Would it be moraly right to tell young people the truth about life?

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
Post Reply
evolution
Posts: 957
Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am

Re: Would it be moraly right to tell young people the truth about life?

Post by evolution »

arjand wrote: June 20th, 2020, 4:30 am
evolution wrote: June 20th, 2020, 12:20 amThe idea of 'luck', just like EVERY other idea, originated in 'human thought'.
And where does that thought originate from?
From what the body experiences through either or all of the five senses, obviously.
arjand wrote: June 20th, 2020, 4:30 am
evolution wrote: June 20th, 2020, 12:20 am
To me, 'what is considered beautiful' is evidence of thoughtful consideration. But what has this got to do with anything I said, and asked you?
I simply wonder whether plants or for example birds bring forward their apparent beauty on the basis of what can be indicated as thoughtful consideration.
So, why did you NOT ask that question instead?

But how could a plant or a bird bring forward their "apparent beauty" to a thinking human being?

To me, what is considered beautiful, or ugly, is in the eyes of the observer.

To me, absolutely every thing is relative to the observer. For example, neither a plant nor a bird bring you thee Truth of Life. The Truth of Life is there for you to SEE It. Whether you can SEE thee Truth or not depends upon how you are looking at and SEEING "things", and NOT how "things" are brought to you. I could, for example, write what thee actual Truth IS, and therefore bring thee Truth to you, but if you are yet able to recognize and SEE this Truth is depended upon, or relative, to you, and NOT the way It is "brought to you".
arjand wrote: June 20th, 2020, 4:30 am Thoughtful consideration implies the turning of facts into favorable for what can be indicated (in general) as 'beauty'.
To me, 'thoughtful consideration' does NOT imply whatsoever of turning facts into favorable ways to see 'beauty' at all. In fact, the VERY OPPOSITE is True, to me. 'Thoughtful consideration' ALLOWS facts to be RECOGNIZED and SEEN for what they ARE, without any distortions at all.
arjand wrote: June 20th, 2020, 4:30 am
evolution wrote: June 20th, 2020, 12:20 am

But there is NOTHING mystery here at all, well to me anyway.

If one is with 'thee one', which they Truly love, then they are said to have found their 'true love'. What is supposedly "mysterious" about this?
The mystery and thus the foundation for the idea 'luck' originates in the absolute unique nature of the event.
I really could not be bothered anymore.
arjand wrote: June 20th, 2020, 4:30 am
evolution wrote: June 20th, 2020, 12:20 am

I do not understand what you are 'trying to' say here. But, again, I am losing interest now anyway.
My argument is that valuing precedes the senses. The simple logical truth that something cannot cause itself is evidence.
Of course some thing causing itself sounds totally illogical. But what about some thing creating itself. Does that sound just as illogical, to you?

Is it in any way possible that some thing could create itself?

Also, your first statement, to me, has absolutely not bearing on your second statement here.
arjand wrote: June 20th, 2020, 4:30 am Valuing is the appropriation of what can be indicated as "good". When one values, one does not choose between "good" and "bad" but value.

The simple logical truth that something cannot cause itself means that the origin of valuing cannot be valued itself. That means that the senses cannot be the origin of valuing.
If this is your argument, then okay.
arjand wrote: June 20th, 2020, 4:30 am
evolution wrote: June 20th, 2020, 12:20 am

You appear to like to deflect away from answering the actual questions being posed to you.
My argument is that time is not of substance by itself and that it can only exist as a pattern observed by an observer.

When people view time, and for example the Universe as a totality, they erroneously exclude the observer from the equation.
Okay.
arjand wrote: June 20th, 2020, 4:30 am
evolution wrote: June 20th, 2020, 12:20 am
Which one, or, how does one implies a begin, and, what does 'a begin' actually mean, to you?

What does the 'it' word here refer to exactly?

If the word 'it' refers to 'a begin', then, whether 'a begin' can precede an observer is the question being asked to me, then I do not understand what the question is actually asking for.
The One that you appear to indicate is also known as "First Cause" or "God".
But, to me, there is NO 'first cause'. So, I am NOT sure why it would appear to you that I have indicated this.

Yes, the word 'One' refers to God, Everything, thee Universe, et cetera.
arjand wrote: June 20th, 2020, 4:30 am Spinoza: The Oneness of Everything
https://medium.com/personal-growth/spin ... 1a411085c9

Aristotle: First cause, in philosophy, the self-created being (i.e., God) to which every chain of causes must ultimately go back.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-causality/

Marcus Aurelius: The nature of the universe did once certainly before it was created, whatsoever it hath done since, deliberate and so resolve upon the creation of the world. Now since that time, whatsoever it is, that is and happens in the world, is either but a consequent of that one and first deliberation.

I wonder if these perspectives can be valid. As it appears, the error is made to exclude the observer from the equation.
What is it with 'you' and 'the observer'?

Who and/or what is 'the observer', to you?

Those perspectives can be completely valid. We just have to LOOK into them to SEE if they ARE. And guess what is NEEDED to LOOK at and SEE things? Yes, that is RIGHT - An observer.

Now, if ANY 'one' wants to 'observe' and SEE what thee actual Truth IS, then they just have to LOOK, or OBSERVE, from thee actual One's perspective and NOT from thee 'one's' own perspective.
arjand wrote: June 20th, 2020, 4:30 am A "First Cause" cannot exist because it implies a begin and a begin cannot precede an observer because a begin requires an observer.
I AGREE that a so called "first cause" does NOT exist.

Only when, and IF, you define what 'observer' means to you, then I will KNOW if I agree that a "first cause" does NOT exist for the reasons you give or for the reasons I KNOW.
arjand wrote: June 20th, 2020, 4:30 am
evolution wrote: June 20th, 2020, 12:20 am

Are you suggesting that the Universe did not begin until an observer came-to-be?

If yes, then, to you, thee Universe did not begin until 'you' began to observe.

Also, what are you basing the claim, "The Universe requires an observer to be possible", on exactly?
Yes, my argument is that "the Universe" as in "a totality" did not begin until an observer introduced a begin.
Just a VERY SIMPLE question; Where did an observer come from if the Universe did not exist BEFORE the observer?

What caused or created the observer if the Universe supposedly did NOT exist until the observer introduced 'a begin', (whatever 'a begin' actually means or refers to?)
arjand wrote: June 20th, 2020, 4:30 am The base for the claim is that a begin cannot precede an observer because it requires an observer to be possible.
So, x cannot precede a y because x requires y to be possible, which this claim is based on that this is "how it is" because you, yourself, say so, correct?
evolution wrote: June 20th, 2020, 12:20 am Okay.

Are you making a "true" attempt to include the observer into something that you say does not even exist until an observer exists?

Also, could it be possible that what appears to you is not actually what is occurs nor is happening?

Could it be possible that you are just misunderstanding what I am saying, and meaning?
My question is whether the observer can be included into 'something'. [/quote]

Yes, 'an observer' can be included into 'something'.
arjand wrote: June 20th, 2020, 4:30 am Something implies a begin and a begin requires an observer to be possible
But WHY does 'something' require an observer to be possible?

And, are you aware that 'an observer' is 'some thing'?
arjand wrote: June 20th, 2020, 4:30 am so it appears that it is not possible to include the observer into 'something'. It would explain why - until today - the origin of consciousness is unknown.
But the origin of Consciousness is ALREADY KNOWN. Although it may not YET be known, by you, correct?
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Would it be moraly right to tell young people the truth about life?

Post by Belindi »

Ecurb, It's one thing to say like "Ice cream makes me feel happy" and quite different to say "You make me feel sad."
Ecurb
Posts: 2138
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm

Re: Would it be moraly right to tell young people the truth about life?

Post by Ecurb »

Belindi wrote: June 20th, 2020, 12:27 pm Ecurb, It's one thing to say like "Ice cream makes me feel happy" and quite different to say "You make me feel sad."
Of course. But the example I gave is drawn from a scene I witnessed. I'm friends with a mother and her 3-year-old son. The son is a great kid, very smart, but willful and at the age where he enjoys fighting with his parents for control. His mom told him to pick up his toys, because they were about to have dinner. The boy refused.

"OK," said the mom. "You have a choice. You can pick up the toys, or I will pick them up. But if I pick them up, I will put them in a box and bring them to the basement and you can't play with them for a week."

The boy began to fuss, but he still refused to pick up his toys. So the mom picked them up, put them in a box and brought them to the basement.

By this time, the 3-year-old was having a temper tantrum. "I hate you, mom," he said.

"That makes me sad because it hurts my feelings," said the mom. "I love you, though."

The conversation temporarily ended, and about 30 seconds later the kid said, "I don't really hate you, mommy. I love you."

"I'm glad. That makes me very happy." Hugs and kisses.

The drama of the scene was created by the 3-year-old, not the mom. I thought the mom handled the whole thing quite well, and I doubt very much that the young lad's self esteem was damaged. Instead, I think the mother taught him something about kindness and how saying mean things DOES hurt other people's feelings.
User avatar
psyreporter
Posts: 1022
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Would it be moraly right to tell young people the truth about life?

Post by psyreporter »

evolution wrote: June 20th, 2020, 9:25 am
arjand wrote: June 20th, 2020, 4:30 amYes, my argument is that "the Universe" as in "a totality" did not begin until an observer introduced a begin.
Just a VERY SIMPLE question; Where did an observer come from if the Universe did not exist BEFORE the observer?

What caused or created the observer if the Universe supposedly did NOT exist until the observer introduced 'a begin', (whatever 'a begin' actually means or refers to?)
Simple logic shows that the observer cannot have a cause or begin. From my perspective, it could have be known at the first time that humanity started to questions the nature of things.

Recent scientific studies confirm that the observer precedes reality.

How observers create reality
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.06774.pdf

(2017) Quantum experiment in space confirms that reality is what you make it
The experiment confirms that a measurement in the present shapes what can be inferred about the past, i.e., the observer precedes reality.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/10 ... -make-it-0

Do Quantum Phenomena Require Conscious Observers?
“Experiments indicate that the everyday world we perceive does not exist until observed,” writes scientist Bernardo Kastrup and colleagues earlier this year on Scientific American, adding that this suggests “a primary role for mind in nature.”
https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/ar ... -observers
evolution wrote: June 20th, 2020, 9:25 am
So, x cannot precede a y because x requires y to be possible, which this claim is based on that this is "how it is" because you, yourself, say so, correct?
A begin implies the start of a pattern. A pattern is bound by observation.
evolution wrote: June 20th, 2020, 12:20 amAre you making a "true" attempt to include the observer into something that you say does not even exist until an observer exists?

Also, could it be possible that what appears to you is not actually what is occurs nor is happening?

Could it be possible that you are just misunderstanding what I am saying, and meaning?
Something has a begin. I did not suggest that the observer is to be included into 'something'.
PsyReporter.com | “If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.”
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Would it be moraly right to tell young people the truth about life?

Post by Belindi »

Ecurb wrote: June 20th, 2020, 1:55 pm
Belindi wrote: June 20th, 2020, 12:27 pm Ecurb, It's one thing to say like "Ice cream makes me feel happy" and quite different to say "You make me feel sad."
Of course. But the example I gave is drawn from a scene I witnessed. I'm friends with a mother and her 3-year-old son. The son is a great kid, very smart, but willful and at the age where he enjoys fighting with his parents for control. His mom told him to pick up his toys, because they were about to have dinner. The boy refused.

"OK," said the mom. "You have a choice. You can pick up the toys, or I will pick them up. But if I pick them up, I will put them in a box and bring them to the basement and you can't play with them for a week."

The boy began to fuss, but he still refused to pick up his toys. So the mom picked them up, put them in a box and brought them to the basement.

By this time, the 3-year-old was having a temper tantrum. "I hate you, mom," he said.

"That makes me sad because it hurts my feelings," said the mom. "I love you, though."

The conversation temporarily ended, and about 30 seconds later the kid said, "I don't really hate you, mommy. I love you."

"I'm glad. That makes me very happy." Hugs and kisses.

The drama of the scene was created by the 3-year-old, not the mom. I thought the mom handled the whole thing quite well, and I doubt very much that the young lad's self esteem was damaged. Instead, I think the mother taught him something about kindness and how saying mean things DOES hurt other people's feelings.
The 3 year old might possibly have been affected by what his mother said about his mother's feelings being hurt. This would not be because he felt remorse but because he felt punished by mother's disapproval. These incidents would finish more tidily if the mother consistently lays down the law to the three year old e.g. "If you don't do as I tell you I will send you to the naughty corner: will not be allowed to play with the new ball all day: I won't make your favourite pizza: etc" The three year old understands quid pro quo but is not up to speed on empathy. The child's response on the occasion you describe is he is learning to be compliant or even manipulative which is not the same as learning to be kind.
Your friend should have endured the temper tantrum and not escalated the affair to emotional blackmail.
https://www.momjunction.com/articles/st ... n_0082017/
evolution
Posts: 957
Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am

Re: Would it be moraly right to tell young people the truth about life?

Post by evolution »

arjand wrote: June 21st, 2020, 2:40 am
evolution wrote: June 20th, 2020, 9:25 am
Just a VERY SIMPLE question; Where did an observer come from if the Universe did not exist BEFORE the observer?

What caused or created the observer if the Universe supposedly did NOT exist until the observer introduced 'a begin', (whatever 'a begin' actually means or refers to?)
Simple logic shows that the observer cannot have a cause or begin.
Simple logic asks me to ask you; How do you define 'observer'?
arjand wrote: June 21st, 2020, 2:40 am From my perspective, it could have be known at the first time that humanity started to questions the nature of things.
Again, simple logic asks me to ask you some more clarifying questions:
What is 'it'?
What is 'first time'? And,
What has "humanity started to questions the nature of things" mean, and what is that in reference to exactly?
arjand wrote: June 21st, 2020, 2:40 am Recent scientific studies confirm that the observer precedes reality.

How observers create reality
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.06774.pdf

(2017) Quantum experiment in space confirms that reality is what you make it
The experiment confirms that a measurement in the present shapes what can be inferred about the past, i.e., the observer precedes reality.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/10 ... -make-it-0

Do Quantum Phenomena Require Conscious Observers?
“Experiments indicate that the everyday world we perceive does not exist until observed,” writes scientist Bernardo Kastrup and colleagues earlier this year on Scientific American, adding that this suggests “a primary role for mind in nature.”
https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/ar ... -observers
Besides the fact that it could be just as easy to state; "Recent scientific studies confirm that reality precedes the observer", and then find and provide a link to three scientific articles claiming the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you are claiming, that is; IF one wanted to argue for the counter beliefs. However, I have absolutely NO interest in doing this because, from my perspective, BOTH opposing points of views play an integral part in Life.

But this will NEVER be understood while any one is BELIEVING either side is true, right, and correct.

Do you believe that the observer, (whatever that is, to you?), precedes reality?
arjand wrote: June 21st, 2020, 2:40 am
evolution wrote: June 20th, 2020, 9:25 am
So, x cannot precede a y because x requires y to be possible, which this claim is based on that this is "how it is" because you, yourself, say so, correct?
A begin implies the start of a pattern. A pattern is bound by observation.
If I recall correctly, I asked you previous what does 'a begin' actually mean, to you?

If you do NOT tell me, then I will NEVER even be able to begin to understand what it is that you believe is true here and are 'trying' so hard to argue for, understood?

By the way, a pattern can exist BEFORE a human being is born. Although that it is a pattern will NOT be recognized until a pattern recognizing observer observes it, obviously.

arjand wrote: June 21st, 2020, 2:40 am
evolution wrote: June 20th, 2020, 12:20 amAre you making a "true" attempt to include the observer into something that you say does not even exist until an observer exists?

Also, could it be possible that what appears to you is not actually what is occurs nor is happening?

Could it be possible that you are just misunderstanding what I am saying, and meaning?
Something has a begin.
But, to me, NOT ALL things have a beginning. (When you write "a begin" do you actually mean "a beginning"?)
arjand wrote: June 21st, 2020, 2:40 am I did not suggest that the observer is to be included into 'something'.
Okay, but until you inform me of what an 'observer' actually IS, I will not be able to comprehend how an 'observer' has to exist BEFORE absolutely ANY thing else.
evolution
Posts: 957
Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am

Re: Would it be moraly right to tell young people the truth about life?

Post by evolution »

Ecurb wrote: June 20th, 2020, 9:24 am
Belindi wrote: June 20th, 2020, 4:46 am For a child to think his parent is ashamed of him poisons the child's self esteem.It is something the parent should never say. If the parent is actually ashamed of the child's behaviour in calling someone a N for the parent to emotionally blackmail the child is wrongful, and the parent had better have not admitted to such feelings and done their best to hide the feelings. There is no call always to be frank with the child, better be tactful and positive. In your scenario the parent should be like : " That is a bad word. Don't say that again."
If the child is old enough to know what the law means "It's against the law to call someone that. Don't ever call someone a N.....
That's fair enough, although I don't think children are such fragile little flowers that their self esteem will be "poisoned" if a parent is ashamed of something they do. Nor is it "emotional blackmail" for a parent to honestly and openly tell the child how his behavior makes the parent feel. Is it Ok for a parent to express positive emotions engendered by a child's actions, but not negative ones? If so,why? Is it OK to say, "When you say you hate me, that makes me sad." Or is that "emotional blackmail", too? I don't think honestly discussing one's emotional reactions with one's child constitutes "blackmail". (For one thing,in my extensive experience with young children, they don't care all that much,)

The distinction between "I'm ashamed of you" and ""I'm ashamed of that behavior" is a false one.
Is it?

Can you not see the VERY CLEAR and, to me, OBVIOUS distinction?

Let me ask it is this way; Are 'you', your behavior?

What is your Honest answer?
Ecurb wrote: June 20th, 2020, 9:24 am If a parent has a loving, open relationship with his child, the child will know what is meant.
So, are you saying that if a parent tells them self that they have a loving, open relationship with my child, then I can tell them whatever I want, and they will know what I mean?

If you are saying this, then this is just another PRIME EXAMPLE of how adults self-"justify" ALL of their WRONG and ABUSIVE behaviors on children.

Also, although I already KNOW the answers, think about:
WHY do parents say to their children "You know what I mean", and/or, "You know what is right from wrong"?
Why do adults EXPECT their children "to know what they mean"? And,
WHY do adults expect children to know right from wrong when there is NOT one adult in the world YET who KNOWS right from wrong?
Ecurb wrote: June 20th, 2020, 9:24 am Besides, no reasonable parent would be ashamed of the behavior, which might be due to ignorance (as someone pointed out). The parent would be ashamed of the behavior in conjunction with the motives for it (eg. trying to hurt someone else out of meanness.)

In addition, families should support each other and feel pride (or shame) in the unit. That's reasonable, and educating one's child in that regard is reasonable.

Of course in my case I've never been confronted with this situation because my own son is, like Mary Poppins, practically perfect in every way.
If your 'son' is like "mary", then are you sure that it is a 'son'?
evolution
Posts: 957
Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am

Re: Would it be moraly right to tell young people the truth about life?

Post by evolution »

Ecurb wrote: June 20th, 2020, 1:55 pm
Belindi wrote: June 20th, 2020, 12:27 pm Ecurb, It's one thing to say like "Ice cream makes me feel happy" and quite different to say "You make me feel sad."
Of course. But the example I gave is drawn from a scene I witnessed. I'm friends with a mother and her 3-year-old son. The son is a great kid, very smart, but willful and at the age where he enjoys fighting with his parents for control.
Are there children, or is there an age, where human beings enjoy fighting?

Could the child just be copying their parents fighting or desiring for control?

Also, if a parent did not take control over their children, then children would NOT 'have to' fight to get control back.

By the way, what does 'willful' actually mean, to you?
Ecurb wrote: June 20th, 2020, 1:55 pm His mom told him to pick up his toys, because they were about to have dinner. The boy refused.

"OK," said the mom. "You have a choice. You can pick up the toys, or I will pick them up. But if I pick them up, I will put them in a box and bring them to the basement and you can't play with them for a week."
Can human beings in just three years comprehend and KNOW what 'a week' would actually mean?
Ecurb wrote: June 20th, 2020, 1:55 pm The boy began to fuss, but he still refused to pick up his toys. So the mom picked them up, put them in a box and brought them to the basement.

By this time, the 3-year-old was having a temper tantrum. "I hate you, mom," he said.

"That makes me sad because it hurts my feelings," said the mom. "I love you, though."

The conversation temporarily ended, and about 30 seconds later the kid said, "I don't really hate you, mommy. I love you."

"I'm glad. That makes me very happy." Hugs and kisses.
So, it is up to the boy to make his mother happy?

That boy has learned and is still through reinforced learning that if he wants his mom to be happy, then it is up to him, and to tell her that he loves her.
Ecurb wrote: June 20th, 2020, 1:55 pm The drama of the scene was created by the 3-year-old, not the mom.
LOL So, to you, the mom telling the child WHAT TO DO, did NOT start any drama at all, correct?

ALL the drama, to you, was the SOLE and ONLY RESPONSIBILITY of an infant child, who has only been existing for just on three years, and for most of that time they were still in the baby stage of life, correct?

Could it NOT be a possibility at all that the parent went out of their way to discover or learn some other way of speaking to their own child, which they chose to bring into this Life, in some other way that did not create a situation where a three year old infant child would cause, create, and START ALL the drama?

Or, it is still up to a three year old "to know better"?
Ecurb wrote: June 20th, 2020, 1:55 pm I thought the mom handled the whole thing quite well, and I doubt very much that the young lad's self esteem was damaged. Instead, I think the mother taught him something about kindness and how saying mean things DOES hurt other people's feelings.
Could it have been done and/or handled better? is the question.

If no, then great.

But if yes, then great. How?

I would suggest that if a human being in just three years, and most of that time as a baby, has already learned to "enjoy fighting" and is the one that is "causing ALL the drama", then how that infant has been handled previously, could have been done differently AND better.

But who am 'I' to suggest anything at all?
Ecurb
Posts: 2138
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm

Re: Would it be moraly right to tell young people the truth about life?

Post by Ecurb »

Belindi wrote: June 21st, 2020, 3:37 am

The 3 year old might possibly have been affected by what his mother said about his mother's feelings being hurt. This would not be because he felt remorse but because he felt punished by mother's disapproval. These incidents would finish more tidily if the mother consistently lays down the law to the three year old e.g. "If you don't do as I tell you I will send you to the naughty corner: will not be allowed to play with the new ball all day: I won't make your favourite pizza: etc" The three year old understands quid pro quo but is not up to speed on empathy. The child's response on the occasion you describe is he is learning to be compliant or even manipulative which is not the same as learning to be kind.
Your friend should have endured the temper tantrum and not escalated the affair to emotional blackmail.
https://www.momjunction.com/articles/st ... n_0082017/
We'll have to agree to disagree. First of all, I don't think ending "tidily" is always the desired outcome. It is true that the child was trying to be manipulative; it is not true that he was "learning to be manipulative", because his attempts at manipulation didn't work. Of course he wanted to hurt his mother (because she was hurting him by confiscating some of his toys for a week). That's why he said, "I hate you."

It was the 3-year-old (not the mom) who engaged in "emotional blackmail". The mom simply reacted as she would in any relationship, with an open, honest description of how her son made her feel. How is that "manipulative"? What should her reaction to emotional blackmail be?

To evolution: Lots of people like fighting, including me, when I was a kid (and even now, if you judge by my posts). I doubt the parents fight, although I'm not there all the time. Kids fighting with their parents is common at that age, because they are trying to assert their personal autonomy and it's frustrating for them. Since when did anyone say "It's up to the boy to make the mom happy."? Is it improper to thank someone (adult or child) if he says he loves you?
I would suggest that if a human being in just three years, and most of that time as a baby, has already learned to "enjoy fighting" and is the one that is "causing ALL the drama", then how that infant has been handled previously, could have been done differently AND better.

But who am 'I' to suggest anything at all?
You are nobody to suggest anything. Your ridiculous cut and respond out of context style of posting reminds me of a tiny dog yapping at my heels. It's annoying, but easy to ignore.

You want to blame the parents? What for? Trying to get the kid to pick up his toys? No-- a temper tantrum on the part of the child MUST MEAN errors in PARENTING TECHNIQUES, First of all, why blame anyone? Tantrums are normal. Second, this is the same reasoning that would lead you to blame the victim of spousal abuse. Why blame the victim? It is true, of course, that abused women could have prevented the abuse if they behaved differently (perhaps by allowing their abusers to always get their way). But the same reasoning that blames parents for anything the child does also credits parents for the child's achievements. This is exactly what I've been arguing against all along, as you might know if you read people's posts in longer chunks instead of sentence by sentence.
User avatar
psyreporter
Posts: 1022
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Would it be moraly right to tell young people the truth about life?

Post by psyreporter »

evolution wrote: June 21st, 2020, 6:20 amSimple logic asks me to ask you; How do you define 'observer'?
I intended to indicate the observer per se which could manifest itself in mathematics or in the idea of causality. A pattern by definition implies the nature of an observer, with the evidence being that philosophy or science is possible.

What is reality otherwise than that of which can be said to have been observed? The idea that reality can exist without an observer is absurd.
evolution wrote: June 21st, 2020, 6:20 am
arjand wrote: June 21st, 2020, 2:40 am From my perspective, it could have be known at the first time that humanity started to questions the nature of things.
Again, simple logic asks me to ask you some more clarifying questions:
What is 'it'?
What is 'first time'? And,
What has "humanity started to questions the nature of things" mean, and what is that in reference to exactly?
I simply question the validity of the idea that the Universe must have a begin or 'First Cause' and that consciousness and the observer per se can originate from that begin or First Cause.
evolution wrote: June 21st, 2020, 6:20 amBesides the fact that it could be just as easy to state; "Recent scientific studies confirm that reality precedes the observer", and then find and provide a link to three scientific articles claiming the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you are claiming, that is; IF one wanted to argue for the counter beliefs.
Can you provide those links?
evolution wrote: June 21st, 2020, 6:20 amHowever, I have absolutely NO interest in doing this because, from my perspective, BOTH opposing points of views play an integral part in Life.

But this will NEVER be understood while any one is BELIEVING either side is true, right, and correct.

Do you believe that the observer, (whatever that is, to you?), precedes reality?
To precede something implies that that something has a begin because it would nessesarily have come into existence after that which preceded it. Thus, at question is simply, can the observer have a begin?

By logic, reality has a begin which is introduced by the observer. The opposite is impossible.
evolution wrote: June 21st, 2020, 6:20 am
arjand wrote: June 21st, 2020, 2:40 amA begin implies the start of a pattern. A pattern is bound by observation.
If I recall correctly, I asked you previous what does 'a begin' actually mean, to you?

If you do NOT tell me, then I will NEVER even be able to begin to understand what it is that you believe is true here and are 'trying' so hard to argue for, understood?

By the way, a pattern can exist BEFORE a human being is born. Although that it is a pattern will NOT be recognized until a pattern recognizing observer observes it, obviously.
When you indicate 'Everything' and 'One' as in a totality, those concepts necessarily imply a begin of a pattern.

When you speak of 'One', of which you said that it is a synonym for God, of which others (Aristotle) say that it is the 'First Cause', it simply implies a 'begin' of that what can be said to be a part of the 'Everything' or 'One' that is indicated.
evolution wrote: June 21st, 2020, 6:20 am
arjand wrote: June 21st, 2020, 2:40 amBut, to me, NOT ALL things have a beginning. (When you write "a begin" do you actually mean "a beginning"?)
A pattern always has a begin. A 'thing' is simply a pattern.

What I intended to indicate is that the 'begin' originates from the observer.
PsyReporter.com | “If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.”
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Would it be moraly right to tell young people the truth about life?

Post by Belindi »

Ecurb wrote: June 21st, 2020, 10:30 am
Belindi wrote: June 21st, 2020, 3:37 am

The 3 year old might possibly have been affected by what his mother said about his mother's feelings being hurt. This would not be because he felt remorse but because he felt punished by mother's disapproval. These incidents would finish more tidily if the mother consistently lays down the law to the three year old e.g. "If you don't do as I tell you I will send you to the naughty corner: will not be allowed to play with the new ball all day: I won't make your favourite pizza: etc" The three year old understands quid pro quo but is not up to speed on empathy. The child's response on the occasion you describe is he is learning to be compliant or even manipulative which is not the same as learning to be kind.
Your friend should have endured the temper tantrum and not escalated the affair to emotional blackmail.
https://www.momjunction.com/articles/st ... n_0082017/
We'll have to agree to disagree. First of all, I don't think ending "tidily" is always the desired outcome. It is true that the child was trying to be manipulative; it is not true that he was "learning to be manipulative", because his attempts at manipulation didn't work. Of course he wanted to hurt his mother (because she was hurting him by confiscating some of his toys for a week). That's why he said, "I hate you."

It was the 3-year-old (not the mom) who engaged in "emotional blackmail". The mom simply reacted as she would in any relationship, with an open, honest description of how her son made her feel. How is that "manipulative"? What should her reaction to emotional blackmail be?

To evolution: Lots of people like fighting, including me, when I was a kid (and even now, if you judge by my posts). I doubt the parents fight, although I'm not there all the time. Kids fighting with their parents is common at that age, because they are trying to assert their personal autonomy and it's frustrating for them. Since when did anyone say "It's up to the boy to make the mom happy."? Is it improper to thank someone (adult or child) if he says he loves you?
I would suggest that if a human being in just three years, and most of that time as a baby, has already learned to "enjoy fighting" and is the one that is "causing ALL the drama", then how that infant has been handled previously, could have been done differently AND better.

But who am 'I' to suggest anything at all?
You are nobody to suggest anything. Your ridiculous cut and respond out of context style of posting reminds me of a tiny dog yapping at my heels. It's annoying, but easy to ignore.

You want to blame the parents? What for? Trying to get the kid to pick up his toys? No-- a temper tantrum on the part of the child MUST MEAN errors in PARENTING TECHNIQUES, First of all, why blame anyone? Tantrums are normal. Second, this is the same reasoning that would lead you to blame the victim of spousal abuse. Why blame the victim? It is true, of course, that abused women could have prevented the abuse if they behaved differently (perhaps by allowing their abusers to always get their way). But the same reasoning that blames parents for anything the child does also credits parents for the child's achievements. This is exactly what I've been arguing against all along, as you might know if you read people's posts in longer chunks instead of sentence by sentence.
We can agree to disagree to be sure. I do wonder though if you have looked up the accepted theories about age-relayed stages of moral development. My opinion is based on the most recent theory that a 3 year old's sense of right and wrong is driven by their need to stay out of trouble; the three your old is at the age stage when they do the right thing to avoid punishment. Naturally your three year old friend would want what they are not permitted to have or do and will kick up a row, so will respond to the threat of retribution if the parent is consistent and shows she means what she threatens.
The parent of such a small child ought not to discuss her feelings with her child who is not mature enough to understand an adult's feelings.
It is easy to search for and find accepted theories of age related moral development.You may have a better theory but you have not put it forward.
Ecurb
Posts: 2138
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm

Re: Would it be moraly right to tell young people the truth about life?

Post by Ecurb »

Belindi wrote: June 22nd, 2020, 4:02 am
The parent of such a small child ought not to discuss her feelings with her child who is not mature enough to understand an adult's feelings.
It is easy to search for and find accepted theories of age related moral development.You may have a better theory but you have not put it forward.
I do think I have a better theory, and I have discussed it here (of course I might be wrong, but so might the theorists at "mom junction", which seems to me like a sexist name for a parenting advice site). My theory is that I treat child rearing as a RELATIONSHIP rather than a job. Obviously, in all relationships we behave differently with different people. However, honesty about our feelings is an important aspect of relationships. By being open and honest about them with children, we teach children to be open and honest in their own relationships.

In addition, I don't think rote notions about stages of a child's development are the way to go. Each child is different (just as each adult is different). What works well in one relationship may not work in another.

Also, if the adult and child are equal partners in terms of the relationship (although not in terms of providing food, shelter, education, etc),it makes sense for the parent to behave in not only ways that work best for the child, but also in ways that work best for the parent. If a parent is trying to follow some "book" on child rearing, he or she may become frustrated because it doesn't seem natural. A parent who expresses himself, loves his child, sometimes expresses frustration with the child, etc., etc. is in a more honest relationship, which may lead to a happier relationship, which may be better for the child, as well as the adult.

I used to babysit the 3 year old one day a week when his mom went to work (not recently because she's been furloughed, and because of Covid I've only seen the kid outdoors two times in the last 3 months). I actually know the kid better than the mom (I'm friends with his dad). Nonetheless, I think the mom is a very good mother, and I also know that she reads parenting books constantly (the "choice" form of discipline I mentioned is doubtless derived from some book I haven't read). Dr. Spock ruled the child rearing world for decades, and now his theories have been largely abandoned. Nonetheless, I don't think there's any reason to think the current child-rearing fads are any better than those of the past, and they will doubtless be supplanted by those of the future. However, love, honesty, and the joy of having a good time will never go out of style.

The three-year-old may not be very mature, but he is very smart. When I went to his back yard to play recently he said, "Ecurb, do you know what is incorporeal?"

"What?"

"Incorporeal. Do you know what is incorporeal?"

"What is incorporeal?"

"Brollachans are incorporeal."

Me: "How do you know about brollachans?" (Brollachans are a mystical dark force in Welsh mythology.)

"My dad told me a story about them."
Ecurb
Posts: 2138
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm

Re: Would it be moraly right to tell young people the truth about life?

Post by Ecurb »

One more thing: My own son is grown up and I don't know current child rearing advice very well. I'm sure a lot of it is good, in its way, which is as general advice that should be altered to suit individuals. However, I don't think it's easy to look at the latest research on the psychological and emotional development of young children and draw inferences as to the parenting tactics that suit those "stages". Some inferences might seem like common sense; it is also common sense to see that a huge variety of child rearing habits, tactics, techniques and methods have been employed throughout history, many "successful". What are the goals of child rearing? We'd all like to rear competent, loving, brave, honest, and empathetic children. One way to do this (even when the kids are very young) is to model the behavior by being competent, loving, brave, honest and empathetic. Perhaps the kid won't much care, but I'll bet he doesn't really forget, either.

The "theories about age related stages of moral development" might be well supported (I wouldn't know). But the notion that child-rearing techniques and tactics suggested by those theories are well supported sounds dubious. How could they be? We would need long term studies.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Would it be moraly right to tell young people the truth about life?

Post by Belindi »

Well, Ecurb, I don't have faith in common sense. However it seems you have good parenting skills and as you say, a good relationship which is what matters.
evolution
Posts: 957
Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am

Re: Would it be moraly right to tell young people the truth about life?

Post by evolution »

arjand wrote: June 22nd, 2020, 3:20 am
evolution wrote: June 21st, 2020, 6:20 amSimple logic asks me to ask you; How do you define 'observer'?
I intended to indicate the observer per se which could manifest itself in mathematics or in the idea of causality. A pattern by definition implies the nature of an observer, with the evidence being that philosophy or science is possible.

What is reality otherwise than that of which can be said to have been observed? The idea that reality can exist without an observer is absurd.
It appears that you have TOTALLY MISUNDERSTOOD my question, to you.

'you', "arjand" use words. 'you' have definitions for the words you use. My question was and still is asking; How do 'you', "arjand", define the word you use 'observer'?

Until you explain how 'you' define that word, then I have absolutely NO idea of what you are talking about.

arjand wrote: June 22nd, 2020, 3:20 am
evolution wrote: June 21st, 2020, 6:20 am

Again, simple logic asks me to ask you some more clarifying questions:
What is 'it'?
What is 'first time'? And,
What has "humanity started to questions the nature of things" mean, and what is that in reference to exactly?
I simply question the validity of the idea that the Universe must have a begin or 'First Cause' and that consciousness and the observer per se can originate from that begin or First Cause.
Well you do NOT have to question the validity of the idea that the Universe must have a beginning or a "first because", with me, because I do NOT hold that idea NOR even have that view.

But this still does NOT reveal YOUR answers to MY questions, posed to you here.
arjand wrote: June 22nd, 2020, 3:20 am
evolution wrote: June 21st, 2020, 6:20 amBesides the fact that it could be just as easy to state; "Recent scientific studies confirm that reality precedes the observer", and then find and provide a link to three scientific articles claiming the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you are claiming, that is; IF one wanted to argue for the counter beliefs.
Can you provide those links?
IF I went looking for them, then I might be able to. But, considering I have absolutely NO interest in that side or view, I also have absolute NO interest in looking for that.
arjand wrote: June 22nd, 2020, 3:20 am

To precede something implies that that something has a begin because it would nessesarily have come into existence after that which preceded it. Thus, at question is simply, can the observer have a begin?

By logic, reality has a begin which is introduced by the observer. The opposite is impossible.
Therefore, and then, you have a LOT of explaining to do.

Let us start with; How do you define the word 'observer' here?
arjand wrote: June 22nd, 2020, 3:20 am

When you indicate 'Everything' and 'One' as in a totality, those concepts necessarily imply a begin of a pattern.

When you speak of 'One', of which you said that it is a synonym for God, of which others (Aristotle) say that it is the 'First Cause', it simply implies a 'begin' of that what can be said to be a part of the 'Everything' or 'One' that is indicated.
Just because some human being used some phrase "first cause", this has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER AT ALL to do with what I say, am talking about, AND MEANING.

STOP interpreting what I am saying, and meaning, and linking what I say to what other people say. I am NOT, and I will repeat NOT, talking about "first cause". In fact, from what I have observed, "first cause" is completely illogical and nonsensical.
arjand wrote: June 22nd, 2020, 3:20 am

A pattern always has a begin. A 'thing' is simply a pattern.

What I intended to indicate is that the 'begin' originates from the observer.
And, this has been ALL you have indicated, and from ALL indications, this is about ALL you WILL indicate.

But, who or what is an 'observer', and HOW long as the observer been around for?
Post Reply

Return to “Ethics and Morality”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

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

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021