The items on hedonism offer some food for thought. The statement that the purpose of our actions is the seeking of pleasure seems to have an element of truth about it. Of course, we can find exceptions, such that the statement must become more complicated.

For example, we know that short-term forgoing of pleasure can lead to greater pleasure, such as saving our money for a later and larger purpose, for example. And a moment's displeasure can lead to greater pleasure, so we go to the doctor or dentist, even if the experience will be unpleasant at the time.

And there is the fact that if every person looked only after his own pleasure, the community would suffer. With fewer benefits from the community, we would suffer as individuals. So we pay our taxes, help other people, and possibly somebody will help us when we need it, and we will drive on good streets and our children will attend good schools.

Ayn Rand, in her "objectivism," advocated a rather extreme hedonism, in which she said that if one had to choose between a career or taking care of his aged mother, he should choose the career. If this were the case with most people, we would all suffer from the decisions of others, and overall pleasure in life would be reduced.

Further, we are created to feel such things as sympathy, love, shame and guilt. Neglecting our loved ones would produce negative feelings, such that our selfish choices would actually add to our misery, unless we happen to be sociopaths.

The person who sacrifices to care for their children experiences less displeasure in life than had he chosen not to do so. His inner sense of decency would otherwise nag at him and ruin the selfish pleasure he was trying to grab for himself.

All these factors must be considered when suggesting that the purpose of our activity is the finding of pleasure. Then the statement has a greater ring of truth about it.

Do you find this valuable?

Keyword tags: (edit keyword tags)

Post reply

Show Last Reply

GeneDouglas

Age of the Universe

U-Index

Category: General Discussion

Sep 22 2008, 7:01 PM EDT by GeneDouglas

GeneDouglas

Catholic Bible

C Index

Category: General Discussion

Sep 22 2008, 6:52 PM EDT by GeneDouglas

Thread started: Jan 19 2008, 5:04 PM EST Watch

The entry on the Catholic Bible by Cathtruth.com says that Catholics don't interpret the Bible, because they wrote it, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. They only explain it. Only protestants must interpret the Bible, attempting to determine the real intentions of the authors, because they didn't write it themselves.

There are some logical problems with this. One is the fact that when the first manuscripts of the Bible were written, an organized Catholic church didn't exist. Another being that the original writers are long since dead, and modern Catholics are new guys, just like modern Protestants. None living today were around at the time. The writer of that statement seems to be guilty of arrogance, or at least exaggerated smugness.

Of course there's another element. Since the original writing, there has been the task of selecting which writings to include, which was a human endeavor. There is no claim or evidence for supernatural guidance by the people making those decisions. There is also evidence of changes in the manuscripts since the first copies were written. I doubt the Catholic church wants to take credit for that.

2 out of 2 found this valuable. Do you?

Post reply

Show Last Reply

GeneDouglas

Vietnam War -- Here?

V-Index

Category: General Discussion

Aug 10 2008, 3:22 PM EDT by GeneDouglas

Thread started: Aug 10 2008, 3:22 PM EDT Watch

We might wonder why a reference to the VN war would be mentioned here. But there were serious issues of right and wrong, and those issues return again and again. After all, we fought the War of 1812 because we wanted to conquer Canada, and we fought the Mexican war because we wanted to take the SW U.S. from Mexico. We encouraged Texans to fight their revolution because we wanted territory from Mexico. We fought the Spanish American war because we wanted to take Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Phillipines from Spain.

And we fought in Viet Nam to prevent an election. Now we're fighting in Iraq for reasons that keep changing. But in the end the oil companies hope to come out ahead in the deal.

Using an excuse to start a war is not new. It has happened again and again. We would hope that in America, an educated public would not fall for that. But it has, and with remarkable ease.

Viet Nam was supposed to have an election, a year after the treaty in Geneva. But at U.S. instigation, Diem held a plebescite to depose the emperor. More than 90% of the people voted "yes," including more people in Saigon than the population there, and with similar results around the country.

Again, with U.S. instigation, the new South VN government refused to have the election promised in the treaty, because they knew who would win. Ho Chi Minh was a hero to the Viet people, and would win any election hands down.

So we sacrificed 50,000 American lives in Viet Nam to prevent the Vietnamese from holding an election. The number of Viet deaths on both sides was much greater, as was the number of U.S.maimed and wounded.

Is it possible we can learn anything from this? Is it possible we can learn enough to prevent its happening again?

Do you find this valuable?

Keyword tags: (edit keyword tags)

Post reply

GeneDouglas

Viewing all threads, or all of a thread.

C Index

Category: General Discussion

Aug 6 2008, 5:16 PM EDT by GeneDouglas

GeneDouglas

Creation -- In the beginning...

C Index

Category: General Discussion

Aug 6 2008, 5:13 PM EDT by GeneDouglas

Thread started: Oct 1 2007, 5:45 PM EDT Watch

In the beginning there was darkness in the void, and God said, "Let there be light." And there was light.

And God said, "Oh, man, this is great! For a trillion centuries I've been sitting here in the dark. Haven't been able to see my hand in front of my face. Now, no more bumping into things. Wonderful!"

And God saw that when it was light all the time, he couldn't get any sleep, so he said, "Let it be dark half the time. Say, about 12 hours at a time." And the sun went out, and God said, "Oh, yeah. That's good. I've gotta get some shuteye."

And the next day God said, "Jeez, there's nothing but water around here. I wanted to make some creatures that look like me, but so far, all I've got is fish. Let us raise the ocean floor so there's something to walk on. Oh, that's good. A little muddy, but it'll dry out."

And God said, "What am I going to call it? Terra, maybe. No, I'll call it mundo. Oh, I know. I'll call it Earth! Yes, I always preferred Elizabethan English. It'll be called Earth."

"Oh, here it's getting dark again. I may be God, but it takes me all day to do this much. Time to turn in."

In the morning, God got up, finished his morning constitution, and got back to work.

"I'm going to need a roof over all this stuff. I'll make this solid blue canopy, and call it sky. But you can't see it in the dark. I'll punch some holes in it, and call them stars. You can't see them in the daytime, but when the light shines through the holes, they'll be pretty in the dark. Oh, yeah. That's good."

And God said, "Oh, man. I'm getting sleepy again. I'll get back to this in the morning."

And God said, "Hey, we're running out of letters. Later."

(Continued as a reply.)

Do you find this valuable?

Keyword tags: (edit keyword tags)