Behave: Chapters 1-5

[menander]

You seem to be romanticising these times quite a bit, actually. Yes, there were amazing characters throughout the history - but so were the awful ones. Humans haven't changed that much. In ancient (and not so ancient) times - thousands of slaves kept to ascertain fortune of the few in power, early Christians murdered for petty entertainment on the arenas. Later, in the era of Christianity (and not only) - wars organised for sake of conquering 'the unbelievers' (most often due to their riches). World exploration - ending in murder of so many natives due to greed. Early wars? And why were they organised? Domination over the weak works in the same way that cyber-bullying today does, simply on a larger scale - it creates a shot of good feeling to have power over someone while you feel you have none of yours.

There were good people, just like there were evil ones. There were also simple people that just minded their own business and didn't make waves. Just like now. If you look around, you'll still find inspiring people - those fighting for equality of minorities, those working in poor areas, healing or building, or designing, those speaking up about climate change and protection of the week in the war-torn countries - you simply have to look around. In the country I am in now, for example, there is an uproar concerning the LGBT community. The government and most people started a campaign against them and showed so much cruelty and unreasonable hatred that it's simply shocking. No adoption by LGBT pairs as it is in many other countries, bah, not even homosexual marriage - because 'it's unnatural and different'. And yet, there are still individuals willing to understand - not being LGBT, yet speaking up for them - fighting in the only way allowed in these times.

What about volunteers working in animal rescue? What about doctors deciding to go to dangerous regions to heal in poor conditions? What about architects travelling between slums of different countries, voluntarily constructing structures to ensure a greater well-being of the people? What about teachers working in schools in awful-awful conditions? What of nature reserves? Of charities?

What I mean to say - the will you speak of still exists. However, it is the person's choice if they decide to implement it in a meaningful way and for every person that does so, there are many more that won't - because being idle is easy and human nature is like water - always prefers the easiest way through. Being something else, something more is difficult. Everything comes down to a simple every-day choice: are you someone that does what is easy? or are you someone that does what is right? Each little choice influences your will - or creates specific neural pathways in your brain if you so prefer. There are rarely any scarce but great choices that rapidly change people - but there are thousands of little ones that do it so slowly and regularly, that you don't even realise it.

The ancient world was very rough. Gladiator fights, crucifixion, abuse of women, children, animals-----not romanticizing it at all. My point is despite their horrors, there were a number of people who espoused to value a very deep kind of virtue in the face of war, pestilence, famine, slavery, etc etc etc . Believe me, I am not one to think the ancient world was filled with musing men gliding around agorae.

 

[onlything]

I disagree wholeheartedly with this worldview of humanity's relative worthlessness. Humans are astronomically superior to animals. But I realize your viewpoint--as is mine--is part of a greater line of reasoning, i.e. the indifference of the universe with its creation by accident, the meaninglessness of ruthless evolution, etc. I reject all of it and find evolution to be laughably unsubstantiated. It's the dominant dogma of our day. We have little choice but to believe in it. The end result is that life has no objective value. It's abhorrent.

While my belief lies more in the idea of evolution than religion, I never said that human life is worthless. I simply stated that human arrogance about our complete superiority over other species is unwarranted. Just because an animal or a plant is less intelligent, less empathetic in a way we understand it, different to us - doesn't mean that they're worse or that their life pursuits, however simple, are worthless in comparison to ours.

In both of our beliefs (for that is what they are, beliefs, scientifically/religiously backed up or not), we see different meanings of lives. Ruthless evolution, as you say, does not necessarily mean a lack of such. You believe in a life that is granted a meaning through your religion - I believe in a life that is granted a meaning through our own choices. In the mind of an animal, life may have a meaning simple because it is, or because it has a pack, or because it can eat nice food or get cuddles. Is there something wrong in such a view on life if it doesn't hurt someone? Not really - if you look properly, most humans take joy from the same things, from nice food, stability and home of their own, and their families. Simple life doesn't mean a worthless life. You don't need a great reason to live a happy life - otherwise Buddhism wouldn't be a thing.

Life has worth because of its existence - and the potential it holds - and every loss of a life is a loss of that potential.

However I agree that we are more complex in a way that allows us to choose a different kind of meaning towards our lives, we can still be simple enough to enjoy and be grateful for things that we have, instead of always reaching out for more - as has become our tendency. Greed is, truly, the greatest of human faults.

As a side note, there's no need to mock beliefs different than yours - in this case, evolution. I could say many things about different religions, their hypocritical systems and contradictions - I won't, because one, that's not the point of the thread and two, it would be hurtful towards those that believe in these systems. Let's simply agree to disagree without unnecessary critics.

 

[onlything]

The ancient world was very rough. Gladiator fights, crucifixion, abuse of women, children, animals-----not romanticizing it at all. My point is despite their horrors, there were a number of people who espoused to value a very deep kind of virtue in the face of war, pestilence, famine, slavery, etc etc etc . Believe me, I am not one to think the ancient world was filled with musing men gliding around agorae.

I seem to have misunderstood then, apologies. Still, it could be helpful if you would look at the modern world in a bit less cynical way - to simply experiment, explore and try to see the people I mentioned. The problems of the ancient world can still be seen throughout many countries. Additionally, we have our own trials in developed countries - like societal pressure, the rise of mental health problems, financial instability, unbalanced lives, domestic violence and abuse, gangs and mafias, political issue, the atomic threat, pandemic, climate change, environmental pollution, equality issues and societal rejection in case of being different - they may not be as pronounced as wars, slavery and famine, but they are still issue to be worked out (then, if you're looking for slavery, wars and famine, you don't even have to look that far either). The main difference is, that in civilised countries nowadays it's very easy to grow too comfortable, indifferent and take everything for granted - to grow the 'will of steel', as you say, you have to step out of this comfort zone and put yourself through different kinds of pain - because only pain will make you truly grow (not the kind brought on by self-harm or self-destructive behaviour mind you). In the past, it was swim or sink. Now, it's swim or... pretend there's no sea. Pretending is easy. That's why most people do it.

In the past, unless pushed, people would do exactly the same. The common mentality: if it doesn't influence you, then it doesn't have to do with you.

 

[menander]

I seem to have misunderstood then, apologies. Still, it could be helpful if you would look at the modern world in a bit less cynical way - to simply experiment, explore and try to see the people I mentioned. The problems of the ancient world can still be seen throughout many countries. Additionally, we have our own trials in developed countries - like societal pressure, the rise of mental health problems, financial instability, unbalanced lives, domestic violence and abuse, gangs and mafias, political issue, the atomic threat, pandemic, climate change, environmental pollution, equality issues and societal rejection in case of being different - they may not be as pronounced as wars, slavery and famine, but they are still issue to be worked out (then, if you're looking for slavery, wars and famine, you don't even have to look that far either). The main difference is, that in civilised countries nowadays it's very easy to grow too comfortable, indifferent and take everything for granted - to grow the 'will of steel', as you say, you have to step out of this comfort zone and put yourself through different kinds of pain - because only pain will make you truly grow (not the kind brought on by self-harm or self-destructive behaviour mind you). In the past, it was swim or sink. Now, it's swim or... pretend there's no sea. Pretending is easy. That's why most people do it.

In the past, unless pushed, people would do exactly the same. The common mentality: if it doesn't influence you, then it doesn't have to do with you.

I am quite confused by your post. It is troublesome because you suggest a character flaw (too much cynicism) without really knowing if I possess this quality or not and without defining your perimeters of cynicism.

Then you say I must reach out and learn without asking if I have done this or not.

And then say we are too comfortable in the face of, "societal pressure, the rise of mental health problems, financial instability, unbalanced lives, domestic violence and abuse, gangs and mafias, political issue, the atomic threat, pandemic, climate change, environmental pollution, equality issues and societal rejection in case of being different...." I am not aware of too many people who find these any easier to deal with relative to the past because suffering is always relative and the ancients had all those things (save nuclear war) on top of all the evils we generally mention regarding them.

However, and my point was, despite all humans go through and always have, there are equally strong measures of love, compassion, ingenuity, desire for equality, continually pushing back the harmful forces----

The debate always rages---Is there more good or evil in the world? The deepest theologians have been wrangling over this since the beginning of time (see below for St. Schroeder's view on the matter). I am only cynical if thinking is now considered cynicism. And I am certainly not a cynic by any stretch if one is using the ancient term.

I really don't think we are in much disagreement if we analyze what we are both saying. Am I wrong?

St. Schroeder Speaks:

Man is born to trouble as the sparks Fly Upward------

Peanuts by Charles Schulz for September 17, 1967 | GoComics.com

 

[onlything]

I am quite confused by your post. It is troublesome because you suggest a character flaw (too much cynicism) without really knowing if I possess this quality or not and without defining your perimeters of cynicism.

Then you say I must reach out and learn without asking if I have done this or not.

And then say we are too comfortable in the face of, "societal pressure, the rise of mental health problems, financial instability, unbalanced lives, domestic violence and abuse, gangs and mafias, political issue, the atomic threat, pandemic, climate change, environmental pollution, equality issues and societal rejection in case of being different...." I am not aware of too many people who find these any easier to deal with relative to the past because suffering is always relative and the ancients had all those things (save nuclear war) on top of all the evils we generally mention regarding them.

However, and my point was, despite all humans go through and always have, there are equally strong measures of love, compassion, ingenuity, desire for equality, continually pushing back the harmful forces----

The debate always rages---Is there more good or evil in the world? The deepest theologians have been wrangling over this since the beginning of time (see below for St. Schroeder's view on the matter). I am only cynical if thinking is now considered cynicism. And I am certainly not a cynic by any stretch if one is using the ancient term.

I really don't think we are in much disagreement if we analyze what we are both saying. Am I wrong?

St. Schroeder Speaks:

Man is born to trouble as the sparks Fly Upward------

Peanuts by Charles Schulz for September 17, 1967 | GoComics.com

I think we misunderstood each other. I did not mean it as a character flaw, simply as a part of your way of looking at things at the moment - and proposed that possibly you could try to look at the world from the other perspective as well, since your previous posts seem quite negative towards modern society without considering any positives while outlining the positives of the past times (my misconception, perhaps). I did not mean any of my posts as an attack.

Then I went off on a philosophical tangent on how people tend to become comfortable in the lives they have and start fearing change - which disallows them of the proper use of the human will (of steel) that you mentioned. Simply an observation of the tendency: 'I have this much, but I won't work for more or risk it, because I can lose everything I already have'. Completely natural. It causes us to remain strictly in our comfort zones where we become indifferent, numb, negative and start taking things we have for granted - despite the possibility that leaving our comfort zone could allow us to grow and mature, and possibly get other things and memories, possibly more satisfying in the long run.

Your post mentioned problems of the ancient times, such as war and famine, and example of great people growing and persevering despite the odds. Then, it asked: 'What do we want now?' (in a rather negative way I thought). So, I wanted to show through my examples: 'Exactly the same things as out ancestors. We simply have different problems and ways of dealing with them, and due to civilisation it's easier for us to stagnate, since pure survival doesn't force us out of our current situation.'

This is what I meant by 'swim or sink' in the ancient times - many times people had to do specific things or die. Today, in developed countries, people don't (physically) die as often - and so, can be 'comfortable' enough to pretend there is no problem and numb themselves through drugs, alcohol, parties, possessions etc. 'Sinking' in its modern meaning is rather metaphorical and closer to 'sinking into resignation/nothingness/indifference' than literal 'dying'.

It was an observation about the society, a possibly different 'angle' of view another person could try out. Nothing more. It simply looked to me, as if you considered only one side of our current society, so I tried showing the other for the sake of discussion.

In general, no, I don't think we're in a disagreement here.

 

[Fino]

As a side note, there's no need to mock beliefs different than yours - in this case, evolution. I could say many things about different religions, their hypocritical systems and contradictions - I won't, because one, that's not the point of the thread and two, it would be hurtful towards those that believe in these systems. Let's simply agree to disagree without unnecessary critics.

You're right, I apologize. I got overly excited!