Autotheism.

Quote:

I think most folks can see why it's very relevant. If we had a society with hundreds of millions of people defining themselves as God, you basically are looking at anarchy.

I don't think anarchy is even possible as anything other than a transitory state, so no worries. Plus, autotheism in general isn't palettable to joe average, so again, no worries.

0 Replies

You've created another scenarios by making two bathrooms. One public and one private. I have no way to know if you are being honest with me. Only you do. My mistake. I wonder if our conversation would have been the same if I would have specified 'public'. I went back and checked our conversation. If you are a dishonest person I've left you to many ways out. Even if I quoted where you said cleaning the toilet is it's own reward you could say you meant your toilet or your friends.

P.S. Would you really piss all over a toilet seat in a public restroom and not clean it then let some poor guy sit on it or let some guy making minimum wage clean it?

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

Quote:

I think most folks can see why it's very relevant. If we had a society with hundreds of millions of people defining themselves as God, you basically are looking at anarchy.

I don't think anarchy is even possible as anything other than a transitory state, so no worries...............

Well, anarchy followed by a dictatorship would be, I think, unacceptable to most folks.

Your Alfred E Neuman approach to this is, I think, preposterous.

0 Replies

No, preposterous is a grownup with invisible friends.

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

No, preposterous is a grownup with invisible friends.

Who has invisible friends? Where? You consider God invisible Doktor? I don't. Look around. You can see Him everywhere.

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

No, there is no such thing as a completely selfless act.

A man sees a bus coming directly for his wife on a busy street. He instinctively, without thought, pushes her out of the way of the oncoming bus, only to be killed himself.

That is selfless, no matter how you try to spin it.

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

Doktor S wrote:
No, there is no such thing as a completely selfless act.

A man sees a bus coming directly for his wife on a busy street. He instinctively, without thought, pushes her out of the way of the oncoming bus, only to be killed himself.

That is selfless, no matter how you try to spin it.

I have to agree with kickycan there. Kicky, we've been doing a lot of that lately. :wink:

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

kickycan wrote:
Doktor S wrote:
No, there is no such thing as a completely selfless act.

A man sees a bus coming directly for his wife on a busy street. He instinctively, without thought, pushes her out of the way of the oncoming bus, only to be killed himself.

That is selfless, no matter how you try to spin it.

I have to agree with kickycan there. Kicky, we've been doing a lot of that lately. :wink:

I have to disagree. If his wife is very important to him, he is not committing a selfless act. Her existence is vital to him. If he pushes a stranger out of the way, and gets killed, THAT would be a selfless act.

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

. . .Autotheism is revering your ego as deity, and putting none higher. . .

And this is not an act of the will? (emphasis added)

0 Replies

Phoenix Wrote:

Quote:

I have to disagree. If his wife is very important to him, he is not committing a selfless act. Her existence is vital to him. If he pushes a stranger out of the way, and gets killed, THAT would be a selfless act.

But if the husband gets killed, it doesn't do a thing for him. But, there is always the possibility that he wouldn't get killed. Okay, kicky, I think she has us on this one. :wink: What do you think?

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

I have to disagree. If his wife is very important to him, he is not committing a selfless act. Her existence is vital to him. If he pushes a stranger out of the way, and gets killed, THAT would be a selfless act.

Phoenix--
I think your point still holds even if it was a stranger.

I agree with our Satanist Confused

that everything we do is selfish. "Selfish" has a bad feeling about it, though. It's as if no one really cares about anyone else. But I think most of us can easily recognize that no one is truly separate from anyone or anything (and it's no doubt clearer on an unconcious level); caring for others is caring for yourself. In that sense, being completely "selfish" could be the same as being completely "unselfish".

(Quick, someone tell me how dense I am.)

0 Replies

echi- The problem is that the word "selfishness" has gotten a bad rap. Everyone has a hierarchy of values. When one subordinates a higher value for a lower, that is being "selfless". Being selfish, IMO, is simply keeping a person's priorities straight.

In an emergency, if everything is equal in terms of the capacity of someone to save an individual, does one save one's own spouse, or the neighbor next door, if the person can only save one person? (We are assuming that the person loves his spouse.)

If the person saves the neighbor, and lets his wife die, he is being selfless, because he is subordinating a higher value (his love for his wife) for a lower one (he likes his neighbor).

Instead of "selfish, how does the expression, "rational self-interest" sit with you?

0 Replies

Momma--

Some people do such things even when they know they will be killed.

Here, I may disagree with the Dok:
I can't see any other reason why a person would sacrifice his or her own life for someone else except that they know that the ego is not the "true self", or at least is not what they consider to be most important. There is some other motivating factor besides preservation of ego/self.

0 Replies

True echi. I was just looking at it from Phoenix's point of view.

I like your answer BTW.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

echi- The problem is that the word "selfishness" has gotten a bad rap. Everyone has a hierarchy of values. When one subordinates a higher value for a lower, that is being "selfless". Being selfish, IMO, is simply keeping a person's priorities straight.

In an emergency, if everything is equal in terms of the capacity of someone to save an individual, does one save one's own spouse, or the neighbor next door, if the person can only save one person? (We are assuming that the person loves his spouse.)

If the person saves the neighbor, and lets his wife die, he is being selfless, because he is subordinating a higher value (his love for his wife) for a lower one (he likes his neighbor).

Instead of "selfish, how does the expression, "rational self-interest" sit with you?

"...assuming that the person loves his spouse." I'm still laughing at that.

Any word is fine, I think, as long as we're all clear on the author's intentions.
As far as the guy saving his neighbor and not his wife...I think there's a reason (reasons) for everything we do. I may not be understanding what you mean about "subordinating a higher value for a lower one". I may be having trouble with the word "value", because I can't see how that would be possible.

0 Replies

echi- Maybe if we substitute "importance" for value, it might be a bit clearer.

0 Replies

mmmmmm... not really.
This is the problem I'm having:
Unless I am mistaken, you are saying that a person can choose to do something that is not what they most want to do. That I don't agree with.

0 Replies

So if you subordinate a higher value for a lower one, what that really means is that something has happened to cause you to re-evaluate your values.
I can get with that.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Momma Angel wrote:
kickycan wrote:
Doktor S wrote:
No, there is no such thing as a completely selfless act.

A man sees a bus coming directly for his wife on a busy street. He instinctively, without thought, pushes her out of the way of the oncoming bus, only to be killed himself.

That is selfless, no matter how you try to spin it.

I have to agree with kickycan there. Kicky, we've been doing a lot of that lately. :wink:

I have to disagree. If his wife is very important to him, he is not committing a selfless act. Her existence is vital to him. If he pushes a stranger out of the way, and gets killed, THAT would be a selfless act.

Wrong. The key to my scenario is that he does it without any thought at all. He's not thinking of himself, he's just reacting. Selfless.

I win.

0 Replies

Hey, you know what Kicky? I think maybe you do win!

Glad to see you made it through the night.
Here's another joke. It's great.

Why did the monkey fall out of the tree?

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know