Political Crossfire Forums

[bigstick61]

Conservatism is realism. One thing that you must realize that it is in the fixed nature of things for humans to be self-interested. Even if their goal is to sacrifice themselves for a cause, or to become selfless for whatever reason, they still do it for a reason to serve their own self-interests, for example, in the former case, the goal may be heaven; it can therefore be said that suicide bombers are acting in their own self-interests. We may not agree with what is in the self-interest of others, but self-interest is ultimately determined by the individual concerned. I don't think you could ever have a universal agreement on self-interests. It is against the laws of nature. This world is not, never was, and never will be perfect. To expect people to achieve what is tantamount to perfection is unrealistic and is done in defiance of the laws of nature.

[Carlin]

This is actually something I wrote to a friend in an e-mail a couple of weeks ago, I feel it applies:



Yes, it is true. I am a man of great faith. My rational mind persuades me from believing in a divine, magical entity. However, what I do believe in, is where we are, who we are, and what we can be. I believe in empirical truths and abstract ideals. I believe that due to the impermanence of life, there is no true sense of the word "ownership." I'm of the belief that he with the nicest toys...still dies. It is true because everyone does, in fact, die, but also it is a philisophical view point that allows me calm the cravings of material wealth and goods.

This life is all I have and with it, I desire no power and no validation from others or a non-omnipresent being. I would disagre with your point that selfishness isn't taught, because everything is taught. While it's true that when a baby is born, it cries for food, water and other immediate needs, babies grow up, physically, emotionally, and mentally. An immediate inclination towards selfishness and greed would become obsolete to a well informed, mindful person. Or perhaps there is a selfish motivation behind one making the world a better place? Because, well, they have to live in it too.

I remember an old biblical tale about the disciples who come across a dying girl. Went a little something like this: With Jesus not around, the disciples attempt to heal the girl through their own faith. They fail. Jesus then approaches them and one of them asks with tears in his eyes, "Lord, we tried to heal this girl. We had faith, but we couldn't fix her. Why?" Jesus responded solemnly, "because you did not really have faith that you could heal this girl's suffering, you merely thought you did. Only through truly believing you could have saved this girl, could you have succeeded." I took this to mean that we can't leave it all up to Jesus to save us all, but through the collective hope of all, we can heal great suffering.

[LostSoul3412]

FinnMacCool wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: Beyond the scope of conservatism, to be selfish is the natural state of humanity.

Not really.

Thomas Hobbes wrote: The right of nature . . . is the liberty each man hath to use his own power, as he will himself, for the preservation of his own nature; that is to say, of his own life.

[Jufarius87]

No, it isnt and here is why.

economic conservatism......
1.lowering taxes
2.low spending
3.cuts in welfare programs

economists can prove mathematically that taxation reduces both consumer and producer surplus...... in other words, taxes hurt everyone but the government

Low spending will ensure that the next generation does not have massive debt, that is not selfish (btw, bush is neo-con, not conservative when it comes to economics)

cuts in welfare is a harder sell, however if it is done right welfare cuts can actually help welfare recipients, given that the revenue saved from welfare cuts is used to promote job growth.

I could go into social conservatism but being pro life, against gay marriage, etc. is a matter opinion, and your opinion will dictate whether or not you find it selfish so I would just suggest looking at the abortion forum and politics forum.

[mojo]

Carlin wrote: This is actually something I wrote to a friend in an e-mail a couple of weeks ago, I feel it applies:



Yes, it is true. I am a man of great faith. My rational mind persuades me from believing in a divine, magical entity. However, what I do believe in, is where we are, who we are, and what we can be. I believe in empirical truths and abstract ideals. I believe that due to the impermanence of life, there is no true sense of the word "ownership." I'm of the belief that he with the nicest toys...still dies. It is true because everyone does, in fact, die, but also it is a philisophical view point that allows me calm the cravings of material wealth and goods.

Your correct your rational mind will tell you that God is a magical entity. Your reason will persuade you into believing that man is no more than an animal. But your reason is the very thing which you put to much faith into. Can you give a reason why you see colors. Is there reason why a child enjoys the simle pleasure of running around. There is great purpose in our existence but there is just as many unreasonable things that make purpose worthwhile.

Quote: This life is all I have and with it, I desire no power and no validation from others or a non-omnipresent being. I would disagre with your point that selfishness isn't taught, because everything is taught. While it's true that when a baby is born, it cries for food, water and other immediate needs, babies grow up, physically, emotionally, and mentally. An immediate inclination towards selfishness and greed would become obsolete to a well informed, mindful person. Or perhaps there is a selfish motivation behind one making the world a better place? Because, well, they have to live in it too.

You need validation from that divine being. Because the divine being is the very thing that gives purpose to our existence. He is the ultimate goal. If the divine is not the ultimate goal, I can't imagine what is.

Quote: I remember an old biblical tale about the disciples who come across a dying girl. Went a little something like this: With Jesus not around, the disciples attempt to heal the girl through their own faith. They fail. Jesus then approaches them and one of them asks with tears in his eyes, "Lord, we tried to heal this girl. We had faith, but we couldn't fix her. Why?" Jesus responded solemnly, "because you did not really have faith that you could heal this girl's suffering, you merely thought you did. Only through truly believing you could have saved this girl, could you have succeeded." I took this to mean that we can't leave it all up to Jesus to save us all, but through the collective hope of all, we can heal great suffering.

What? The passage says the exact opposite.

It says that only Jesus can heal us from our woes. It says the most profound statement within the bible. It states the divine truth, that we can control our effort to solve problems but leave the accomplishments to God.

[Free Thinkr]

anatman wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: When people speak of being selfless, they believe we should ignore our desires, or sacrifice them for some "greater good." But just what greater good is there in a society of people who deny their very ego as a matter of course? An excellent question! The greater good would be to convince everyone that the ego is an illusion.
No, that would be the ultimate evil. The denial of personal responsibility. To deny your own ego is to deny what makes you you.

Quote: This is no easy thing. That's why Buddhists monks and nuns have to meditate and perform so many routine, daily rituals. It's all to easy to fall back into the illusion of selfhood. And it's not that "they believe we should ignore our desires" as you write, but that there is no you to have desires.
Oh? Who are you conversing with, then? When I read A Tale of Two Cities, am I reading something that some nebulously-defined "whole" wrote, or am I reading Dickens?

Quote: See, we're eliminating the root cause of desire.
Yes, human beings. Individuals. You claim to wish to help humans, but the route you take begins with the premise of destroying what makes us us before you even begin!

Quote: Also note that desirein itself is not wrong. The Buddha taught that we should treat our physical bodies, as we would care for a wound. Administer the medicine; see to its proper nourishment and hygiene, and then ignore it. It is evil desires that Buddhism attempts to curb. Oh! And this isn't because I say so, this is the wisdom and teaching of Siddhartha Gautama, and the fact that it still thrives after 2500 years is testament to its value, I think. :-D
Many ideas have survived for 2,500 years; why is Buddhism better than Judaism or any other belief system that has survived antiquity?

[The Impeacher]

Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: As an egoist, I see altruism as irrational.

No, it would be rational if it benefited you, either physically or emotionally.

[The Impeacher]

jawsome wrote: Selflessness is impossible and does not exist.

Well, it's hard to rectify with the natural impulse to survive, anyways. ;)

[Carlin]

Quote: You need validation from that divine being. Because the divine being is the very thing that gives purpose to our existence. He is the ultimate goal. If the divine is not the ultimate goal, I can't imagine what is.

That's your belief; not mine.


Quote:
What? The passage says the exact opposite.

It says that only Jesus can heal us from our woes. It says the most profound statement within the bible. It states the divine truth, that we can control our effort to solve problems but leave the accomplishments to God.

I distinctly remember Jesus telling them that they could heal people just the way Jesus did, just so long they truly had faith. I don't take that literally. I take it as a message that people can only lessen suffering if they believe they can. However you would be more the expert than me, so...

[StrawHat]

It is cetainly possible to change the collective towards a greater degree of selflessness, but with each individual added to that collective, the chances of converting the entire collective becomes a great deal smaller. Plus, it only takes on jerk to mess it up for everybody. One bad apple...