...and I see a connection between putting "self" on the ultimate pedestal, and believing that 'spirituality' must have some other definition than any having to do with absolute good or evil, or of any notions of anyone existing as a spirit.
real life wrote:
Yes, they have made themselves into a god. Right and wrong are determined only by what they want to have or to do at any given moment.
Are you suggesting you do not do this?
snood,
To answer your original question....I think I live my life entirely without spirituality in the same way you might live your life without daily contemplating being reborn as another animal.
I think spirit is an entirely mythical thing. Having said that, I indulge in things that traditionally are thought to be spiritual in nature, such as love and music but I don't see that as a contradiction. I see it as misplaced definition to begin with...like the properties of swamp "vapours" that were supposed to cause malaria were actually harmless, while the mosquitos did the real damage.
Eorl wrote:real life wrote:
Yes, they have made themselves into a god. Right and wrong are determined only by what they want to have or to do at any given moment.
Are you suggesting you do not do this?
I don't need to suggest it.
Right and wrong are not subjective concepts, determined by your whim or mine.
Ask yourself this question.
Am I perfect?
If our answer is no then we are identifying ourselves with the imperfect external part of our being. If our answer is yes then we are identifying ourselves with the perfect inner spiritual part of our being.
real life wrote:Eorl wrote:real life wrote:
Yes, they have made themselves into a god. Right and wrong are determined only by what they want to have or to do at any given moment.
Are you suggesting you do not do this?
I don't need to suggest it.
Right and wrong are not subjective concepts, determined by your whim or mine.
Of course they are.
If not, then who or what do you think determines right and wrong?
rosborne979 wrote:real life wrote:Eorl wrote:real life wrote:
Yes, they have made themselves into a god. Right and wrong are determined only by what they want to have or to do at any given moment.
Are you suggesting you do not do this?
I don't need to suggest it.
Right and wrong are not subjective concepts, determined by your whim or mine.
Of course they are.
If not, then who or what do you think determines right and wrong?
Choice/will/nature determine right or wrong.
Possibility leads to consequence and conscience leads to reason and standards and ultimately good character/virtue.
Standards rely on reason and reason is enlightened by spiritual revelation.
real life wrote:Eorl wrote:real life wrote:
Yes, they have made themselves into a god. Right and wrong are determined only by what they want to have or to do at any given moment.
Are you suggesting you do not do this?
I don't need to suggest it.
Right and wrong are not subjective concepts, determined by your whim or mine.
A) That is a subjective opinion and
B) You make the decision to
do what you think is right regardless of standards (objective or otherwise)
Which leads me to ask the age old question; when you or I help a little lady across the street, which of us is the better person? You...for whom it is expected and in turn you expect reward, or me.....who expects nothing and does it just because I want to?
snood wrote:Sez me.
and Santa.
Much as I hate to say it...if that is so, you and Santa are both wrong.
Real life says: "Right and wrong are not subjective concepts, determined by your whim or mine."
Does s/he really that that "rights" and "wrongs" exist in the world of objects? These notions--like ALL notions--are products of cultural development, aspects of language and thought.
Real life is right insofar as there ARE objective constraints in moral systems. Our ancestors have, over the centuries, devised notions of right and wrong and we are liable to suffer consequences when we violate the behavioral standards implied in such notions. But that merely points to the fact that the subjective notions of right and wrong have components that are public (i.e., shared notions) as well as private (our unique versions of such notions). The reality, as I see it, is that right and wrong are essentially INTERSUBJECTIVE in nature, that is to say they are more or less shared subjectivities. And this is an objective fact in nature. Here we see a partial collapse of the distinctions between subjective, intersubjective and objective. Life is rarely as simple as we would like.
There is absolutely nothing objective about notions of anything...let alone notions of morals and right and wrong.
There is nothing objective about morals. It is purely subjective.
Good, at last we agree on something. And THAT is an objective fact.
POM started a thread which quickly became a discussion of ethics and morality, and whether there were a difference. Into that discussion, a member who is not known for taking religiously motivated positions injected the contention that morality is a system of absolute statements of the nature of good and evil, of right and wrong. The basis for that statement was the commonly accepted definition of morality, and is actually a good position to take in discussion, since the consensus definition of morality probably does stipulate absolute good and evil, right and wrong. I put in my reasons for saying that i could not accept that contention, and that morality is of necessity subjective judgment writ large. Earlier, i had pointed out that ethics derives from the Greek word for character, and morality from the Latin word for custom.
I assert that morality can be nothing other than custom, and is a human construct which does not and cannot exist independently of the human imagination.
Good, more agreement. By "intersubjective" I refer to Setanta's "subjectdive judgment[s] writ large" or at least larger than the single individual (two minds can make up an intersubjectivity). Morality IS custom, and custom is an objective fact often described by anthropologists, but that "customs" consists of intersubjective notions (rules, standards, etc.).
I hope Real Life is benefitting from the Nobody-Apiso-Setanta truth injection.
But, of course, Apisa is only guessing.
JLNobody wrote:But, of course, Apisa is only guessing.
Actually...only about the latter part of my post.
It is a fact that there is nothing objective about notions of anything...let alone notions of morals and right and wrong.
Definitionally...it cannot be other.
Quote:
There is nothing objective about morals. It is purely subjective.
I'll concede this is a guess. There
could be a god that dictates what is right and wrong.
Hope you feel better.
