Why do you not?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2010 03:55 am
@sometime sun,
sometime sun;153655 wrote:
Please please tell me where to find this information.


I also like to know more about the advantages of mental illnesses, or illnesses in general. Or who is to decide what is illness and what evolution ?

Left-handed people where also discriminated but just have a preference for their left hand.
 
sometime sun
 
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2010 09:24 am
@Pepijn Sweep,
Pepijn Sweep;157473 wrote:
I also like to know more about the advantages of mental illnesses, or illnesses in general. Or who is to decide what is illness and what evolution ?

Left-handed people where also discriminated but just have a preference for their left hand.

My whole family is left handed.
We only ever discriminated against each other.
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2010 02:52 pm
@sometime sun,
In The Netherlands it was till after the war forbidden to write lefthanded !
 
cluckk
 
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 07:16 am
@sometime sun,
Part of my reason for writing is to better understand what you mean, and part is to point out places where I find difficulty agreeing with you.

Quote:
My(long, disorganized, mystic) Premise:
1.) God is not suceptible to empirical inquiry, deductive logic, sensory perception(ive never seen him at least) or any variant of reason.
2.) Reason is the shovel for all human knowledge.(Our only means of achieving knowledge)
3.) God isn't in any hole(Reason can't be ascribed to him)
4.) Religion imposes morals on its adherents(Ten Commandments or whatever)
5.) I can't live my life based on an entity(that cannot even be an entity) and adhering to "his"(or her) morals/values/standards/what have you.
6.) I live my life based on my deductions, my convictions, my knowledge, gained from MY use of reason, not blind(or nearsighted) faith.
7.) If god wants to damn me for eternity(whatever that is) for finding heaven on earth, using a code of morals grounded in reality rather than fantasy, then i guess i'm effed.(And he ain't so benevolent.)


2,3: Your use of a shovel for reason and the statement of God is not in any hole makes me wonder why you say Reason can not be ascribed to him. To ascribe reason to God is to credit him with its source, or to attribute reason to him as a quality (dictionary.com). Even if God is not discoverable through reason alone, does not make God himself unreasonable. Perhaps I misunderstand what you mean.

5: I can not live my life. . . . Don't you mean you won't, rather than you can't? Whether you live according to such a scheme or not is a matter of choice, not ability. This may seem trivial, but it does answer your accusation against God in 7.

6. Do you always know every moment and in every situation what action to take? Do you ever find yourself without enough information or knowledge to make a fully informed decision? This, like all of us, is likely on occassion in your life, but an action must still be taken and a decision made. We all act on "blind" faith occassionally. Sometimes the "blind" faith is in God, other times it is in ourself.

7. The level of assumption here is mind-boggling. So all other systems of morals besides the one you come to are fantasy? Thousands of years of people thinking through moral issues and making conclusions have culminated in nothing but fantasy, but you in your brief stay on this planet have been able to cut through all these issues to arrive at the truth.

Many of the systems of morals you refute are actually quite common sense and reasonable. You mentioned the Ten Commandments, which could be restated as: don't covet your neighbor's wife or property; keep your mits off of your neighbor's wife and property (how many problems would this prevent?); respect your parents; take a regular day of rest; don't partake in surrounding pagan superstitions; don't kill. Heaven help us! I'd hate to live in a world where people follow these.

When I wrote this I did not realize how long ago post I was replying to was and how many pages there were between my post and the other. I will now beat myself with spaghetti as punishment.
 
Ding an Sich
 
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 01:14 pm
@sometime sun,
sometime sun;108450 wrote:
Why do you not commit suicide?

Now the question comes from Dr Viktor. E. Frankl as he asks his patients who suffer from this or that torment, but aside from the opposite (but same), why do you live? I think the question 'Why do you not commit suicide?' is askable/answerable for or by anyone who has a grasp or understanding upon what suicide (understanding of or think they did do will understand) is to them.
So, why do you not commit suicide?
when you have 'nothing to lose except his ridiculously naked life'.

A little help for answering;
a'central theme of extentialism:
'to live is to suffer, to survive is to find meaning in the suffering.
If there is a purpose in life at all, there must be purpose in suffering and in dying. But no man can tell another what this purpose is. each must find out for himself, and must accept the responsibility that his answer prescribes' Gordon. W. Allport.
In his suicide or life?

'He who has a why to live can bear with almost any how' Nietzsche


I have thought about it time and time again. After I brood over what I would do, I realize that committing suicide would be senseless. The dignity of a man is immeasurable; to make myself a means to an end undermines the dignity bestowed unto me by God.
 
sometime sun
 
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 04:32 pm
@Ding an Sich,
Ding_an_Sich;168164 wrote:
I have thought about it time and time again. After I brood over what I would do, I realize that committing suicide would be senseless. The dignity of a man is immeasurable; to make myself a means to an end undermines the dignity bestowed unto me by God.

What you would do or how you would do it?

Perhaps that is the purest reason for doing it, to become senseless.
It is hard to live a life that you have no sense over but which your senses insist you must still be with no sense of.
Imagine that for a moment, having to go through all the senses every second and no way to catch or release them, absolutely making no sense of a life that does not even know whether to battle the senses or submit to them.
Imagine not being able or ready to understand your senses.
The senses after and before all is able said and done is that by which we are able said and doing to make sense of anything.
What if one is unable mute and undoing?

Dignity and even God are senses, what if they were so real as to never be real?
Never real for the reality of them?
It could be argued dignity and God are controls, what if the only way you can understand such as restraint and release is to stop having to try and control the ultimately uncontrollable?
There is but one true control in all existence, that everything and all that exists can depend controls, and that is that all existences end.

The only thing we need never doubt of life is that it shall finish.
There is only one thing you can trust is your death.

Imagine a existence so untrusting untrustworthy the only thing one can trust becomes the existence.
Existence is the end of existing.

Who then is more deluded? those who think they can control and trust other things instead of the only thing that can be, or those who trust and control the only thing that can be?

To those who trust anything that is not the only thing that can be,
trust is their own brand of immortality.

Immortality whether real and trustworthy or not is actually meant to be untrustworthy else it has no worth.

Death 'means' nothing unless we think it does.

What gives us our immortality is our doubt.

Just some thoughts of mine,
even though luckily for me today I agree with yours first.
 
Ding an Sich
 
Reply Tue 25 May, 2010 09:39 am
@sometime sun,
sometime sun;168254 wrote:
What you would do or how you would do it?

Perhaps that is the purest reason for doing it, to become senseless.
It is hard to live a life that you have no sense over but which your senses insist you must still be with no sense of.
Imagine that for a moment, having to go through all the senses every second and no way to catch or release them, absolutely making no sense of a life that does not even know whether to battle the senses or submit to them.
Imagine not being able or ready to understand your senses.
The senses after and before all is able said and done is that by which we are able said and doing to make sense of anything.
What if one is unable mute and undoing?

Dignity and even God are senses, what if they were so real as to never be real?
Never real for the reality of them?
It could be argued dignity and God are controls, what if the only way you can understand such as restraint and release is to stop having to try and control the ultimately uncontrollable?
There is but one true control in all existence, that everything and all that exists can depend controls, and that is that all existences end.

The only thing we need never doubt of life is that it shall finish.
There is only one thing you can trust is your death.

Imagine a existence so untrusting untrustworthy the only thing one can trust becomes the existence.
Existence is the end of existing.

Who then is more deluded? those who think they can control and trust other things instead of the only thing that can be, or those who trust and control the only thing that can be?

To those who trust anything that is not the only thing that can be,
trust is their own brand of immortality.

Immortality whether real and trustworthy or not is actually meant to be untrustworthy else it has no worth.

Death 'means' nothing unless we think it does.

What gives us our immortality is our doubt.

Just some thoughts of mine,
even though luckily for me today I agree with yours first.


My doubt leads to faith; perhaps immortality, but that cannot be seen (sensed). However, as much as I would like to commit to my own aphorism, I sadly decline to it being the case for me. My doubt leads to more doubt. Its a progression (or regression). I cannot commit to God emotionally: only rationally (which fails mind you). But this is for another time.

Trusting solely in oneself is deluded. One must at times reach out for others; which leads to a desire to balance in trusting in oneself and in others. Trusting solely in others leads to delusion as well.

We see the law set by God and recognize it within ourselves (with or without revelation). Its a mutual relationship. (Romans 2:14-2:15)

Hope this helps.
 
mark noble
 
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2010 11:41 am
@Ding an Sich,
Hi Sun,
I appreciate I am late to this post, but I would like to give my answer to your OP, anyhow.

I don't commit suicide because I don't want to.
If I did, I would.

Thank you Sun, and Shine on.

Mark...
 
Krumple
 
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2010 12:53 pm
@Pepijn Sweep,
Pepijn Sweep;153863 wrote:
Do you mean to say that without proper education a evolutionary advantage might turn into an illness ?


Sort of, but perhaps I was not very clear. It is documented that depression does have an evolutionary advantage to it. However I am saying that many types of depression stem from a lack of education. We are not taught problem solving skills at all so when people are faced with certain issues they can't seem to tackle them in a healthy way. What follows is usually some form of self medicating which only leads to more problems and more depression.

Pepijn Sweep;153863 wrote:

Do you consider religion as a form of education ?


Yes religion is a form of education. Does it solve depression? In some ways it can and in other ways it could be the catalyst for it. Rarely does religion teach problem solving skills. It rather just tries to instill some sense of euphoria that god will take care of you so you don't have to. That might alieviate some stress but it can potentially create others.

Pepijn Sweep;153863 wrote:

Can it be a cure ?:a-thought:


Doubtful that religion would be a cure for depression.
 
apehead
 
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2010 01:40 pm
@sometime sun,
Just in case it hasn't been mentioned yet, this seems somewhat relevant:

The Four Noble Truths of Buddhism

As for your question, it is a matter of preference. Do I prefer life, or death? Although life is suffering, I am unsure as to what the experience of death is like, so I am sticking with the familiar as opposed to the unknown.

Of course, for others, they dislike life so much that they take their chances with death.
 
mark noble
 
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2010 01:49 pm
@apehead,
apehead;173019 wrote:
Just in case it hasn't been mentioned yet, this seems somewhat relevant:

The Four Noble Truths of Buddhism

As for your question, it is a matter of preference. Do I prefer life, or death? Although life is suffering, I am unsure as to what the experience of death is like, so I am sticking with the familiar as opposed to the unknown.

Of course, for others, they dislike life so much that they take their chances with death.


Hi Apehead,

These truths are not only relevant, they are fundamental to one's well-being.

Have a great day, sir.

Mark...
 
Jacques Maritain
 
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2010 02:03 pm
@sometime sun,
As somebody said before, life is an end in itself. Plus from the theological perspective, it's a sin against hope.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2010 11:59 pm
@Pyrrho,
Pyrrho;151875 wrote:
You might be interested in reading someone who disagrees with you, and makes a very strong case for his position:

Epicurus and Epicurean Philosophy

I think that we would all be far better off than we are if everyone agreed with Epicurus, who was a hedonist, even though I myself am not a hedonist. If you want to understand why I say this, read Epicurus.


I think hedonism is wise. I would only say that pleasure is a wide category. Perhaps we can agree, if any of us have been in love (I hope so!), that the pleasure in love transcends most more bodily pleasures, with one or two possible exceptions --which I will leave to your imagination.
 
sometime sun
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 12:06 am
@Jacques Maritain,
Jacques Maritain;173030 wrote:
As somebody said before, life is an end in itself. Plus from the theological perspective, it's a sin against hope.

I always wondered about the 'sin' aspect, do you have any further words or resource? or does this just say it all? 'it is a sin against hope'.
 
cluckk
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 08:01 am
@sometime sun,
Quote:
Although life is suffering, I am unsure as to what the experience of death is like


I don't think of life as suffering. Life is experience. Whether there is life after death or not, death would be the final living experience and I have many others that I would like to experience first. Whatever happens, with suicide you end all living experiences--the good with the bad.
 
Night Ripper
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 08:03 am
@sometime sun,
sometime sun;108450 wrote:
Why do you not commit suicide?


I'm going to die anyways. Why rush the inevitable?
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 08:24 am
@sometime sun,
1 of the bad things about suicide, is it will inspire others to do the same, those who only have a tempoary depression, will do it out of despair, where they might do a full recovery and live their life happily after a recovery, therefore I consider suicide a immense bad things, which rightfully is outlawed.
 
Night Ripper
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 08:26 am
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;173364 wrote:
1 of the bad things about suicide, is it will inspire others to do the same, those who only have a tempoary depression, will do it out of despair, where they might do a full recovery and live their life happily after a recovery, therefore I consider suicide a immense bad things, which rightfully is outlawed.


It's not a crime to be a bad example.
 
cluckk
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 08:32 am
@sometime sun,
Quote:
1 of the bad things about suicide, is it will inspire others to do the same, those who only have a tempoary depression, will do it out of despair, where they might do a full recovery and live their life happily after a recovery, therefore I consider suicide a immense bad things, which rightfully is outlawed.


Slippery Slope fallacy.
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 08:38 am
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;173365 wrote:
It's not a crime to be a bad example.
Nor did I say so.

---------- Post added 06-05-2010 at 04:39 PM ----------

cluckk;173367 wrote:
Slippery Slope fallacy.
Poor basic analytic skills.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 08/09/2022 at 05:01:36