If you read my other thread somewhere, you'll find that I have more interaction with my wife than I can really use right now.

Otherwise, LOL!

There is a clear hand that is always working through my life, molding me into a better person and giving strength when I falter.

I do, too. It's called ``self''.

I've always hated the concept that there's some external force that works on a person to make him ``better''. It's a pretty dim view of humanity, I think. It pretty much makes you a pet.

I've always hated the concept that there's some external force that works on a person to make him ``better''. It's a pretty dim view of humanity, I think. It pretty much makes you a pet.

(waiting for the onset of a 300+ post religious debate... in 5... 4... 3... 2... 1...)

(waiting for the onset of a 300+ post religious debate... in 5... 4... 3... 2... 1...)

Here goes then...

...emacs and vi both suck, joe is the best...

It's a pretty dim view of humanity, I think.

I’m not sure that I would disagree, really. I come at all of this with the mindset that though humanity was created to be perfect and good, that we have missed the mark and are fairly rotten now. So God is great and good and we are not, which probably fits into a “pretty dim view of humanity”.

Well, that's fair, I suppose. It has reasonable internal logic. It's not a way I want to live, but if you feel okay that way, it's your life to live. Or God's. Whoever.

Come on guys, take it down the street to the Off Topic forum... This is General!

*smirk*

(waiting for the onset of a 300+ post religious debate... in 5... 4... 3... 2... 1...)

I don't think it'll go 300+ this time, I'm not sure there's that much more to say! However, religion is intrinsically linked to the "point" of existence (if that in fact was what the original post was getting at), so you shouldn't be too surprised we got into this area.

I don't think Bitt's remarks are inflammatory, if that's what you're implying. I think all the comments stated here are already well-defined views; Bitt's comment about "Self" is the natural "other side" (or at least one of them) to a belief and trust in (or perhaps "service of") God.

don't think Bitt's remarks are inflammatory, if that's what you're implying.

Not at all. This topic just usually mushrooms into a large volume of posts. That's not a bad thing at all. It's fun to talk about these things, and the diversity of viewpoints found here makes it enjoyable, even if the topic itself isn't of great interest to me.

IIRC this is called Kantian ethics

Argh, why do these things come up just as we discuss them in my Ethics course? Yes, I believe that's Kant. His big thing is the respect of others as being the important moral center.

I don't think Bitt's remarks are inflammatory

Dammit!

Must! Try! Harder!

Talking of Zenophobic tribal tendencies

It turns out that the OED does indeed list "zenophobic" as a variant of "xenophobic", which is a shame as I'd much rather it were reserved for a sense which isn't listed: "an irrational dislike of Zeno's paradox" -- that is, a dislike for travelling between two points without passing through all the points in-between. It's no surprise that this meaning isn't listed, as I made it up myself, but it surely deserves to be a word, because I can't come up with a better name for the reason that I prefer cycling or walking to cars or trains, and the reason that, if I do ever get a car, it's got to be a convertible.

Peter

or maybe it is just the music...

I'm with you, Fede. The music is the point.

Being a musician (even if only an amateur one), that's kind of a given for me.

>...emacs and vi both suck, joe is the best...

But only when vim is unavailable

But only when vim is unavailable

Bah. I used to string together pipes of awk, sed, grep, cut, paste, head, tail, wc, and tac (or cat -r depending on platform), and it made a fine editor.

I still do, regularly.

Not me. I don't build SunOS 4 boxes anymore, and the one I have has plenty of better tools. And Solaris and Linux both have better tools in any default install that I do. Old age has spoiled me.

Eh? I'll go with you on the Linux, but even the biggest Solaris install is still fairly minimal. (Thank god.)

Simple command line utilities are still the fastest and best way to go for many jobs.

Solaris 8 came with Apache, and perl. I haven't installed 9 yet

X,Z - I never even thought about it, my entire office is on your side with the spelling. I'm with you on the convertible - it's got to be torrential rain before I put the hood up! - my office think I'm a mad eccentric.

........... perhaps it's time for Mr Schofiel to reveal his purpose before this thread solves all the problems of "Life, the Universe and Everything", thus leaving us nothing to do tomorrow

so, { altogether }........ What's buggin' you Rob?

perhaps it's time for Mr Schofiel to reveal his purpose before this thread solves all the problems of "Life, the Universe and Everything"

42

I have a very definite belief that:

a) we were not created, we create ourselves
b) we can be perfect, we are just all too lazy, cruel or whatever to become perfect
c) we are all part of the same thing so why do we bother fighting anyone
d) our purpose here is to help everyone to be happy

Makes me sound like a bit of a tree hugger, but I reckon as beliefs go, crossing Gaiaism and Tantric Buddhism sure makes sense to me.

"a) we were not created, we create ourselves "

if I created myself, then why am i displeased with the way i am? i wish i was stronger, better looking, smarter, etc. but im not, so how could i have created myself? if i had created myself, then wouldnt i have made myself so that i was perfect? (in form, not neccecarly in sprit, we will cover that next)

"b) we can be perfect, we are just all too lazy, cruel or whatever to become perfect"

if we are "just all too lazy, cruel, or whatever" then how can we be perfect? quite simply, if we have the ability to fail, then that itself denies us perfection. a perfect being would not be able to be un-perfect. furthermore have you ever met a "perfect" person? look at any government, you will see that there can be no perfect people
or, for that matter, what defines perfection? from where do you get your standerds? if they come from inside us then my standards might be different from your standareds, and that certiantly doesnt create a perfect world. on the other hand if our standards come from outside us (and are therefor uniform amonst us all) then where did they come from? did something put them there? then isnt there atleast a part of you that was not created by you, therefor created by something else, therefor you have, at least in part a creator? without uniform laws there is chaos

"c) we are all part of the same thing so why do we bother fighting anyone"

i know of no rational or empirical evidance to suport this view, please elaborate

"d) our purpose here is to help everyone to be happy"

but again, what is happiness? that may mean very different things for different people. if happiness for me was bringing as many people into GOD's kingdom as posible, would you deny me that? (not that that is it, there are many more things which are above that, just using an illistration)

anyway, not trying to insult you or anything, just promoting conversation. you said that you had a definite belief, so im asking you to define it more so that it may be a "definte and clear idea" without being something we would simply "like to belive".

but again, what is happiness?

"13 Conversations About One Thing" is a very good movie.

but again, what is happiness?

Wasn't that a cigar called Hamlet?

schofiel, you still here?

quite simply, if we have the ability to fail, then that itself denies us perfection. a perfect being would not be able to be un-perfect.

I don’t think this is quite right. Ability and action are two different things. Once a perfect being actualizes an ability of imperfection then he/she/it isn’t perfect, but the fact that he/she/it was capable of the imperfection didn’t make it so. Thus a being could have the capacity for imperfection, yet never actualize this imperfection and so remain indefinitely perfect. Any imperfection, however, would make a being irreversibly non-perfect. Of course, humans clearly fit into this second scenario, as none of us are perfect.

but again, what is happiness? that may mean very different things for different people.

Excellent point.

sorry, i see i need to rephrase my point....

im talking about a slightly different kind of perfection. you see, God is ultiment perfection because He is the standared by which all else is ruled. He is not bound to His perfection by lack of ability, but because there is nothing greater than Him saying "that was a mistake, what you did was wrong" on the other hand, man, by being subordanate to God and His commands, has the posibility to go wrong. even if he does not go wrong, while being "perfect" in one sense, is still not "ultimately perfect". my point was, since man is ultimatly able to fail, then his morality cannot be created by himself. that because he obviously fails at being "simply perfect" (obeying rules) he therefor could not be "ultimatly perfect" (creating rules)

now of course you will say that man creates rules all the time, but in reality they reflect the higher rules given to us by God (do not kill, do not steal, love your neighbour as yourself, etc.) furthermore, when man creates rules which donot reflect the higher rules (such as a religous zelot telling you "you can't watch TV, you are going to hell!") anyone can instantly feel their hollowness, they arnt backed by the higher rules.

am i making this clearer or messier?

am i making this clearer or messier?

Cleaner, for me at least, though it seems we’re coming from a similar paradigm. Since God has created morality, it is impossible for Him to be immoral, as He is the standard by which all else is judged. The point I was making is one that Bitt and I discussed (to death) in another thread: that in Christian doctrine Adam was created perfect but became imperfect through sin.