. (Although the order can be debated.)
More...

Tell me of one true love that does not serve the self at all.
Tell me one thing that people do not out of self interest
"Human kind" is in my book not one group. We are competing amongst eachother. Belonging as in feeling accepted within your group/society feels good because it means security, mutual love means you can depend on someone to mate with/protect you, esteem as in selfesteem is simply either knowing yourself well, or arrogance.

Really.. dont make humans out to be more then they really are
Tiki
 
Quote from tikipoki:

Tell me of one true love that does not serve the self at all.
Tell me one thing that people do not out of self interest
More...


I never spoke of such a love that didn't serve oneself at all. Although, in the case where a love requires giving up one's own life -- a concept entirely foreign to you, right? :) -- one's purposes wouldn't be served for very long.

But there is a love that also serves others, in addition to oneself. One that goes beyond total self-interest.

I could think of a thousand examples that illustrate this. Really, it's so basic a facet of humanity that I think it hardly needs it.

You're getting a bit silly on us now (in light of your recent questions).

Imo, it's highly unlikely that you've experienced any great grief in this life, otherwise you'd understand that it's a cold enough world as it is, without needing to be made colder by the selfish, primitive amoral 'surivalism' philosophies. Almost certainly you wouldn't be making the outlandish comments that you are.
 
Quote from tikipoki:

Just tell me, have you ever felt the rush and joys of cruelty?

Tiki
More...


Yes, regrettably.

But I think I outgrew that around the time I was ten or eleven.
 
i am quite surprised with the unusual primitive animalistic theorys being expounded upon in this thread.

the person lives for sex and eating steak, that is a truly sad existence devoid of TRUE pleasure. this is one time i agree fully with arougetrader--- he is 100% correct in this matter.

surfer:eek:
 
Quote from tikipoki:

Just tell me, have you ever felt the rush and joys of cruelty?

Tiki
More...

No. I can never, ever remember enjoying cruelty nor do I know anyone who does. I can only hope you're kidding again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top