Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page
I have never stated that isolation is necessary, only internal motivation.
Mr Fight the power,
This internal motivation is rather fuzzy,it seems to infer that modivation for action is generated within,when in fact, all modivation for action is really reaction and supplied by the physical world,you have a choice of how to react,you do not have a choice to not react,for a considered non-action would indeed be a reaction to that same stimulus.
"Just as a man can find beauty in the sunset, so can he find virtue in another man."
Actually,I don't know where you are coming from,from this,the analogy is a little puzzling,are you saying there is a biological link between individuals as there is to a sunset,or are you saying that virtue is an esthetic quality.What pleases us is often called virtue--------no?
It is very important here that Pythagorean and myself come to an understanding of your individual relative to his society, and just how he differs from the concept that Pythagorean and myself hold.This is again going to prove a stumbling block to further discussion if we fail to understand your concept of the individual.I would appreciate it if you could lay it out for us as simply as possiable,we could then perhaps relate it to the topic.I hope this is taken as intended,as I really do wish to understand your position.I think perhaps it just involves a greater autonomy of will then I afford my individual, though I am not positive.
Mr Fight the power,
This internal motivation is rather fuzzy,it seems to infer that modivation for action is generated within,when in fact, all modivation for action is really reaction and supplied by the physical world,you have a choice of how to react,you do not have a choice to not react,for a considered non-action would indeed be a reaction to that same stimulus.
Actually,I don't know where you are coming from,from this,the analogy is a little puzzling,are you saying there is a biological link between individuals as there is to a sunset,or are you saying that virtue is an esthetic quality.What pleases us is often called virtue--------no?
It is very important here that Pythagorean and myself come to an understanding of your individual relative to his society, and just how he differs from the concept that Pythagorean and myself hold.This is again going to prove a stumbling block to further discussion if we fail to understand your concept of this individual.I would appreciate it if you could lay it out for us as simply as possiable,we could then perhaps relate it to the topic.
Mr. Fight The Power wrote:
I think the greatest difference between my opinion of the individual and pythagorean's opinion is the acquisition of morality. It seems that Pythagorean holds the opinion that humans will behave without moral consideration if not for the rule of law. I, on the other hand, think that humans (most, some have natural barriers) can form an acceptable moral code on their own (that is without rule of law, not without society itself).
In fact, I take the opinion that rule of law tends to enforce immoral or at best, amoral behavior.
It is like an old theological question: Is a man moral because he obeys God or because he agrees with God?
EDIT: I don't know if that is actually an old theological question, but it seems to me like it should be.
I have come to the conclusion that a truly human life cannot be seperated from morality. That every human concern is ultimately a moral concern. So that it is incumbent upon us as human beings to learn the virtues, to learn what virtue means.
And if it is correct that mankind was made in the image of God, then truly I have seen him lately in the faces of the weeping, in the expressions of the wounded, the ailing and the stricken.