GENIUS FORUMS

Thus it is thought that justice is equality; and so it is, but not for all persons, only for those that are equal. Inequality also is thought to be just; and so it is, but not for all, only for the unequal. We make bad mistakes if we neglect this ‘for whom’ when we are deciding what is just. The reason is that we are making judgements about ourselves, and people are generally bad judges where their own interests are involved. (Aristotle, Politics)

All thoughts are equal when entering the human mind. This represent all thoughts are equal regardless of the mind entered. Should justice be thought as equality but only for those that are equal in thought, what is the guage of equality and justice used for to judge ones inner Spirit? Is it not thought interpretation based upon relativity of word description and human collective meaning?

Should thought interpretation place degrees and labels of equality and inequality on people, places and things, who, or what is it that is authorized to judge within and without intellectually when they that are judging are seeking the same things all men are seeking - their own journey of bliss or heorism, or a God, or heaven or hell.

Mistakes are made irrespective of what one acknowledges because of dualism. What is not considered is what is a mistake for one, is not deem so by another. All justice is balance by ones own self-righteousness of thinking.
_________________
Never give power to anything a person believe is their source of strength - Jufa

I think that cracking this chestnut requires thinking about the role of emotions in determining justice. We all share the same fundamental emotions, and we can use these emotions as a gauge of the justice of our actions. (Of course, this is all purely on a conventional level.) We know what makes us happy, what makes us sad, etc. Without veering into simplistic interpretations, we can judge situations according to this innate barometer of sorts.

otiosedodge wrote:I think that cracking this chestnut requires thinking about the role of emotions in determining justice. We all share the same fundamental emotions, and we can use these emotions as a gauge of the justice of our actions. (Of course, this is all purely on a conventional level.) We know what makes us happy, what makes us sad, etc. Without veering into simplistic interpretations, we can judge situations according to this innate barometer of sorts.

I find one cannot separate ones inner subjective feelings from their outer objective visions for:

. We all share the same fundamental emotions, and we can use these emotions as a gauge of the justice of our actions.

which are initiated because of objective visions of interpretations first, and emotions second because of counterpoise.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

otiosedodge wrote:We know what makes us happy, what makes us sad, etc. Without veering into simplistic interpretations, we can judge situations according to this innate barometer of sorts.

What a statement.

I'm more inclined to believe we can use our reason to GUESS at these things. But to know them?

Hi Jufa,

I'm not sure I understood your response. Here's what I think you meant: that our emotions taint our perception of reality rather than give us further insight into just action. If so, my contention is that at the most basic level, we share emotions, and share what produces those emotions in us. There are of course myriad variations of emotional response to situations when we're not talking about the fundamental emotions, but my point is that there's enough common ground at the bottom to use to build a sense of what is universally just and unjust.

Example: we all want inner peace. Maybe not consciously, but at some level we all want it. We also want to grow healthily. Again, maybe not consciously, but at some level, yes. Same goes for a sense of loving connection with others. When we judge the justice of an action, we can take into account these parameters, and thus act justly.

Hi Deadhead,

So you're telling me that you don't think we can know what our emotional response is to a a given situation? I don't agree.

Or perhaps you meant that we still need to use our reason to identify what emotional state we're experiencing. If so, I fully agree. Any emotional state as such has a cognitive component; otherwise we couldn't even identify it as an emotion.

No, I actually meant that we don't know what makes us sad/happy/angry, we can only guess. We know when we are sad/happy/angry, and guess accordingly.

I believe that many people are discontent with their lives because they don't understand what really makes them happy, and they follow the wrong path.

Deadhead wrote:No, I actually meant that we don't know what makes us sad/happy/angry, we can only guess. We know when we are sad/happy/angry, and guess accordingly.

I believe that many people are discontent with their lives because they don't understand what really makes them happy, and they follow the wrong path.

I think you're conflating immediate causality with causality based on realization of ultimate reality. For example, if our dog dies, we feel sad. This is immediate causality. However, on an overall level, we may be depressed because we haven't realized ultimate reality. This is causality based on (a lack of) realization of ultimate reality. Two entirely different things.

You also question immediate causality in itself. So do you mean that in the example with our dog dying, since we can't identify the precise mechanism (in the mind/brain and/or in the interface between mind/brain and external reality) which would lead to sadness, we can't assert that our dog dying leads to sadness? This strikes me as almost nihilistic. We know that for the vast majority of humans, major loss leads to sadness. I think it was Hume who said that we can't know whether the rules of causality will change from one moment to the next, but until that happens, we operate with what we're given.

otiosedodge wrote:Hi Jufa,

I'm not sure I understood your response. Here's what I think you meant:

Not interested in what you think. If you do not know what I am saying, you cannot interpreted to me, the original sayer what I meant.

What is thought by any one is of no more authoritative than that of what an infant thinks.

Tell me what you know, and should what you say be A TRUTH, then it will explode within my inner Conscience beyond the mind of imaged thought.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

Jufa wrote:

Not interested in what you think. If you do not know what I am saying, you cannot interpreted to me, the original sayer what I meant.

I reply:

I was just trying to save time.

Jufa wrote:

What is thought by any one is of no more authoritative than that of what an infant thinks.

I reply:

Huh.

Jufa wrote:

Tell me what you know, and should what you say be A TRUTH, then it will explode within my inner Conscience beyond the mind of imaged thought.

I reply:

Last time I checked, I was trying to understand your last post, and no more than that.

this site burns books?