Conscience

[mtc]

[FONT=Arial] :huh:

Conscience:

I am not wise, intelligent or anything but I just have a few questions in mind. This inquiry is that of from an ignorant like me. So, please bear with me and enlighten me. For the past few days I’ve been asking myself this: how do we know if our conscience is really telling us that what we are doing is right?

I was made to believe that our conscience is God’s little voice saying what pleases and displeases him but base from what I am seeing right now, our conscience is primarily affected by the environment we are in, the kind or the culture we have. For example (setting aside the type of religion), in most asian countries, they believe that premarital sex is a mortal sin and yet to the western world, it isn’t? Is there a possibility that God’s standard depends on geographical location?

I believe that God is just and pure but I am just wondering why our conscience sometimes fail to tell us the truth. Psychologist and Sociologist would sometime say that when the body get used to something, the spirit becomes numb. If that is the case, how are we sure that what the conscience is telling us is true or not?

Guilt is the product of our conscience. How come in some extreme instances it is not present? Like in killing someone, conducting an abortion or having an affair with a married person when the other is also married or a single person having an affair with a married man…etc… etc…?
:think:

[...]

how do we know if our conscience is really telling us that what we are doing is right?

..when you know, you know. Not much more about it, mtc. OTOH, relying on some imagined deity to show you the straight and narrow will set you up for some major confusion...

[slayer]

Hello MTC,

First let me present you with some things you'd have to address if you thought that our conscience was God's little voice.

As you say, Person 1 may feel it's okay to have premarital sex and Person 2 may not. Well, you'd have to explain this phenomenon somehow.

One, you can believe there is more than one god, thus Person 1 and Person 2 have the little voice of their respective god. I doubt you would accept this.

Two, you can deny that, for example, Person 2 has a conscience. I doubt you would accept this, also. It seems that we all have a conscience, just that each of ours is different.

Three, you can deny that God's little voice is inside, for example, Person 2, but that he still has a conscience. But this would leave Person 2 with a conscience that isn't a little voice from a god, which is counter your definition.

Four, you can think that God's little voice isn't audible to those who haven't 'found God.' Well, you have a problem when you consider that Person 1 could be very religious and Person 2 could be very religious, except they have different religions.

Ultimately I think you are correct to think that your conscience is just a product of your moral values, which are just beliefs you were handed down by your parents/religion/culture/society or, in rarer cases, ones you've come to on your own. It is these early values which carry the mystical or God-like aura, because you don't really know why you believe them so strongly, but nevertheless they weigh on your conscience the most. It's natural that you don't know why you feel so strongly that killing is wrong, stealing is wrong, lying is wrong, premarital sex is wrong, and that's because, most likely, you've accepted these values since you were too young to reason them out for yourself. And so when a great majority of people wonder why they are opposed to premarital sex, they ultimately think that it must be wrong or they wouldn't feel so strongly about it. Yet they don't articulate the reasons for why they think it's wrong, and that's because the have no reasons. Not because these people are stupid, but because that value was implanted in them in the absence of reasons. Their search for those reasons thus will be futile, which leaves them wondering how they came to attain such a moral value. Here then is where we posit God's little voice. But we needn't posit anything of the kind, for we have just given a perfectly reasonable account of how we acquired our moral values.

sincerely,

slayer

[zygoat]

there's always free will!!

[mtc]

:) Slayer,

Thank you. what you said validates my own thinking, but you explained it more clearly that i can. i was, at that time i wrote that was questioning a present situation that i am in.

again, thank you.

mtc

[vicente]

there's always free will
zygoat,...how can you have free will if your god is omnipotent?

:)

[vicente]

Conscience, how can it tell right from wrong?

Osho said:

"Morality can only be imposed from without when we are asleep. Morality is nothing but a deep suppression. We can not do anything while asleep,...we can only suppress.
Through morality we become false,...we will not be a person, but simply a "persona" - just a pseudo entity.
Only a dishonest person clings to morality.
A moral person is concerned with ideals - how we should be, what we should be, how to be convenient to society,...and thus inconvenient to ourself.
The preachers have convinced the whole world that "we are sinners". This is good for them, because unless we are convinced, their profession cannot continue. Religion is built on us being sinners, on our inferiority complex,...they have created an inferior humanity.

Love is not concerned with our so-called morals, our social formalities, etc. Love is neither concerned with immorality, it makes no difference between a thief and a saint. Immorality comes from the disturbed mind of morality. Love is amoral.
Morality and concepts concerning moral behavior are irrelevant for love.

Morality is basically condemning. We are never the ideal so we are condemned. Every morality is guilt-creating. Love does not condemn.

Of necessity, every morality creates hypocracy. Hypocracy will remain with morality,...it is part of it - like a shadow. This will look paradoxical because moralists are the men who condemn hypocracy the most, and yet they are the creators of it.
Hypocracy cannot disappear from the earth unless morality disappears. They exist together as two sides of the same coin. Morality gives us the ideal and we are not the idea; that is why the ideal is given to us. Then we start feeling that we are wrong, and that this wrongness is natural, it is given to us, we are born with it, born with sin. We cannot transform it, only suppress it,...that is easy.

But what can we do. We can create a false face; we can pretend to be something we are not. This saves us; allows religion to save us. Then we can move more easily in society - more conveniently.
Inwardly we have to suppress the real because the unreal can only be imposed only if the real is suppressed. So our reality goes on moving downward into the unconscious and our unreality becomes our conscious. Our unreal part becomes more dominant and the real recedes back.

We condemn the real and we enforce the unreal, because the unreal is going to be helpful in an unreal society and the unreal is going to be convenient. Where everyone is false, the real is not going to be convenient. And thus, in the vicious cycle, we train our children to be false".

[slayer]

Hello TBV-ers,

MTC, you are very welcome.

Vicente wrote:zygoat,...how can you have free will if your god is omnipotent?

Technicaly, there is no problem with thinking that we have a free will if God is omnipotent. The problem of free will, as it is commonly known, arises when you attribute complete omniscience and infallibility to God. By complete omniscience I mean that God knows the past, the present, and the future. So God knows in advance what you will have for breakfast tomorrow, say.

This discussion occurred previously in a different thread, but it was never genuinely considered, and I think it would be interesting for people to post how they reconcile a free will and the God we've defined above.

I salvage my free will by denying omnipotence to God,

slayer

[Gemini]

how do we know if our conscience is really telling us that what we are doing is right?

I see it this way.

If what you are doing makes someone upset, sad, hurt, causes others greif etc then your are doing something wrong.

If you are doing something and it doesnt hurt anyone, then you doing the right thing :)

I dont need a voice to tell me if im doing something right or wrong.

[vicente]

If what you are doing makes someone upset, sad, hurt, causes others greif etc then your are doing something wrong

LOL
:)

[shifu]

Universally speaking, we have what we call universal ethical standard albeit religion, sex, color, race or culture. In view of universal human understanding, we have what we may describe as an-instinct-towards doing what is right, good and just. Doing the other way around is an option also, however, generally speaking it may turn out to be as a second option. Opting is choosing between choices! And choosing what I think, feel and know what is right is a viable choice.

Nevertheless, there may be along the way, confusions and ambivalent situations. Here I presume that one can know right or wrong through human applied and practical knowledge i.e. moral ethics, specific cultural norms, universally accepted standard of human behavior, psychology etc. When does this confusions and ambivalent situations occur, by the way? Existentially speaking, it may happen when what you think what is right, good and just (professed values) are confronted by the actual values…..values that you see in real life or in reality or things that which happen in society in general.

I believe that conscience is that little voice with in that predestined as to do what is good, right and just. And that is also the entity that leads us to question and leads us to think and ponder on a situation if it is morally good, right or just. :ph34r:

shifu

[Pamela Canaday]

Gemini,

If what you are doing makes someone upset, sad, hurt, causes others greif etc then your are doing something wrong.

If you are doing something and it doesn't hurt anyone, then you doing the right thing.


I disagree.

First of all, how somebody reacts is up to them.

Secondly, people can be very upset and hurt by things that are actually good for them.

Have you ever put a tired child to bed when he didn't want to sleep? Have you ever broken off a relationship with somebody who had become attached to you to an unhealthy degree?

I think your "conscious" is simply a conscious recognition of your subconscious.
As with any other voice, it should be listened to and critically analyzed.

Personally, I go by the idea that we should try to minimize suffering. That includes your own.

[slayer]

Hello My Friends,

I don't have a full-blown theory on this topic. Well, yes, I do, but I won't be posting it now. I do want to make some comments, as you would expect, about some of the things others said, which I obviously disagree with, for the most part.

Pam: First of all, how somebody reacts is up to them.

slayer -- Wow, pretty cavalier of you. Listen, if I walked up to you and slapped you in your face, my guess -- and it's just a hunch -- is that you're going to be upset. How is not getting upset up to you? If you don't find this compelling, how about I do something really sinister, like torture your cat, then I'm guessing you're going to be upset. So, no, I don't think how somebody reacts is up to them. None of us are stoics here.

I tend to agree with Shifu (wow, did I say that?). But only to this extent. I concur that we have a universal ethical source for some universal tenets. Here's one: it is always wrong to kill a child just for fun. Here's another: beating one's parents for sport is always wrong. Now, I could name more, but I think this is enough to make my point. And you won't find a society or people in human history that ever beleived contrary to what I've just listed. This source is our shared universal (with the qualification that some are shared) moral instincts.

As for my subconscious, I don't think anyone is qualified to say anything about it. Why do you think that you understand the subconscious, if there is such a thing, when we can't even understand our consciousness?

Uhmm, I think my "subconscious" is just a subconscious recognition of my sub-subconscious, and that my "sub-subconscious" is just a sub-subconscious recognition of my sub-sub-subconscious, etc.

But why are you talking about consciousness, anyway? Oh that's right, this.

Pam: I think your "conscious" is simply a conscious recognition of your subconscious.
As with any other voice, it should be listened to and critically analyzed.

slayer - Yes, Pam, very deep thoughts there, but we're concerned with our CONSCIENCE, not consciousness.

I have consiousness, therefore I feel guilt,

slayer

[a random hack]

Pam: First of all, how somebody reacts is up to them.
slayer -- Wow, pretty cavalier of you. Listen, if I walked up to you and slapped you in your face, my guess -- and it's just a hunch -- is that you're going to be upset. How is not getting upset up to you? If you don't find this compelling, how about I do something really sinister, like torture your cat, then I'm guessing you're going to be upset. So, no, I don't think how somebody reacts is up to them. None of us are stoics here.
yo, slayer, being upset is a feeling, punching you in the face is a reaction. being upset is not a choice (not an immediate choice, anyway), how i react is up to me :)

[slayer]

Hello Hack,

Now, let me say that I appreciate the observation, Hack. I truly do. I appreciate it because I can see why you would say what you did.

But, if you'll care to be fair, 'reaction' is commonly used to describe feelings.

It's common in our speech. For instance, I can ask you, "How did she react when you broke off the engagement?" and you might say, "She felt terrible." And if you wouldn't say it, people do say it.

But you really should go to the origin of Pam's remark, and there you'll notice that she's responding to a certain quote. Here it is: "If what you are doing makes someone upset, sad, hurt, causes others greif etc then your are doing something wrong."

Well, it seems to me that Pam is using 'react', as is common, to talk about someone feeling anger (upset), sadness, hurtfulness, and grief.

goodnight,

slayer

[Pamela Canaday]

Slayer,
First of all, thank you for taking the time to point out my spelling error. I am a horrible speller and I sincerely appreciate the fact that you took the time to point it out to me. Now that I am more fully conscious of it I'll try not to make the same mistake.

For the sake of clarity, I'll restate it using the correct spelling.

I think your "conscience" is simply a conscious recognition of your subconscious.
As with any other voice, it should be listened to and critically analyzed.

slayer -- Wow, pretty cavalier of you. Listen, if I walked up to you and slapped you in your face, my guess -- and it's just a hunch -- is that you're going to be upset. How is not getting upset up to you? If you don't find this compelling, how about I do something really sinister, like torture your cat, then I'm guessing you're going to be upset. So, no, I don't think how somebody reacts is up to them. None of us are stoics here.

Even being stoic is a reaction.
Haven't you ever been in a situation where you consciously think, "I don’t know how to feel about that."?

I propose that most of us are capable of choosing our reactions in any given situation. (And yes, I include "feelings" as a subcategory of reactions.)

I tend to agree with Shifu (wow, did I say that?). But only to this extent. I concur that we have a universal ethical source for some universal tenets. Here's one: it is always wrong to kill a child just for fun. Here's another: beating one's parents for sport is always wrong. Now, I could name more, but I think this is enough to make my point. And you won't find a society or people in human history that ever beleived contrary to what I've just listed. This source is our shared universal (with the qualification that some are shared) moral instincts.

As far as the examples you gave…
"just for fun" is pretty vague.
I argue (you like that word!) that human sacrifices were performed "just for fun." They fulfilled certain desires. And, since not everybody shares the same sense that it is wrong, I would have to conclude that it is not universal.

As for my subconscious, I don't think anyone is qualified to say anything about it. Why do you think that you understand the subconscious, if there is such a thing, when we can't even understand our consciousness?

I didn't say, "I understand the subconscious." After all, once a "subconscious" trait is recognized, it is no longer subconscious.
I said it is recgonized. It would have been more accurate to say that part of it is recognized.

As far as how anybody can understand the subconscious if we can't understand our conscious…
Consider that we can understand things about individual cells of an organism even if we don't have a complete understanding of the entire organism. The cell, like the subconscious, is part of the whole but it can be examined separately.

[slayer]

Pam,

My last parting words to you, I hope. Wow, this latest post of yours really is a piece of work.

Pam: First of all, thank you for taking the time to point out my spelling error. I am a horrible speller and I sincerely appreciate the fact that you took the time to point it out to me. Now that I am more fully conscious of it I'll try not to make the same mistake.

slayer --- Nice. I appreciate the sarcasm, specially since it was my spelling mistake.

Pam: Even being stoic is a reaction.
Haven't you ever been in a situation where you consciously think, "I don’t know how to feel about that."?

slayer -- Exactly, being stoic (or stoicism) is a reaction...to the way the world is, and if you say their indifferent reactions to things is a matter of choice, then you're argeeing with me. This doesn't say anything against my charge that the rest of us non-stoics are typically not free to choose how we react emotionally. I suppose now you'll thank me profusely and sarcastically about correcting your reasoning.

Pam: I argue (you like that word!) that human sacrifices were performed "just for fun." They fulfilled certain desires. And, since not everybody shares the same sense that it is wrong, I would have to conclude that it is not universal.

slayer -- No, Aztecs and Incas, just to choose two examples, didn't think that killing innocent people for fun was a good act, but they believed that their gods demanded it of them (for whatever reason), hence it was a SACRIFICE, and so they thought it wise and right to make these killings.

So you haven't given me a case of someone killing innocent people just for fun deemed a good act in itself.

Pam: As far as how anybody can understand the subconscious if we can't understand our conscious…
Consider that we can understand things about individual cells of an organism even if we don't have a complete understanding of the entire organism. The cell, like the subconscious, is part of the whole but it can be examined separately.

slayer -- This is not a good analogy, and it's not getting you what you think it does.

My reasons are this. The cell is part of what makes up an organism. You take away cells and other entities, then you have no organism. Just like if you take away the boards, nails, bricks, etc., from my house, there will be no house. But you can take away the subconscious and you'll still have consciousness.

The subconscious is only posited in order to explain things which aren't readily accessible to us, that is, they don't seem to be part of our consciousness. The subconscious is not to consciousness as a cell is to an organism, hence your analogy fails.

sincerely,

slayer

[Pamela Canaday]

Slayer,
slayer --- Nice. I appreciate the sarcasm, specially since it was my spelling mistake.

It wasn't sarcasm. Now I'm confused.
I looked the words up and it appears to me that you were correct. Maybe I'm missing something?

slayer -- Exactly, being stoic (or stoicism) is a reaction...to the way the world is, and if you say their indifferent reactions to things is a matter of choice, then you're argeeing with me. This doesn't say anything against my charge that the rest of us non-stoics are typically not free to choose how we react emotionally. I suppose now you'll thank me profusely and sarcastically about correcting your reasoning.

I think that all reactions, including stoicism, are a choice. (Provided there's a certain level of cognitive function. I'm talking about relatively normal adults.)
I notice you didn't answer my question.
Haven't you ever been in a situation where you consciously think, "I don’t know how to feel about that."?
I'll elaborate since I'm fairly certain most people have experienced that feeling. It was kind of a rhetorical question but perhaps you haven't experienced it and so you saw it as something else?

I think that initially, we see what is going on in any given situation and assess the situation to determine what we think the appropriate reaction would be. Most of the time that assessment takes a very short amount of time. Less then a second probably. But, we can prolong that time if we work at it and begin to choose our reactions according to whichever standards we set for ourselves.

slayer -- No, Aztecs and Incas, just to choose two examples, didn't think that killing innocent people for fun was a good act, but they believed that their gods demanded it of them (for whatever reason), hence it was a SACRIFICE, and so they thought it wise and right to make these killings.

I would argue that everything we do, be it for fun or religion or something else, is ultimately done because we get a ccertain amount of self-gratification from it.

So you haven't given me a case of someone killing innocent people just for fun deemed a good act in itself.

Deemed a good act by who?
Do you think that somebody who would kill "for fun" would consider the act immoral?
Consider the recent killings of the men in Fallujah. From the photos, it looked as though many of the people involved were really having a blast. If they don't consider what they did to be immoral, or if any one person who kills "for fun" doesn't consider their act to be immoral, then there is not a universal morality.

slayer -- This is not a good analogy, and it's not getting you what you think it does.

My reasons are this. The cell is part of what makes up an organism. You take away cells and other entities, then you have no organism. Just like if you take away the boards, nails, bricks, etc., from my house, there will be no house. But you can take away the subconscious and you'll still have consciousness.

The subconscious is only posited in order to explain things which aren't readily accessible to us, that is, they don't seem to be part of our consciousness. The subconscious is not to consciousness as a cell is to an organism, hence your analogy fails.

Consider the word "truth." It is an arbitrary symbol for an abstract concept. The association of the symbol with the concept is largely subconscious.

We, as humans, have a subconscious ability to perform language. We are not conscious of associating each of our words with the meaning of the words. (What is the meaning of the word "the"?) How we make these associations is poorly understood because it is part of our subconsciousness. And yet, this understanding is what makes the mind capable of conscious thought. Without this subconscious ability consciousness might not exist. (I hesitate to say that it certainly would not but this exchange of conscious ideas certainly would not exist without the subconscious ability to perform language.)

[a random hack]

slayer, thanks for spotting the 'deliberate' mistake, doh! :lol:

actually, being upset, and punching someone in the face are both reactions...

and i'd like to thank asheera for pointing out that Reaction is involuntary, but that how we react can be chosen...
at least, that was how i understood it :lol:

[thirst4sun]

QUOTE
Conscience, how can it tell right from wrong?

Interesting topic!!! I beleive your inner self will help you in your decisions if the decisions are right OR wrong. Live Free & Be Confident in your path that you choose :thumbsup:

[sahyo]

ta h

Reaction is involuntary, but that how we react can be chosen...

involuntary can choose...?

;)

[slayer]

Originally posted by a random hack@May 1 2004, 10:27 PM
slayer, thanks for spotting the 'deliberate' mistake, doh! :lol:

actually, being upset, and punching someone in the face are both reactions...

and i'd like to thank asheera for pointing out that Reaction is involuntary, but that how we react can be chosen...
at least, that was how i understood it :lol:

Hack,

If anyone would take the trouble to read your latest "contributions" to any thread, he'd soon discover how utterly simple you are (by which I mean stupid). You never offer anything substantive, anything intelligent, or anything that would lead anyone to believe you had the remotest understanding of anything meaningful. You offer jibes, lame jokes, and painfully embarrasing (to you) contradictions and inconsistencies. You are a buffoon, so please stop and read about something, think seriously about something, and then post. Until then, you can't even insult me appropriately. Let's take a look at this latest futile attempt of your to best me.

First, you say that being upset and punching someone are both REACTIONS. Then you agree with Asheera that reactions are involuntary. You add that we can choose our reactions. Well, if we choose them then how are they involuntary? Take your time in answering this question, as I'm sure it never crossed your puerile mind.

Or are we to attribute to you the belief that punching someone in the face is an involuntary action? Yet surely even someone at stupid as you doesn't believe that punching someone in face is an involuntary action.

Or are we to attribute to you the belief that getting angry when someone slaps you and your loved ones in the face is within your stoic control? Again, I seriously doubt you, or anyone, possesses this ability to choose whether or not to get angry in certain situations.

I've grown weary of doing your thinking for you, Random Thoughts, so spare us all more of your mindless replies.

educate yourself -- join the battle against ignorance,

slayer

[sahyo]

perhaps hack not interested in
imagining intellectual discussing can understand,
slayer

:)

[slayer]

Asheera,

I don't know what Hack PERHAPS is or is not interested in. I don't care. I don't think he subscribes to your ridiculous claim that intellectual discussion is futile, but if he does then that would explain why he never partakes of intellectual discussions. Hmmm, PERHAPS you're right after all!

Listen, stop prefixing all your claims with MAYBE and PERHAPS. I have news for you -- You're still making claims!

Anyway, thanks for jumping in and speaking for Hack.

perhaps I'm leaving now,

slayer

[sahyo]

You're still making claims!

slayer sure is happening You're and claims?

Anyway, thanks for jumping in and speaking for Hack.

jumping in?

slayer thought speaking for Hack was happening"?

perhaps I'm leaving now

does slayer think 'perhaps' is real?

;)

:hug:

[a random hack]

slackarse,
oh, you surely put me in my place, didn't you? :lol:

If anyone would take the trouble to read your latest "contributions" to any thread, he'd soon discover how utterly simple you are (by which I mean stupid). You never offer anything substantive, anything intelligent, or anything that would lead anyone to believe you had the remotest understanding of anything meaningful. You offer jibes, lame jokes, and painfully embarrasing (to you) contradictions and inconsistencies. You are a buffoon, so please stop and read about something, think seriously about something, and then post. Until then, you can't even insult me appropriately. Let's take a look at this latest futile attempt of your to best me.

blah blah blah, oh, what's that? you've finished? oh, sorry, my mistake:lol:
will just say, thanks for the comparison :D


First, you say that being upset and punching someone are both REACTIONS. Then you agree with Asheera that reactions are involuntary. You add that we can choose our reactions. Well, if we choose them then how are they involuntary? Take your time in answering this question, as I'm sure it never crossed your puerile mind.

:lol:
as i said, "and i'd like to thank asheera for pointing out that Reaction is involuntary, but that how we react can be chosen...
at least, that was how i understood it"
<yawn>

Or are we to attribute to you the belief that punching someone in the face is an involuntary action? Yet surely even someone at stupid as you doesn't believe that punching someone in face is an involuntary action.

Or are we to attribute to you the belief that getting angry when someone slaps you and your loved ones in the face is within your stoic control? Again, I seriously doubt you, or anyone, possesses this ability to choose whether or not to get angry in certain situations.

I've grown weary of doing your thinking for you, Random Thoughts, so spare us all more of your mindless replies.

educate yourself -- join the battle against ignorance,


blahblah, i 'm bored, will check you later :)

[beesting42]

Well lets see here... once a flood came and wiped out a village and all of its crops... lotsa people died and they were in pain and very sad... just down stream from that village was another one. This village had all of it fields enriched from the flood, the village prospered and everyone rejoiced...
well.... was the flood good or bad? where does the good end and the bad begin? the paradox is unanswerable because their is no absolute. The flood was good for some and bad for others. So to conceive of some good or bad as seperate from our limited ego perspective is intellectual masturbation. do you like it? is it good? i dont know and no axiom or math equation will tell me.

[a random hack]

the paradox is unanswerable because their is no absolute.
weel, if there were an absolute, it could not be viewed as good or bad :lol:

i dont know and no axiom or math equation will tell me.

i guess you got this bit right :lol:
not absolutely right, however ;) :lol:

[Kether]

'Conscience' is merely our subconscious. It is merely the values absorbed early in our lives, and manifests itself as - usually negative - feelings in reaction to certain thoughts by the conscious mind.

[lostwill]

this is simple when you are talking about right vs. wrong it is easy to think of them as more of an enity we all share instead of an individual "trait".

is it so hard to belive that what we hold true in conscience of what is right or wrong is just a product of your individuality, is there somthing other than what most would call the "self" that dicates (**** this is where it gets gray) our next life, karma.

it almost seems that without a sense of right there is no sense of wrong and vice versa every thing is balanced
(nothing would be without a comparision.) :think:

everybody talks of this world needing to be perfect well some would say to achieve this, yet i think it is morally impossible too, they talk of everybody doing good well think of this wihtout this wrong were would we get the incentive to good, or is there some supreme dictatorship judging what we think is right and punish accordingly, this makes no sense because of many different values and culters this world holds, think of this to karma is kinda like this you determine your destiny or next life but what is the thing that tells what type of life you leed next, cause if it was strictly up to the individual everybody would be in nirvana.

if you have read this and completly shit yourself cause of its stupidity or whatever i should not be suprised i am 18 years young and new to disscuss the nature of these topics but i am very courious of this way of thinking and really want to debate or learn so any incite would be apriciated.

[lostwill]

well said :thumbsup:

[deepakgang]

Rather than saying right or wrong deed, good or evil, we must face things like getting a nice experience and getting a bitter experience. Both do good to us. We learn from these experiences.

[Smurf]

Definately Deepakgang, Learning from experiences is good, unfortunately a lot of people in the world don't like to be "wrong" and cover up their mistakes in which they come back later and crumble their world. It is a question of Ego-centric thinking i think :)

[deepakgang]

Exatly. The world doesnt contains 50% good and 50% bad people. Both good and bad are within us. But all love to be appreciated for the good deeds they do.
Its really ego that makes people hide away their wrong things. There are only right and wrong actions, no right and wrong people. Whenever one do something nice to others or to himself he should feel - this is nice. Likewise he should feel something bad has happened because of his action. But its only natural. You learn from it. And dont make it something worse by your futher act.

[Smurf]

yes the fact that actions make the person. but that is why I am thinking of creating a place of peace and wisdom, universal and not tied by religious beliefs, solely for the betterement of the human race what do you think. oh and btw Scam helped me with the name : Loud Silence

[deepakgang]

Mmm nice thought. and im with you.But before that we have to know what kind of betterment we are aiming at. We always made our lifes better through centuries.
And at this moment if we measure humans on the basis of ability to live in harmony with the environment. Where do we stand? I should think way at the bottom. If we choose another criterion, say, ability to write poetry, well, we are without doubt at the top.
Betterment of humans alone can never be done without the betterment of the nature, environment.

Ya a place of wisdom will sure be an ideal one :thumbsup:

wisdom whispers in the Loud Scilence :)

__________________________________________________ _______

[Smurf]

wisdom whispers in the Loud Scilence smile.gif
did you make that up? it is very good

but i think that through the betterment of the human race, i think i mean that trying to make the general world a better place. do you get me? generally speaking of course. :D
sort of the majority of the human race better. nicer and more open-minded perhaps :P