Political Crossfire Forums

rhetoric · Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 7

Fido sure does love him some community....

Feslin · Joined: 02 Sep 2006 Posts: 460 Location: Clovis, New Mexico

Fido wrote: Feslin wrote: Quote: Reason DOES negate some emotions.

We can agree there. Emotions like anger are dangerous.

Emotions alone are not nearly so dangerous as the rational without emotional. I have always marveled at how some people, and even some nations can so diminish their emotions as to lose them as a check upon their behavior. Perhaps it is no wonder in a world where people have to compete with machines or produce with the speed of the machine that they should sometimes turn off their emotions, and lose contact with them. But you have to look at people in the grip of the idea, the movement, Communism, or Nazism to glimpse true amorality, or immorality. People generally have a balance of emotion and reason, and too much of either makes a person less than fully human.

You seem to think that rationalism and emotions are seperate. That's a misconception brought about during the 20th century (mainly). They're fully integrated with the other.

Fido · Joined: 16 Mar 2006 Posts: 3936

Feslin wrote: Fido wrote: Feslin wrote: Quote: Reason DOES negate some emotions.

We can agree there. Emotions like anger are dangerous.

Emotions alone are not nearly so dangerous as the rational without emotional. I have always marveled at how some people, and even some nations can so diminish their emotions as to lose them as a check upon their behavior. Perhaps it is no wonder in a world where people have to compete with machines or produce with the speed of the machine that they should sometimes turn off their emotions, and lose contact with them. But you have to look at people in the grip of the idea, the movement, Communism, or Nazism to glimpse true amorality, or immorality. People generally have a balance of emotion and reason, and too much of either makes a person less than fully human.

You seem to think that rationalism and emotions are seperate. That's a misconception brought about during the 20th century (mainly). They're fully integrated with the other.

Only within the person is there integration, and there not too well. To get off dead center people have to think about it; and thinking about it means putting off the emotional satisfactions of today to be better satisfied tomorrow.

Between people, reason is the predominant form of communication. It does not work because what people are, and their conception of truth is wrapped tightly with their self perception, and self affection. People love themselves because they feel they are right, which is to say true to reality, and to prove them wrong, or to change their behavior means to change self perception as well as their view of the world.

I think the reason why people find art so dangerous and troubling is that it works on this emotional base without the accepted path of reason. If you can cause some one to feel differently about a subject you do not have to make a rational argument. It works in movies, and in advertisement. Once people are changed emotionally they simply find new rationals.

Fido · Joined: 16 Mar 2006 Posts: 3936

rhetoric wrote: Fido sure does love him some community....

Fido too old for that, but in trying Fido learned to love.

I might ask what we have to deal with when we look at history except the individual? We cannot ever think as groups think, because groups do not think except to reason out loud. We cannot live as groups live because if individuals do as they should their groups live beyond the deaths of the individual. I am dealing with some thing Schopenhauer called The Principal of Individuation, of which he said: "To understand clearly that the individual is only the phenomenon, not the thing in itself". He also said that to see in "the constant change of matter the fixed permanence of form." was the essence of philosophy. Humanity is the form, and individuals are the example. I can't say I like where events are leading; but I see them as only the natural result of a misconception of the individual that has come primarily from church and church philosophers- with some help from Nietzsche who conceived of the individual in like manor without any of the church's moral constraints.

I have read quite a bit on anthropology, and I have looked for differences from our time, since peoples in previous times have survived in spite of suffering a want of technology. I see this was made possible because of a superior form of social organization; but also recognize that organization was consanguineous. I question whether we in our day will ever find a rational basis for cooperation. Our conception of the individual is no help. Scientific proof that we are one family of mankind does help. Sooner or later, long after I am dead, this world will have to decide whether it will live with want or with warfare. Warfare brings nearer the day of want. Individualism brings nearer the day of want. What are you going to do?

Please do not let me intimidate you. I have read more about Schopenhauer than I have read of him; and that would not fill a thimble.

bobcatjt · Joined: 12 Nov 2006 Posts: 2

Visimicus wrote: What is the concept of morality to you.
religion, laws, individual beliefs?

Heres mine.
I live life.. the way...
i wanna live it.
Laws are nothing and can be avoided.
I have no religion.
The all might and powerful? Me, I make my rules.
Luckily, I grew up a well moralized christian who believed in all the ten commandments.
otherwise, i might just be selling crack in some alley.
If I'm going to be living for someone else... whats the point of living.
I live for me and my significant others.
Its sad, to me, to base your life on something unknown to you, or to some government that can "control" you.
your life is your own, live it the way you want.

"Dream like you will live forever, Live as if you will die today."

can you really believe in the ten commandments if you don't have a religion, seeing how it is that in the Christian religion it is taught that God wrote the ten commandments?

I'm not going to try and change your beliefs, but isn't living for yourself religiously speaking called Atheism?

Fido · Joined: 16 Mar 2006 Posts: 3936

bobcatjt wrote: Visimicus wrote: What is the concept of morality to you.
religion, laws, individual beliefs?

Heres mine.
I live life.. the way...
i wanna live it.
Laws are nothing and can be avoided.
I have no religion.
The all might and powerful? Me, I make my rules.
Luckily, I grew up a well moralized christian who believed in all the ten commandments.
otherwise, i might just be selling crack in some alley.
If I'm going to be living for someone else... whats the point of living.
I live for me and my significant others.
Its sad, to me, to base your life on something unknown to you, or to some government that can "control" you.
your life is your own, live it the way you want.

"Dream like you will live forever, Live as if you will die today."

can you really believe in the ten commandments if you don't have a religion, seeing how it is that in the Christian religion it is taught that God wrote the ten commandments?

I'm not going to try and change your beliefs, but isn't living for yourself religiously speaking called Atheism?

If God was looking for a patent on the ten commandments the patent office would tell him it was only a matter of time before everyone would have figured it out. It was too common. Yet, all that other Jewish non sense in the Bible ascribed to Moses could be trashed whole. It was only about temporal authority. It was for that authority, leading to the enrichment of the priestly classes that the whole nation was dispersed. Good job. Take a lesson from that. If it works it works for ever. If it does not work there will always be some kind of Roman willing to kick his foot through it.

von libertinism · Joined: 10 Nov 2006 Posts: 133

I blame the Jews for modern morality.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7798

von libertinism wrote: I blame the Jews for modern morality.

You're kidding, right?

von libertinism · Joined: 10 Nov 2006 Posts: 133

LostSoul3412 wrote: von libertinism wrote: I blame the Jews for modern morality.

You're kidding, right?
I hope that's sarcasm.

Zadoc · Joined: 09 Nov 2006 Posts: 199 Location: Phoenix, AZ

ieatfood wrote: morality is a product of human emotion--right and wrong are simply feelings we have deep inside us

Nay. Morality is the result of humans being an animal that has to live in groups to survive.

British boy · Joined: 12 Aug 2006 Posts: 326 Location: London

Zadoc wrote: ieatfood wrote: morality is a product of human emotion--right and wrong are simply feelings we have deep inside us

Nay. Morality is the result of humans being an animal that has to live in groups to survive.
Nay. community is the result of human beings needing to live together to survive.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7798

von libertinism wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: von libertinism wrote: I blame the Jews for modern morality.

You're kidding, right?
I hope that's sarcasm.

Now that you mention it...

No. It's a legitimate question.

Fido · Joined: 16 Mar 2006 Posts: 3936

British boy wrote: Zadoc wrote: ieatfood wrote: morality is a product of human emotion--right and wrong are simply feelings we have deep inside us

Nay. Morality is the result of humans being an animal that has to live in groups to survive.
Nay. community is the result of human beings needing to live together to survive.

Community is a fact each are born with, and need to live well, happily, or at all. But from the point of view of community, individuals are needed for survival. Morality is like a lens, with the individual on one side and the community on the other. The one sees the many through that lens and the many see the one. When this lens is focused properly each can see the other clearly, and when it is not, each side can only see itself.

von libertinism · Joined: 10 Nov 2006 Posts: 133

LostSoul3412 wrote: von libertinism wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: von libertinism wrote: I blame the Jews for modern morality.

You're kidding, right?
I hope that's sarcasm.

Now that you mention it...

No. It's a legitimate question.
I don't even know when I'm kidding anymore. All lines are blurred.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7798

von libertinism wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: von libertinism wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: von libertinism wrote: I blame the Jews for modern morality.

You're kidding, right?
I hope that's sarcasm.

Now that you mention it...

No. It's a legitimate question.
I don't even know when I'm kidding anymore. All lines are blurred.

Alright, enlighten me.

Why are the Jews responsible for modern morality?

von libertinism · Joined: 10 Nov 2006 Posts: 133

LostSoul3412 wrote: von libertinism wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: von libertinism wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: von libertinism wrote: I blame the Jews for modern morality.

You're kidding, right?
I hope that's sarcasm.

Now that you mention it...

No. It's a legitimate question.
I don't even know when I'm kidding anymore. All lines are blurred.

Alright, enlighten me.

Why are the Jews responsible for modern morality?
It's based on an argument built more on rhetoric than logic, less to convince people and more to make them think critically.

It wanders around the idea that the word "good" once was a reference to the "noble, mighty, highest ranked" people and that the word had no moral susbstance at the time.

Then, supposedly, it was the Jews who inverted the values of "good, noble, powerful, beautiful, happy, etc" with their hatred of the underprivileged, so that only the "poor, powerless, suffering, sick and ugly" are good, and truly blessed.

And, if I recall correctly (and I very well may not), the Jews had to nail Jesus on the cross to convince the whole world to take this bait. In doing so, they manipulated the hierarchy of power and made sheep of the masses, or something to that extent.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7798

von libertinism wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: von libertinism wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: von libertinism wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: von libertinism wrote: I blame the Jews for modern morality.

You're kidding, right?
I hope that's sarcasm.

Now that you mention it...

No. It's a legitimate question.
I don't even know when I'm kidding anymore. All lines are blurred.

Alright, enlighten me.

Why are the Jews responsible for modern morality?
It's based on an argument built more on rhetoric than logic, less to convince people and more to make them think critically.

It wanders around the idea that the word "good" once was a reference to the "noble, mighty, highest ranked" people and that the word had no moral susbstance at the time.

Then, supposedly, it was the Jews who inverted the values of "good, noble, powerful, beautiful, happy, etc" with their hatred of the underprivileged, so that only the "poor, powerless, suffering, sick and ugly" are good, and truly blessed.

And, if I recall correctly (and I very well may not), the Jews had to nail Jesus on the cross to convince the whole world to take this bait. In doing so, they manipulated the hierarchy of power and made sheep of the masses, or something to that extent.

So the Jews crucified Jesus, and that's responsible for turning the masses into sheep?

Fido · Joined: 16 Mar 2006 Posts: 3936

von libertinism wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: von libertinism wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: von libertinism wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: von libertinism wrote: I blame the Jews for modern morality.

You're kidding, right?
I hope that's sarcasm.

Now that you mention it...

No. It's a legitimate question.
I don't even know when I'm kidding anymore. All lines are blurred.

Alright, enlighten me.

Why are the Jews responsible for modern morality?
It's based on an argument built more on rhetoric than logic, less to convince people and more to make them think critically.

It wanders around the idea that the word "good" once was a reference to the "noble, mighty, highest ranked" people and that the word had no moral susbstance at the time.

Then, supposedly, it was the Jews who inverted the values of "good, noble, powerful, beautiful, happy, etc" with their hatred of the underprivileged, so that only the "poor, powerless, suffering, sick and ugly" are good, and truly blessed.

And, if I recall correctly (and I very well may not), the Jews had to nail Jesus on the cross to convince the whole world to take this bait. In doing so, they manipulated the hierarchy of power and made sheep of the masses, or something to that extent.

I vomit Nietzsche out of my lack of insight.

von libertinism · Joined: 10 Nov 2006 Posts: 133

Fido wrote: I vomit Nietzsche out of my lack of insight.
I prefer sh*tting it; but hey, whatever gets you off.

Mod edit: Racist comments are against forum rules. Refrain from this practice. LNRW

Fido, like I said, I really have no opinions to argue for re: the origin of morality; so, care to teach me anything?

Feslin · Joined: 02 Sep 2006 Posts: 460 Location: Clovis, New Mexico

von libertinism wrote: Fido wrote: I vomit Nietzsche out of my lack of insight.
I prefer sh*tting it; but hey, whatever gets you off.

The Jews are, no question, polluting the minds of the young (and f***ing them). I heard that, statistically, ~65% of identified pederasts are Jews!

Fido, like I said, I really have no opinions to argue for re: the origin of morality; so, care to teach me anything?

I heard that, statistically, that's not true!