what is a "good heart"?

@Adam101,

Leonard;95262 wrote:

You mean Ayn Rand? (Not to single out Randian philosophy as a bad philosophy, but it is inherently a selfish one)

I'm not sure "kind" or "thoughtful" are accurate words when describing that woman.

And, if we make the stretch and call her head-static a philosophy, then yes it is a terrible one.

@Leonard,

Leonard;95262 wrote:

You mean Ayn Rand? (Not to single out Randian philosophy as a bad philosophy, but it is inherently a selfish one)

Anyway, though there are good people, not all people who seem good are really that way on the inside. You would be surprised by how many people attend church simply because of the social stigma behind not going. It is similar with philanthropy. To increase your chances, one might organise a community project or volunteer for X hours. College=personal gain, and that is the common motif behind such things.

A good hearted person in my mind is one who not only helps others, but helps them with meaning and a conviction of goodness, not only because they are forced by society to do so. Such people should also go above and beyond to help. Not just helping one group, but helping many people in various ways.

I see it as something like a good samaritan. Anyone who will sacrifice their own time for you when no one else will is undoubtedly generous.

What if the person thinks he is helping others, but in fact, is not doing so. Is he still good-hearted?
By the way, just because the philosophy is one of self-interest, it need not be one of selfishness. Not unless it impinges harmfully on others. It is in my self-interest to go to bed when I am sleepy. But is that selfish of me?

@tcycles710,

I don't think this will be accepted, but 'the heart' really does know things and make decisions. In Buddhism, the word 'Citta' means variously 'mind' and 'heart', depending on the context in which it is used. Things you know 'in the heart' you know very deeply, beyond ratiocination and logic. If you know something is right or wrong 'in your heart', it is usually a surer indication than a lot of verbalising or trying to work things out through thinking about it. You might say 'I knew in my heart what I did was right'. You can intepret that as referring to 'subconscious' or 'unconscious' levels of volition perhaps.

Of course, you can then say, can't a person have a 'bad heart' - I think this is where the thread started. Traditionally, this would be understood that the subject's volition had become so corrupted by repeated selfish or deluded volitions, that this had penetrated to a very deep level of their unconscious. But the traditional understanding of the matter is that there is a correspondence between heart and conscience and that unless the conscience has become corrupted, it is an unerring indicator of right action.

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;95308 wrote:

I don't think this will be accepted, but 'the heart' really does know things and make decisions. In Buddhism, the word 'Citta' means variously 'mind' and 'heart', depending on the context in which it is used. Things you know 'in the heart' you know very deeply, beyond ratiocination and logic. If you know something is right or wrong 'in your heart', it is usually a surer indication than a lot of verbalising or trying to work things out through thinking about it. You might say 'I knew in my heart what I did was right'. You can intepret that as referring to 'subconscious' or 'unconscious' levels of volition perhaps.

Of course, you can then say, can't a person have a 'bad heart' - I think this is where the thread started. Traditionally, this would be understood that the subject's volition had become so corrupted by repeated selfish or deluded volitions, that this had penetrated to a very deep level of their unconscious. But the traditional understanding of the matter is that there is a correspondence between heart and conscience and that unless the conscience has become corrupted, it is an unerring indicator of right action.

I suppose, then, that if my conscience tells me to do something that turns out not to be the right thing to do (maybe I was not able to see there were unintended consequences of my action) then my conscience was corrupted?

@tcycles710,

A matter of fine judgement, I guess. Say in an emergency situation you try and rescue someone and in so doing, cause another accident which results in further injury. In hindsight, it was not the right thing to do, and had disastrous consequences, but I think we would still say that the act was well intended. I would only consider it a case of corruption where the motivation was self-interest or maliciousness. Again if you act because the situation calls for it, or because you can help another, it is hard to see how this could be blameworthy.

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;95316 wrote:

A matter of fine judgement, I guess. Say in an emergency situation you try and rescue someone and in so doing, cause another accident which results in further injury. In hindsight, it was not the right thing to do, and had disastrous consequences, but I think we would still say that the act was well intended. I would only consider it a case of corruption where the motivation was self-interest or maliciousness. Again if you act because the situation calls for it, or because you can help another, it is hard to see how this could be blameworthy.

Because it might make things worse. We are told on what some consider good authority that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Consider the administration of Jimmy Carter for a schoolbook example. (Not to mention the current administration; but let's hope against hope).

@tcycles710,

Yes, all true, but I would hate to surrender all hope that goodness was possible. It is tempting to write off every endeavour in advance because it might not be right, might not be genuine. Nevertheless this is the only life we have, and the only situation we can act in, and I think it is better to try and find a firm basis for right action rather than sit on the sidelines verbally rehearsing existence. Life is not just a spectator sport. This is one of the characteristic problems of modernity, that we think that it is.

@tcycles710,

Life is a spectator sport, if that is the way you play it...most of us are trapped by the forms in our lives... We are at that point in the life of our country and economy when we have to reform, and rejuvinate the country or suffer worse and worse indignity until we are slaves...People are usually ruined by bad forms.. They do not know what is happening, and they just stand by while their whole lives go down the tubes...So you think people know what they are going to do in this country??? The unemployment percentage is going to stay up around ten perecent for years...Will that not demoralize everyone??? Won't people be desparate and scared??? How are those victims going to change anything when they cannot see what is going on except for the part nearest their own lives???

---------- Post added 10-05-2009 at 10:12 PM ----------

kennethamy;95301 wrote:

What if the person thinks he is helping others, but in fact, is not doing so. Is he still good-hearted?
By the way, just because the philosophy is one of self-interest, it need not be one of selfishness. Not unless it impinges harmfully on others. It is in my self-interest to go to bed when I am sleepy. But is that selfish of me?

Everyone is as good as the good they do, and no one is worse than the one with a bug up their butt to do good without the time to consider what it is... People should still try to do good, but don't lift a finger unless some one asks for help...

@Fido,

Fido;95337 wrote:

Life is a spectator sport, if that is the way you play it...most of us are trapped by the forms in our lives... We are at that point in the life of our country and economy when we have to reform, and rejuvinate the country or suffer worse and worse indignity until we are slaves...People are usually ruined by bad forms.. They do not know what is happening, and they just stand by while their whole lives go down the tubes...So you think people know what they are going to do in this country??? The unemployment percentage is going to stay up around ten perecent for years...Will that not demoralize everyone??? Won't people be desparate and scared??? How are those victims going to change anything when they cannot see what is going on except for the part nearest their own lives???

---------- Post added 10-05-2009 at 10:12 PM ----------

Everyone is as good as the good they do, and no one is worse than the one with a bug up their butt to do good without the time to consider what it is... People should still try to do good, but don't lift a finger unless some one asks for help...

Oh, I don't know. If I saw someone trying to rescue a child from drowning, I might chance getting wet to give him a hand, even if he was too busy to ask me. I think it would look bad if I were lolling on the shore, while he couldn't save the kid himself, and if someone asked why I did not help, I replied, "Well, Fido said I shouldn't lift a finger unless I was asked".

@tcycles710,

Isn't one of the main reasons for engaging with philosophy exactly to be able to detach oneself from the drama of existence? I mean, not to escape it, but to see through it and to gain some sense of inner freedom. Which of course can be a very difficult thing to do, if you're in a very difficult situation, no doubt. But then, no matter what situation you are in, good or bad, it will always finish. Then what? If they are scared and desperate and poor, what is going to stop them being scared and desperate and rich when the situation changes?

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;95343 wrote:

Isn't one of the main reasons for engaging with philosophy exactly to be able to detach oneself from the drama of existence?

I don't know whether you are asking me. But, in case you are, my answer is, no. Why should it be? My main reason for philosophizing is that I find it interesting, and I like to find out the answers to philosophical questions that interest me. And, I think I am fairly good at doing so. That always helps.

@tcycles710,

The question was not directed at you in particular however thankyou for the answer. As I have remarked previously, I think our aims are somewhat different, in that I do have a conception of philosophy as an applied ethic and an adjunct to formal meditation, but I acknowledge that different people have different aims in the discipline. And indeed you do show considerable skill in philosophical analysis.

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;95356 wrote:

The question was not directed at you in particular however thankyou for the answer. As I have remarked previously, I think our aims are somewhat different, in that I do have a conception of philosophy as an applied ethic and an adjunct to formal meditation, but I acknowledge that different people have different aims in the discipline. And indeed you do show considerable skill in philosophical analysis.

But you know that ethics is but one part of philosophy, and not even a major part of it. Some philosophers never even think of ethics, but they are still philosophers. Don't you think you have a rather narrow view of philosophy?

@tcycles710,

No, I have a practical view. I am interested in what works, and also in some specific issues of philosophy which help to illuminate aspects of the nature of reality. But there are a lot of issues I don't contribute to, and many philosophers whose work I chose not to study. I am a traditionalist in that I see wisdom as something real; I see a great deal of it in various aspects of traditional philosophy, Eastern and Western, and very little of it in (for example) Netizche or the French Existentialists or a considerable amount of what has been written since the Enlightenment. But would rather discuss that in a separate thread, this question of 'the good heart' is an important one, and close to mine.

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;95361 wrote:

No, I have a practical view. I am interested in what works, and also in some specific issues of philosophy which help to illuminate aspects of the nature of reality. But there are a lot of issues I don't contribute to, and many philosophers whose work I chose not to study. I am a traditionalist in that I see wisdom as something real; I see a great deal of it in various aspects of traditional philosophy, Eastern and Western, and very little of it in (for example) Netizche or the French Existentialists or a considerable amount of what has been written since the Enlightenment. But would rather discuss that in a separate thread, this question of 'the good heart' is an important one, and close to mine.

It is reported that Kant had two portraits on his wall. Hume and Rousseau. Head and Heart. Kant thought his philosophy combined them, but that neither was, by itself, enough.

But you might be interested (in case you don't know of it) in a famous interaction between Hume and Rousseau which should provoke many thoughts. Here is the site:

http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/books-may-09-philosophers-quarrel-ro

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;95340 wrote:

Oh, I don't know. If I saw someone trying to rescue a child from drowning, I might chance getting wet to give him a hand, even if he was too busy to ask me. I think it would look bad if I were lolling on the shore, while he couldn't save the kid himself, and if someone asked why I did not help, I replied, "Well, Fido said I shouldn't lift a finger unless I was asked".

Good is something we do with consideration or it is not good...I actually did save a life once, and not by killing a **** eating dog... I went into the Grand river, and not by choice... A drunk guy with his buddy jumped in after a basketball, and when the guy reached the basket ball he thought he could rest on it, but it squirted away from him, and then he started to drown... Now, it was black appreciation day or something because my son and I were the only whites at riverfront park... I saw the whole thing go down, and saw the friend try to save him... And as the friend started to swim to the dock where I was he yelled: I can't save him!!! I had already seen the guy go down three times for longer than anyone could hold their breath... The black guy standing beside me turned to me and said: That Nigger is drowning...It woke me up to the question at hand... If the man was less than a man then he deserved to die like a dog for his stupidity...If he was a human being, as I was raised to expect, then his life was as essential as any other, black or white... So, with good considered, I helped to save his life... You do not have to have a chalk board full of thoughts and considerations before doing what is right...Right is what we feel is right, and reason is what we use to excuse ourselves from doing right...
I came very close to dying once myself when I walked off the roof of a building... As I dangled there a guy came to help, and by grabbing my arm came closer yet to dumping me... I said: did I ask you for help??? When you ask for help you are asking for a relationship that is very often more delicate than any other... I help my native Americans, but it is the cheap way out...I really do not want to share their pain as I would if I were your proper human being... I try to help at a distance without giving them, or those who hate them, the power to destroy me as well... It is the easy way out...All work and no investment of soul...

---------- Post added 10-06-2009 at 09:20 AM ----------

kennethamy;95358 wrote:

But you know that ethics is but one part of philosophy, and not even a major part of it. Some philosophers never even think of ethics, but they are still philosophers. Don't you think you have a rather narrow view of philosophy?

I doubt that what you say is true... Every question is an ethical question, and it is that one which should be asked and answered before all others...If a philosopher is not an ethicist, he is not a philosopher... The knowledge of good and evil comes before all others...

@tcycles710,

I think it's important to separate "Ethical" and "Good hearted".
Being ethical is following a set of principles that promote the well being of you and others. It is giving impartial moral consideration.
Being Good hearted is the desire to follow these principles when you have nothing to gain for it. One can be ethical for a number or reasons. They may feel guilty that they do not care deeply for others and try to compensate for it, or they may feel fear of a deity watching their actions. Only someone who is good hearted will follow these principles not because they feel they ought to, but because they want to. A person cannot do bad things and still be good hearted. Likewise, a person cannot be good hearted and do bad things. I do, however, believe that people can change from becoming good hearted or not, though that change might not be a conscious effort.

@Fido,

Fido;95417 wrote:

... The knowledge of good and evil comes before all others...

Am i wrong to say that this defines who we are as a individual, creating are beliefs and the moral code to which we deiced to live to and continuously fail at?, and that some of us are wrong and others right? For if we believed that every body sought to be truly "good" then the world would not be perfect ( i said sought ) but would be striving as a group not as divided nations for the "greater good". This debunks in my opinion that "culture" or "society" defines what good and bad is. Law, revolutions are caused because of a law before it there fore at the begging of time there was a "law" now it comes down to weather you believe that, that law was divinely inspired "perfect", or human inspired "flawed"?

Can we by are self live good life's? Good being ether of the inspired interpretations of the creators of good. I would like to here why one would believe one and why the other is to be wrong.

Or are we at the inner most part of are self do it for its self? Hard question to ask your self.....how much pride do you have?

@Fido,

Fido;95417 wrote:

.. The knowledge of good and evil comes before all others...

That's what Eve thought too. And look what happened to her. She would have been better off thinking about logic.

@kennethamy,

So your says that she didn't have logic? Or was she victim to being a human and failed to use logic ( man that sounds pretty common ) and was inevitably mislead to her destruction.

Philosophy Forum

what is a "good heart"?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know