Thoughts on God, part one...
- Thread starter amicus
- Start date
sweetnpetite
Intellectual snob
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2003
- Posts
- 9,135
amicus said:
Either this is an outright lie, or you do not know the meaning of the word "demean." I have seen it many times. We all have.
Xelebes
Little Blue Alien
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2003
- Posts
- 13,068
There is many parts of the Christian god that mystifies things up a bit beyond placing faith in him.
He is compared to many things.
Lord - he is my master. He rules over all.
Shepherd - he has come to lead us,
Saviour - he has made something to save us.
I find it a very hard thing for an omnipotent being to rely on a man to save us and only to exclude (some denominations include but that is a very bitter and yet silly war between denominations) animals. I have yet to understand how we are beyond others in the animalia kingdom like we are aliens from another planet. That is a key thing I don't buy. And what purpose does an omnipotent and omniscient being having the ability to lead when he doesn't actually use it.
Note: Coherency in this post is not guaranteed.
He is compared to many things.
Lord - he is my master. He rules over all.
Shepherd - he has come to lead us,
Saviour - he has made something to save us.
I find it a very hard thing for an omnipotent being to rely on a man to save us and only to exclude (some denominations include but that is a very bitter and yet silly war between denominations) animals. I have yet to understand how we are beyond others in the animalia kingdom like we are aliens from another planet. That is a key thing I don't buy. And what purpose does an omnipotent and omniscient being having the ability to lead when he doesn't actually use it.
Note: Coherency in this post is not guaranteed.
Joe Wordsworth
Logician
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2004
- Posts
- 4,085
If we're just adding thoughts, I have a few:
Very, very, very few people I've ever met outside of a scholarly community have a deep or well-informed understanding of religious history, religious philosophy, or religious sociology. That includes here as well as the "real world". Very, very little is certain, as a quick example, but you'll find too many people claiming certainties (from complex philosophical ones to simple historical ones).
As such, its best for there to be a framework of common definitions, categories, and the like when engaging in religious-speak, as well as rules (usually just the basic laws of logic). When those things are respected, a lot of quality work can be done to understand and evaluate... when people start getting dogmatic or just asininely difficult over what they merely prefer to believe (ranging from "The Christian Church is the most dangerous horror on Earth" to "Athiests are going to burn in Hell" to rational contradictions) instead of actually working toward something like an understanding, it just deteriorates into "whose got the bigger nuts?"
Very, very, very few people I've ever met outside of a scholarly community have a deep or well-informed understanding of religious history, religious philosophy, or religious sociology. That includes here as well as the "real world". Very, very little is certain, as a quick example, but you'll find too many people claiming certainties (from complex philosophical ones to simple historical ones).
As such, its best for there to be a framework of common definitions, categories, and the like when engaging in religious-speak, as well as rules (usually just the basic laws of logic). When those things are respected, a lot of quality work can be done to understand and evaluate... when people start getting dogmatic or just asininely difficult over what they merely prefer to believe (ranging from "The Christian Church is the most dangerous horror on Earth" to "Athiests are going to burn in Hell" to rational contradictions) instead of actually working toward something like an understanding, it just deteriorates into "whose got the bigger nuts?"
gauchecritic
When there are grey skies
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2002
- Posts
- 7,076
The thing is...
OK here's the thing... (bald statements are opinion)
1. Religion is a science, organised religion is political science.
In "caveman" days there were inexplicable events that we had no control over but needed to understand in order to develop as an organism. Weather, seasons, habits/habitats of animals/plants. Superstition probably played a large part in realising that we could gain some measure of control over the uncontrollable, in the same way that wearing a home shirt on matchdays will give luck to your football team.
Consider the French cave paintings; perhaps they are simply a record of how to go about chasing down large animals for meat or messages about when to do that and where to do that (like the bee dance in lieu of language) This then becomes control at a distance (in time as well as space) I understand that the 'belief' of the 'caveman' came to be such that drawing the animal, controlled the animal. So the guy who could draw had supernatural powers
Drawing lightning or rain or floods had no power of those events so someone else must hold that particular power.
Then someone realised that the flood that year, happened after a hunting party (probably women by the way) had crossed the river instead of staying on this side. Then we have a cause and effect. Stay on this side and no flooding. Thus the short step to appeasing unseeable controllers. Having established the deities we move forward.
Now everyone knows about gods and for the good of the tribe follows what the religious man says.
Now the religious man (shaman, witch doctor, priest, gods appeaser) has a power over his tribe and becomes a politician, he finds that he has to argue with the 'rugged individualists' about the necessity for their religion. The simplest arguement is "piss off then and see how long you survive without others to help"
The 'doers' of the tribe (the women again) follow what the 'thinkers' (religionists=men who have nothing else to do all day but develop language and social skills) say because they know only (and instinctively) that children are the most important part of their group and as such can survive only in that group.
2. Religious belief is a safety net (a la Colly's Pascal)
Modernly, now that society (as an organism) provides all our wants and needs we find that men have had something of a change of heart. Far from being provided for (because they no longer have to depend onwomen to hunt with sticks and teeth) and the cultural development of the ultimate tool (which they developed in their wholly spare time, sat in the cave waiting for the women to bring back the gazelle for dinner) men have now realised that rearing children is the preferred option for women, in order that the society for which they work and wholly depend can continue. That tool is, of course, language.
So now, we can explain absolutely every single physical phenomenon in the world in a scientific manner, except language and the thought it engenders. With this 'science' (knowledge) nothing is inexplicable. What need then for Gods? Our language controls all things. But what if (a question we can only ask because we have language) there is a God? Surely there must be some 'truth' to it after all these millennia.
3. Life is a process, people are part of a bigger process.
All things are in a state of entropy. Wearing down. Using up their resources or initial state. (except fish apparently which are immortal save for infection or accident) From the trajectory of a missile (given gravity etc) through living plants and animals (cell production) to the universe itself.
All things are in a process. They start and they finish. From the family man with 14 kids to the rugged individualist dying cold and alone in his cabin in the wilderness. From the self-immolating stars to the radioactive isotope running itself down to lead.
Anything wishing to survive for any length of time has to constantly change or procreate, and in most cases; both. Society is one such. Without society, in the original sense, there is nothing to survive to and paradoxically nothing to survive for.
The frightening part of this, is that we become as cogs in a machine. Whether you shovel dirt all day or are President of the US, a radical free-trader or inventor of anti-grav, your time is short and as nothing compared to the ongoing of the organism mankind.
You can rail against your fate or you can be Mother Theresa, you can shake the world or you can eke out your existance. It really doesn't matter
So why not God? Why not religion? Excepting that it causes pain and suffering, it also creates succour and strength. As much as it constrains and moralises it also gives courage and freedom. Notwithstanding hellfire and damnation it also gives hope and encouragement.
It doesn't really matter one way or the other.
Gauche
OK here's the thing... (bald statements are opinion)
1. Religion is a science, organised religion is political science.
In "caveman" days there were inexplicable events that we had no control over but needed to understand in order to develop as an organism. Weather, seasons, habits/habitats of animals/plants. Superstition probably played a large part in realising that we could gain some measure of control over the uncontrollable, in the same way that wearing a home shirt on matchdays will give luck to your football team.
Consider the French cave paintings; perhaps they are simply a record of how to go about chasing down large animals for meat or messages about when to do that and where to do that (like the bee dance in lieu of language) This then becomes control at a distance (in time as well as space) I understand that the 'belief' of the 'caveman' came to be such that drawing the animal, controlled the animal. So the guy who could draw had supernatural powers
Drawing lightning or rain or floods had no power of those events so someone else must hold that particular power.
Then someone realised that the flood that year, happened after a hunting party (probably women by the way) had crossed the river instead of staying on this side. Then we have a cause and effect. Stay on this side and no flooding. Thus the short step to appeasing unseeable controllers. Having established the deities we move forward.
Now everyone knows about gods and for the good of the tribe follows what the religious man says.
Now the religious man (shaman, witch doctor, priest, gods appeaser) has a power over his tribe and becomes a politician, he finds that he has to argue with the 'rugged individualists' about the necessity for their religion. The simplest arguement is "piss off then and see how long you survive without others to help"
The 'doers' of the tribe (the women again) follow what the 'thinkers' (religionists=men who have nothing else to do all day but develop language and social skills) say because they know only (and instinctively) that children are the most important part of their group and as such can survive only in that group.
2. Religious belief is a safety net (a la Colly's Pascal)
Modernly, now that society (as an organism) provides all our wants and needs we find that men have had something of a change of heart. Far from being provided for (because they no longer have to depend onwomen to hunt with sticks and teeth) and the cultural development of the ultimate tool (which they developed in their wholly spare time, sat in the cave waiting for the women to bring back the gazelle for dinner) men have now realised that rearing children is the preferred option for women, in order that the society for which they work and wholly depend can continue. That tool is, of course, language.
So now, we can explain absolutely every single physical phenomenon in the world in a scientific manner, except language and the thought it engenders. With this 'science' (knowledge) nothing is inexplicable. What need then for Gods? Our language controls all things. But what if (a question we can only ask because we have language) there is a God? Surely there must be some 'truth' to it after all these millennia.
3. Life is a process, people are part of a bigger process.
All things are in a state of entropy. Wearing down. Using up their resources or initial state. (except fish apparently which are immortal save for infection or accident) From the trajectory of a missile (given gravity etc) through living plants and animals (cell production) to the universe itself.
All things are in a process. They start and they finish. From the family man with 14 kids to the rugged individualist dying cold and alone in his cabin in the wilderness. From the self-immolating stars to the radioactive isotope running itself down to lead.
Anything wishing to survive for any length of time has to constantly change or procreate, and in most cases; both. Society is one such. Without society, in the original sense, there is nothing to survive to and paradoxically nothing to survive for.
The frightening part of this, is that we become as cogs in a machine. Whether you shovel dirt all day or are President of the US, a radical free-trader or inventor of anti-grav, your time is short and as nothing compared to the ongoing of the organism mankind.
You can rail against your fate or you can be Mother Theresa, you can shake the world or you can eke out your existance. It really doesn't matter
So why not God? Why not religion? Excepting that it causes pain and suffering, it also creates succour and strength. As much as it constrains and moralises it also gives courage and freedom. Notwithstanding hellfire and damnation it also gives hope and encouragement.
It doesn't really matter one way or the other.
Gauche
impressive
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2003
- Posts
- 27,372
amicus said:
You CARE about the pearly gates and the passage thereof? You BELIEVE in the pearly gates in the first place?
Odd atheistic approach.
I'm designing my own afterlife, tyvm. It does not include saints or angels ... although it MAY include some Litsters
scheherazade_79
Steamy
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2003
- Posts
- 9,677
amicus said:
Are you suggesting that we'd all be better off getting on our knees and worshipping you, Amicus?
amicus said:
I think this is the most signficant part of your little sermon. The drive to create order in an otherwise chaotic universe is something that both religion and reason/logic have in common. However, whereas religion accepts that there are some mysteries that will always remain beyond us, you seem hellbent on passing judgement on each and every one. Many of us might find that a little arrogant.
Having already witnessed your sexism and general intolerance towards anyone who thinks differently from you, I shan't be devoting any time towards Part Two of your manifesto - should there happen to be one.
I believe you when you say that you found the total history of man, his religions and philosophies rather overwhelming. In fact, I think you bit off a little bit more than you can chew, and it unsettles you. Why else would a "militant atheist" devote so much time to attacking a major world religion?
Much as you'd like the world to be a logical place - perhaps the kind of place where men are intelligent and women are not - it isn't. We're all in freefall. We have little control over the world around us or what it happens to throw at us. But we can control how we respond to it.
Religion doesn't cause wars - intolerance does.
dr_mabeuse
seduce the mind
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2002
- Posts
- 11,528
God isn't a thing. He's a feeling, and that's why arguments about him go nowhere.
---dr.M.
---dr.M.
G
Guest
Guest
Your point is very good, Mab. I myself cannot say what/who/where/when God is. Not a feeling, person, entity, concept, whatever. That's the rub, when people attempt to talk about God no one is talking about the same thing. It comes down to the personal, which is where it gets all muddled when explanations eke forth. "Evil" is much easier to discuss, I believe, because it's people who make it and know it in their hearts, not God.dr_mabeuse said:
Perdita
p.s. Gauche, your post above is brilliant. Your insight into language is the stuff of scholarship and philosophy.
amicus
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Posts
- 14,812
Joe Wordsworth....
you said:
"As such, its best for there to be a framework of common definitions, categories, and the like when engaging in religious-speak, as well as rules (usually just the basic laws of logic). When those things are respected, a lot of quality work can be done to understand and evaluate... when people start getting dogmatic or just asininely difficult over what they merely prefer to believe (ranging from "The Christian Church is the most dangerous horror on Earth" to "Athiests are going to burn in Hell" to rational contradictions) instead of actually working toward something like an understanding, it just deteriorates into "whose got the bigger nuts?"
Dear Joe....there was a time when I too 'thought' that the academic society held out great promise an individuals pursuit for knowledge. I recall a movie and a television series..."Paper Chase" that follow a law student through Harvard law school, if memory serves.
After eight years of banging my pointy little head against the very opinionated establishment of professional educators and meeting only two (men) who knew more than I did about all things, I cast aside my scholarly robes and went out into the real world.
Perhaps you too will one day take that sabbatical from the halls of academe be it philosophy or theology.
Leaving that cloister of self indulgent aesthetes was the best move I ever made.
One parting point...and a seemingly difficult one to make...so many seem to think that a pursuit of knowledge is a calm, studied, rational approach, conducted with grace and finesse with a sense of equality and sharing among all.
I have found otherwise...I see the necessity of flaming passion in the pursuit of truth. A burning passion that drives a Madame Curie, of a Joan D'ark, a Pasteur, a Van Gogh or Chaucer or Nietzche or Rimbaud or Goethe....and a hundred more.
You and many...criticize and look amiss at those who occupy extreme positions with absolute passion. You seem to imagine that truth is a matter of consensus amicably arrived at.
I propose that truth is a sharp fast sword wielded by a fiery passionate individual that will brook no compromise or contradiction on the quest to 'know'
amicus...
you said:
"As such, its best for there to be a framework of common definitions, categories, and the like when engaging in religious-speak, as well as rules (usually just the basic laws of logic). When those things are respected, a lot of quality work can be done to understand and evaluate... when people start getting dogmatic or just asininely difficult over what they merely prefer to believe (ranging from "The Christian Church is the most dangerous horror on Earth" to "Athiests are going to burn in Hell" to rational contradictions) instead of actually working toward something like an understanding, it just deteriorates into "whose got the bigger nuts?"
Dear Joe....there was a time when I too 'thought' that the academic society held out great promise an individuals pursuit for knowledge. I recall a movie and a television series..."Paper Chase" that follow a law student through Harvard law school, if memory serves.
After eight years of banging my pointy little head against the very opinionated establishment of professional educators and meeting only two (men) who knew more than I did about all things, I cast aside my scholarly robes and went out into the real world.
Perhaps you too will one day take that sabbatical from the halls of academe be it philosophy or theology.
Leaving that cloister of self indulgent aesthetes was the best move I ever made.
One parting point...and a seemingly difficult one to make...so many seem to think that a pursuit of knowledge is a calm, studied, rational approach, conducted with grace and finesse with a sense of equality and sharing among all.
I have found otherwise...I see the necessity of flaming passion in the pursuit of truth. A burning passion that drives a Madame Curie, of a Joan D'ark, a Pasteur, a Van Gogh or Chaucer or Nietzche or Rimbaud or Goethe....and a hundred more.
You and many...criticize and look amiss at those who occupy extreme positions with absolute passion. You seem to imagine that truth is a matter of consensus amicably arrived at.
I propose that truth is a sharp fast sword wielded by a fiery passionate individual that will brook no compromise or contradiction on the quest to 'know'
amicus...
amicus
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Posts
- 14,812
Gauchecritic....
Thank you for an interesting post......
I am about 700 pages into a novel of primitive people with a time frame of approximately 8000 BCE, near the time of the eruption of Mt. Mazama in what is now southern Oregon.
We can never know what the Neanderthal age cave painters in Europe really thought...we can only surmise. We do so by excavating midden sites and digging up bones and tools and whatever else can be uncovered.
With modern technology such as ice core samples, carbon dating, petrified tree rings...we have learned more in the past 30 years or so than perhaps in all preceding research.
But..we can never 'know'...what they felt and thought.
You said...in part:
"The 'doers' of the tribe (the women again) follow what the 'thinkers' (religionists=men who have nothing else to do all day but develop language and social skills) say because they know only (and instinctively) that children are the most important part of their group and as such can survive only in that group."
I do not envision the ancient past quite as you do, even the penultimate feminist Jean Auel, in the Earth's Children's series of books, beginning with Clan of the Cave Bear, did not present women as the 'doers' of the clan.
You contrast the 'shamans' ( I call them Far Se'ers..then just See'ers or Seers in my work) against the 'rugged individualist'. I prefer to contrast the witch doctors against the men of reason and logic in the clan or tribe.
As for the part women play in my novel, I think many here on the Lit forum might be surprised, as the novel progresses, to read my vision of how women influence the growth of a primitive civilization and how they expand the scope of their participation.
An interesting development...for me...after continual conflict, virile men become somewhat of a precious commodity as the damned fools keep killing each other off. I have not yet decided to create a matriarchal tribe although I am considering it.
I have made no secret of the fact that I use this forum as a diversion and as a research tool for my writing. And some aspects of what I have learned here are showing up among my female characters; some in not very flattering terms.
In my cursory studies on ancient beliefs I have come to the conclusion that nothing in the imagination is as bizarre as some of the rituals practiced by primitive societies. That is to say that nothing I could possibly come up with would be as strange as things that actually happened.
Well....enough on that...thank you again for your time and effort, it is appreciated.
amicus
(should anyone be interested in reading the aforementioned novel, chapter one is here: http://english.literotica.com:81/stories/showstory.php?id=117028
Thank you for an interesting post......
I am about 700 pages into a novel of primitive people with a time frame of approximately 8000 BCE, near the time of the eruption of Mt. Mazama in what is now southern Oregon.
We can never know what the Neanderthal age cave painters in Europe really thought...we can only surmise. We do so by excavating midden sites and digging up bones and tools and whatever else can be uncovered.
With modern technology such as ice core samples, carbon dating, petrified tree rings...we have learned more in the past 30 years or so than perhaps in all preceding research.
But..we can never 'know'...what they felt and thought.
You said...in part:
"The 'doers' of the tribe (the women again) follow what the 'thinkers' (religionists=men who have nothing else to do all day but develop language and social skills) say because they know only (and instinctively) that children are the most important part of their group and as such can survive only in that group."
I do not envision the ancient past quite as you do, even the penultimate feminist Jean Auel, in the Earth's Children's series of books, beginning with Clan of the Cave Bear, did not present women as the 'doers' of the clan.
You contrast the 'shamans' ( I call them Far Se'ers..then just See'ers or Seers in my work) against the 'rugged individualist'. I prefer to contrast the witch doctors against the men of reason and logic in the clan or tribe.
As for the part women play in my novel, I think many here on the Lit forum might be surprised, as the novel progresses, to read my vision of how women influence the growth of a primitive civilization and how they expand the scope of their participation.
An interesting development...for me...after continual conflict, virile men become somewhat of a precious commodity as the damned fools keep killing each other off. I have not yet decided to create a matriarchal tribe although I am considering it.
I have made no secret of the fact that I use this forum as a diversion and as a research tool for my writing. And some aspects of what I have learned here are showing up among my female characters; some in not very flattering terms.
In my cursory studies on ancient beliefs I have come to the conclusion that nothing in the imagination is as bizarre as some of the rituals practiced by primitive societies. That is to say that nothing I could possibly come up with would be as strange as things that actually happened.
Well....enough on that...thank you again for your time and effort, it is appreciated.
amicus
(should anyone be interested in reading the aforementioned novel, chapter one is here: http://english.literotica.com:81/stories/showstory.php?id=117028
Last edited:
gauchecritic
When there are grey skies
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2002
- Posts
- 7,076
amicus said:
But you don't have to 'envision' anything. Being little removed from the other families or tribes of animals that they were, we simply look to how animals behave. The females are hunters (they tend to do it in pairs) and the males (alpha or otherwise) sit about and wait for the kill.
Someone else's imaginings or novel doesn't take away this evidence. I've read one or two inventions that have the female as aggressor and champion and the males as kept.
This is obviously far too emasculating a concept for you to take whole, but is a little more wholesome and acceptable than anthropomorphising a branch of apes.
Gauche
G
Guest
Guest
I don't know if Gauche meant this, but the longer post above seemed to touch on something of 'the herd instinct'. Speaking of C.S. Lewis on another 'God' thread, I looked this up (from an excellent PBS program on "God" as viewed by Freud and Lewis). The excerpt is from Lewis' Mere Christianity. - Perdita
-------------------------------------------
"... For example, some people wrote to me saying, 'Isn't what you call the Moral Law simply our herd instinct and hasn't it been developed just like all our other instincts?' Now I do not deny that we may have a herd instinct: but that is not what I mean by the Moral Law. We all know what it feels like to be prompted by instinct — by mother love, or sexual instinct, or the instinct for food. It means that you feel a strong want or desire to act in a certain way. And, of course, we sometimes do feel just that sort of desire to help another person: and no doubt that desire is due to the herd instinct. But feeling a desire to help is quite different from feeling that you ought to help whether you want to or not. Supposing you hear a cry for help from a man in danger. You will probably feel two desires — one desire to give help (due to your herd instinct), the other a desire to keep out of danger (due to the instinct for self-preservation). But you will find inside you, in addition to these two impulses, a third thing which tells you that you ought to follow the impulse to help, and suppress the impulse to run away. Now this thing that judges between two instincts, that decides which should be encouraged, cannot itself be either of them. You might as well say that the sheet of music which tells you, at a given moment, to play one note on the piano and not another, is itself one of the notes on the keyboard. The Moral Law tells us the tune we have to play: our instincts are merely the keys.
Another way of seeing that the Moral Law is not simply one of our instincts is this. If two instincts are in conflict, and there is nothing in a creature's mind except those two instincts, obviously the stronger of the two must win. But at those moments when we are most conscious of the Moral Law, it usually seems to be telling us to side with the weaker of the two impulses. You probably want to be safe much more than you want to help the man who is drowning: but the Moral Law tells you to help him all the same. And surely it often tells us to try to make the right impulse stronger than it naturally is? I mean, we often feel it our duty to stimulate the herd instinct, by waking up our imaginations and arousing our pity and so on, so as to get up enough steam for doing the right thing. But clearly we are not acting from instinct when we set about making an instinct stronger than it is. The thing that says to you, 'Your herd instinct is asleep. Wake it up,' cannot itself be the herd instinct. The thing that tells you which note on the piano needs to be played louder cannot itself be that note.
Here is a third way of seeing it. If the Moral Law was one of our instincts, we ought to be able to point to some one impulse inside us which was always what we call 'good,' always in agreement with the rule of right behaviors. But you cannot. There is none of our impulses which the Moral Law may not sometimes tell us to suppress, and none which it may not sometimes tell us to encourage. It is a mistake to think that some of our impulses — say mother love or patriotism — are good, and others, like sex or the fighting instinct, are bad. All we mean is that the occasions on which the fighting instinct or the sexual desire need to be restrained are rather more frequent than those for restraining mother love or patriotism. But there are situations in which it is the duty of a married man to encourage his sexual impulse and of a soldier to encourage the fighting instinct. There are also occasions on which a mother's love for her own children or a man's love for his own country have to be suppressed or they will lead to unfairness towards other people's children or countries. Strictly speaking, there are no such things as good and bad impulses. Think once again of a piano. It has not got two kinds of notes on it, the 'right' notes and the 'wrong' ones. Every single note is right at one time and wrong at another. The Moral Law is not any one instinct or set of instincts: it is something which makes a kind of tune (the tune we call goodness or right conduct) by directing the instincts.
By the way, the point is of great practical consequence. The most dangerous thing you can do is to take any one impulse of your own nature and set it up as the thing you ought to follow at all costs. There is not one of them which will not make us into devils if we set up as an absolute guide. You might think love of humanity in general was safe, but it is not. If you leave out justice you will find yourself breaking agreements and faking evidence in trials 'for the sake of humanity', and become in the end a cruel and treacherous man. ..."
The Question of God
-------------------------------------------
"... For example, some people wrote to me saying, 'Isn't what you call the Moral Law simply our herd instinct and hasn't it been developed just like all our other instincts?' Now I do not deny that we may have a herd instinct: but that is not what I mean by the Moral Law. We all know what it feels like to be prompted by instinct — by mother love, or sexual instinct, or the instinct for food. It means that you feel a strong want or desire to act in a certain way. And, of course, we sometimes do feel just that sort of desire to help another person: and no doubt that desire is due to the herd instinct. But feeling a desire to help is quite different from feeling that you ought to help whether you want to or not. Supposing you hear a cry for help from a man in danger. You will probably feel two desires — one desire to give help (due to your herd instinct), the other a desire to keep out of danger (due to the instinct for self-preservation). But you will find inside you, in addition to these two impulses, a third thing which tells you that you ought to follow the impulse to help, and suppress the impulse to run away. Now this thing that judges between two instincts, that decides which should be encouraged, cannot itself be either of them. You might as well say that the sheet of music which tells you, at a given moment, to play one note on the piano and not another, is itself one of the notes on the keyboard. The Moral Law tells us the tune we have to play: our instincts are merely the keys.
Another way of seeing that the Moral Law is not simply one of our instincts is this. If two instincts are in conflict, and there is nothing in a creature's mind except those two instincts, obviously the stronger of the two must win. But at those moments when we are most conscious of the Moral Law, it usually seems to be telling us to side with the weaker of the two impulses. You probably want to be safe much more than you want to help the man who is drowning: but the Moral Law tells you to help him all the same. And surely it often tells us to try to make the right impulse stronger than it naturally is? I mean, we often feel it our duty to stimulate the herd instinct, by waking up our imaginations and arousing our pity and so on, so as to get up enough steam for doing the right thing. But clearly we are not acting from instinct when we set about making an instinct stronger than it is. The thing that says to you, 'Your herd instinct is asleep. Wake it up,' cannot itself be the herd instinct. The thing that tells you which note on the piano needs to be played louder cannot itself be that note.
Here is a third way of seeing it. If the Moral Law was one of our instincts, we ought to be able to point to some one impulse inside us which was always what we call 'good,' always in agreement with the rule of right behaviors. But you cannot. There is none of our impulses which the Moral Law may not sometimes tell us to suppress, and none which it may not sometimes tell us to encourage. It is a mistake to think that some of our impulses — say mother love or patriotism — are good, and others, like sex or the fighting instinct, are bad. All we mean is that the occasions on which the fighting instinct or the sexual desire need to be restrained are rather more frequent than those for restraining mother love or patriotism. But there are situations in which it is the duty of a married man to encourage his sexual impulse and of a soldier to encourage the fighting instinct. There are also occasions on which a mother's love for her own children or a man's love for his own country have to be suppressed or they will lead to unfairness towards other people's children or countries. Strictly speaking, there are no such things as good and bad impulses. Think once again of a piano. It has not got two kinds of notes on it, the 'right' notes and the 'wrong' ones. Every single note is right at one time and wrong at another. The Moral Law is not any one instinct or set of instincts: it is something which makes a kind of tune (the tune we call goodness or right conduct) by directing the instincts.
By the way, the point is of great practical consequence. The most dangerous thing you can do is to take any one impulse of your own nature and set it up as the thing you ought to follow at all costs. There is not one of them which will not make us into devils if we set up as an absolute guide. You might think love of humanity in general was safe, but it is not. If you leave out justice you will find yourself breaking agreements and faking evidence in trials 'for the sake of humanity', and become in the end a cruel and treacherous man. ..."
The Question of God
amicus
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Posts
- 14,812
Not to slight the purpose of the post...but...in human terms, there is not such thing as 'instinct', try to define it, quantify it..it does not exist....
Even the pacific salmon...that goes to sea from a small spring and returns to the same spring four years later as an adult, is not acting from 'instinct' rather chemical and environmental stimulants...so...'instinct' in any terms and certainly morality and ethics...is a dead end...supposition only....
sorry....
amicus...
Even the pacific salmon...that goes to sea from a small spring and returns to the same spring four years later as an adult, is not acting from 'instinct' rather chemical and environmental stimulants...so...'instinct' in any terms and certainly morality and ethics...is a dead end...supposition only....
sorry....
amicus...
amicus
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Posts
- 14,812
Gauche...you know as well as I that very few animal groups follow the 'female' hunter scenario you speak of....the reason being, for all all females...that in a gravid condition...they are physically incapable of competing for food....
There seem always to be exceptions..but they do not become the rule...
amicus...
There seem always to be exceptions..but they do not become the rule...
amicus...
Joe Wordsworth
Logician
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2004
- Posts
- 4,085
amicus,
See, that's funny because I used to think like you, back when I was younger. Then I became a part of the scholarly community and, from the inside, got to see how much we do and affect and what importance we have. I simply can't go back to being blind.
See, that's funny because I used to think like you, back when I was younger. Then I became a part of the scholarly community and, from the inside, got to see how much we do and affect and what importance we have. I simply can't go back to being blind.
gauchecritic
When there are grey skies
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2002
- Posts
- 7,076
amicus said:
But you do allow those exceptions, so tell me, which is the most exceptional animal? Remember to include the words; polygamous, hunting, omniverous, forecasting and tool using.
Or are you willing to admit that society was created and poliltically motivated and therefor ruled by females?
You are saying that the search for the safe and familiar at a very specific time of a specific year is not instinctive?
So the implication is that there is no motivation. So why would they do it?
How they are 'built' leads them to this behaviour. Why else would a smell, a change in temperature, and a feeling in the guts make them do anything?
Will you even admit that seeking warmth and food is instinctive?
I think you're argueing semantics and definition here. Where the majority of thinking agrees that seeking company and producing offspring is instinctive you (if I read you correctly) say these are learned behaviours. Which, by inference, means that sex is learned behaviour.
Seems to me that you just don't want to be a cog in the machine. Who does?
Gauche
cantdog
Waybac machine
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2004
- Posts
- 10,791
Instinct
Evidence of instinct in man goes beyond innate reflexes, such as the sucking reflex in newborns.
releasers
The link is a glossary definition of the term "sign stimulus." Evidence of sign stimuli in animal behavior are rampant and unquestioned, amicus.
In common with most mammals, the visual impression we receive of a juvenile mammal triggers a nurturing response. The actual releaser is said to be the rounded head and short muzzle possessed by human babies in common with puppies, kittens, and so forth.
Humans can override this, as they can a lot of instinctual behaviors. Which is fortunate since we now for the most part live in swarming cities and are crazy enough anyway without everyone all of a sudden ceasing to interrupt instinctual behaviors.
Other sign stimuli are the upturned ass as a sexual-urge releaser, the human face or anything remotely like one as a social attention-getting releaser, and many more.
When you are alone for a long time in the woods, you hear voices, human voices. Why? Because you are constantly scanning for them, and for faces. This is why you see human faces in other objects, manufacturing them out of nothing except a mental construct. These are social things, faces and voices, which may or may not be "hard-wired." The complexity of them is no bar. Cats pounce on small moving objects, arguably out of instinct, and that's a pretty complex behavior.
Evidence of instinct in man goes beyond innate reflexes, such as the sucking reflex in newborns.
releasers
The link is a glossary definition of the term "sign stimulus." Evidence of sign stimuli in animal behavior are rampant and unquestioned, amicus.
In common with most mammals, the visual impression we receive of a juvenile mammal triggers a nurturing response. The actual releaser is said to be the rounded head and short muzzle possessed by human babies in common with puppies, kittens, and so forth.
Humans can override this, as they can a lot of instinctual behaviors. Which is fortunate since we now for the most part live in swarming cities and are crazy enough anyway without everyone all of a sudden ceasing to interrupt instinctual behaviors.
Other sign stimuli are the upturned ass as a sexual-urge releaser, the human face or anything remotely like one as a social attention-getting releaser, and many more.
When you are alone for a long time in the woods, you hear voices, human voices. Why? Because you are constantly scanning for them, and for faces. This is why you see human faces in other objects, manufacturing them out of nothing except a mental construct. These are social things, faces and voices, which may or may not be "hard-wired." The complexity of them is no bar. Cats pounce on small moving objects, arguably out of instinct, and that's a pretty complex behavior.
LadyJeanne
deluded
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2004
- Posts
- 5,885
I'm not a big fan of organized religion, although I like incense and candles, the stained glass and stunning architecture. I also appreciate the sense of community, the pancake breakfasts, and if church has people thinking about the golden rule at least one hour a week, it can't be all bad.
The closest I come to a belief in God is my belief in love - faith in love as a guiding force adds meaning to my life and sustains me. I'm not so concerned about whether there is or isn't an afterlife, although my love for those who have passed keeps them alive in my heart and I am comforted to know that those who love me will keep me in theirs.
The closest I come to a belief in God is my belief in love - faith in love as a guiding force adds meaning to my life and sustains me. I'm not so concerned about whether there is or isn't an afterlife, although my love for those who have passed keeps them alive in my heart and I am comforted to know that those who love me will keep me in theirs.
Similar threads
