GENIUS FORUMS

One certainly needs respect for logic and truth, yes.

-

I think he means respect for authority. In which case he is a mere slave to those who have lived before him.

For the most part respect is just tolerance, because you think you can gain something later on.

Respect nothing unless you personally can logically decide it is deserving of respect. Don't pay any attention to the respect others might offer someone or something.

"without Respect you cannot have courage, honesty, logic, masculinity, wisdom, or perfection"

Nahh this is "Will", not respect.

NO! This is what I mean by respect:

Respect: The relationship between one entity, being, or force ‘recognizing’ the worth of another entity, being, or force.

Worth: Equal in value to; the value of something measured by its qualities

Society and the individual are equally important. One must never be sacrificed for the gain or benefit of the other. They hold ‘respect’ for one another. “Equal value”

1.

One certainly needs respect for logic and truth, yes.

Truth can exist without respect, logic cannot.

2.

I think he means respect for authority. In which case he is a mere slave to those who have lived before him.

I am new to this board, but don't ever guess what I am saying please. Just ask and I'll be happy to explain myself.

3.

For the most part respect is just tolerance, because you think you can gain something later on.

Weak and simplistic argument, and worst of all false!

4.

Respect nothing unless you personally can logically decide it is deserving of respect. Don't pay any attention to the respect others might offer someone or something.

Dead wrong

5.

Nahh this is 'Will', not respect.

Way off target...

Society and the individual are equally important. One must never be sacrificed for the gain or benefit of the other. They hold ‘respect’ for one another. “Equal value”

The truth is that this is bullshit that has been taught to you, and it has been taught because it is an animal instinct.

At no time is anything ever more important than myself, and the same applies to all people (and quite frankly it applies to all things at all times as well, life or otherwise).

Reason: It is simple really - When you die you will never exist again - gone forever.

Nor for that matter is any thing ever of equal value to another, alhough there can be near equality - temporarily!

The truth is that this is bullshit that has been taught to you, and it has been taught because it is an animal instinct.

How about if you don't make any unfounded conclusions about my life, and i will extend the same courtesy to you?

At no time is anything ever more important than myself, and the same applies to all people (and quite frankly it applies to all things at all times as well, life or otherwise).

Imagine if we all thought like this. If you don't matter to me, than pardon the inconvience to your existence, but I am going to blow your fucking brains out of the back of your skull with a Magnum 44, 'cause hey....you were in my way.

Reason: It is simple really - When you die you will never exist again - gone forever.

Oh can you prove this? Because hey if you can, I think it will clear alot up for the human race.

Nor for that matter is any thing ever of equal value to another, although there can be near equality - temporarily!

Study physics much?

I-Beam wrote:

NO! This is what I mean by respect:

Respect: The relationship between one entity, being, or force ‘recognizing’ the worth of another entity, being, or force.

Worth: Equal in value to; the value of something measured by its qualities

A person only recognizes the worth of another when he sees his own values being expressed in him - i.e. when he sees himself in the other. So isn't your "respect for others" really just a form of self-love?

Society and the individual are equally important.

What if a thoughtful, noble individual happens to live in a society of murderous insane rapists? Would you still consider society to be as important as the individual in this case?

One must never be sacrificed for the gain or benefit of the other. They hold ‘respect’ for one another. “Equal value”

What about the notion of punishing criminals - i.e. restricting the liberty of certain individuals for the sake of wider society? You don't believe in this?

-

ideals are useless

Well I've tried responding to you three times David and my internet connection keeps booting me off...so I'll try one last time tonight, and then it will have to wait.

A person only recognizes the worth of another when he sees his own values being expressed in him - i.e. when he sees himself in the other. So isn't your "respect for others" really just a form of self-love?

I wouldn't agree with this statement. I recognize alot of values that are not expressed in me. I value other people’s different thoughts and conclusions in addition to my own. If you are only open to your own beliefs, how can you be open to anything other than what you believe? Truth isn't something that exists because we believe it. So no, I don't agree with what you have said there.

What if a thoughtful, noble individual happens to live in a society of murderous insane rapists? Would you still consider society to be as important as the individual in this case?

A...actually I would wonder how the fuck he got there in the first place, and why the hell he's choosing to stay.
But seriously, respect doesn't even exist in the society you just described. So how could you find "worth" in something that doesn't even have respect to begin with? I doubt either of us would respect a society like this. So what are the criteria for respect? I have my own, but I don't claim to have all the answers. I would like to hear what you or others on this board have to say about this. What are your standards for respect? I would like to think of this forum as an anvil to work this kind of thing out.

What about the notion of punishing criminals - i.e. restricting the liberty of certain individuals for the sake of wider society? You don't believe in this??

This sounds too much like a utilitarian argument. John Stewart Mill: “The Greatest Good for the Greatest Number.” In order to accept this, I think you have to believe that the greatest number deserver the greatest good. I don’t.

But again…you have left out something in your statement. Ask yourself, does the criminal actually have respect for other individuals or the society he is living in if he is committing crimes against them?

I like how Joseph Conrad summed up the fundamental principle of crime in Lord Jim: “The true nature of crime is that it is a breach of faith with the community of mankind.”

I guess what’s amusing to me is that I would replace the word “faith” with respect, and I wonder if there really is a thing as “the community of mankind.” Maybe a noble(?) {this is a bad word but I really can’t think of a better one at this late hour} society. Nonetheless, I give Conrad credit for making me think about this.

I don't think I made my view clear looking at this again. Yes, of course criminals should be punished. When one entity has lost it's respect to the other is impossible to keep an equality of value. Maybe this is what Jamesh was trying to say about the impossibilty of a "perfect" equalibruim. But a perfect equalibrium doesn't always have to be completely equal does it? It just has to work accordingly to it's laws. Here's an over-simplified example of this: Water respects gravity.

Jamesh wrote:I think he means respect for authority. In which case he is a mere slave to those who have lived before him.

Respect Authority! Respect rattlesnakes. Respect people driving like idiots. Respect the devout, and the irreligious. Respect everyone, because it is the price of human commerce.

For the most part respect is just tolerance, because you think you can gain something later on.

Then I won't trust your respect, but you can trust mine; because it is based upon your membership in the human race first, and second upon your human ability to do harm.

Respect nothing unless you personally can logically decide it is deserving of respect. Don't pay any attention to the respect others might offer someone or something.

Respect is easy, and incredibly cheap. Without it you do not have an excuse to communicate, and no chance to change yourself or others.

"without Respect you cannot have courage, honesty, logic, masculinity, wisdom, or perfection"

With out strength and virtue, which one might argue are identical, one is incapable of respect. Wisdom in so many senses is knowing what and who to value, and I respect the most humble living person compared to the most exhalted dead one.

Nahh this is "Will", not respect.

ultimately respect is no substitute for love. Why ask for respect when you really want love, and need love?

I-Beam wrote:

Respect: The relationship between one entity, being, or force ‘recognizing’ the worth of another entity, being, or force.

Worth: Equal in value to; the value of something measured by its qualities

If you define ‘respect’ as ‘recognizing’ the 'worth', then there would be nothing at all that I could not respect, including the ‘recognizing’ part.

If you define ‘respect’ as ‘recognizing’ the 'worth', then there would be nothing at all that I could not respect, including the ‘recognizing’ part.

I think you hit the nail on the head...I'm not going to belittle you and tell you that must be a new epiphany for you, but don't you have respect for everything initially? I do. It dictates that I think about my actions all the time and take responsibility for them. I think as we become familiar with things we give them different levels of respect.

I read the little intoduction on the board, and will probably comment on it in detail later. Yet one aspect of it I found pretty short-sided. When I have a discussion or get into an argument, my objective is not to "win." I mean what would I be winning? A person's animosity. I argue or discuss things to come to some kind of resolution. Hoping that somewhere along the way I might change someone's oppinion through reasonable and logical arguments. If a person is interested in honest discussion beating that person down "for his own good" isn't some kind of virtue, whether his oppinion is faulty or not. I would call this laziness. Lazy because if you took the time to try and explain why he is wrong in a nurturing manner, you might actually achieve your goal. Helping yourself as well as others seek truth.

With out strength and virtue, which one might argue are identical, one is incapable of respect. Wisdom in so many senses is knowing what and who to value, and I respect the most humble living person compared to the most exhalted dead one.

Good point. I think you are half right. I think they are circular in their relationship. If you don't have respect for the adversity of nature and humanity how would you be able to recognize the strength, courage and wisdom you would need to face them? Think of an insane or retarded person unaware of the danger they might be in.
ALSO: I really meant to say that you are completely right about this, just that there is a relationship between the two.

And last but not least...

ultimately respect is no substitute for love. Why ask for respect when you really want love, and need love?

No....ultimately love is the greatest form of respect. Think about it. The people in your life that you love have your greatest respect. Now I know what someone might think. "Oh so you have the greatest respect for your father or mother that's an alcoholic?" Well yeah...remember that familiarity thing I was talking about and how we show different levels of respect. I think when you are intimately aware of the struggles that a person goes through you can't help but respect the anguish they are going through. In fact I believe the intro to the board says something about this, though maybe not in the right context. But I'll comment on that later. I just think of my sister and her problems with depression. I had the upmost respect for her, inspite of her inabilty to understand what she was going through or why. It took her years to find the right thing for her, and I love her all the more for having the courage to see it through. Rather than taking the easy path of suicide. She is now in her last semester of physcology for her doctorate at Portland State.


One more thing:
This board software needs a reply option so you don't have to screw around with quotes all the time. It's really annoying!

BTW propellerbeanie I really like your responses to Jamesh. Though I think I would replace the word "commerce" with interaction.

I-Beam wrote:

This board software needs a reply option so you don't have to screw around with quotes all the time. It's really annoying!

Not sure what you mean by this. You can either post a reply without any inserted quotes by using the large "post reply" button at the bottom of each page, or with quotes using the small "quote" button at the top-right of each individual post (next to the "edit" button.

Are you talking about something else, perhaps?


Dan Rowden

I-Beam wrote:

DQ: A person only recognizes the worth of another when he sees his own values being expressed in him - i.e. when he sees himself in the other. So isn't your "respect for others" really just a form of self-love?

IB: I wouldn't agree with this statement. I recognize alot of values that are not expressed in me. I value other people’s different thoughts and conclusions in addition to my own. If you are only open to your own beliefs, how can you be open to anything other than what you believe? Truth isn't something that exists because we believe it. So no, I don't agree with what you have said there.

I don't believe you. You have already shown elsewhere on this forum that you are very hostile and short with anyone who disagrees with your views. For example, you act as though anyone who has a whiff of misogyny about them should be shot. So your image of yourself here doesn't seem to have any connection to reality.

Respecting others is always a form of self love. The same applies to love - it too is a form of self-love. We only love that which reflects our values, boosts our egos and makes us happy. By the same token, we tend to hate those who threaten our egos and values (like those evil misogynists!).

So what are the criteria for respect? I have my own, but I don't claim to have all the answers. I would like to hear what you or others on this board have to say about this. What are your standards for respect? I would like to think of this forum as an anvil to work this kind of thing out.

I only respect those who are truthful in their thinking - which means, of course, that I hardly respect anyone at all. Again, this is a reflection of my own values.

DQ: What about the notion of punishing criminals - i.e. restricting the liberty of certain individuals for the sake of wider society? You don't believe in this??

IB: This sounds too much like a utilitarian argument. John Stewart Mill: “The Greatest Good for the Greatest Number.” In order to accept this, I think you have to believe that the greatest number deserver the greatest good. I don’t.

But again…you have left out something in your statement. Ask yourself, does the criminal actually have respect for other individuals or the society he is living in if he is committing crimes against them?

If the society in question is a Nazi regime and its laws state that one must torture and kill all Jews, homosexuals, philosophers, and gypsys, then breaking the law would surely be a good thing. And in doing so, we would cease being respectful to society, favouring our own moral code instead. In other words, we would be respecting our own individuality at the expense of society.

As a thinking individual who loves truth, I could only respect a society which fosters the values of wisdom, truth, rationality, enlightenment, etc. If society started to work against these values, then I would have to work against society in response.


-

propellerbeanie wrote:

ultimately respect is no substitute for love. Why ask for respect when you really want love, and need love?

I doubt there is a greater form of disrespect you can show to another human being than loving them. You might as well trample all over them now and kick their head in, and be done with it.

When you love someone you are effectively trapping them in your own insecurities, fears and limitations, turning them into objects for your own gratification. What's worse, you make them addicted to this prison by bribing them with all sorts of ego-boosting behaviour, affection, compliments, flowers, money, etc. Then, when you leave them for another person, or you die, you suddenly pull the foundations of the prison out from under them, leaving them to fend for themselves in the most abject misery and despair.

I wouldn't want to wish this fate on my worst enemy. And yet humans everywhere think nothing of inflicting it on one another continuously, causing all sorts of wars to break out. Even more insanely, they love to sing songs about this behaviour and praise it to the skies, believing it to be the height of virtuous behaviour. No wonder the world is going down the gurgler!

-

I don't believe you. You have already shown elsewhere on this forum that you are very hostile and short with anyone who disagrees with your views. For example, you act as though anyone who has a whiff of misogyny about them should be shot. So your image of yourself here doesn't seem to have any connection to reality.

Um...Dave man. That was sarcasm. I dont' think either one of us knows the other well enough to draw any conclusions yet. I've made what...about seventeen posts here? The idea of actually doing that is ridiculous. I was trying to make this ludicrous statement to show that Jamesh idea about respect was ridiculous. I'm sorry you didn't see this, or that I didn't make it clear enough. I doubt any of my posts could be considered short, but thanks for thinking so...I always considered myself a bit long-winded. You know, taking fifteen minutes to explain why a dog takes a shit.

Respecting others is always a form of self love. The same applies to love - it too is a form of self-love. We only love that which reflects our values, boosts our egos and makes us happy. By the same token, we tend to hate those who threaten our egos and values (like those evil misogynists!).

I think you said this already. I disagreed with you the first time, and I still disagree with you. If your one of those people who state your oppinion of beliefs as facts I think you lack a certain objectivity towards yourself.[/quote]

As a thinking individual who loves truth, I could only respect a society which fosters the values of wisdom, truth, rationality, enlightenment, etc. If society started to work against these values, then I would have to work against society in response.

I agree completely, but this is exactly what I already said when you brought up the noble man who was living in the raping murderous society. Nazi society is a racist one, therefore respect does not exist in it.

So I think we are in complete agreement about this. Not sure whether that should be a question or statement.

I doubt there is a greater form of disrespect you can show to another human being than loving them. You might as well trample all over them now and kick their head in, and be done with it.

I doubt your doubt. What the hell kind of relationships are you getting yourself into?

When you love someone you are effectively trapping them in your own insecurities, fears and limitations, turning them into objects for your own gratification. What's worse, you make them addicted to this prison by bribing them with all sorts of ego-boosting behaviour, affection, compliments, flowers, money, etc. Then, when you leave them for another person, or you die, you suddenly pull the foundations of the prison out from under them, leaving them to fend for themselves in the most abject misery and despair.

Yeah so are the people on this board really interested in truth? Or have I run into a nest of misogynistic and mysanthropic individuals, who really aren't interested in truth, just in proving that their views are right?

I have a strong core of beliefs and values that am willing to stick by to the philisophical end. But there are many many many things that I don't know, and I feel it is my job to learn more about them before passing judgement.

I-Beam wrote:

DQ: I don't believe you. You have already shown elsewhere on this forum that you are very hostile and short with anyone who disagrees with your views. For example, you act as though anyone who has a whiff of misogyny about them should be shot. So your image of yourself here doesn't seem to have any connection to reality.

IB: Um...Dave man. That was sarcasm.

Is it respectful to be sarcastic to people?

I dont' think either one of us knows the other well enough to draw any conclusions yet. I've made what...about seventeen posts here? The idea of actually doing that is ridiculous.

One can always judge a tree by the fruit it bears. It is impossible for a person to hide himself. For example, you reveal yourself to be overly-sensitive to being probed and judged by others; and you're quick to become snarly and violent whenever anyone entertains different views to you.

I was trying to make this ludicrous statement to show that Jamesh idea about respect was ridiculous. I'm sorry you didn't see this, or that I didn't make it clear enough.

I was refering to your shameful lack of respect towards Andrew Cohen in the "feminine resistance to enlightenment?" thread.

DQ: Respecting others is always a form of self love. The same applies to love - it too is a form of self-love. We only love that which reflects our values, boosts our egos and makes us happy. By the same token, we tend to hate those who threaten our egos and values (like those evil misogynists!).

IB: I think you said this already. I disagreed with you the first time, and I still disagree with you. If your one of those people who state your oppinion of beliefs as facts I think you lack a certain objectivity towards yourself.

You've already proven my point in your shameful lack of respect towards Andrew Cohen, whose only crime was that he had different beliefs and values to you.

DQ: As a thinking individual who loves truth, I could only respect a society which fosters the values of wisdom, truth, rationality, enlightenment, etc. If society started to work against these values, then I would have to work against society in response.

IB: I agree completely, but this is exactly what I already said when you brought up the noble man who was living in the raping murderous society. Nazi society is a racist one, therefore respect does not exist in it.

So I think we are in complete agreement about this.

Have you now recanted your original view that society and the individual should be respected equally?

DQ: I doubt there is a greater form of disrespect you can show to another human being than loving them. You might as well trample all over them now and kick their head in, and be done with it.

IB: I doubt your doubt. What the hell kind of relationships are you getting yourself into?

You know, the pure one with Nature.

DQ: When you love someone you are effectively trapping them in your own insecurities, fears and limitations, turning them into objects for your own gratification. What's worse, you make them addicted to this prison by bribing them with all sorts of ego-boosting behaviour, affection, compliments, flowers, money, etc. Then, when you leave them for another person, or you die, you suddenly pull the foundations of the prison out from under them, leaving them to fend for themselves in the most abject misery and despair.

IB: Yeah so are the people on this board really interested in truth?

This is the truth. The ravages of love, with all its violence, torture and suffering, is everywhere around us.

In essence, to be in love with something is to be attached to it, and to be attached to something is to become hateful and defensive whenever the world begins to threaten the attachment.

The driving force behind every war and act of violence is love.

-

The driving force behind every war and act of violence is love.

WOW!! Let's just start with this statement. So let's say two tribes live on the opposite side of a river, and both tribes need it's water to survive, but there is not enough water for both to survive. Result: WAR.

Now replace water with oil and I think you have the reason for the war in Iraq. How does love play into this?

Is it respectful to be sarcastic to people?

I thinks it's healthy to not always take yourself so seriously. The sarcasm was not directed at Jamesh personally, only at his idea.

One can always judge a tree by the fruit it bears. It is impossible for a person to hide himself. For example, you reveal yourself to be overly-sensitive to being probed and judged by others; and you're quick to become snarly and violent whenever anyone entertains different views to you.

On the contrary. I enjoy hearing other peoples ideas. If I wasn't, why would I be here? As far as being judged or probed I don't mind this either, I am confident enough in myself that I enjoy hearing criticism- provided it is constructive. Yet I also realize that other people's oppinions are not always right. I take what people say to me an honestly consider it. If you think that I am "snarly and violent" then I need to find a different way to approach you that makes you feel like you are not being attacked.

By the way I read your profile on your site and found it quite interesting.

Have you now recanted your original view that society and the individual should be respected equally?

I have found nothing that makes me think I have made in error in judgement that would require recanting.

You've already proven my point in your shameful lack of respect towards Andrew Cohen, whose only crime was that he had different beliefs and values to you.

I don't think so. The excerpt in the post that was provided about him seemed to show he was not worthy of respect. That's why worth is so important in the definition of respect.

You know, the pure one with Nature.

So you love nature. If this is the wrong word to use, how would you describe your relationship with nature?

I-Beam wrote:

DQ: Have you now recanted your original view that society and the individual should be respected equally?

IB: I have found nothing that makes me think I have made in error in judgement that would require recanting.

This is no surprise. You've already made it highly dependent on certain specific conditions, so, in effect, it has become useless as a moral principle. There is nothing actually there to recant.

DQ: You've already proven my point in your shameful lack of respect towards Andrew Cohen, whose only crime was that he had different beliefs and values to you.

IB: I don't think so. The excerpt in the post that was provided about him seemed to show he was not worthy of respect. That's why worth is so important in the definition of respect.

Again, the reason why you don't think he is worthy is because he doesn't share your values and beliefs.

There isn't any such thing as "objective worth". Something is only considered to be of worth if it promotes our values. It is a subjective determination on our parts.

For example, I consider eating apples to be a worthy enterprise, but not poisonous berries. These berries are worthy, however, to certain kinds of animals and plants. Similarly, some people consider Andrew Cohen to be worthy of respect, while others, such as yourself, don't.

Objectively speaking, Andrew Cohen is neither worthy nor unworthy. The fact that you slot him into the category of "unworthy" is an expression of your own self-love. You are projecting that quality of unworthiness onto him.

DQ: You know, the pure one with Nature.

IB: So you love nature. If this is the wrong word to use, how would you describe your relationship with nature?

Realizing it is me.

-