Re: Right and Wrong?
Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2013 8:19 am
I don't know...and speculation is not knowing.
I actually think to not know, is to know.
I actually think to not know, is to know.
Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment
http://www.theabsolute.net/phpBB/
Yes...and to not know is to know...lolDan Rowden wrote:Or in your case to not know is to not know. Asking if there is empirical evidence that the universe is infinite indicates a good deal of not knowing.
Is that a trick question ? lolDan Rowden wrote:Who said you don't exist?
No, it followed from your own.Kunga wrote:Is that a trick question ? lolDan Rowden wrote:Who said you don't exist?
Yeah.Everything is interdependant.
Yes there is, and it's not an illusion.This illusion we call ourself is not a separate entity existing .....there is really no "I" or individual self.
That's better.I do not exist inherently.....I am a product of many connecting factors .
That would be the appearance we have labelled "Kunga".If everything is interdependant & we are all connected....WHO is existing ?
Some people are very generous. :)Some people call it mind.
Why is it wrong that there must be an element of ego to it?Dan Rowden wrote:It's funny, whenever I "choose" a shirt when the choices exists I do so via one of two dynamics: 1) I choose a shirt for a known reason; 2) I grab one randomly without any consideration for any fact other than it's a shirt. The idea that there must necessarily be some egotistical basis for such a selection is simply wrong. The observation that there will be such a basis for people still operating in a mode significantly driven by ego is a bit of a "no shit Sherlock" one.
Because there doesn't have to be. I just gave an example of it.Orenholt wrote:Why is it wrong that there must be an element of ego to it?Dan Rowden wrote:It's funny, whenever I "choose" a shirt when the choices exists I do so via one of two dynamics: 1) I choose a shirt for a known reason; 2) I grab one randomly without any consideration for any fact other than it's a shirt. The idea that there must necessarily be some egotistical basis for such a selection is simply wrong. The observation that there will be such a basis for people still operating in a mode significantly driven by ego is a bit of a "no shit Sherlock" one.
I'm sorry, where's the necessary ego element of either of those?Either you're "choosing" based on an expected out come because of reason X or you're "choosing" based on the fact that you don't think it will significantly effect you.
Flipping a coin to choose would be a silly thing, and probably egotistical (flipping the coin immediately makes it a choice of consequence), but differentiation doesn't necessarily entail ego and it's bizarre to assert it does. My shirt choice entails my hand grabbing whatever one I grab first.The reason we CAN flip a coin to decide which shirt to wear is because we think it's of little or no consequence.
Choosing to kill someone or not doesn't necessary entail ego any more than choosing a shirt does. The choice in the killing case will be made based on what is most efficacious to one's values and purpose - or perhaps some other practical consideration like spending the rest of one's life in jail. Ego isn't necessary or necessarily causal to any of this.The reason we cannot (or shouldn't) flip a coin to decide whether to kill someone or not is because we don't want to leave something with such serious consequences up to "chance".
There's an element of ego because the ego is what cares about the outcomes because the outcomes effect how much happiness the ego gets.Dan Rowden wrote: I'm sorry, where's the necessary ego element of either of those?
Yes, all choices are of consequence but if the ego cannot perceive a consequence it will think that the choice is irrelevant to its happiness.Flipping a coin to choose would be a silly thing, and probably egotistical (flipping the coin immediately makes it a choice of consequence), but differentiation doesn't necessarily entail ego and it's bizarre to assert it does. My shirt choice entails my hand grabbing whatever one I grab first.
Values are subjective to the ego itself.Choosing to kill someone or not doesn't necessary entail ego any more than choosing a shirt does. The choice in the killing case will be made based on what is most efficacious to one's values and purpose - or perhaps some other practical consideration like spending the rest of one's life in jail. Ego isn't necessary or necessarily causal to any of this.
Dan Rowden wrote:Before I respond to all that, let me ask: are you trying to argue ego is foundational to consciousness itself?
Kunga, I hope you don't mind if I elaborate on my answer.Kunga wrote:Let's go back to this first:
How is it you understand this....by reading words of someone ?Orenholt wrote: I used to not understand how the universe doesn't exist but now I do.
How do you know this person knows ? Is he a astro physicist that has studied the Universe ?
Why should you base your understanding on the understanding of someone else ?
Is there empirical evidence that the Universe is even infinite ?
How can they possibly know that ?
OK fair enough - I should not have posted with being willing to elaborate more - but I was simply trying to help in a minimal way.Russell wrote:I'm going to respond just because of this statement.oxytocinNA wrote:For those wanting to argue:
I have participated in way too many threads, of this subject. I am unwilling to get into the same time wasting faulty arguments. So if you carefully break it down, you might see what I am referring to.
Let's take a look at the passage as a whole. First of all, we can see that it's found in chapter 4, over halfway through the book, so for any statements drawn upon and examined this far into the book, it should be noted that the context built up to that point is left out, and can hinder proper examination.Before the passage quoted, David goes into length about the role of emotionalism as the judging factor in punishing criminals. That's why "wrong" is placed in quotations in the first sentence. The rest of the quote, without the nitpicking, speaks for itself and makes perfect sense to me.The question of whether or not it is "wrong" to punish criminals, given that causality is ultimately responsible for his actions, is meaningless. After all, the punisher himself is also a part of the larger realm of causality and equally not responsible for his actions. How can he do "wrong" in metering out punishment? This point was nicely illustrated by the great sage of Ancient Greece, Diogenes:
"It's my fate to steal," pleaded the man who had been caught red-handed by Diogenes. "Then it is also your fate to be beaten," said Diogenes, hitting him across the head with his staff.
Trying to ascertain right and wrong in these kinds of matters is futile. Right and wrong are subjective judgments. They chop and change depending on a person's fundamental values. A far more intelligent approach would be to simply accept the obvious truth that the issue of punishment is determined by practical concerns only. Since a measure of order and social harmony is needed for the maintenance of civilized life, deterrents are needed for those who wish to behave in a mindless destructive fashion. If these deterrents were to be removed, the rule of the jungle would quickly take over and the very worst elements of the human race would soon be ruling society. This isn't good for anyone.
-Source
So, animals that have no ego (only humans and chimps do) never make choices?Orenholt wrote:Dan Rowden wrote:Before I respond to all that, let me ask: are you trying to argue ego is foundational to consciousness itself?
Pretty much.
In theory you could have no emotional reaction/desire for anything whatsoever but I don't think that you would survive for long.
Some things like blinking and breathing are automatic but things like eating require a conscious decision and effort to do.
Both humans and animals have egos. What would make you think that animals wouldn't have egos?Dan Rowden wrote: So, animals that have no ego (only humans and chimps do) never make choices?
Because they have no sense of self. Even human infants younger than about 6 months lack this. I'm sorry, dogs do not have egos - only humans and chimps demonstrate the ability to recognise themselves as themselves. If you are operating from a perspective that says all animals have egos, we cannot communicate.Orenholt wrote:Both humans and animals have egos. What would make you think that animals wouldn't have egos?Dan Rowden wrote: So, animals that have no ego (only humans and chimps do) never make choices?
If infants and dogs have no egos and ego is the source of all suffering, does that mean that infants and dogs cannot suffer?Dan Rowden wrote: Because they have no sense of self. Even human infants younger than about 6 months lack this. I'm sorry, dogs do not have egos - only humans and chimps demonstrate the ability to recognise themselves as themselves. If you are operating from a perspective that says all animals have egos, we cannot communicate.
Certainly not in the way an individual does reading a question like this.If infants and dogs have no egos and ego is the source of all suffering, does that mean that infants and dogs cannot suffer?
Leyla Shen wrote:
Certainly not in the way an individual does reading a question like this.
It means they don't experience egoistic suffering.
What would your pet dog, cat or bird do if you asked it that question?