I agree- in fact, their misery may be worse as they have knowledge and access to the worldly current notion of what constitutes "happiness".
On Aug 31, 5:53 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > “…Those born into abject poverty or under the rule of a despot may > not > see their life as agift at all. “ – Lee > > Conversely, those born into affluence or under the rule of an > enlightened and benevolent leader may not see their life as a gift > either. > > On Aug 31, 3:50 am, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Indeed that is the way I see it, but of course others may not. > > > Those born into abject poverty or under the rule of a despot may not > > see their life as agift at all. > > > On Aug 31, 5:29 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Yes- but there are so many ironies and surprises and turn-abouts in > > > life that it offers possibilities, as well. It still is a chance > > > given. > > > > On Aug 30, 9:47 am, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Heh and of course there is an argument to be made that life is no gift > > > > at all! > > > > > On Aug 30, 2:59 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Yes- a lively topic! The whole matter rests upon the spirit in which > > > > > the gift is given or received and it can get tangled up in some pretty > > > > > strange emotions! > > > > > > We can never repay parents for the gift of life. > > > > > > I have sometimes given a gift to get rid of a person! And it > > > > > works! :-) > > > > > > "The moon belongs to everyone, the best things in life are > > > > > free" (song) > > > > > > On Aug 30, 4:46 am, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Hey Neil, > > > > > > > The word debt is a good one to bring to the convo. It is ridden > > > > > > with > > > > > > subjective morality. I think it true to say that nobody likes to be > > > > > > indebted to anybody, and that payment of debt whether that be fiscal > > > > > > or favours owed, is paramont for the individual to feel free from > > > > > > debt > > > > > > agian. > > > > > > > Of course the corraspanding thought is that the individual can also > > > > > > feel empowerd by the depts owed to that person. It is like a > > > > > > slavery > > > > > > light. If a man buys you a beer you remember it and do not rest > > > > > > untll > > > > > > you have returned the favour. If a freind helps you to move it is > > > > > > perfectly exceptable to ask of him the same favour when you in turn > > > > > > move. > > > > > > > I think it goes deep, I mean real deeply deep in the human physche. > > > > > > > When one welches on a bet, or refuses to repay a favour then that > > > > > > person is not thought highly of. > > > > > > > It ties in nice and neatly with my thoughts on individual freedom, > > > > > > and > > > > > > the fettering of choice. > > > > > > > On Aug 27, 6:50 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nietzsche argued (in front of the bourgeois) that bourgeois > > > > > > > morality > > > > > > > was all based on the ability to use violence to recover debt. I > > > > > > > take > > > > > > > it his play was ironic, much as Kierkegaard on Xtianity. To > > > > > > > abandon > > > > > > > morality and ethics in order to do the best we can in practical > > > > > > > circumstances is a move from generality to particularism and 'low > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > behold' the matter is somewhat ironic as we discover morality and > > > > > > > ethics in the particular. We might, for instance, be generally > > > > > > > against abortion, but leave this generality aside in considering a > > > > > > > rape victim wanting one - indeed we should go further and wonder > > > > > > > what > > > > > > > role morality and ethics play in the decision that we have any > > > > > > > 'right' > > > > > > > to be considering a decision many of us think the woman concerned > > > > > > > should be able to make and expect only our support in it - that is > > > > > > > help with her distress. > > > > > > > > In German philosophy after Hegel, there was much attempt to 'free > > > > > > > thought' from Geist and what we might call 'socially approved > > > > > > > epistemic authority' (which we might corrupt to 'moralising') - > > > > > > > one > > > > > > > can draw the line through Fichte, Feuerbach, Nietzsche and on to > > > > > > > Stirner - the problem always being how there could ever be an > > > > > > > association of individuals free of morals and ethics - the answer > > > > > > > usually being that some subjective awareness-analysis could > > > > > > > replace > > > > > > > social authority. This is not exactly new to those of us with > > > > > > > some > > > > > > > notion of self-discipline, and notions of govern-mentality or the > > > > > > > creation of 'docile bodies' worry on just hoe 'subjective' we can > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > in this sense. > > > > > > > > The question is probably about how we can get into meaningful > > > > > > > review > > > > > > > of what is deeply and potentially wrongly held. A good example > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > be that most of us think debt should be repaid. We can hold this > > > > > > > view > > > > > > > with great certainty and even think it immoral not to repay. Yet > > > > > > > what > > > > > > > is human history on this? I can point to a recent book that > > > > > > > demonstrates history is full of corrections or Jubilee on debt - > > > > > > > even > > > > > > > that the first word we know for freedom means 'freedom from debt' > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > that many religious words come from the word debt as sin - in the > > > > > > > sense of freedom from it. The very notion of our definition of > > > > > > > debt > > > > > > > is historically wrong and de-politicised when it should not be. > > > > > > > We > > > > > > > can abandon what we have come to think is moral and ethical about > > > > > > > debt > > > > > > > and perhaps recover something 'more moral' in understanding > > > > > > > history. > > > > > > > The book is readable at Amazon - Debt by David Graeber - at least > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > its essentials. Much as we might abandon moral and ethics, we > > > > > > > could > > > > > > > abandon 'money' - though we no doubt come round to a better > > > > > > > formulation in new practice. There is always some kind of > > > > > > > 'return' - > > > > > > > but where are we without trying our best in thinking things > > > > > > > through - > > > > > > > left with global poverty and indenture? Hardly much 'morality' in > > > > > > > that. > > > > > > > > On Aug 26, 3:15 pm, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hahahah yes Rigsy I find I can't disagree with you here at all. > > > > > > > > Makes > > > > > > > > a change huh! > > > > > > > > > On Aug 26, 2:40 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Yes, Lee. A sense of fairness and right/wrong seems to kick in > > > > > > > > > naturally in very young children- even more remarkable when > > > > > > > > > you think > > > > > > > > > what they are up against re adults and their siblings, but > > > > > > > > > then the > > > > > > > > > "teaching" begins "in earnest" via family, education, > > > > > > > > > religion, > > > > > > > > > society. Most often, humans adapt to standards and > > > > > > > > > expectations > > > > > > > > > because they assume it's safer and easier- they can work out > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > conflicts with a therapist later on. :-) > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 26, 4:49 am, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Obvioulsy I have to strongly disagree with that. Anybody > > > > > > > > > > who thinks > > > > > > > > > > that morality comes from religion is not thinking straight. > > > > > > > > > > > My own morality was there long before I even heard of > > > > > > > > > > deity, and the > > > > > > > > > > same is true for all of us. Yes yes of course religious > > > > > > > > > > faith may > > > > > > > > > > colour or change ones morality, but then what does not? > > > > > > > > > > Culture does, > > > > > > > > > > the epoch we live in does, nationality does, even age. > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 25, 5:52 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > A guy called Max Stirner wrote an odd book with the > > > > > > > > > > > intent to outline > > > > > > > > > > > what being free of religion might mean. Rigsby's > > > > > > > > > > > professor seems > > > > > > > > > > > unaware of how old his ground is in more recent debate > > > > > > > > > > > than the > > > > > > > > > > > Greeks. My own view is that religion more or less > > > > > > > > > > > cripples morality, > > > > > > > > > > > both intellectually and in its practical horrors. The > > > > > > > > > > > weakness > > > > > > > > > > > involved in believing or pretending to believe twaddle > > > > > > > > > > > hardly shows > > > > > > > > > > > moral character. Ethics are what lawyers have - rules to > > > > > > > > > > > protect > > > > > > > > > > > themselves at the expense of others. The best we can > > > > > > > > > > > hope for is some > > > > > > > > > > > kind of fair-play. Our society is grossly immoral > > > > > > > > > > > because so many > > > > > > > > > > > people cling to religious means to suppose others immoral > > > > > > > > > > > on grounds > > > > > > > > > > > like active homosexuality and most varieties of > > > > > > > > > > > fornication. We might > > > > > > > > > > > think of ridding ourselves of morality and ethics and get > > > > > > > > > > > on with > > > > > > > > > > > doing our best in difficult situations that need decision. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 25, 5:08 pm, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please correct me if i'm wrong, Lee; i'd be obliged. > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 25, 2:38 pm, Lee Douglas > > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Heh heh that too is my understanding but the other > > > > > > > > > > > > > way around! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To dictionary.com! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 25, 2:03 pm, paradox <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not sure i agree or fully understand your > > > > > > > > > > > > > > distinctions, Lee; you're > > > > > > > > > > > > > > certainly right that "ethics" and "morality" are > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not "opposing labels > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the same thing", though. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To be brief, in my opinion, a thought or action is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "ethical" or > > > > > > > > > > > > > > otherwise if it meets my standard of conduct; a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thought or action is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "moral" if it meets a predetermined and prescribed > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (by ordination, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > coordination, or cognition) system of "human" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > values. It is this > > > > > > > > > > > > > > latter category of behavioural conditioning that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marks "deconstructs" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so eloquently in his article. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or so it seems to me, i > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
