by leavingwt 47 Replies latest jw friends
augh! I spent the last hour and half writing out a response, and i pressed a key and the whole thing got ERASED ...i tried control z ...undo and it's not coming back. Give me sometime, i'll answer everyone. Be patient. I gotta finish up work now.
I hate when that happens!
Peace,
Tammy
SweetBaby:
you stated: "As to morals, I tend to agree with Einstein: sympathy/empathy, which are not unlike the golden rule, should be one of the largest driving factors."
There are many people that understand or have Sympathy/empathy. There are many others (a lot of many that I have met) who do NOT. My question is how did you learn ...sympathy/empathy vs those that did NOT? how did they learn this moralistic virtue? Even the most educated and societal people in the world can LACK sympathy/empathy. and out of what do these sympathetic and empathetic responses come from? the Mind? the Heart? Most people would use expressions such as 'have a heart' indicative of their sympathy residing in their heart. But how did it get acquired in the heart? how was it learned? Even society itself learned. Why is it that SOME people have this, versus others that do not, regardless of their social status or education. Is it possible that sympathy and empathy were infact not created by societal structure or education? The poorest humble man that lives in the middle of the cambodia, can have sympathy/empathy but lack complete soceital connection (sympathy towards watching a tortured animal, lets say) or even the basic foundation of education. But neither of those things did Einstein explain that is HOW does one achieve SYMPATHY/EMPATHY that he contributes to being morals? He only expressed that a man should be based ON sympathy. Even the idea of FEAR and religious reward/punishment, is not the basis of what i'm talking about as far as God and his existance or morals. Remember.....that's ego-God. Not God. What caused you to believe in what is considered 'good morals' vs 'bad morals' prior to Einstein? You agreed with him. But what initiated it in YOU?
Einstein was an intelligent man, but lets not make the mistake that the 'ego-god centered christians' make by looking up to Paul in the bible as a source of all their answers, forgetting the whole 'do not follow men' and become independant thinkers, thing. Accept TRUTH from Einstein, but never fall within the snare of accepting ALL said things AS truth by him, or anyone else. Test it yourself no? Or his statement as an answer for a question it does NOT address. Afterall, I disagree that the basis of man's behavior is entirely what he said. But that's my opinion, and heres why: I believe it should be based the ability to LOVE and SEEK Truth not from the ego of the mind, as religion teaches, but the heart. Not out of fear, but the heart full of Truth itself, and LOVE not only for self, but others. If love is present you're morality would be just. How do you know these moral truths? How do you know LOVE? and Truth that which would lead to all aspects of reality. ...even science(there is truth to science). It, within itself, goes to show that my question originally was this HOW. Not what IS moral. I asked HOW do you know what is MORALLY correct and what isn't in YOU? The sentence itself was a 'how' question, even though, it's phrased differently. If that threw you off, my apologies.
Darth: you said :"Voices you are beating around the bush."
I wasn't beating around the bush. I wanted to make sure I got a clear answer. I felt my question was not answered. Again my question was a 'how' question. I wanted to make sure I understood who I was speaking to. I was concerned that this might turn into an arguement, or debate, and I wanted to make sure that he genuinely wanted an answer to the quesion he asked, or if he took offense to what I had written, as many people on this board do when there is no offense intended. People usually have filters in front of their faces. So sometimes we hear things differently then what really is being said. I also stated my thought process, that there would be no point in me answering that question if he really didn't really want the truth. He wouldn't listen. That does not mean he, in reality, wouldn't listen. (I mean he COULD, in reality, want the truth sincerely.) It meant that it's my concern he wouldn't because I didn't wnt to get into a debate/arguement/explain something to someone that didn't care. I wanted to know HOW did he know what was morally correct or incorrect. But I felt it lacked an answer of what has taught him what is benefical to him or not.
you said: "This is not just the religions its THE PEOPLE who claim to be god fearing and to transcend religion but they STILL have the judgemental attitude against those who dont share their belief."
Sometimes when people speak, they get accused of being judgemental, when in actuality, they are not. When you take a NEUTRAL stand and OBSERVE there's a difference. Again, we ALL have filters in front of our faces, and sometimes there's a misunderstanding, and the dynamics of voice and so forth can really give off the wrong impression especially over the bland text of the internet. It carries no inflection...So we may think there's some form of judgement when there isn't. Or to someone else it might be just normal cause they say 'He's a THIEF AND HE DESREVES TO DIE! HANG HIM!' ....that is judgement. We ALLLLLLLLLLL are somethng or another that isn't PRETTY. It's easier to point and say THEY are doing this, instead of I AM doing this. the problem is when someone calls us the things we DON'T like, we automatically accuse them of JUDGING US, when we havn't even accepted responsibility of the things we've said and done. When someone calls us with a compliment WE ACCEPT IT. Lik eit's no problem and automatically believe it's true (cause now it's a compliment, not a judgement), but REJECT the UGLY Truth, saying
'he's judging me because he pointed out something about me I don't like and isn't correct. It's HIS/HER fault and i'm goingt o be MEAN to them(judgement). Not MY fault. I'm being judged! Look at what they said!" What if you weren't ready to face that truth?
I've seen a lot of posts where certain people were talking plainly and I can see how someone MIGHT take what the other person is saying as 'judging'...but if I had NOT known the person saying it, I probably would've thought that too. But I knew these people and I knew how they said what they said. I met these people so I understand how they talk, and when they say something, they're not judging, their observing and telling you. Why not get to KNOW them as individuals FIRST? Outside battle of who's right and wrong and who did this or that?
Kinda like ... well.......ever get your 'button pushed?' Something that makes you SNAP? and It's the ugly truth about you but it pisses you off that someone said it? that strikes a NERVE? and you DENY it? Even to yourself? and the only explaination is THEY are judging, calling you this THING and saying something you are NOT?But you can't see?
Now all this i've said, does not necessarily mean it's ALL your fault or something. I'm just trying to EXPLAIN. So when I use expressions like 'you' and 'your' etc.. i'm not necessarily saying YOU...DARTH. I'm expressing AN OPINION (not judgement/condemning) or a viewpoint/train of thought to help convey an understanding.
Darth you said: "If you claim the bible and said bible is used to destroy that argument the final reply is always some etheral aspect that just has to happen."
I'm not sure I quite understand what you mean. I think you're saying something like 'putting down the bible, but then using it to prove a point.' ....i could be wrong, could you explain please?
(my previous post sounded much better, and smoother. Please don't misread my tone, i'm not trying to blame, judge, hurt, or anything....just give an understanding of where i'm coming from)
Leaving wt: "Voices: I decide for myself what is right and what is wrong. I'm usually not 'made aware' of whether or not my actions are morally correct.
I want you to know that I'm not trying to argue. Rather, I would like to better understand your point of view. If this is not a conversation you'd like to have with an unbeliever, I can respect that."
I guess what i'm trying to say is:
lets put two doors in front of you. Door A and Door B. There's a sign that says 'One is the correct moral path and one is the incorrect moral path" and you had no concept of what is 'right' or 'wrong.' And they BOTH were just PLAIN doors, same size, shape, color etc..(only difference are the letters A and B) What tells you just by looking at the doors(a situation) which is 'right' and which is 'wrong?' Before you ever experienced morality? Remember you get ONE try here, cause once you open that door you walk through that path. How would you know which door is the correct moral path?
Try to remember when you first had to 'decide' what is 'right' and 'wrong.' What made you choose what you did? How did you COME to know what you choose to be the correct when at first you didn't? How did you choose your choice?
I do not mind talking to you about this, well I do kinda right now cause it's 10pm here and i've been up since 6am, but that's just cause i'm tired, not because I don't want to talk to you about this. Not everyone's going to understand what i've said. But right now i'm going to check abck on this post tomorrow because i've been on this post for a while and i need to rest. Long day.
Me
Voices: As best as I can tell, my decisions are influenced by (a) pursuit of pleasure/happiness, (b) desire to avoid negative/painful consequences and (c) residual ideas fom by Christian upbringing, which permeate the community that I live in. (Item c helps me with item b, if that makes any sense.)
Thank you for your additional comments.
"lets put two doors in front of you. Door A and Door B. There's a sign that says 'One is the correct moral path and one is the incorrect moral path" and you had no concept of what is 'right' or 'wrong.' And they BOTH were just PLAIN doors, same size, shape, color etc..(only difference are the letters A and B) What tells you just by looking at the doors(a situation) which is 'right' and which is 'wrong?' Before you ever experienced morality? Remember you get ONE try here, cause once you open that door you walk through that path. How would you know which door is the correct moral path?..."
Heh...
Voices, if I may borrow your comment to illustrate something? I don't mean anythng personal by this, but your comments here illustrate a major limitation of Christian thinking - for that matter, a major limitation of the mental processes of ALL the major Middle-Eastern religions - Judaism, Christianity and Islam....
So here's the question, and it takes the form of an allegorical story....
You are walking on a dirt road through a harvested field of wheat, on a gray November day. All that is left is the golden stubble amongst the frozen clods of dirt and whte frost on the ground....
You come to a fork in the dirt road... One fork turns off to the north, and the other towards the southwest....
In how many directions can you travel??
Marking for Monday.
Darth you said: "If you claim the bible and said bible is used to destroy that argument the final reply is always some etheral aspect that just has to happen."
voices: I'm not sure I quite understand what you mean. I think you're saying something like 'putting down the bible, but then using it to prove a point.' ....i could be wrong, could you explain please?
What I mean is most religous folk point to the bible, but if I show them a scripture from the bible that proves my point or shows a contradiction, most bible folks response is along the lines that there has to be some unique spiritual event that happens in your life that will suddenly make you see or understand the nature of god and the bible.
There are many people that understand or have Sympathy/empathy. There are many others (a lot of many that I have met) who do NOT. My question is how did you learn ...sympathy/empathy vs those that did NOT?
That's a good question and one reason I've been going through psychology lectures on iTunes U. I'd like to get a better understanding of the epistemology of empathy and other values from a scientific perspective instead of just blindly speculating.
and out of what do these sympathetic and empathetic responses come from? the Mind? the Heart? Most people would use expressions such as 'have a heart' indicative of their sympathy residing in their heart. But how did it get acquired in the heart?
Are you speaking metaphorically here? The heart is a muscle that pumps blood. Even the WTBTS dropped the "heart is the seat of emotion" myth. Emotional response originates in the brain. According to this Columbia University study,
"empathically accurate, as compared to inaccurate, judgments depended on 1) structures within the human mirror neuron system thought to be involved in shared sensorimotor representations, and 2) regions implicated in mental state attribution – the superior temporal sulcus and medial prefrontal cortex (MPFC)."
But I'm no neuroscientist so I'm taking their word on it for now. Naive, I know. How about you?
how was it learned? Even society itself learned. Why is it that SOME people have this, versus others that do not, regardless of their social status or education.
Why have rats been found to demonstrate empathic behavior?
Is it possible that sympathy and empathy were infact not created by societal structure or education? The poorest humble man that lives in the middle of the cambodia, can have sympathy/empathy but lack complete soceital connection (sympathy towards watching a tortured animal, lets say) or even the basic foundation of education.
Nobody is claiming empathy and sympathy are the result of society or education only, chief. I pointed out that a *combination* of empathy and education can lead to morally/ethically stronger actions. Conversely, a volatile mixture of ignorance and lack of empathy can promote thinking that leads to immoral/unethical actions. Think Holocaust.
But neither of those things did Einstein explain that is HOW does one achieve SYMPATHY/EMPATHY that he contributes to being morals? He only expressed that a man should be based ON sympathy.
First of all, Einstein was touching on philosophy here, not digging deep into evolutionary psychology. He was just defending science from attacks of ignorance. But I felt it was a sufficient answer to your question was "by what method are you aware of when you'e doing something 'morally correct and/or incorrect?"
It's much more difficult to quantify when one's morals aren't based on black and white thinking of bronze age goat-herders. That said, I tend to feel like I'm doing something "morally correct or incorrect" when I boil my act (or failure to act) down to fundamental principles and apply empathy. Is it possible that my judgment could be compromised so that, despite using the above self-check, I may justify actions that are unethical or immoral? Absolutely. That's also an inherent part of human psychology - the ability to decieve ourselves.
What caused you to believe in what is considered 'good morals' vs 'bad morals' prior to Einstein? You agreed with him. But what initiated it in YOU?
Again, no simple answer but I believe evolutionary psychology is a good start. That said, I'll tell what caused me to hold to an especially ugly set of morals at one time: the belief that an ancient book should be considered the gold standard of morality. When I took that view of the Bible, I was a prejudiced bigot. I've since educated myself a little better and applied some empathy so now, for example, I no longer think wives should be in subjection to their husbands or that homosexuals are deserving of divine retribution.
Einstein was an intelligent man, but lets not make the mistake that the 'ego-god centered christians' make by looking up to Paul in the bible as a source of all their answers, forgetting the whole 'do not follow men' and become independant thinkers, thing. Accept TRUTH from Einstein, but never fall within the snare of accepting ALL said things AS truth by him, or anyone else.
Fret not, darling. I stashed away his quote because I happened to think the same well before I read his view, not because I worship him or take him for a messiah. He just put it more eloquently than I could.
Thankfully, I have freedom of thought which means I can adopt any ideas that make sense to me and reject ones that don't.
Speaking of which, the latter half of the third paragraph in your post #304 just comes across as one long platitude. I'm not sure how to reply to that.
Woah! i get caught up in life and I come back and tadow! Responses! I shall provide answers. Give me time, I got orientated at my second job this past week. ( hence my absense) Im working two. One Graveyard 48 hours in two weeks, plus another 7-3 full time 80 hours in two weeks. So I work 128 hours per two weeks total.
I am the 'special pioneer' of the workaholic world! But I will make specific time for this post. But I request your patience with me cause i'm exhausted a lot.
Me
