Would it be moraly right to tell young people the truth about life?
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: Would it be moraly right to tell young people the truth about life?
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: Would it be moraly right to tell young people the truth about life?
Based on what we know of Sculptor's literary habits, most of us probably wonder whether he has ever read Beowulf. He probably just watched an adaptation on TV.
By the way (not for Sculptor, but for any interested lurkers) I have yet to read the recently published Tolkien translation of Beowulf, which was published 6 years ago -- some decades after J.R.R.'s death. Posthumous publications of Tolkien's work are legion. Here's a link to a New Yorker article about it: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014 ... g-monsters
I read the Seamus Heaney version.
-
- Posts: 957
- Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am
Re: Would it be moraly right to tell young people the truth about life?
But who would consider that "unfavorable"?
That fact will not even be considered at all, by human beings.
When an asteroid strikes earth and causes extinction of humanity, then there is, obviously, NO human being existing, to consider absolutely ANY thing at all, including what is, and what is not, favorable.
NO term at all would apply, for the obvious reason of what 'extinction', itself, means and causes.
If it was at all possible for an extinct species to consider whether the term 'bad luck' would apply for their own extinction, then obviously they had not yet learned that there is no actual 'luck' as such, 'favorable' nor 'bad', as some say.
ANY, perceivable, "favorable luck" (or "favorable fact") could result in, perceived, "extremely disastrous" events, and vice-versa, ANY, perceivable "bad luck" (or "bad fact") could result in, perceived, "extremely pleasant and highly successful" events.
BUT, some might say that that was lucky we developed a method of preventing an asteroid from hitting earth and causing our extinction BEFORE an asteroid hit earth and did cause our distinction.arjand wrote: ↑June 15th, 2020, 6:02 am To disprove the idea that 'luck' applies, one simply has to turn the tide and turn facts into what can be considered favorable. Like with the example of the stoic philosopher, when humans pro-actively develop security measures to prevent an asteroid to cause an extinction event, one will not denote the prevention of an impact 'luck'.
BUT, for example, after two people met at a bus stop after one 'missed the bus', one or maybe both of them might say that that was 'luck' even though they KNEW the causality of the favorable certain fact. Therefore, the term 'luck' would NOT only apply when the causality of the of the favorability of a certain fact is a mystery. Some people, for example say that it was 'luck' when they consider a favorability when they won lotto, and they KNOW what the causation of the favorable certain fact WAS.
But there is no need to argue this is there?
Is there a human being who thinks that they do not have an opportunity to turn facts favorable, or unfavorable for that matter?
Besides human beings I am not sure of any thing else that can think in terms of favorable or not.
Do you know of any other animal that does turn, and views, facts in a "favorable" or "unfavorable" sense?
Also, what do you mean by 'Nature'? Is Nature, Itself, to you, able to view and think in terms of 'favorable' or 'unfavorable'?
'That', what is agreed upon as being 'good'.
I think you will find that there is absolutely NOTHING that is so called "favorable" for Nature. Nature, 'just IS', what could you even consider could be 'favorable' for Nature, Itself?
Also, 'that', what is favorable for the whole of humanity, is 'that' what is agreed upon. For starters what I would suggest is favorable for the whole of human beings is that each can conceive of, experience, and perceive this one and ONLY Life, or Existence.
Why?arjand wrote: ↑June 15th, 2020, 6:02 amWhat you call 'chance luck' is retrospective. When one meets his/her true love because of your example, one could retrospectively argue that some fact that one considers favorable is responsible (i.e. the cause) for the favorability. In reality, the concept favorability does not originate in a fact.evolution wrote: ↑June 14th, 2020, 6:57 am If two people who meet, which leads to a so called "romantic experience", then if this meet ONLY happened because a door on a bus, for example, closed before they could get on and so that person was left waiting at the bus stop, which led to the meeting of a person that they would not have met if they got on the bus, then to some this is called a "chance meeting" or what they might call "met by chance", or 'met by luck', depending on the current circumstances.
Some so called "chance meetings" are NOT "lucky meetings".
Are you 'trying to' suggest that there are absolutely NO 'lucky' or 'chance' meetings/occurrences in Life, and thus absolutely EVERY thing in Life was predetermined AND meant-to-be?
What are you basing this conclusion on exactly?
If the concept of 'favorable' does not originate in a fact, then where does the concept of 'favorable' originate from exactly?
If meetings were predestined on all levels, then I would say there is NO luck at all.
If, however, meetings were predestined on some level, then this would infer that there would also be luck, on some level as well.
But, if ALL meetings on ALL levels were due to luck, favorable or bad, or unlucky, then that would infer NO predeterminism at all.
And what is that supposed "greatest luck possible"?
ALL-OF-THIS could quite possibly be just pure random.
This seems very back-to-front to me. But, each to their own.arjand wrote: ↑June 15th, 2020, 6:02 amIt is only when information is valued as such, that it can be denoted as such. Therefor, valuing precedes the senses.evolution wrote: ↑June 14th, 2020, 6:57 am
I do NOT believe any thing, NOR do I disbelieve any thing.
For the human being animal to be able to place value on things, then they obviously first had to have senses to be able to gain the information needed to then be able to make value judgments.
I would say that the human being animal evolved first with senses before they started being able to value things.
I am not sure how a human body lacking the five senses of smell, taste, touch, hearing, and sight could actually be able to value any thing. But maybe you could provide an example and/or explain how.
Does a new born baby 'value' anything?
If yes, then what?
No.
Can a human being count the number of seconds the Universe is said to have existed?
If No, then does that mean that the Universe cannot be as old as It is said to be?
But I NEVER said EVERY thing (plural) could be infinite.
I said, 'Everything (singular) is just infinite and eternal'.
To me,
'EVERY thing' is plural for EVERY single thing.
'Everything' is singular for thee One Everything.
When 'EVERY thing' literally comes together they become thee One Everything.
The sum of EVERY thing together is thee One, Everything.
Okay, but is your 'Everything' the exact same as my 'Everything'? It certainly does not appear so.
To me, EVERY (single) thing is finite and limited, besides thee One (single) Everything, which is just infinite and eternal.
So what?
'look', see', et cetera are 'in the moment' of NOW. 'from thee One' is looking and seeing from thee internal (and eternal) Observer, NOW and HERE.
'One' may imply a begin, to you, from your perspective.
But, 'One' means NO beginning, to me.
Every 'one' has a beginning, to me, but thee 'One' Universe, for example, does NOT have a beginning.
Yes.
But what you mean by 'One' may be entirely different to what 'One' means to me.
I really do not even know what the concept 'can a begin' actually means, to you?
To me, thee One has NO beginning.
I have absolute NO idea NOR clue what a 'can a begin', in the concept of One, would even mean, let alone be what the 'One' Is, which is supposedly applicable to 'can a begin'.
To me, how an animal 'observes' is self-explanatory.
If, however, thee One Universe can 'observe, without an intelligent enough species coming into existence first is another matter and issue, which could be discussed?
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Would it be moraly right to tell young people the truth about life?
You know nothing of my literary habits is exactly the point I was making.
I read Beowulf with the original Old English in parallel, probably before you were even born.
Reading is not creativity, though is it.
By the way (not for Sculptor, but for any interested lurkers) I have yet to read the recently published Tolkien translation of Beowulf, which was published 6 years ago -- some decades after J.R.R.'s death. Posthumous publications of Tolkien's work are legion. Here's a link to a New Yorker article about it: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014 ... g-monsters
I read the Seamus Heaney version.
What ever you read is empty, since it leads to nothing.
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: Would it be moraly right to tell young people the truth about life?
Reading does not "lead to nothing". It leads to education. Is learning "creative"? How about cleaning gutters? Sculpting doesn't "create" anything -- it simply changes the shape of the clay. Cleaning the gutters does the same.
However, I also did some sculpting yesterday, with two friends aged 2 and 4. We used Play Doh. My specialty (and I'm very good at it) is snakes.
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Would it be moraly right to tell young people the truth about life?
So reading War & Peace leads to making snakes with playdoh?Ecurb wrote: ↑June 16th, 2020, 12:25 pmReading does not "lead to nothing". It leads to education. Is learning "creative"? How about cleaning gutters? Sculpting doesn't "create" anything -- it simply changes the shape of the clay. Cleaning the gutters does the same.
However, I also did some sculpting yesterday, with two friends aged 2 and 4. We used Play Doh. My specialty (and I'm very good at it) is snakes.
I bow to your inherent superiority.
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: Would it be moraly right to tell young people the truth about life?
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: Would it be moraly right to tell young people the truth about life?
Actually, reading is a creative activity (not AS creative as writing a story, perhaps, but creative nonetheless). A text is certainly created by the author, but the experience of reading it differs from one reader to the next, and demands creativity on the part of the reader. Let's look at a simple example. Here's Emily Dickinson's famous poem #258 (she gave her poems no titles):
The first stanza asks the reader to draw a mental picture of the slant of light that occurs on winter afternoon. I see the light streaking downward from the lofty windows of an ancient cathedral, but nothing in the poem demands that I do so. It's simply the image I have "created" from the words Dickinson wrote. Then the reader is asked to compare light from the low, winter sun with the "heft" of cathedral tunes. Neither hymns nor light are generally considered "hefty", so the reader is requested to explain to himself why Cathedral Tunes have "heft".There's a certain Slant of light,
Winter Afternoons –
That oppresses, like the Heft
Of Cathedral Tunes –
Heavenly Hurt, it gives us –
We can find no scar,
But internal difference –
Where the Meanings, are –
None may teach it – Any –
'Tis the seal Despair –
An imperial affliction
Sent us of the Air –
When it comes, the Landscape listens –
Shadows – hold their breath –
When it goes, 'tis like the Distance
On the look of Death –
The light gives us "heavenly hurt" which leaves no visible scar. What is Dickinson getting at? Why "heavenly" hurt? Isn't that an oxymoron? Why "imperial" affliction? Isn't that also an oxymoron? Why does the slant of light lead to a "seal" despair? The slant of light has "sealed" the poet's despair, perhaps aesthetically, perhaps erotically, because the well-educated reader remembers The Song of Solomon -- "Set me as a seal upon thine heart... for love is as strong as death." The "internal difference where the meanings are" suggest that looking at a slant of light on Winter afternoons is a "creative experience" for Dickinson. It makes the very shadows hold their breath, as if they have come alive. And when it goes,the winter night is like the "distance" on the look of death.
I could go on and on about this poem, but I think I've made my point. All artistic experiences are creative on the part of the person who experiences the art, as well as on that of the artist. More creativity, in general, is demanded of the reader than of the TV or movie viewer. Even in a straight-forward novel, the reader must "create" visual pictures of the action in his mind; in movies and TV the pictures are created for him.
Happy Bloomsday!
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Would it be moraly right to tell young people the truth about life?
There is a little creativity - a passive creativity in reading since we have to build our landscapes of the imagination. Radio drama is similar in many ways. TV and Films do most of the work for you.
But what I meant is that you seem to be a cultural and social vacuum. And that reading seems to do nothing for YOU personally. Whilst you think yourself capable of copy& paste the work of others - this is not creativity.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Would it be moraly right to tell young people the truth about life?
What is correct is to inform the child other people will often judge him or her according to his or her success, but not to be worried about this as the individual is responsible to his of her own principles, not society's, and the most the parents expect is he will try not to break the law or hurt his friends.
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: Would it be moraly right to tell young people the truth about life?
In part, this is due to the parents having pride in and taking credit for their children's success. All loving parents want their children to be happy, and self-sufficiency is one essential component of adult comfort and happiness. But the notion that parents deserve credit for their children's success is, I think, misguided. So is the notion that parents should be blamed for their children's failures.Belindi wrote: ↑June 17th, 2020, 5:36 am The ethic of success is often drummed into children. This is wrong and cruel because the child is not responsible for society's or their parents' expectations.
What is correct is to inform the child other people will often judge him or her according to his or her success, but not to be worried about this as the individual is responsible to his of her own principles, not society's, and the most the parents expect is he will try not to break the law or hurt his friends.
Parenting -- like other human relationships -- is a two-way street. The parent who thinks rote "parenting techniques" will "work" is often incorrect because every child is different, and every relationship is unique. From infancy on, the child influences the relationship just as much as the parent does.
This does not mean that parents shouldn't teach their children. Of course they should. But just as different educational styles and techniques work best for different children, so do different relationship styles. The notion that parenting is a "job" rather than a relationship is responsible for parents becoming ego-involved in the success of their children, and in their failures. Would a spouse take credit (or blame) for the career success of his or her spouse? (I remember Tiger Woods' father writing a book entitled "Raising a Tiger" in which he took credit for his son's golfing success. I found it disgusting.)
As far as lying: the notion that lying is always immoral is ridiculous. Picture this:
A jack-booted Gestapo officer is calmly grinding lit cigarettes into the bare chest of a handsome member of the Maquis, who looks like a young Louis Jourdan. "Tell me where the Jews are hiding!" snarls the officer, for some strange reason speaking in English with a German accent.
"I don't know where they are," insists the handsome member of the French resistance.
Do the "lying is always wrong" crowd really insist that the Maquis either rat out the Jews, or insist that he won't talk even though that would lead to even more torture, and, possibly, to the truth being eventually dragged out of him?
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Would it be moraly right to tell young people the truth about life?
You simply do not know enough about me to say that.
I'd prefer not to waste my time with such stupidity.They're more your speed. However, in the words of Bartleby the Scrivener, I'd prefer not to.
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Would it be moraly right to tell young people the truth about life?
What I find amusing is that you've not noticed that you already shot yourself in the foot.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023