Thread: Should We Forgive, or Just Understand?

Fasdfas

That's impressive for someone 18. And I'm speaking about both your deep philosophical thoughts and your prose. I like how you structured your post, too, with double spacing between paragraphs, and the italic comments coming before and after the body of your whole supposition.

If you're this good at 18 I can only imagine how good you will be at 30.

But getting to the substance of your post. I think your views can go well with a purely naturalistic view of the world. I think when you get into the metaphysical views of Buddhist and Hindu concepts of karma and the revealed doctrines of the Abrahamic faiths then your views of relativity and the non-existence of evil do not go well with each other.

Oh... I personally believe in the existence of evil. I would say most serial killers are evil.

Great sounding relativistic nonsense. If you truly believed in relativism, than you would know that there is no point in anybody reading your essay, and even less point in copying and pasting that essay in a public forum. After all, it is just your perspective and therefore as worthless as anybody else's. Answer me this.

How is your belief in an absolute lack of absolutes any different from a belief in other kinds of absolutes (including a belief in evil)?

I found it impressively written. Unfortunately I found myself disagreeing with a lot of it, which lost you the authority your work deserved. For instance, '...as we forever support the idea that all men are considered equal.' Do we? You say these are personal thoughts so I hope you're not including me when you say 'we'. Of course, we are equal in that we are male, but apart from that not very equal. Not even in the eyes of the law sometimes.

'To condition yourself against your own harmless will in order to retain the symmetry of a clutter is suicide.'

This sentence seemed nonsensical to me. There's too much of this sort of thing for me to want to puzzle it out.

Your comments about calling a criminal 'bad' grated a bit as well. We have to label and point fingers. If there is a problem with my car I may say it has a crap battery. Is it wrong of me to do this? Perhaps I should just replace it without the slur.

As I said, impressively written but, for me, a lot of vague meaningless conjecturing.

I'm curious about the post, it seems to stem from something you've read rather than come up with on your own. I don't doubt that you believe what you've written, but that some of the themes go much deeper than most people would understand (myself included).

My take on the work can be boiled down to one question: What is it to be human?

It's not about good or evil, or right or wrong, because those concepts are created by man; not god nor any other force. The question relates to how our self-awareness and consciousness makes us different from 'nature' (where there is no right or wrong; everything just is as it is).

Are we animals or are we something more? Are we conceited enough to believe that we are better than our origins? Are we truly better? And what made us so, other than our desire?

It's the need to fit into society that grants the convenient excuse of locking people away for murder, drugs, rape, stealing, etc. Without this need, people would coexist in a way that had no need for laws; much like animals do. It's not a fault of society that causes this.. but the conflict between our 'animal selves' and our need to be included in society (perhaps even the lack of ability to escape it). Is it fair that we need to restrain our instinctive responses or suffer punishment? Is it fair that some have stronger 'animal instincts' and suffer more because of it? You may as well ask if it's fair for more people to be born into this world where they are certain to feel oppression in some form or another.

It's not about forgiveness, nor really about understanding. It's about moving beyond our current methods and finding new ones that actually help solve the core problem; some people just don't fit into some societies.

Each person makes a choice each day as to what he's (or she's) going to do. Whether it's wake up and go to work, or write, or scam the government for cash, or rob someone, or anything else. I'd suggest that we need to organise our countries, states, cities, etc into areas of like minded people. If you steal, then you are moved into a state where everyone shares their materials. If you're caught beating on someone, you are moved to an area with others who like to fight. Granted, there are more serious crimes that would present problems for all areas, but those people can be dealt with by like minded people (in their own cities).

Thus right and wrong would be subjective to the people whom you lived with. And the largest number of people could simply be who they were comfortable being, without concern for someone else deciding they needed to be re-educated.


And I know that this solution is largely impossible, unethical (by many standards), and has many problems that I haven't gone into detail about. But it's a concept that's been popping up in my mind lately.. mostly brought on by those religious types who explain things like "if you wake up one day, and I'm suddenly gone, just remember that it's the rapture and I'm in a better place; (enjoy the world you chose - non-believer)".


At the least, the divisional societies concept could make a nice story.

Originally Posted by Matthew92

In a non-utopian society, judgment is firm. This idea lacks nuance; utopia is a possibility; humans have the potential to see the good in one another. Without a system of judgment, one might insist, we cannot be sacred or safe. But how could any positive qualities exist within a society whose safeness depends on such a disgusting system of rule be sacred at all?

Regardless of whether our not you consider the system “disgusting,” positive qualities do exist within society and we do recognize the good in one another. It doesn't make for utopia, but we are often kind, loving, sympathetic and considerate. We can form positive relationships. We do try to help each other. We all aren't preoccupied with judging and finger-pointing.

And while many people believe in evil, even those who don’t most often will acknowledge or recognize good. Whether you can or choose to is another matter.

Originally Posted by Edgewise

Great sounding relativistic nonsense. If you truly believed in relativism, than you would know that there is no point in anybody reading your essay, and even less point in copying and pasting that essay in a public forum. After all, it is just your perspective and therefore as worthless as anybody else's. Answer me this.

How is your belief in an absolute lack of absolutes any different from a belief in other kinds of absolutes (including a belief in evil)?

This is a very ludicrous statement. Worthless? Ideas are important. Opinions should be valued -- which is very much the point I was trying to illustrate with this essay.

As for your assertion that any opinion directly contradicts any other opinion -- that no absolutes is an absolute in itself -- do some reading on Emerson, for he struggled with this question as well. It comes down to a simple formula: to eliminate all blockades within the mind, we must barricade the mind itself.

Hope this helps.

Originally Posted by Matthew92

This is a very ludicrous statement. Worthless? Ideas are important. Opinions should be valued -- which is very much the point I was trying to illustrate with this essay.

As for your assertion that any opinion directly contradicts any other opinion -- that no absolutes is an absolute in itself -- do some reading on Emerson, for he struggled with this question as well. It comes down to a simple formula: to eliminate all blockades within the mind, we must barricade the mind itself.

Hope this helps.

Sadly, it doesn't really help. I'm left wondering whether you properly understand your words, and are letting us try to make some abstract sense of them via a vague wave of the hand in the direction of Emerson. If you know enough to argue against the claim, I'd like to hear the words from you. My search for Emerson doesn't lend me any details that help your argument here. In fact, there's enough out there that contradicts what he says.

Edgewise said "as worthless as anybody else's" which you took to mean, 'totally worthless'. Unfortunately, (I interpret this as) you either believe that everyone else's views are worthless, and inferred that you were being insulted (lumped with them), or that you aren't sure of the worth of your own words, and took insult at someone noticing it. Either way isn't good.

Ideally, you should have assumed that everyone has the same value to their words, and that Edgewise doesn't put much stock in them. The message here is that you should read everyone else's comments in the best light that you can, otherwise how can you expect others to give you the same courtesy.

Originally Posted by Matthew92

To eliminate all blockades within the mind, we must barricade the mind itself.

I'm unsure of your meaning here.. at first it seems that you mean to remove all blocks, we must put up a block (a contradictory statement). An alternative interpretation is that you're suggesting that we block off any outside influence on the mind, and thus can be free.. but I'm not sure how this could be possible.

In my search for details about Emerson, I found several comments I didn't like, one of which is; "we must either remove slavery, or remove freedom". And I get the feeling that Emerson works in absolutes; in blacks and whites. Maybe even to the point of using extremes to provoke radical thought, but not truly realising that those extremes aren't truly related. He argues that nature is the true form of existence, yet in nature nothing is black or white. There is nothing that has only two sides to it; everything is shades of the opposing force.

So I'm left wondering whether he was simply a skilled public speaker and debater rather than someone with true insights into the world.

Sure, his words (and yours) do sound impressive, but when understood more thoroughly, there are numerous gaps that he (and you) likely cannot cover.

Comment from a 17 year old.

While necessity and morality are distinct, they are most certainly linked. A claim that something is necessary means that if we value human life/existence, it's imperative that the something be. Most ethical systems put value on human life, and therefore what is "necessary" is labeled as ethically necessary.

It is senseless to judge a man solely by his actions without being able to see his intentions, his knowledge of consequences and the nature of his future action, and his reflection on the action in the past etc. This does not mean that it is unjust for a man's actions to be considered a vital part of a judgement of him.

All facts are true, however facts are considered empirical (as far as I know) and not all truths are empirical, some are necessary premises for empirical reality to be even conceptualized. Mathematics does not, according to this definition, incorporate facts, but truths nonetheless. It is nonetheless true that facts can be put together to suggest something which is not true.

On the nature of the murderer. If we both agree that his actions were wrong, we must agree that, him having known what he did (taking a life without just cause) and been under no duress, the man in question had it WITHIN HIM, as an internal quality, to commit an unjust act. A murderer, while perhaps capable of various levels of depravity, all the same is depraved. It is wrong to murder, and to commit murder one must have some wrongness within, because actions stem from internal motivators. The important qualities are indeed internal, which is precisely why the murderer's character is condemned by his act.

We all do what we believe we should do, so true it's tautological, however, simply because people are motivated to action does not justify actions because motivations, and the INDIVIDUAL'S perception of said motivations does not always square with the timeless realities against which men are judged, nor does it always square with the tangible results of his actions. Because the feeling of justice is insufficient to declare that all men are virtuous, all propositions based upon it are invalidated. However, even if all men's motivations are just (not proven) than we still haven't arrived at relativism.

Bad people, "criminals" do not need to be seen as sub-human, or all bad, to be worthy of punishment, and seeing people as worthy of punishment is not necessary to classify their actions as wrong. Unless one considers any valid response to wrong acts punishment, there are possible ethical positions which reject punishment but still allow for the judging of actions. One such position is the belief that punishment is wrong, and that those who punish are wrong. The punishers cannot be punished, but they can still be seen as wrong for punishing.

There is no need to transcend the animal, there is need to have the base nature of man, his desires, lusts, hungers, to be integrated into a whole person, someone who utilizes his higher brain functions. These lower functions must be beholden to the higher ones for a properly functioning human being.

People aim to achieve simple goals (or complex ones) through complex plots all of the time. Of course simple and complex here are truly relative, suffice to say that while there is no absolute standard on what constitutes a complex or simple plan. We do not operate to our full capacity in this regard because often we do not need to. Complex plots are not ends unto themselves, and creating a more difficult to manage system that requires more energy investment is not ideal for most human tasks.

All harm does not stem from a choice. If you, after reading this, happened to be struck by a meteorite, you would be harmed (absolutely) without any choice, except perhaps the choice to stay where you were. However, we even can escape this notion of "choice" by the "choice" of birth. Our very existence itself is a massive "torture chamber" where we, without our consent, are plagued by aches and pains. There is no "choice to be born" even if there is a choice to exist. Any harm done to us at birth is not a matter of choice. Of course, then you could turn it into the parent's choice that precluded harm. At this point, we have a chicken and egg problem. If "harm" precludes free will (if it exists) that is a creature may be harmed prior to it's ability to make any choice, than your statement is false. The first cell, if it encountered an obstacle, was harmed without having any choice in the matter because it didn't make choices. If we feel that the cell cannot be "harmed" we may simply say that this existed for the first creature who could make choices. He was born by creatures who could not make choices, and therefore whatever harm he suffered at birth before he even had any notion of suicide was without any choice.

The law of nature does not dismiss blame unless it dismisses free will. If free will continues to exist, results can be blamed on actors. If an actor is harmed by another, it is correct to say that the harmer is to blame for the harmed, even if there is no right or wrong about the actions themselves.

Utopia is not optimism. Utopia is perfection. I do not build a utopian reality by deciding that the people around me are not completely depraved. Being that I don't even know what perfection is, much less how to institute it, I have no means by which to bring forth this perfect form.

Query: I am unsure what game the OP is playing, and I am considering the possibility that he is a troll. If that is the case (as will be revealed by the nature of his responses) I shall promptly in the spirit of Spike Lee "Do the Right Thing" by hijacking his thread, thereby undoing his trollery. This is of course only if he is a troll.

Originally Posted by Matthew92

This is a very ludicrous statement. Worthless? Ideas are important. Opinions should be valued -- which is very much the point I was trying to illustrate with this essay.

As for your assertion that any opinion directly contradicts any other opinion -- that no absolutes is an absolute in itself -- do some reading on Emerson, for he struggled with this question as well. It comes down to a simple formula: to eliminate all blockades within the mind, we must barricade the mind itself.

Hope this helps.

You misunderstood my statement. I never said that I think all ideas are worthless, or even that all opinions are worthless. Far from this, I believe some ideas and opinions are worthless, because I believe that there is such a thing as absolute truth and absolute bullsh*t. For example, I think relativism is a worthless idea. According to relativism (which you say you believe in) there are no absolutes; everything boils down to perspective. If that is the case, than all perspectives are equally worthless because they are identical in their degree of truth. Yet you still made the decision to post your essay detailing your beliefs in a public forum. That action indicates that you consider your ideas profound enough to put them in a place where others can hear them. And that is odd considering your pre-essay announcement.

Keep in mind, these are my personal thoughts. I am in no way labeling myself universally correct.

Also a bit contradictory is your rushing to defend yourself against my attack on your beliefs, despite your self-professed relativism. The only defense you can make against my attack in order to defend your own beliefs (and still be consistent with your relativism) is to argue that my beliefs are just my perspective. In that case, our beliefs (and any beliefs) are equally worthless, and defending them is completely pointless.

Emerson and "blockades within the mind" does nothing to address the serious contradiction I brought up. Believing that there are no absolutes constitutes a belief in the absolute non-existence of absolutes. By that logic there is at least one absolute, which makes the proposition "There are no absolutes" inherently self-defeating.

Keep in mind, these are my personal thoughts. I am in no way labeling myself universally correct. After all, to be set in stone would directly contradict many of my own statements made in this essay. I am eighteen years old. I still feel that there is much I haven't yet experienced—which could indeed limit the credibility of my perception of the world around me.

It seemed to me that the above statement contained the most truth, and made the most sense of all that you posted. In fact, that's the only part of your whole post that felt like it truly came from you, and not just from reading and parroting others. There is nothing wrong with questioning views and beliefs, but bear in mind that these will most likely change with age and experience. Then you will be stating them with deeply held convictions that are truly your own.

The topic of "Should we forgive or just understand?" reminds me of a quote. Me and my brother have been playing the new Call of Duty Black Ops and in one of the modes you fight zombies as a bunch of ex-US Presidents and a few other guys (Kennedy, Nixon, Castro, some other guy) and if you're Kennedy, sometimes when you kill a zombie he says, "Forgive your enemies, but remember their names!" Haha. Which I take is a real quote of his.

Originally Posted by Edgewise

Also a bit contradictory is your rushing to defend yourself against my attack on your beliefs, despite your self-professed relativism. The only defense you can make against my attack in order to defend your own beliefs (and still be consistent with your relativism) is to argue that my beliefs are just my perspective. In that case, our beliefs (and any beliefs) are equally worthless, and defending them is completely pointless.

Emerson and "blockades within the mind" does nothing to address the serious contradiction I brought up. Believing that there are no absolutes constitutes a belief in the absolute non-existence of absolutes. By that logic there is at least one absolute, which makes the proposition "There are no absolutes" inherently self-defeating.

I had not intended to attack you. I apologize if it sounded that way. And listen, everyone: These ideas stemmed from my own mind; I have acquired my perspective from life, just as all of you have developed yours. Was there inspiration? Of course. But this should not -- in terms of this forum, I will say, thus not labeling sensibility important and therefor contradicting my portrait of relativism -- discredit me (I will be very careful with my wording here in order not to make that mistake once again).

Let me begin by saying that my age is irrelevant in this one sense; all ideas are derived from some sort of inspiration. In no way did I simply steal or lump together the views of others however; Emerson was one example of many, as he demonstrates the general flavor of my thoughts -- the primary reason I chose his category of philosophers as an example. Keep in mind, he's no absolute idol of mine -- and I do not support all his opinions. Self-Reliance spoke loudly to me, though.

And as for being discredited for my mind being set on relativism while insisting there are no absolutes, understand that this does not contradict myself, for no absolutes means, to put it simply, no absolutes. One exception is mandatory to maintain this opinion. We cannot have all three sides to the triangle; neither can we be perfect in any opinion. And I am not, in any way, attempting to attack anyone here, though I have the freedom to debate -- and a poster threatening to hack my account for a personal essay I posted only provokes me to question the helpfulness of this website all together. (In my personal opinion, this is extremely rude and not very fair, and it definitely troubled me to read -- shocking, actually.) But, as my essay reads, this is only my perspective -- but I will leave this forum all the same.

How exactly am I trolling? For posting my personal opinions? I apologize if you do not appreciate them, but I am not violating any rules of this website by posting them. Absurd accusation.

I'm actually a bit disappointing at all this. I expected a debate, and much criticism, but not what I consider to be full fledged indignity.

I am unsure what game the OP is playing, and I am considering the possibility that he is a troll. If that is the case (as will be revealed by the nature of his responses) I shall promptly in the spirit of Spike Lee "Do the Right Thing" by hijacking his thread, thereby undoing his trollery. This is of course only if he is a troll.

I have no plans on hacking your account, and I don't even know how to do so. When I say "hyjack a thread" I mean to take control of it by redirecting the flow of conversation according to my whim. If you are trolling, that is, playing philosopher for the lulz, I fail to see anything wrong with this as the discussion would go nowhere unless some redirected it. As I mentioned, your true nature has yet to be seen. Also, trolling need not be against the rules. While you can get banned for it, you can still absorb people's life force without having been uncovered.

You expected debate and it was given to you, I wrote what was probably the longest response to your OP, and it was a line by line response. I did not, anywhere in my Line by line response say much anything about you. I had an addendum that speculated on whether you might be a troll. I considered this a possibility because some of your responses seemed too imprecise in their language to square with your obvious literary talents. I decided to state clearly my intentions to move the threat in a productive direction if it seemed that you were just toying with the membership.