Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sy Borg]

Schopenhauer: "Life is something which should never have been." Think about it, life lives upon life, big fish eats little fish, one cannot say life is indifferent for that would be anthropomorphic, Nature which constitutes all life forms, cares not for the individual, just can't stay away from the anthropomorphic, but only for the species in its cold process of natural selection. The world is cause to all its reactionary creatures, as we in turn are cause to the physical world, in that our existence affects change in its constitution, where again it is cause to us. Nature red in tooth and claw, Byron, I think? So, no life is not benevolent, it is merciless in consuming itself.

Tennyson actually.

Still, the sentiment is spot on. Almost 70% of species are carnivorous and plenty of vegetarian animals occasionally dabble in meat. That doesn't count the damage done by vegetarian animals on each other when competing for mates or territory.

Life has a significant element of chaos that results in frequent brutality. However, life today is more civilised, reasoning and peaceful that life in the past. Ever more species are intelligent enough to avoid fights with display behaviour; those who avoid fighting are more likely to reproduce. We technological simians have done the same as we patter on keyboards in abstract conversation as opposed to whacking each other on the head with clubs.

The need to eat other living things is the reason why life cannot be benevolent. However, post-life - be it sentient AI, digitised consciousness, or extreme technological enhancements - will not need to exploit life forms to the same extent, if at all. Thus, they could potentially be benevolent. Maybe life is a difficult and painful phase of matter before becoming something more solid and stable?

You've introduced a fascinating notion. If life's evolutionary trajectory is leading towards more sophisticated forms of existence, such as sentient AI or digitized consciousness, it may indeed transcend some of the primal brutalities intrinsic to organic life. Could this mean that the trajectory of evolution is towards increasing benevolence, even if the starting point was indifferent or even cruel?

While Rob White's assertion may not align perfectly with the observable realities of nature, perhaps it can be seen as aspirational. As thinking, feeling beings, we have the power to influence the course of our personal and collective futures. So while life, as a broad, natural process, may not inherently be benevolent, the conscious choices we make can infuse it with a greater sense of purpose, kindness, and yes, benevolence. The question then becomes, how do we choose to interpret and shape our reality amidst the vast, indifferent backdrop of nature?

If it is aspirational, doesn't that make it a tad manipulative? The author could have given the message that life is brutal but we aspire to make it less so? It's seemingly well meant, but still tricky.

Biology is essentially an ouroboros so, as long as we are significantly biological, there will be brutality. Alas, it's speculative as to whether truly sentient post-life will emerge, and also if it can maintain itself without inflicting entropy on the living and/or sentient.

When it comes to how we choose to interpret and shape our world, philosophy has its role but, given the vagaries of human nature, it will never solve the problems completely. Also, I wonder how free people will be to consider their own solutions in the future as countries become increasingly controlling of people's speech, actions and even thoughts. There may be some backwards steps before we can move forwards.

[Tegularius]

In this vast cosmic theater, it's our human experiences and interpretations that shape our understanding of concepts like kindness, malevolence, or benevolence. It's intriguing to think about how our human-centric perspectives mold our interpretation of the broader universe and its inherent nature. Would you say that our search for benevolence is, in essence, a search for understanding and meaning within this grand indifferent cosmos?

It was never truly a matter of benevolence, which really is a side effect or internal response in the overall understanding of our own nature relative to the nature of things. In that sense man is indeed the measure of all things not in any absolute sense but based on the relative capacity of his knowledge and insight which is ever changeable, intangible with no guarantee it must always proceed to more encompassing perspectives. Wisdom, enlightenment or whatever, is a form of mental evolution with a lot of ups and downs whose memes can be as debilitating as propagating.

As with life, wisdom is fluidic in that it has no goal but instead resembles a process more deeply morphological in nature ever subject, as Goethe mentions, to change, interchange and transformation.

[Sushan]

In this vast cosmic theater, it's our human experiences and interpretations that shape our understanding of concepts like kindness, malevolence, or benevolence. It's intriguing to think about how our human-centric perspectives mold our interpretation of the broader universe and its inherent nature. Would you say that our search for benevolence is, in essence, a search for understanding and meaning within this grand indifferent cosmos?

It was never truly a matter of benevolence, which really is a side effect or internal response in the overall understanding of our own nature relative to the nature of things. In that sense man is indeed the measure of all things not in any absolute sense but based on the relative capacity of his knowledge and insight which is ever changeable, intangible with no guarantee it must always proceed to more encompassing perspectives. Wisdom, enlightenment or whatever, is a form of mental evolution with a lot of ups and downs whose memes can be as debilitating as propagating.

As with life, wisdom is fluidic in that it has no goal but instead resembles a process more deeply morphological in nature ever subject, as Goethe mentions, to change, interchange and transformation.

Absolutely. The idea that wisdom or enlightenment is a fluid process, not tethered to a fixed endpoint, resonates deeply. It aligns with the concept that our understanding of life, benevolence, and even existence itself is ever-evolving. Just as life is an interplay of constants and variables, so too is our perception and knowledge.

The inherent unpredictability and fluidity you've alluded to remind us of the importance of humility in the face of the vast unknown. Goethe's mention of change, interchange, and transformation also underscores the dynamic nature of our understanding and experience. Life, wisdom, and enlightenment aren't linear paths but meandering rivers, adapting and carving new routes as they progress.

In this journey, would you agree that the value lies not just in the destinations (if there are any) but in the intricate dance of learning, unlearning, and relearning?

[Tegularius]

In this journey, would you agree that the value lies not just in the destinations (if there are any) but in the intricate dance of learning, unlearning, and relearning?

For all things mortal, these are the oscillations of existence. The best we can do is understand and come to terms by yielding to its processes honestly rather than attacking it with our bloated egos and self interest scenarios which, more often than not, have proven to be self-defeating.

For this to happen a kind of overcoming is required in the Nietzschean sense to master the main obstacle, that being ourselves subject to a long overdue self-analysis in resolving the debris contained in our own psyches; leftovers which have no further function except to distort. If that doesn't happen which up to now has been the case, the power and joy of any future discovery or its technological implementation will remain mute to any future advancement regarding our fate or destiny. We're at a cusp where this becomes ever more evident at least to those who bother to think about it. We haven't yet learned to compromise with the demands of existence to keep existing! Technology is a false hope if that is our only hope in the saga of continuation.

It was an interesting conversation and I appreciate your thoughtful replies but don't feel I can add much more to our discussion beyond what was already stated.

Regards!

[Sushan]

In this journey, would you agree that the value lies not just in the destinations (if there are any) but in the intricate dance of learning, unlearning, and relearning?

For all things mortal, these are the oscillations of existence. The best we can do is understand and come to terms by yielding to its processes honestly rather than attacking it with our bloated egos and self interest scenarios which, more often than not, have proven to be self-defeating.

For this to happen a kind of overcoming is required in the Nietzschean sense to master the main obstacle, that being ourselves subject to a long overdue self-analysis in resolving the debris contained in our own psyches; leftovers which have no further function except to distort. If that doesn't happen which up to now has been the case, the power and joy of any future discovery or its technological implementation will remain mute to any future advancement regarding our fate or destiny. We're at a cusp where this becomes ever more evident at least to those who bother to think about it. We haven't yet learned to compromise with the demands of existence to keep existing! Technology is a false hope if that is our only hope in the saga of continuation.

It was an interesting conversation and I appreciate your thoughtful replies but don't feel I can add much more to our discussion beyond what was already stated.

Regards!

I genuinely value the depth and insight you've shared throughout this conversation. Your emphasis on the necessity of self-reflection and the Nietzschean concept of "overcoming" is indeed profound. I concur that technology, while transformative, cannot be the sole panacea for the deeply embedded challenges within our psyches. It's a tool, and like any tool, its efficacy is determined by the hand that wields it and the intention behind its use. As we stand at this pivotal juncture in human history, the call for introspection, humility, and genuine understanding is more pressing than ever.

Thank you for taking the time to engage in this meaningful exchange. While this may be the conclusion of our current dialogue, I hope our paths cross again in future discussions. Wishing you all the best in your endeavors and reflections!

Warm regards!

[Sculptor1]

This topic is about the May 2022 Philosophy Book of the Month

Life is benevolent. Life never blinks. Life is always responding to what you think.

This author implies that life always watch upon us and responds to what we think. So, as per my understanding, then the life should go on as we wish. But life is not like that. It has many ups, which we like, and many downs, which we do not like or wish to have.

Can we really say life is benevolent?

Not really.
It's all about perpective.
Life is benevolvent for the man eating his veal cutlet. But not so much for the calf that gave its life to provide him with food.
Such examples are ubiquitous throughout culture and nature.
Where you would start to balance one off against another is pretty much an impossible and hoplessly subjective project.

[Sushan]

This topic is about the May 2022 Philosophy Book of the Month

Life is benevolent. Life never blinks. Life is always responding to what you think.

This author implies that life always watch upon us and responds to what we think. So, as per my understanding, then the life should go on as we wish. But life is not like that. It has many ups, which we like, and many downs, which we do not like or wish to have.

Can we really say life is benevolent?

Not really.
It's all about perpective.
Life is benevolvent for the man eating his veal cutlet. But not so much for the calf that gave its life to provide him with food.
Such examples are ubiquitous throughout culture and nature.
Where you would start to balance one off against another is pretty much an impossible and hoplessly subjective project.

You raise a valid point about the relativity of benevolence, and the dichotomy you've provided with the man and the calf encapsulates the inherent contradictions in our understanding of life's benevolence. Indeed, perceptions of benevolence can be deeply subjective and situational.

However, it also brings to the forefront the idea that benevolence might be less about the objective reality of events and more about our interpretation and response to them. Perhaps it's less about life being inherently benevolent and more about our capacity to find or create benevolence within the framework of our experiences.

Would you say then, that while life might present challenges, the true essence of benevolence lies in our ability to navigate and derive meaning from these experiences?

[popeye1945]

Schopenhauer: "Life is something which should never have been." Think about it, life lives upon life, big fish eats little fish, one cannot say life is indifferent for that would be anthropomorphic, Nature which constitutes all life forms, cares not for the individual, just can't stay away from the anthropomorphic, but only for the species in its cold process of natural selection. The world is cause to all its reactionary creatures, as we in turn are cause to the physical world, in that our existence affects change in its constitution, where again it is cause to us. Nature red in tooth and claw, Byron, I think? So, no life is not benevolent, it is merciless in consuming itself.

Your perspective, leaning on Schopenhauer, paints a stark contrast to the optimism found in Rob White's words. Schopenhauer did indeed have a more pessimistic view on the nature of life, emphasizing suffering and the relentless will-to-live. However, to correct one point: the phrase "Nature red in tooth and claw" is attributed to Tennyson in his poem "In Memoriam A.H.H.", not Byron.

While nature's processes might seem indifferent or even cruel, the concept of benevolence, as I see it, is inherently human. We've constructed this idea based on our unique human experiences and consciousness. Life, in its vast expanse, might not have inherent moralities, but humans have the capacity to perceive, interpret, and act with kindness and compassion.

It's intriguing how different philosophical outlooks can shape one's understanding of life's nature. While the indifferent mechanics of the natural world, like the food chain, are evident, humans have also carved spaces of compassion, empathy, and altruism amidst this. Thus, while life's processes may not be inherently benevolent, can we not argue that our conscious efforts to inject benevolence into our experiences and interactions hold significant value?

Indeed, compassion and empathy come into being with the identification of one's self with the self in others, only then do these sentiments arise. They, however, are not unique to humanity, but are shared I suspect with all other organisms. All organisms are reactive creatures and this is just one example of a reaction that is shared across the board. Granted it is most easily identified when an organism is in a society/group of like organisms, which makes identification much easier. How many people do you think identify with the organisms that they call food? No identification with, no compassion, no empathy. This makes me wonder about people who believe in a merciful all-good God, how can one respect such people, I mean, intellectually. Humanity at large has no compassion for life in general when factory farms are allowed to exist. I know from some experience that many native people still have this identification with all other life forms, perhaps even the fifty percent or more that fall under the title of parasites, which is the nature of all life, the Uroboros, the snake consuming its own tail. Tennyson, I'll try to remember that. Perhaps that is the answer to all political strife, the lack of identification of one's self with the self in others even within our own like kind.

[Sushan]

Schopenhauer: "Life is something which should never have been." Think about it, life lives upon life, big fish eats little fish, one cannot say life is indifferent for that would be anthropomorphic, Nature which constitutes all life forms, cares not for the individual, just can't stay away from the anthropomorphic, but only for the species in its cold process of natural selection. The world is cause to all its reactionary creatures, as we in turn are cause to the physical world, in that our existence affects change in its constitution, where again it is cause to us. Nature red in tooth and claw, Byron, I think? So, no life is not benevolent, it is merciless in consuming itself.

Your perspective, leaning on Schopenhauer, paints a stark contrast to the optimism found in Rob White's words. Schopenhauer did indeed have a more pessimistic view on the nature of life, emphasizing suffering and the relentless will-to-live. However, to correct one point: the phrase "Nature red in tooth and claw" is attributed to Tennyson in his poem "In Memoriam A.H.H.", not Byron.

While nature's processes might seem indifferent or even cruel, the concept of benevolence, as I see it, is inherently human. We've constructed this idea based on our unique human experiences and consciousness. Life, in its vast expanse, might not have inherent moralities, but humans have the capacity to perceive, interpret, and act with kindness and compassion.

It's intriguing how different philosophical outlooks can shape one's understanding of life's nature. While the indifferent mechanics of the natural world, like the food chain, are evident, humans have also carved spaces of compassion, empathy, and altruism amidst this. Thus, while life's processes may not be inherently benevolent, can we not argue that our conscious efforts to inject benevolence into our experiences and interactions hold significant value?

Indeed, compassion and empathy come into being with the identification of one's self with the self in others, only then do these sentiments arise. They, however, are not unique to humanity, but are shared I suspect with all other organisms. All organisms are reactive creatures and this is just one example of a reaction that is shared across the board. Granted it is most easily identified when an organism is in a society/group of like organisms, which makes identification much easier. How many people do you think identify with the organisms that they call food? No identification with, no compassion, no empathy. This makes me wonder about people who believe in a merciful all-good God, how can one respect such people, I mean, intellectually. Humanity at large has no compassion for life in general when factory farms are allowed to exist. I know from some experience that many native people still have this identification with all other life forms, perhaps even the fifty percent or more that fall under the title of parasites, which is the nature of all life, the Uroboros, the snake consuming its own tail. Tennyson, I'll try to remember that. Perhaps that is the answer to all political strife, the lack of identification of one's self with the self in others even within our own like kind.

You bring forth a deeply introspective angle on the intricacies of compassion and empathy. The identification of one's self with another does seem to be at the heart of these sentiments. It's thought-provoking to consider how this lack of identification, as you've highlighted, manifests in our societal structures like factory farming and even our interpersonal relationships, leading to a detachment from empathy.

I wholeheartedly agree that many of our actions, individually and as a collective, may not reflect a universal compassion for all life forms. It's a poignant reminder that while we have the capacity for profound kindness and empathy, it's often limited by our identifications and perceptions.

Yet, I'd like to believe that humans also possess the potential to expand this circle of compassion. Throughout history, our moral sphere has evolved and expanded. While still imperfect, movements towards vegetarianism, veganism, and sustainable farming practices signal a growing awareness and concern for beings we've previously seen as 'other.'

Regarding the belief in a merciful, all-good deity, it's important to understand that religious and spiritual beliefs often serve as frameworks for individuals to navigate the complexities of existence. While it may be challenging to reconcile certain beliefs with the realities of suffering in the world, they can offer solace, purpose, and guidance to many. Respecting diverse belief systems, even if we don't agree, is part of recognizing the myriad ways humans grapple with existential questions.

In the end, perhaps the journey towards benevolence is not about reaching a utopian state of universal compassion but about continually striving to expand our understandings, challenge our limitations, and cultivate empathy even in the face of our inherent nature.

[popeye1945]

Schopenhauer: "Life is something which should never have been." Think about it, life lives upon life, big fish eats little fish, one cannot say life is indifferent for that would be anthropomorphic, Nature which constitutes all life forms, cares not for the individual, just can't stay away from the anthropomorphic, but only for the species in its cold process of natural selection. The world is cause to all its reactionary creatures, as we in turn are cause to the physical world, in that our existence affects change in its constitution, where again it is cause to us. Nature red in tooth and claw, Byron, I think? So, no life is not benevolent, it is merciless in consuming itself.

Your perspective, leaning on Schopenhauer, paints a stark contrast to the optimism found in Rob White's words. Schopenhauer did indeed have a more pessimistic view on the nature of life, emphasizing suffering and the relentless will-to-live. However, to correct one point: the phrase "Nature red in tooth and claw" is attributed to Tennyson in his poem "In Memoriam A.H.H.", not Byron.

While nature's processes might seem indifferent or even cruel, the concept of benevolence, as I see it, is inherently human. We've constructed this idea based on our unique human experiences and consciousness. Life, in its vast expanse, might not have inherent moralities, but humans have the capacity to perceive, interpret, and act with kindness and compassion.

It's intriguing how different philosophical outlooks can shape one's understanding of life's nature. While the indifferent mechanics of the natural world, like the food chain, are evident, humans have also carved spaces of compassion, empathy, and altruism amidst this. Thus, while life's processes may not be inherently benevolent, can we not argue that our conscious efforts to inject benevolence into our experiences and interactions hold significant value?

Indeed, compassion and empathy come into being with the identification of one's self with the self in others, only then do these sentiments arise. They, however, are not unique to humanity, but are shared I suspect with all other organisms. All organisms are reactive creatures and this is just one example of a reaction that is shared across the board. Granted it is most easily identified when an organism is in a society/group of like organisms, which makes identification much easier. How many people do you think identify with the organisms that they call food? No identification with, no compassion, no empathy. This makes me wonder about people who believe in a merciful all-good God, how can one respect such people, I mean, intellectually. Humanity at large has no compassion for life in general when factory farms are allowed to exist. I know from some experience that many native people still have this identification with all other life forms, perhaps even the fifty percent or more that fall under the title of parasites, which is the nature of all life, the Uroboros, the snake consuming its own tail. Tennyson, I'll try to remember that. Perhaps that is the answer to all political strife, the lack of identification of one's self with the self in others even within our own like kind.

You bring forth a deeply introspective angle on the intricacies of compassion and empathy. The identification of one's self with another does seem to be at the heart of these sentiments. It's thought-provoking to consider how this lack of identification, as you've highlighted, manifests in our societal structures like factory farming and even our interpersonal relationships, leading to a detachment from empathy.

I wholeheartedly agree that many of our actions, individually and as a collective, may not reflect a universal compassion for all life forms. It's a poignant reminder that while we have the capacity for profound kindness and empathy, it's often limited by our identifications and perceptions.

Yet, I'd like to believe that humans also possess the potential to expand this circle of compassion. Throughout history, our moral sphere has evolved and expanded. While still imperfect, movements towards vegetarianism, veganism, and sustainable farming practices signal a growing awareness and concern for beings we've previously seen as 'other.'

Regarding the belief in a merciful, all-good deity, it's important to understand that religious and spiritual beliefs often serve as frameworks for individuals to navigate the complexities of existence. While it may be challenging to reconcile certain beliefs with the realities of suffering in the world, they can offer solace, purpose, and guidance to many. Respecting diverse belief systems, even if we don't agree, is part of recognizing the myriad ways humans grapple with existential questions.

In the end, perhaps the journey towards benevolence is not about reaching a utopian state of universal compassion but about continually striving to expand our understandings, challenge our limitations, and cultivate empathy even in the face of our inherent nature.

Excellent post! The only area I have a different slant on is, the nature of religious people being either unaware of or withdrawing from reality, and the self-satisfaction they seem to enjoy as if knowing something others do not. It can only mean deception, perhaps self-deception, but to me it does not seem admirable. Understandable too I suppose as a survival mechanism. Their frustrated tolerance of the unbeliever is frankly a piss off.

[Sushan]

Your perspective, leaning on Schopenhauer, paints a stark contrast to the optimism found in Rob White's words. Schopenhauer did indeed have a more pessimistic view on the nature of life, emphasizing suffering and the relentless will-to-live. However, to correct one point: the phrase "Nature red in tooth and claw" is attributed to Tennyson in his poem "In Memoriam A.H.H.", not Byron.

While nature's processes might seem indifferent or even cruel, the concept of benevolence, as I see it, is inherently human. We've constructed this idea based on our unique human experiences and consciousness. Life, in its vast expanse, might not have inherent moralities, but humans have the capacity to perceive, interpret, and act with kindness and compassion.

It's intriguing how different philosophical outlooks can shape one's understanding of life's nature. While the indifferent mechanics of the natural world, like the food chain, are evident, humans have also carved spaces of compassion, empathy, and altruism amidst this. Thus, while life's processes may not be inherently benevolent, can we not argue that our conscious efforts to inject benevolence into our experiences and interactions hold significant value?

Indeed, compassion and empathy come into being with the identification of one's self with the self in others, only then do these sentiments arise. They, however, are not unique to humanity, but are shared I suspect with all other organisms. All organisms are reactive creatures and this is just one example of a reaction that is shared across the board. Granted it is most easily identified when an organism is in a society/group of like organisms, which makes identification much easier. How many people do you think identify with the organisms that they call food? No identification with, no compassion, no empathy. This makes me wonder about people who believe in a merciful all-good God, how can one respect such people, I mean, intellectually. Humanity at large has no compassion for life in general when factory farms are allowed to exist. I know from some experience that many native people still have this identification with all other life forms, perhaps even the fifty percent or more that fall under the title of parasites, which is the nature of all life, the Uroboros, the snake consuming its own tail. Tennyson, I'll try to remember that. Perhaps that is the answer to all political strife, the lack of identification of one's self with the self in others even within our own like kind.

You bring forth a deeply introspective angle on the intricacies of compassion and empathy. The identification of one's self with another does seem to be at the heart of these sentiments. It's thought-provoking to consider how this lack of identification, as you've highlighted, manifests in our societal structures like factory farming and even our interpersonal relationships, leading to a detachment from empathy.

I wholeheartedly agree that many of our actions, individually and as a collective, may not reflect a universal compassion for all life forms. It's a poignant reminder that while we have the capacity for profound kindness and empathy, it's often limited by our identifications and perceptions.

Yet, I'd like to believe that humans also possess the potential to expand this circle of compassion. Throughout history, our moral sphere has evolved and expanded. While still imperfect, movements towards vegetarianism, veganism, and sustainable farming practices signal a growing awareness and concern for beings we've previously seen as 'other.'

Regarding the belief in a merciful, all-good deity, it's important to understand that religious and spiritual beliefs often serve as frameworks for individuals to navigate the complexities of existence. While it may be challenging to reconcile certain beliefs with the realities of suffering in the world, they can offer solace, purpose, and guidance to many. Respecting diverse belief systems, even if we don't agree, is part of recognizing the myriad ways humans grapple with existential questions.

In the end, perhaps the journey towards benevolence is not about reaching a utopian state of universal compassion but about continually striving to expand our understandings, challenge our limitations, and cultivate empathy even in the face of our inherent nature.

Excellent post! The only area I have a different slant on is, the nature of religious people being either unaware of or withdrawing from reality, and the self-satisfaction they seem to enjoy as if knowing something others do not. It can only mean deception, perhaps self-deception, but to me it does not seem admirable. Understandable too I suppose as a survival mechanism. Their frustrated tolerance of the unbeliever is frankly a piss off.

Thank you for your kind words and for presenting your viewpoint so candidly. The dynamic between religious believers and non-believers has indeed been a point of contention for centuries. It's vital, however, to acknowledge the vast spectrum within religious beliefs and practices. Just as there are some who might come off as self-satisfied or detached from reality, there are countless others for whom faith is a deeply introspective, humble, and evolving journey.

Religion, for many, provides a framework to understand the world, cope with uncertainties, and find purpose. This doesn't necessarily mean they're unaware of or withdrawing from reality. Instead, they're interpreting reality through a particular lens. Similarly, secular individuals may interpret the same realities through a different set of beliefs or frameworks.

While it's disheartening when any group displays a lack of understanding or intolerance towards another, painting an entire community based on the actions or attitudes of a subset might not do justice to the complexities within. Your feelings of frustration are valid and highlight the need for open dialogue, mutual respect, and understanding.

In an ideal world, believers and non-believers would coexist, recognizing that our shared human experience is colored by diverse beliefs and perspectives. Each of us is trying to make sense of existence in our own way. Would you agree that promoting dialogue and understanding between differing viewpoints is a step forward in bridging these divides?

[popeye1945]

Indeed, compassion and empathy come into being with the identification of one's self with the self in others, only then do these sentiments arise. They, however, are not unique to humanity, but are shared I suspect with all other organisms. All organisms are reactive creatures and this is just one example of a reaction that is shared across the board. Granted it is most easily identified when an organism is in a society/group of like organisms, which makes identification much easier. How many people do you think identify with the organisms that they call food? No identification with, no compassion, no empathy. This makes me wonder about people who believe in a merciful all-good God, how can one respect such people, I mean, intellectually. Humanity at large has no compassion for life in general when factory farms are allowed to exist. I know from some experience that many native people still have this identification with all other life forms, perhaps even the fifty percent or more that fall under the title of parasites, which is the nature of all life, the Uroboros, the snake consuming its own tail. Tennyson, I'll try to remember that. Perhaps that is the answer to all political strife, the lack of identification of one's self with the self in others even within our own like kind.

You bring forth a deeply introspective angle on the intricacies of compassion and empathy. The identification of one's self with another does seem to be at the heart of these sentiments. It's thought-provoking to consider how this lack of identification, as you've highlighted, manifests in our societal structures like factory farming and even our interpersonal relationships, leading to a detachment from empathy.

I wholeheartedly agree that many of our actions, individually and as a collective, may not reflect a universal compassion for all life forms. It's a poignant reminder that while we have the capacity for profound kindness and empathy, it's often limited by our identifications and perceptions.

Yet, I'd like to believe that humans also possess the potential to expand this circle of compassion. Throughout history, our moral sphere has evolved and expanded. While still imperfect, movements towards vegetarianism, veganism, and sustainable farming practices signal a growing awareness and concern for beings we've previously seen as 'other.'

Regarding the belief in a merciful, all-good deity, it's important to understand that religious and spiritual beliefs often serve as frameworks for individuals to navigate the complexities of existence. While it may be challenging to reconcile certain beliefs with the realities of suffering in the world, they can offer solace, purpose, and guidance to many. Respecting diverse belief systems, even if we don't agree, is part of recognizing the myriad ways humans grapple with existential questions.

In the end, perhaps the journey towards benevolence is not about reaching a utopian state of universal compassion but about continually striving to expand our understandings, challenge our limitations, and cultivate empathy even in the face of our inherent nature.

Excellent post! The only area I have a different slant on is, the nature of religious people being either unaware of or withdrawing from reality, and the self-satisfaction they seem to enjoy as if knowing something others do not. It can only mean deception, perhaps self-deception, but to me it does not seem admirable. Understandable too I suppose as a survival mechanism. Their frustrated tolerance of the unbeliever is frankly a piss off.

Thank you for your kind words and for presenting your viewpoint so candidly. The dynamic between religious believers and non-believers has indeed been a point of contention for centuries. It's vital, however, to acknowledge the vast spectrum within religious beliefs and practices. Just as there are some who might come off as self-satisfied or detached from reality, there are countless others for whom faith is a deeply introspective, humble, and evolving journey.

Religion, for many, provides a framework to understand the world, cope with uncertainties, and find purpose. This doesn't necessarily mean they're unaware of or withdrawing from reality. Instead, they're interpreting reality through a particular lens. Similarly, secular individuals may interpret the same realities through a different set of beliefs or frameworks.

While it's disheartening when any group displays a lack of understanding or intolerance towards another, painting an entire community based on the actions or attitudes of a subset might not do justice to the complexities within. Your feelings of frustration are valid and highlight the need for open dialogue, mutual respect, and understanding.

In an ideal world, believers and non-believers would coexist, recognizing that our shared human experience is colored by diverse beliefs and perspectives. Each of us is trying to make sense of existence in our own way. Would you agree that promoting dialogue and understanding between differing viewpoints is a step forward in bridging these divides?

Honesty dialogue seems to be what the religious most fear, and to me it is understandable. It is understandable that a work of the imagination embraced as doctrine without evidence, is impossible to defend. I have friends of this nature, still pressuring me to come to Jesus, it is their mission, and a most annoying one. In some cases, I can see where the subject is really not intellectually inclined, and thus could not exercise what they do not have. I think it was Voltaire who stated, " Those who can make you believe an absurdity, can make you commit an atrocity." I would add, all the while feeling self-righteous in doing the work of their imaginary friend. If you disagree, may you burn in hell forever and forever!!---lol!!

[Sculptor1]

Indeed, compassion and empathy come into being with the identification of one's self with the self in others, only then do these sentiments arise. They, however, are not unique to humanity, but are shared I suspect with all other organisms. All organisms are reactive creatures and this is just one example of a reaction that is shared across the board. Granted it is most easily identified when an organism is in a society/group of like organisms, which makes identification much easier. How many people do you think identify with the organisms that they call food? No identification with, no compassion, no empathy. This makes me wonder about people who believe in a merciful all-good God, how can one respect such people, I mean, intellectually. Humanity at large has no compassion for life in general when factory farms are allowed to exist. I know from some experience that many native people still have this identification with all other life forms, perhaps even the fifty percent or more that fall under the title of parasites, which is the nature of all life, the Uroboros, the snake consuming its own tail. Tennyson, I'll try to remember that. Perhaps that is the answer to all political strife, the lack of identification of one's self with the self in others even within our own like kind.

You bring forth a deeply introspective angle on the intricacies of compassion and empathy. The identification of one's self with another does seem to be at the heart of these sentiments. It's thought-provoking to consider how this lack of identification, as you've highlighted, manifests in our societal structures like factory farming and even our interpersonal relationships, leading to a detachment from empathy.

I wholeheartedly agree that many of our actions, individually and as a collective, may not reflect a universal compassion for all life forms. It's a poignant reminder that while we have the capacity for profound kindness and empathy, it's often limited by our identifications and perceptions.

Yet, I'd like to believe that humans also possess the potential to expand this circle of compassion. Throughout history, our moral sphere has evolved and expanded. While still imperfect, movements towards vegetarianism, veganism, and sustainable farming practices signal a growing awareness and concern for beings we've previously seen as 'other.'

Regarding the belief in a merciful, all-good deity, it's important to understand that religious and spiritual beliefs often serve as frameworks for individuals to navigate the complexities of existence. While it may be challenging to reconcile certain beliefs with the realities of suffering in the world, they can offer solace, purpose, and guidance to many. Respecting diverse belief systems, even if we don't agree, is part of recognizing the myriad ways humans grapple with existential questions.

In the end, perhaps the journey towards benevolence is not about reaching a utopian state of universal compassion but about continually striving to expand our understandings, challenge our limitations, and cultivate empathy even in the face of our inherent nature.

Excellent post! The only area I have a different slant on is, the nature of religious people being either unaware of or withdrawing from reality, and the self-satisfaction they seem to enjoy as if knowing something others do not. It can only mean deception, perhaps self-deception, but to me it does not seem admirable. Understandable too I suppose as a survival mechanism. Their frustrated tolerance of the unbeliever is frankly a piss off.

Thank you for your kind words and for presenting your viewpoint so candidly. The dynamic between religious believers and non-believers has indeed been a point of contention for centuries. It's vital, however, to acknowledge the vast spectrum within religious beliefs and practices. Just as there are some who might come off as self-satisfied or detached from reality, there are countless others for whom faith is a deeply introspective, humble, and evolving journey.

Religion, for many, provides a framework to understand the world, cope with uncertainties, and find purpose. This doesn't necessarily mean they're unaware of or withdrawing from reality. Instead, they're interpreting reality through a particular lens. Similarly, secular individuals may interpret the same realities through a different set of beliefs or frameworks.

While it's disheartening when any group displays a lack of understanding or intolerance towards another, painting an entire community based on the actions or attitudes of a subset might not do justice to the complexities within. Your feelings of frustration are valid and highlight the need for open dialogue, mutual respect, and understanding.

In an ideal world, believers and non-believers would coexist, recognizing that our shared human experience is colored by diverse beliefs and perspectives. Each of us is trying to make sense of existence in our own way. Would you agree that promoting dialogue and understanding between differing viewpoints is a step forward in bridging these divides?

Yes, I absolutely agree that promoting dialogue and understanding between differing viewpoints is a crucial step forward in bridging divides between believers and non-believers, as well as among people with diverse beliefs and perspectives in general. In an ideal world, respecting and acknowledging the diversity of human thought and belief can lead to greater tolerance, empathy, and cooperation among individuals and communities.

Here are some key reasons why fostering dialogue and understanding is important:

Promoting Tolerance: Engaging in respectful conversations allows individuals to better understand the reasons behind each other's beliefs. This understanding can lead to greater tolerance, as people recognize that their differences are a natural part of the human experience.

Building Empathy: Dialogue encourages people to put themselves in the shoes of others, which can foster empathy. Understanding the challenges, experiences, and emotions that drive someone's beliefs can help create a more compassionate society.

Resolving Conflicts: Constructive dialogue is often a peaceful way to address conflicts and find common ground. It can prevent misunderstandings from escalating into disputes and facilitate the resolution of disagreements.

Advancing Knowledge: Open discussions between believers and non-believers, or people with differing perspectives, can lead to the exchange of ideas and knowledge. This intellectual exchange can promote personal growth and expand collective understanding.

Cultural Enrichment: Encouraging dialogue among people with diverse beliefs and perspectives can enrich a society's culture by exposing individuals to new ideas, traditions, and worldviews.

Fostering Social Cohesion: Promoting understanding and cooperation can strengthen social cohesion, leading to more cohesive and harmonious communities.

However, it's important to note that fostering dialogue and understanding is a two-way process. It requires both parties to be open-minded, respectful, and willing to listen to each other's perspectives. It's also important to create safe spaces for these conversations, where individuals can express their beliefs without fear of judgment or discrimination.

In summary, promoting dialogue and understanding between believers and non-believers, as well as among people with diverse beliefs and perspectives, is a vital step toward building a more inclusive and harmonious society where individuals can coexist in mutual respect and cooperation.

[Sushan]

You bring forth a deeply introspective angle on the intricacies of compassion and empathy. The identification of one's self with another does seem to be at the heart of these sentiments. It's thought-provoking to consider how this lack of identification, as you've highlighted, manifests in our societal structures like factory farming and even our interpersonal relationships, leading to a detachment from empathy.

I wholeheartedly agree that many of our actions, individually and as a collective, may not reflect a universal compassion for all life forms. It's a poignant reminder that while we have the capacity for profound kindness and empathy, it's often limited by our identifications and perceptions.

Yet, I'd like to believe that humans also possess the potential to expand this circle of compassion. Throughout history, our moral sphere has evolved and expanded. While still imperfect, movements towards vegetarianism, veganism, and sustainable farming practices signal a growing awareness and concern for beings we've previously seen as 'other.'

Regarding the belief in a merciful, all-good deity, it's important to understand that religious and spiritual beliefs often serve as frameworks for individuals to navigate the complexities of existence. While it may be challenging to reconcile certain beliefs with the realities of suffering in the world, they can offer solace, purpose, and guidance to many. Respecting diverse belief systems, even if we don't agree, is part of recognizing the myriad ways humans grapple with existential questions.

In the end, perhaps the journey towards benevolence is not about reaching a utopian state of universal compassion but about continually striving to expand our understandings, challenge our limitations, and cultivate empathy even in the face of our inherent nature.

Excellent post! The only area I have a different slant on is, the nature of religious people being either unaware of or withdrawing from reality, and the self-satisfaction they seem to enjoy as if knowing something others do not. It can only mean deception, perhaps self-deception, but to me it does not seem admirable. Understandable too I suppose as a survival mechanism. Their frustrated tolerance of the unbeliever is frankly a piss off.

Thank you for your kind words and for presenting your viewpoint so candidly. The dynamic between religious believers and non-believers has indeed been a point of contention for centuries. It's vital, however, to acknowledge the vast spectrum within religious beliefs and practices. Just as there are some who might come off as self-satisfied or detached from reality, there are countless others for whom faith is a deeply introspective, humble, and evolving journey.

Religion, for many, provides a framework to understand the world, cope with uncertainties, and find purpose. This doesn't necessarily mean they're unaware of or withdrawing from reality. Instead, they're interpreting reality through a particular lens. Similarly, secular individuals may interpret the same realities through a different set of beliefs or frameworks.

While it's disheartening when any group displays a lack of understanding or intolerance towards another, painting an entire community based on the actions or attitudes of a subset might not do justice to the complexities within. Your feelings of frustration are valid and highlight the need for open dialogue, mutual respect, and understanding.

In an ideal world, believers and non-believers would coexist, recognizing that our shared human experience is colored by diverse beliefs and perspectives. Each of us is trying to make sense of existence in our own way. Would you agree that promoting dialogue and understanding between differing viewpoints is a step forward in bridging these divides?

Honesty dialogue seems to be what the religious most fear, and to me it is understandable. It is understandable that a work of the imagination embraced as doctrine without evidence, is impossible to defend. I have friends of this nature, still pressuring me to come to Jesus, it is their mission, and a most annoying one. In some cases, I can see where the subject is really not intellectually inclined, and thus could not exercise what they do not have. I think it was Voltaire who stated, " Those who can make you believe an absurdity, can make you commit an atrocity." I would add, all the while feeling self-righteous in doing the work of their imaginary friend. If you disagree, may you burn in hell forever and forever!!---lol!!

I genuinely appreciate the passion with which you approach this topic, and it's evident that you've given this much thought. You're correct in highlighting that for some religious adherents, there's a reticence to engage in open dialogue about their beliefs, perhaps due to fear of having their faith questioned or even undermined. This is, indeed, a common human response; we often defend our deeply held beliefs, religious or otherwise, against perceived threats.

Your mention of Voltaire resonates. The interplay between belief and action is profound. Historically, belief systems, whether religious, political, or ideological, have been used to justify both acts of immense kindness and unspeakable cruelty. The quote encapsulates the danger of unexamined belief and its potential to lead to harmful actions.

However, I'd argue that it's not solely the realm of the religious. Humans, in general, can be influenced by powerful narratives, whether secular or sacred, and be driven to act upon them without rigorous examination.

Regarding your friends, it's essential to recognize that, for many, the act of proselytizing stems from a genuine concern for the well-being (often spiritual) of those they care about. While it can indeed be frustrating or even intrusive, understanding the intent behind it can help navigate these interactions.

In the end, the path towards mutual understanding is paved with patience, empathy, and the willingness to engage with those who hold differing beliefs. It's through these interactions, even when challenging, that we expand our horizons and learn more about the complex tapestry of human experience. Would you say that, despite the challenges, such interactions have enriched your understanding of humanity and its diverse perspectives?

[Sushan]

You bring forth a deeply introspective angle on the intricacies of compassion and empathy. The identification of one's self with another does seem to be at the heart of these sentiments. It's thought-provoking to consider how this lack of identification, as you've highlighted, manifests in our societal structures like factory farming and even our interpersonal relationships, leading to a detachment from empathy.

I wholeheartedly agree that many of our actions, individually and as a collective, may not reflect a universal compassion for all life forms. It's a poignant reminder that while we have the capacity for profound kindness and empathy, it's often limited by our identifications and perceptions.

Yet, I'd like to believe that humans also possess the potential to expand this circle of compassion. Throughout history, our moral sphere has evolved and expanded. While still imperfect, movements towards vegetarianism, veganism, and sustainable farming practices signal a growing awareness and concern for beings we've previously seen as 'other.'

Regarding the belief in a merciful, all-good deity, it's important to understand that religious and spiritual beliefs often serve as frameworks for individuals to navigate the complexities of existence. While it may be challenging to reconcile certain beliefs with the realities of suffering in the world, they can offer solace, purpose, and guidance to many. Respecting diverse belief systems, even if we don't agree, is part of recognizing the myriad ways humans grapple with existential questions.

In the end, perhaps the journey towards benevolence is not about reaching a utopian state of universal compassion but about continually striving to expand our understandings, challenge our limitations, and cultivate empathy even in the face of our inherent nature.

Excellent post! The only area I have a different slant on is, the nature of religious people being either unaware of or withdrawing from reality, and the self-satisfaction they seem to enjoy as if knowing something others do not. It can only mean deception, perhaps self-deception, but to me it does not seem admirable. Understandable too I suppose as a survival mechanism. Their frustrated tolerance of the unbeliever is frankly a piss off.

Thank you for your kind words and for presenting your viewpoint so candidly. The dynamic between religious believers and non-believers has indeed been a point of contention for centuries. It's vital, however, to acknowledge the vast spectrum within religious beliefs and practices. Just as there are some who might come off as self-satisfied or detached from reality, there are countless others for whom faith is a deeply introspective, humble, and evolving journey.

Religion, for many, provides a framework to understand the world, cope with uncertainties, and find purpose. This doesn't necessarily mean they're unaware of or withdrawing from reality. Instead, they're interpreting reality through a particular lens. Similarly, secular individuals may interpret the same realities through a different set of beliefs or frameworks.

While it's disheartening when any group displays a lack of understanding or intolerance towards another, painting an entire community based on the actions or attitudes of a subset might not do justice to the complexities within. Your feelings of frustration are valid and highlight the need for open dialogue, mutual respect, and understanding.

In an ideal world, believers and non-believers would coexist, recognizing that our shared human experience is colored by diverse beliefs and perspectives. Each of us is trying to make sense of existence in our own way. Would you agree that promoting dialogue and understanding between differing viewpoints is a step forward in bridging these divides?

Yes, I absolutely agree that promoting dialogue and understanding between differing viewpoints is a crucial step forward in bridging divides between believers and non-believers, as well as among people with diverse beliefs and perspectives in general. In an ideal world, respecting and acknowledging the diversity of human thought and belief can lead to greater tolerance, empathy, and cooperation among individuals and communities.

Here are some key reasons why fostering dialogue and understanding is important:

Promoting Tolerance: Engaging in respectful conversations allows individuals to better understand the reasons behind each other's beliefs. This understanding can lead to greater tolerance, as people recognize that their differences are a natural part of the human experience.

Building Empathy: Dialogue encourages people to put themselves in the shoes of others, which can foster empathy. Understanding the challenges, experiences, and emotions that drive someone's beliefs can help create a more compassionate society.

Resolving Conflicts: Constructive dialogue is often a peaceful way to address conflicts and find common ground. It can prevent misunderstandings from escalating into disputes and facilitate the resolution of disagreements.

Advancing Knowledge: Open discussions between believers and non-believers, or people with differing perspectives, can lead to the exchange of ideas and knowledge. This intellectual exchange can promote personal growth and expand collective understanding.

Cultural Enrichment: Encouraging dialogue among people with diverse beliefs and perspectives can enrich a society's culture by exposing individuals to new ideas, traditions, and worldviews.

Fostering Social Cohesion: Promoting understanding and cooperation can strengthen social cohesion, leading to more cohesive and harmonious communities.

However, it's important to note that fostering dialogue and understanding is a two-way process. It requires both parties to be open-minded, respectful, and willing to listen to each other's perspectives. It's also important to create safe spaces for these conversations, where individuals can express their beliefs without fear of judgment or discrimination.

In summary, promoting dialogue and understanding between believers and non-believers, as well as among people with diverse beliefs and perspectives, is a vital step toward building a more inclusive and harmonious society where individuals can coexist in mutual respect and cooperation.

I appreciate your comprehensive outline on the significance of dialogue and understanding. You've articulated well the transformative power of open conversation in bridging gaps and fostering unity. Your emphasis on promoting tolerance, building empathy, and advancing knowledge particularly resonates with the core of our discussion on the nature of benevolence in life.

It's essential to remember that belief systems, religious or otherwise, are deeply personal, and often intertwined with one's upbringing, cultural context, personal experiences, and individual reflections. Your point about fostering social cohesion is especially poignant. As society becomes increasingly globalized and interconnected, the ability to harmonize diverse perspectives becomes imperative.

However, the challenge often lies in the practical application of these principles. While the concept of open dialogue sounds ideal, the real-world execution might be rife with emotional charge, deeply ingrained biases, and societal pressures. In these circumstances, patience, continuous self-reflection, and a genuine intent to understand can act as guiding principles.

Building on your point about creating safe spaces, perhaps another aspect to consider is fostering educational systems and societal structures that encourage critical thinking, empathy, and respect for diversity from an early age. This can lay the foundation for a future generation better equipped to navigate and celebrate the complexities of human thought and belief.

In light of our discussion on the benevolence of life, perhaps the act of engaging in such dialogue, striving for understanding, and fostering unity in diversity is a testament to the very benevolence we contemplate. After all, our shared journey in understanding and learning from one another might be one of the profound ways life responds to our collective thoughts and desires. What are your thoughts on this perspective?