Unanswered questions:
How can anything that is completely perfect create something so entirely flawed? Was “In his image” a blatant mislead?
How can unconditional love be something to strive for? If a treasured gift is given and the recipient belittles it, steps on it, rolls it in feces, and then spits in the givers face, what intrinsic value does the gift have if the owner doesn’t protect it?
Why does society measure someone’s worth by what they do for others?
Isn’t the imposition of morality through force, which has nothing to do with protecting life or liberty or property - the latter two necessities for the first, just another form of tyranny?
How can we do whatever we wish as long as we say we are sorry? How can a man murder, steal, rape, and destroy, say he is sorry and be guaranteed rich rewards in the hereafter but someone who strives for peace, perfection, and respect of his fellow man burn for all eternity if he isn’t “saved”?
These are just a few of the more serious questions that I often ponder, with little satisfaction in the answers category. I know the context of these questions can be taken in a myriad of directions and many will read into them things that just aren’t there. So if you want to discuss them rationally, that’s what the comment section is for. If you don’t like this line of questioning, then go away. I have never heard the term “blind” used as an adjective before any noun to make it positive. Why is “blind faith” any different?
Talk to ya soon.
10 comments:
>Isn’t the imposition of morality through force, which has nothing to do with protecting life or liberty or property - the latter two necessities for the first, just another form of tyranny?
Short answer is, yes. Long answer, it's more complicated than just that...for example, anything involving children and their choices. How do you decide when someone has reached adulthood, and therefore is entiled (Ye gods, I hate that word) to adult liberties and accordingly bound by adult oligations?
I'll try to give my answers for the others, if'n yer interested...this one just seemed relatively "easy", compared to t' others.
Aaron,
Thanks for taking the time to stop by my trailer, bud. Kick your feet up, have a beer, and let me know what you think. I am most definitely interested in what you have to say.
>Why does society measure someone’s worth by what they do for others?
Weeeelllll, hmmm. Ok. I guess my best answer to this would have to be, by what other standard might society measure worth? Ability is nothing without application, as are virtually all other standards and attributes.
After all, if I am superlatively intelligent, but lack the communication or energy to effectively engage my intellect toward any practical gain, what use would any other have for me? Why should my fellows hold me in anything but contempt? In other words, if I can't help them, why should they help me?
By using a "what can you do for others" standard, we form a groundwork for money, barter, etc...thinking of money as tokens representing some way in which one has helped his fellows.
In turn, we expect that we ourselves will eventually be part of the "others" who are being "done for". And by such a policy, we as a society tie everyone to everyone else, err, to a certain extent, at any rate.
That's how I see that one, at any rate. I could be wrong, I've been wrong before.
Now pass me another Bud, bud, an' tell me what you think. I'm takin' a break 'till tomorow, as m' throat's dry.
Why does society measure someone’s worth by what they do for others?
Here are some of the things that come out of the smoke when my two gears start turning against each other and then some of the counterpoints that start those voices to arguing –
Society is nothing more than a group of individuals.
When two civilized individuals meet, exchanges are made on the basis of each person’s valuation of what is offered vs. what is requested and how it pertains to personal benefit. If they can come to an amicable agreement, the exchange is made (or the opposite if one or both sides cost/value ratio doesn’t jive) and they continue on their way to the next meeting/exchange. This trade could be physical, goods or services, and even intangibles (i.e. emotions and feelings). When you take this snap-shot of two individuals and multiply it, you have a society.
So saying that society is not a collective organism, I see “society’s view” as a predominant consensus. It seems to me that, by today’s standards, nobility is measured by the opposite yardstick of what I listed above; it is noble to exchange something of more value for something of lesser worth. Joe meets Bob, Bob really has nothing to offer Joe that Joe would find beneficial in the requested trade, but if Joe doesn’t make the exchange, Joe is an asshole because Joe has more in his personal reserves (tangibles and/or intangibles) than Bob.
That is the way I puzzle it out in my brain and here is the kicker, I have been Joe (and Bob) and made the trade. At other times I have told the other party to get bent, in word or deed and then felt guilty afterward (not often, but it happens). Isn’t making a valueless (to me) trade in direct contradiction with my principle stated earlier? Aren’t feelings of guilt? Is it that my main premise is logically flawed or is it the influence of the consensus?
I hope some of that ramble made sense. Southerner's philosophy - we have the beer. You got a bug zapper?
Ah ha! I see the disconnect between what you were asking, and what I was answering! You're talking about altruistic exchange, I was talking about worth as determined by respect, priviledge, and finance.
The answer for that one (offhand clip, as I am about to have to run in to work) is, as indivduals we are selfish. Ergo, we tend to encourage in others those societary constructs as we believe will most directly benefit us. When applied extensively enough, it does start to work, produing those guilt feeling you mntioned. No helpin' it at this point...
Yep, I'll bring the zapper, an' some burgers from the freezer. You set up t' grill whilst I try to find t' charcoal.
Dead on, bud. Altruism. Now you see why I need the practice in the writing department; I used paragraphs when one word would do.
"How can unconditional love be something to strive for? If a treasured gift is given and the recipient belittles it, steps on it, rolls it in feces, and then spits in the givers face, what intrinsic value does the gift have if the owner doesn’t protect it?"
I'll try my hand at this...
The value lies in you. The value of your love and concern is based more on you, not how the other person treats you. If I give you a $100 bill, and you burn it, does that mean it was any less a gift? It may be worth nothing now, but that is beyond my control, by the definition of "giving". If I "give" you anything, and then take it back because you are (from my point of view, at least) misusing it, then I was really maintaining a certain degree of ownership over my "gift" all along.
The same (can) be said for love. If I love someone with conditions attatched, then I am maintaining ownership over my affections, rather than turning them over to another. (The argument over the possibility of doing so is another matter-I am not sure it is humanly possible, or if it is, I am almost certain that it is not universally so.)
The place I have come to with this one is (for example) to dedicate myself to loving my wife no matter what. No matter if she abuses me in the most horrible fashion imaginable, I will still love her. I will still leave-you can, afer all, love someone from a distance. The thing is, while as a Christian, we are told to "turn the other cheek", we don't have to repeat the process indefinitely. In other words, when someone does you wrong, (I maintain) you give them another chance to do right (if you can afford to do so, don't shirk your obligations of survival and provision to family/friends) by you, and if they fail that, move beyond their sphere of influence.
And as always, I could be talking out of my ass...How're those burgers coming along?
Burgers are coming along just fine, bud. The potato salad, baked beans (with copious amounts of bacon), and hot sausage links should be on there way out soon. Shit, now I –am- hungry.
Keep it coming, bro. I enjoy reading your thought process. Thanks for taking the time. I will give a more substantive response tomorrow. I have gone down this line of reasoning before and I want to write down some of the questions that it lead me to.
Cheers.
And we come to the crux of this particular issue and possibly circular logic in my little head.
“The value lies in you. The value of your love and concern is based more on you, not how the other person treats you.”
Should not the other person’s value based judgment directly affect my response (to a point of course)?
If someone does not reflect my value assessment of this “crazy little thing” and ignoring the fact, I still try to give it. Wouldn’t that be a contradiction? Using the 100$ bill example – I give you a C note and you whip out the old Bic and set her to blazing, immediately following, I , with many a sad tear, pull out the wallet and give you another, and another. Could I say that the money had any real value to me?
I don’t know, bud. Perhaps it is all in a matter of degrees and shades of grey. I never liked grey. Perhaps I just don’t have enough wrinkles in my brain to figure it out.
Oh yeah, the circular part – if there were not people in my life who had a long suffering love for this here redneck, I don’t know where I would be today. But I do know it would be dark and miserable.
Hmm...yeah, I see what you mean. Of course, to continue with the $100 bill analogy (science of the anus, right?), I stop after the first one. Fook me once, and all that...
And being a traditional sort of American, I am a Zippo-only sort of guy. That, and it is hard to light my pipes with a Bic and not char the edges...
Post a Comment