Posted on 04/06/2010 7:07:19 AM PDT by truthfinder9
Even the founding fathers, and everyone who has sacrificed for our country and our freedom. None, no one, ever has sacrificed anything except for their own selfish interest.
"… see them only as fake, pretentious and hypocritical - because they pretend to realize that being humans requires more being than the lowly pleasure-seeking animals we ourselves have chosen to be…"
It's better to be successful at what you can be than to be a failure trying to be that which you can't be.
You can't be more than an animal?
This is your definition of humanity: trying to be all that you can't be?
Well at least trying to be more than the least you can be. Your view of your self is so low it's depressing.
Why should what we value the most give us displeasure?
Even if all you care about is yourself, you will lose that too, eventually. Pain and pleasure, love and suffering are a package deal. The only way to avoid it is to not care about anything or anyone.
I am failure as a masochist.
A masochist likes pain, humans realize that it sometimes is the price of caring.
How did you get to equate pain with truth?
It isn't equal, it comes with it. You can avoid it, ignore it, pretend you are too smart to believe it, but that has its own price.
No, just what God had made me.
Your view of your self is so low it's depressing
How haughty of you.
Even if all you care about is yourself, you will lose that too, eventually.
And even if you pretend to care for the whole world you will too.
Pain and pleasure, love and suffering are a package deal.
It's part of reality, but they don't have to be fifty-fifty, nor am I under any obligation to desire pain and suffering in order to be human.
The only way to avoid it is to not care about anything or anyone.
That doesn't mean you have to desire pain and suffering. And, yes, normal human desire is to avoid them as much as possible because they are "feel bad."
A masochist likes pain, humans realize that it sometimes is the price of caring
[pain = truth] It isn't equal, it comes with it.
It does? God is pain and suffering then? And here I thought God was comfort and hope...
You can avoid it, ignore it, pretend you are too smart to believe it, but that has its own price.
I don't know about you, but I prefer bargains. You may desire to pay the full price. I suppose that's a form of "feels good" too. :)
I was talking about being human; you're still looking to fight about God - which you no longer believe in. Must those who do not believe in God throw away all their values too? No God, no Good? Isn't that religious thinking, no longer yours?
Sometimes, we remain still trapped in what we thought we left behind. If we're still throwing rocks at it, we haven't really let it go yet.
You may desire to pay the full price.
You aren't the first who thought he could get without giving - or the first to discover that deal isn't offered.
You aren't the first who thought he could get without giving - or the first to discover that deal isn't offered
Some people give but never get. Others get but never give. Such is the world. I have no clue what deal you are talking about. Must be another "cosmic" figment of man's imagination.
Materially perhaps.
Such is the world.
Sorry, the world is the way it is even if YOU don't understand it.
You haven't created a new world. Some believe truth is relative and if they don't believe it, it isn't true. But, some things are true whether you believe them or not.
As opposed to what? "Spiritually?" More cosmic terms.
Sorry, the world is the way it is even if YOU don't understand it.
No doubt. I am glad you find Taoist wisdom appealing. When will you accept that the world is not the way you say it is?
You haven't created a new world. Some believe truth is relative and if they don't believe it, it isn't true. But, some things are true whether you believe them or not.
You are right, imo. Our believing or disbelieving doesn't make something true or untrue. That's the nature of (dis)belief. That's why claiming that the NT is truth or completely denying it is probably more than either view can prove.
On the other hand, the Andromeda Galaxy exists even if we don't know about it. It's existence is a fact that is independent of our knowledge or belief.
As opposed to non-material things. I won't believe you if you tell me your material possessions are all that exist and matter to you. Or even if you tell me your kids don't love you.
I will believe you think love is nothing but selfishness or that love is different things, none of them amounting to much, base animal reactions dressed up in human's cosmic sentimentalism.
Crustaceans can't know love. It's as simple as that. Nothing too cosmic about it. That's the way the world is, we can choose.
It's our choice as human beings.
Care to define what love is? If you can't tell me the essence then how can you recognize the form?
It's as simple as that. Nothing too cosmic about it
Of course it's cosmic; it's Platonic.
That's the way the world is, we can choose.
Yes we can choose to live in the real world or in an imaginary world.
It involves caring about someone else more than our own pleasure. For this reason, it's become invisible to you - as it is to the crustacean. Incapable of seeing it, realizing it, giving or receiving it.
Of course it's cosmic; it's Platonic.
If you wish to think of it on those levels. Or, you can see it as biology, psychology and just the way the world is - you don't even have to think of it, it just is.
Yes we can choose to live in the real world or in an imaginary world.
In the real world, humans can choose values beyond satisfying animal desires. This is not an illusion. It is an imaginary world that pretends this choice doesn't exist.
I should add that Plato's philosophy, as all philosophy, is an attempt to describe, categorize and explain the world as it is.
Whether one agrees with his philosophy, another's philosophy or one's own personal philosophy, doesn't change what the world is. And we all have our philosophy, our own meta-view, our own view of the cosmos. Yourself included.
But this is where you must be mistaken, for caring for someone else more than for yourself is a form of self-pleasure, the way pain is pleasure to a masochist. It seems as if it should be repulsive, but it's not; it's perceived as "feels good."
For this reason, it's become invisible to you - as it is to the crustacean. Incapable of seeing it, realizing it, giving or receiving it.
How do you know what I or a crustacean can, or are capable of seeing? Gee, talk about desperation...can you reach any lower! LOL.
But, according to your definition of what love is, a mother duck who spreads her wings and gathers her ducklings under them when faced with mortal danger is capable of love. In her case, however, it is dismissed as "instinct."But ours could just as easily be an irrational, atavistic genetic vestige of our developmental history to which some silly Platonists have attached a nobler, "higher" title.
In the real world, humans can choose values beyond satisfying animal desires.
What other desires do we have? What else are we?
Nope. By definition. It's not. If you're caring more about your [self] pleasure more, then it's not the same as caring for someone else more.
Whether you can conceive of it or not.
I'm taking you at your word.
What other desires do we have? What else are we?
More than crustacean, more than ducks. Consciousness, reflection, compassion, love, beauty… Humanness.
No difference? You've collapsed it all, reduced it all. Humans=ducks=shellfish=planarian=...
It could be. But the fact that you can consider whether it is also means that, if it is, you can choose otherwise. Ducks (as far as we know) can't do this.
You have this choice.
Whether you can conceive of it or not.
That's not what I said. I said that caring for someone else is also a form of self-pleasure.
Whether you can conceive of it or not.
It's a difference without a distinction.
A reiteration: It's caring about someone else more than you care about [a form of] self-pleasure.
I never said I was incapable of seeing "it." Running out of straws?
Besides, your definition of "love" is just that, your definition or should I borrow your words—"cosmic sentimentalism?"
I asked you what is love and you decided I was incapable of "seeing" it. That's pathetic.
More than crustacean, more than ducks. Consciousness, reflection, compassion, love, beauty… Humanness
Another aimless short in the air, just to say something, it seems. The question was "what other desires do we have (other than animal)" and "what else are we" (other than human)?
You answer "more than ducks..." I mean, this is pathetic. You are not even answering the questions but rather prefab slogans that don't even address the question.
We are human animals. Why should we be more than what we are?
No difference? You've collapsed it all, reduced it all. Humans=ducks=shellfish=planarian=...
I never compared human animals to other animals. You do. To you there is no difference. But you have erased us as humans and have placed an obligation on the human race to be more than what it is. What right do you have to demand that human race be anything different???
And all this because you find it appalling that humans beings prefer to do what feels good! Unbelievable!
Grasping at straws. People feel good when they care whatever they care for. They love it. No matter how you turn it around, there is self-pleasure involved in caring.
Humans are a different kind of animal. Still your definition of love applies to both. The issue of choice in this case is irrelevant.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.