Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes against

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby Serendipper » Wed Sep 19, 2018 6:34 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:I think the term selfish gets meaning when you lack care for others. Your interests do not include the interests of others. You do not care about other people.

Yes, an empathic person is also taking care of their own preferences and emotions. That's who they are, the kind of person who is affected negatively by the pain of others in some contexts.

Of course people will even die to save others. Some animals will help animals of other species, including us.

I think it makes sense to distinguish this behavior and the attendant attitudes and feelings from people who do not give a shit about other people.

Selfish would describe those who do not give that shit.

It seems then that love is a condition when the interests of one person aligns with the interests of another in symbiosis and is therefore often a function of intelligence. Psychopathic lack of empathy is a deficiency of the brain. Jesus' request of forgiveness for his crucifiers was an expression of the intelligence required to realize that the people didn't understand what they were doing. Primates are more capable of love than earthworms. Love is the extent to which one realizes that consideration for others is consideration for oneself.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1375
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby Serendipper » Wed Sep 19, 2018 6:46 pm

phyllo wrote:
Yes I actually thought that went without saying.
A lot of your arguments are based on "Stuff that goes without saying".

So what should I assume that you do not know? Everything?

My physics professor said the same to the class: what is it that I should realize that you do not know? I have to expect that you know something or we can't communicate at all, which is becoming to be the case. You must at least have some prerequisite knowledge.

Because then it wouldn't be love. If love is selflessness, then selfishness is not love.
It's not at all clear that love has to be selflessness. It's just your idea that it is.

And it's just your idea that it isn't.

And even that is far from the original statement "any being can only love itself" which remains unjustified.

Nooo... it remains to be challenged. You're free to offer a challenge at any time. Show me how a being could love something other than itself.

Because: 1) I have a decent working knowledge of it. 2) it's the context of the thread. 3) the bible has some authoritative value concerning the definition of love.
You do like your authorities.

Well upon what are we to hinge our definitions, which are completely subjective and arbitrary, if we do not have an authority? Shall we burn all the dictionaries because they might be authoritative? What is your point?
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1375
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby phyllo » Wed Sep 19, 2018 7:05 pm

So what should I assume that you do not know? Everything?

My physics professor said the same to the class: what is it that I should realize that you do not know? I have to expect that you know something or we can't communicate at all, which is becoming to be the case. You must at least have some prerequisite knowledge.
Your making some claims about love but your assuming we have the same definition of love as you do. And frankly I don't think it's the only possible definition or even the majority definition.
And it's just your idea that it isn't.
Yes it is my idea.
Nooo... it remains to be challenged. You're free to offer a challenge at any time. Show me how a being could love something other than itself.
You're making a claim. I'm asking you for your reasoning.

Why should I show you anything when I'm not making a claim?

I'm pointing to some examples in order to draw out your reasoning.

It's still a mystery.
Well upon what are we to hinge our definitions, which are completely subjective and arbitrary, if we do not have an authority? Shall we burn all the dictionaries because they might be authoritative? What is your point?
Presumably people use the dictionary because they believe it to be correct.

You use the bible as an authority but you don't believe it. Right?

Aren't you basically saying that all love is selfish and also pointing to the bible which says that love is selfless? WTF
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10960
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Sep 19, 2018 7:51 pm

Serendipper wrote:[
It seems then that love is a condition when the interests of one person aligns with the interests of another in symbiosis and is therefore often a function of intelligence.
I don't think it need be a function of intelligence. It's not something one needs to work out. Empathy can come directly. There may need to be some minimum intelligence, but once that threshold is crossed I don't think there is some neat graph. And animals even take risks cross species for other animals in trouble.

Psychopathic lack of empathy is a deficiency of the brain. Jesus' request of forgiveness for his crucifiers was an expression of the intelligence required to realize that the people didn't understand what they were doing.
Or it was guilt disguised as love on Jesus' part.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby Serendipper » Wed Sep 19, 2018 10:02 pm

phyllo wrote:
So what should I assume that you do not know? Everything?

My physics professor said the same to the class: what is it that I should realize that you do not know? I have to expect that you know something or we can't communicate at all, which is becoming to be the case. You must at least have some prerequisite knowledge.
Your making some claims about love but your assuming we have the same definition of love as you do.

Why would I believe that there exists people who do not consider love to mean selflessness? Giving is an expression of love and that is surely considered selfless whereas greed is selfish, even though giving is ultimately selfish, but not apparently selfish (readily seen as selfish).

Ultimately, you cannot love someone else because you cannot care about someone else unless caring about someone else benefits you, but then it's not caring about them, but caring about YOU.

Use whatever synonym you want:

You cannot love someone else.
You cannot care about someone else.
You cannot regard someone else.
You cannot worship someone else.

And frankly I don't think it's the only possible definition or even the majority definition.

So, you (the one who ironically hasn't differentiated between your/you're properly - innocent mistake no doubt, but ironic that it would occur in the context of appealing to yourself as an authority) don't think the majority definition of love is selflessness. So what merit should I derive from that? Should I say to myself "Phyllo doesn't agree, therefore I'm wrong."? You're appealing to yourself as authority.

Nooo... it remains to be challenged. You're free to offer a challenge at any time. Show me how a being could love something other than itself.
You're making a claim. I'm asking you for your reasoning.

And I've supplied my reasoning in abundance.

Why should I show you anything when I'm not making a claim?

Because you're making the claim that my claim is wrong, yet you refuse to substantiate your claim.

I'm pointing to some examples in order to draw out your reasoning.

Where?

It's still a mystery.

If so, then it's not my fault.

Well upon what are we to hinge our definitions, which are completely subjective and arbitrary, if we do not have an authority? Shall we burn all the dictionaries because they might be authoritative? What is your point?
Presumably people use the dictionary because they believe it to be correct.

Well, if we don't have agreeable definitions then we have nothing.

You use the bible as an authority but you don't believe it. Right?

It depends on the issue. The bible is a great source of wisdom but also a great source of confusion. Alan says the bible should be ceremoniously and reverently burned every Easter and I agree. We shouldn't callously or irreverently burn books, but we should ceremoniously burn that book lest it become a graven image and object of worship.

Aren't you basically saying that all love is selfish and also pointing to the bible which says that love is selfless? WTF

Yes. I'm saying the bible is right in defining love, but wrong in that love can exist. What we call love, is not love; it's just selfish ass-hattery, but that fact isn't readily apparent, so we flatter ourselves for possessing this divine attribute that's no less simian than any other of our attributes. Once again, arrogance rears it's head in the conversation because we've deified this love concept in adoration of ourselves.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1375
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby Serendipper » Wed Sep 19, 2018 10:18 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Serendipper wrote:[
It seems then that love is a condition when the interests of one person aligns with the interests of another in symbiosis and is therefore often a function of intelligence.
I don't think it need be a function of intelligence. It's not something one needs to work out. Empathy can come directly.


I'm just pointing out that empathy comes from some part of the brain, so if it doesn't exist, it's like missing part of the brain, which is a good definition of lack of intelligence I think. I suppose you could argue that neuron count may not be as important as architecture, but once again, if someone is missing a part or the brain, then they're probably missing that bit of architecture as well.

Then we have empirical correlations such as race, iq, and crime (ethics, morality, love or lack of) and countries with higher average iqs have less violent crime. Intelligence seems strongly correlated with ethics.

There may need to be some minimum intelligence, but once that threshold is crossed I don't think there is some neat graph.

Helmuth Nyborg says the threshold is about 80-85 iq before democracy breaks down, so he's worried about nuclear countries who are letting Muslims in because the ave IQ will become increasingly watered-down until democracy fails and we have a dictatorial country with nukes. I can link you to a video on it if you're interested.

And animals even take risks cross species for other animals in trouble.

I don't doubt it, but they're probably not earthworms.

Psychopathic lack of empathy is a deficiency of the brain. Jesus' request of forgiveness for his crucifiers was an expression of the intelligence required to realize that the people didn't understand what they were doing.
Or it was guilt disguised as love on Jesus' part.

I never considered that. Why would it be guilt?

I see it like a child says to the parent "I hate you!" And the parent says "Oh you're just mad and I don't believe that."

If the crucifiers had understood what they were doing, they wouldn't have done it, so no sin had been committed.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1375
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby Greatest I am » Thu Sep 20, 2018 12:24 am

Serendipper wrote:
Greatest I am wrote:You brought up the word selfless.

I thought it was common knowledge that love is selfless, especially with regard to what god to worship.

1 Corinthians 13:4-8

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.


I never used it and do not see true love as selfless as it must have reciprocity to be true love. Seems we are on the same page.

I suppose so, but most Christians don't see it that way.


Perhaps, but I do not trust people who idol worship a genocidal son murdering demiurge that they can somehow see as good.

If Christians are that far of the mark on good and evil, why would you trust them on any other issue?

Better to trust the Gnostic Christian as they do not agree much with the Christian worshipers of a satanic god.

Regards
DL
User avatar
Greatest I am
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 4:07 pm

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby phyllo » Thu Sep 20, 2018 2:11 am

Why would I believe that there exists people who do not consider love to mean selflessness? Giving is an expression of love and that is surely considered selfless whereas greed is selfish, even though giving is ultimately selfish, but not apparently selfish (readily seen as selfish).

Ultimately, you cannot love someone else because you cannot care about someone else unless caring about someone else benefits you, but then it's not caring about them, but caring about YOU.

Use whatever synonym you want:

You cannot love someone else.
You cannot care about someone else.
You cannot regard someone else.
You cannot worship someone else.
When I look around, I see lots of people who love other people. I see lots of people who care about other people. I see lots of people who have high regard for other people.

I don't know it they love selflessly. I'm not in their heads. But it seems possible in some cases considering their behavior.

I don't think that love needs to be selfless. I don't think there is anything wrong with loving and getting something in return. That doesn't negate love.

These are my observations of myself and others.

That's all I'm going to say about it.
:romance-inlove:
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10960
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby Serendipper » Thu Sep 20, 2018 4:32 am

Greatest I am wrote:Perhaps, but I do not trust people who idol worship a genocidal son murdering demiurge that they can somehow see as good.

If Christians are that far of the mark on good and evil, why would you trust them on any other issue?

Missing the mark a lot doesn't mean they don't hit it sometimes and even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Better to trust the Gnostic Christian as they do not agree much with the Christian worshipers of a satanic god.

What's a gnostic christian? Is that opposed to an agnostic christian where one values faith and the other values conceptual knowledge?

Gnostic = conceptual, cataphatic knowledge = what god is = painter applying paint to produce an image
Agnostic = nonconceptual, apophatic knowledge (ie faith) = what god isn't = sculptor removing stone to reveal an image
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1375
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby Serendipper » Thu Sep 20, 2018 4:49 am

phyllo wrote:When I look around, I see lots of people who love other people. I see lots of people who care about other people. I see lots of people who have high regard for other people.

I don't know it they love selflessly. I'm not in their heads. But it seems possible in some cases considering their behavior.

Why wouldn't it be possible that they could do all those things for a self-centered reason?

I don't think that love needs to be selfless.

What's an example of selfish love? I love you so much that I'm going to eat all your pizza? Or I love you so much that I'm going to share my pizza with you? It seems there always needs to be some self-sacrifice to constitute love, but it's hidden from view that the self-sacrifice is for the person's own benefit. IOW, I share my pizza, you are happy, I'm happy that you are happy. But people don't see it that way at first since they see it as giving up some pizza and that's a sacrifice and an expression of love. Aww... he's sharing his pizza. No, I just value your happiness more than I value the remaining pizza that will probably be stale in the morning anyway lol.

It doesn't matter what the situation is, I will always do what I perceive as best for me and that would be true of any being because how could any being do what it didn't want to do? If God sent his only begotten son to die, then he did it because he wanted to and because that's what made him happy... or happier than the alternative. So it's ultimately not about our salvation, but God's happiness.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1375
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Thu Sep 20, 2018 10:02 am

Serendipper wrote:I'm just pointing out that empathy comes from some part of the brain, so if it doesn't exist, it's like missing part of the brain, which is a good definition of lack of intelligence I think. I suppose you could argue that neuron count may not be as important as architecture, but once again, if someone is missing a part or the brain, then they're probably missing that bit of architecture as well.
What the heck, I am going to make a little digression. I think we currently are way too reductionistic when it comes to intelligence and identity in that we refer to ourselves as basically brains driving cars (the rest of our bodies) and even narrow it down to neurons. First we have large neuronal complexes in the heart and gut. Yes, less neurons than in the brain, but systems can be organized to give much more weight to portions with less parts. I am not simply a brain, I am the whole organism. Second, glial cells, which are not neurons have been found to play a huge role in intelligence and mind. Before they were considered merely structural, glue, but in the last decade we are finding that they play a huge role in who we are and how (well) we think. And then there is the endocrine system. And then...well, there's other research indicating that the self may be much more spread out in the body, in fact everywhere. Now back to what you wrote more specifically: the brain has a lot more functions than what tends to be indicated by 'intelligence'. If you are using the term in a very broad sense, fine, but my contacts with the very high IQ people has NOT led me to believe there is great correlation between IQ and empathy.

Then we have empirical correlations such as race, iq, and crime (ethics, morality, love or lack of) and countries with higher average iqs have less violent crime. Intelligence seems strongly correlated with ethics.
I would guess that countries where people do well on IQ tests have a lot of other factors that could affect things like crime.

And animals even take risks cross species for other animals in trouble.

I don't doubt it, but they're probably not earthworms.
That's why I mentioned a minimum.

I never considered that. Why would it be guilt?
I could be wrong, I sometimes mix you and Sillouette up, glancing too fast at the names, and heck you're both smart guys so it's no insult, but...weren't you standing up for standing up against bullies including being potentially violent in discussion with thnkdr?

It can seem loving to not be angry at and be 'understanding' of people doing you harm. Battered women, for example, are often very intelligent at coming up for reasons not to stay with the rage and fear they have at their spouses and let those feelings lead to actions that would be better for them. I see Jesus as perpetuating problematic 'understanding' there which can lead to increased self-hate, guilt and allow more room for the unempathic.

(see, it's not just Watts who ruffles my feathers :D )

I see it like a child says to the parent "I hate you!" And the parent says "Oh you're just mad and I don't believe that."
If I see a parent who knowingly let's his kid nail him to a tree and forgives the kids while they are nailing him to the tree, I see a parent with guilt or self-hatred. In the abstract, safely out of the hands of sadistic brutes one can ALSO notice that they are confused. But all we get is the deep empathy he feels for people torturing him. To not also hate them is confused and is part of the damage Christianity has done to the world.

If the crucifiers had understood what they were doing, they wouldn't have done it, so no sin had been committed.
1) I don't think that is the case. There are people who know what they are doing and do not care. 2) there is not need to choose between understanding and having the natural reactions to being abused by people who CONSISTANTLY avoid feeling into what they are doing. You can react with rage and understand. Jesus cut himself in half. If he can understand them he can also understand his own anger and fear and let these flow freely.

All these religious leaders share a common ACCEPT WHAT IS OTHER THAN ME AND WHAT IS OUTSIDE ME BUT JUDGE WHAT IS INSIDE ESPECIALLY EMOTIONS AND DESIRE rule. They have a double standard and it has caused untold damage to people trying to live up to these models, because the models systematize self-hate but call it love.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby phyllo » Thu Sep 20, 2018 2:23 pm

Why wouldn't it be possible that they could do all those things for a self-centered reason?

What's an example of selfish love? I love you so much that I'm going to eat all your pizza? Or I love you so much that I'm going to share my pizza with you? It seems there always needs to be some self-sacrifice to constitute love, but it's hidden from view that the self-sacrifice is for the person's own benefit. IOW, I share my pizza, you are happy, I'm happy that you are happy. But people don't see it that way at first since they see it as giving up some pizza and that's a sacrifice and an expression of love. Aww... he's sharing his pizza. No, I just value your happiness more than I value the remaining pizza that will probably be stale in the morning anyway lol.
I guess it comes down to the fact that I don't understand a lot of this.

Why define love as selfless?

Why would a person who says that all acts are selfish also use the definition "love is selfless" when discussing love?

And it's not just here in this thread ... Why do some people insist that altruism is selfish?

Why do all acts need to be reduced to the two categories of selfish or selfless?
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10960
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby felix dakat » Thu Sep 20, 2018 6:40 pm

phyllo wrote:
Why wouldn't it be possible that they could do all those things for a self-centered reason?

What's an example of selfish love? I love you so much that I'm going to eat all your pizza? Or I love you so much that I'm going to share my pizza with you? It seems there always needs to be some self-sacrifice to constitute love, but it's hidden from view that the self-sacrifice is for the person's own benefit. IOW, I share my pizza, you are happy, I'm happy that you are happy. But people don't see it that way at first since they see it as giving up some pizza and that's a sacrifice and an expression of love. Aww... he's sharing his pizza. No, I just value your happiness more than I value the remaining pizza that will probably be stale in the morning anyway lol.
I guess it comes down to the fact that I don't understand a lot of this.

Why define love as selfless?

Why would a person who says that all acts are selfish also use the definition "love is selfless" when discussing love?

And it's not just here in this thread ... Why do some people insist that altruism is selfish?

Why do all acts need to be reduced to the two categories of selfish or selfless?
It's absolutistic, all or nothing, black and white, zero-sum thinking. Why people prefer that kind of thinking over relativistic, both and, more or less, nonzero thinking is another question.

User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8196
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby Serendipper » Thu Sep 20, 2018 7:56 pm

felix dakat wrote: It's absolutistic, all or nothing, black and white, zero-sum thinking. Why people prefer that kind of thinking over relativistic, both and, more or less, nonzero thinking is another question.

If love = X% selfishness + 100-X% selflessness then we couldn't have a definition for love since we'd spend all our time on the slippery slope looking for a place to draw the line. If you want definitions and communication, you have to have absolutes.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1375
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby Serendipper » Thu Sep 20, 2018 8:18 pm

phyllo wrote:
Why wouldn't it be possible that they could do all those things for a self-centered reason?

What's an example of selfish love? I love you so much that I'm going to eat all your pizza? Or I love you so much that I'm going to share my pizza with you? It seems there always needs to be some self-sacrifice to constitute love, but it's hidden from view that the self-sacrifice is for the person's own benefit. IOW, I share my pizza, you are happy, I'm happy that you are happy. But people don't see it that way at first since they see it as giving up some pizza and that's a sacrifice and an expression of love. Aww... he's sharing his pizza. No, I just value your happiness more than I value the remaining pizza that will probably be stale in the morning anyway lol.
I guess it comes down to the fact that I don't understand a lot of this.

Why define love as selfless?

Because that's the spirit of it. Otherwise it would be greed, self-centered.

Why would a person who says that all acts are selfish also use the definition "love is selfless" when discussing love?

Just to point out that selfless acts do not exist.

And it's not just here in this thread ... Why do some people insist that altruism is selfish?

Because selfless acts do not exist. I thought it was fairly common knowledge since my philosophy 101 class hammered the point home and it seems like we may have even entertained the idea in high school. Also Alan uses it to show that Christianity is an impossible religion since we cannot love God nor neighbor because we can only love ourselves. I'm really surprised that this has become a topic for debate on a philosophy forum.

Why do all acts need to be reduced to the two categories of selfish or selfless?

Because there is only self and other?
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1375
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby phyllo » Thu Sep 20, 2018 8:44 pm

Serendipper wrote:
felix dakat wrote: It's absolutistic, all or nothing, black and white, zero-sum thinking. Why people prefer that kind of thinking over relativistic, both and, more or less, nonzero thinking is another question.

If love = X% selfishness + 100-X% selflessness then we couldn't have a definition for love since we'd spend all our time on the slippery slope looking for a place to draw the line. If you want definitions and communication, you have to have absolutes.
That's like saying water= only H2O molecules. And then looking around and saying there is no water anywhere. The water that we actually find in the world, always contains impurities and contaminants but that doesn't stop people from being able to identify water. They don't become paralyzed or obsessed by the problem of identifying water.

In fact, some impurities in give water a pleasant taste when compared to pure H2O molecules.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10960
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby phyllo » Thu Sep 20, 2018 8:53 pm

Why do all acts need to be reduced to the two categories of selfish or selfless?


Because there is only self and other?
Sure, when considered as discreet objects.

But the motivation for an act can be any combination of interest in self and interest in others - one other or many others.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10960
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby phyllo » Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:00 pm

Because selfless acts do not exist. I thought it was fairly common knowledge since my philosophy 101 class hammered the point home and it seems like we may have even entertained the idea in high school.
I never took philosophy 101 so that probably explains it.
Also Alan uses it to show that Christianity is an impossible religion since we cannot love God nor neighbor because we can only love ourselves.
Doesn't Alan also say that there is no self? Which technically would make all acts selfless.
I'm really surprised that this has become a topic for debate on a philosophy forum.
It's weird that people debate stuff on a philosophy forum.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10960
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby Serendipper » Thu Sep 20, 2018 10:03 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Serendipper wrote:I'm just pointing out that empathy comes from some part of the brain, so if it doesn't exist, it's like missing part of the brain, which is a good definition of lack of intelligence I think. I suppose you could argue that neuron count may not be as important as architecture, but once again, if someone is missing a part or the brain, then they're probably missing that bit of architecture as well.
What the heck, I am going to make a little digression.

Good idea. I like digressions :)

I think we currently are way too reductionistic when it comes to intelligence and identity in that we refer to ourselves as basically brains driving cars (the rest of our bodies) and even narrow it down to neurons.

If not brains driving cars, then spirits driving cars.

First we have large neuronal complexes in the heart and gut.

Really? I have heard most of our serotonin is in the gut which makes me wonder why SSRIs are used for mental problems.

I am not simply a brain, I am the whole organism.

You're more than just an organism because you need an environment too.

In biology, the unitary approach makes it explicit why no organism can be thought of without an environment. An organism as a skin bag is no functioning system; it may be such only together with the relevant environmental parts. The same applies to neurophysiology or “cognitive” brain research: without the rest of the world the nervous system is not a system at all; neither is the agent of the behavior a part of the body, such as the brain. https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... Psychology

Second, glial cells, which are not neurons have been found to play a huge role in intelligence and mind. Before they were considered merely structural, glue, but in the last decade we are finding that they play a huge role in who we are and how (well) we think. And then there is the endocrine system. And then...well, there's other research indicating that the self may be much more spread out in the body, in fact everywhere. Now back to what you wrote more specifically: the brain has a lot more functions than what tends to be indicated by 'intelligence'.

I don't have a problem with any of that.

If you are using the term in a very broad sense, fine, but my contacts with the very high IQ people has NOT led me to believe there is great correlation between IQ and empathy.

Well, it's possible that psychopaths could also have a high IQ, but my research indicates that psychopaths typically do not have a high IQ. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... he-rest-us

Then we have empirical correlations such as race, iq, and crime (ethics, morality, love or lack of) and countries with higher average iqs have less violent crime. Intelligence seems strongly correlated with ethics.
I would guess that countries where people do well on IQ tests have a lot of other factors that could affect things like crime.

Well, we have a correlation so now we need to propose a mechanism and I posit that people with the cognitive capacity to realize that moral behavior is self-advantageous will be more moral than those who do not have the capacity.

Stefan Molyneux did a video of correlations with crime and found that crime had little to do with poverty, but was highly correlated with IQ and nearly perfectly correlated with divorce rates, implying that having a father in the home equated to less criminal behavior. So how does having a father around change the development of the child?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVBJ5m3sGfk

I never considered that. Why would it be guilt?
I could be wrong, I sometimes mix you and Sillouette up, glancing too fast at the names, and heck you're both smart guys so it's no insult, but...weren't you standing up for standing up against bullies including being potentially violent in discussion with thnkdr?

Oh you mean not running from the bear? Yeah that was me.

It can seem loving to not be angry at and be 'understanding' of people doing you harm. Battered women, for example, are often very intelligent at coming up for reasons not to stay with the rage and fear they have at their spouses and let those feelings lead to actions that would be better for them. I see Jesus as perpetuating problematic 'understanding' there which can lead to increased self-hate, guilt and allow more room for the unempathic.

Oh I see what you're saying! If people understand why they're being mistreated, then by understanding they lose their anger, then they allow the abuse to continue because they have no drive to fight back. It's mighty perceptive of you to pick up on that. This reminds me of a kid I know who is insanely intelligent and so perceptive that he can rarely be mad at anyone, except his annoying parents who he yells at and demeans constantly for acting "stupid", but anyone else he bends over backwards to be eternally taken advantage of. I say "You need to get away from those people. They're shitting on you!" He'll say "No, they're just acting that because _____, ________, and ________". He rationalizes and justifies abuse from people and it's only because he's smart enough to see a way of rationalizing it, but for some reason he isn't smart enough to get away from it. I suppose it's a lack of wisdom and he'll eventually learn from life.

Intelligent people actually have a rough time in life. Satoshi Kanazawa wrote a book about it. https://www.amazon.com/Intelligence-Par ... 0470586958

I have a thread about it on neosophi, but the site must be down because I can't access it. Suffice it to say, ignorance is bliss and "happiness among intelligent people is the rarest thing I know" (Hemmingway).

(see, it's not just Watts who ruffles my feathers :D )

lol I suppose any bag of hot air is sufficient to blow your feathers out of place :)

I see it like a child says to the parent "I hate you!" And the parent says "Oh you're just mad and I don't believe that."
If I see a parent who knowingly let's his kid nail him to a tree and forgives the kids while they are nailing him to the tree, I see a parent with guilt or self-hatred. In the abstract, safely out of the hands of sadistic brutes one can ALSO notice that they are confused. But all we get is the deep empathy he feels for people torturing him. To not also hate them is confused and is part of the damage Christianity has done to the world.

It's interesting that I see the parent as perceptive and you see the same parent as weak. Evidently we value different things as a function of our life history and I wonder what happened to you that made you become so hypersensitive to guilt. I mean, my mom is the queen of guilt trips and it's how she communicates. If she can't win an argument, then she diverts to how hard her life was and why everyone should feel sorry for her. I would think I should be the one who has a hypersensitivity to guilt, or at least some sensitivity to it, but perhaps I've been desensitized? My hangup is arrogance... I see it everywhere and associate it with ignorance and actually, I'm almost to the point that I believe there is no such thing as stupidity, but only arrogance, and so intelligence would be a function of humility which is what the parent is displaying by considering the point of view of the unruly child.

If the crucifiers had understood what they were doing, they wouldn't have done it, so no sin had been committed.
1) I don't think that is the case. There are people who know what they are doing and do not care. 2) there is not need to choose between understanding and having the natural reactions to being abused by people who CONSISTANTLY avoid feeling into what they are doing. You can react with rage and understand. Jesus cut himself in half. If he can understand them he can also understand his own anger and fear and let these flow freely.

Jesus did get mad at least once.

12 And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,
13 And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.

You can imagine him running about overturning tables and yelling at people lol

So there must be some difference between those nailing him to the cross and those selling at the temple. The ones nailing him to the cross didn't know what they were doing, but the ones selling in the temple must have known what they were doing was wrong.

All these religious leaders share a common ACCEPT WHAT IS OTHER THAN ME AND WHAT IS OUTSIDE ME BUT JUDGE WHAT IS INSIDE ESPECIALLY EMOTIONS AND DESIRE rule. They have a double standard and it has caused untold damage to people trying to live up to these models, because the models systematize self-hate but call it love.

Ok friend, point well-taken, I'll give that some good thought. You may be onto something, but I haven't focused on it specifically. Alan doesn't disagree with you.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1375
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby Serendipper » Thu Sep 20, 2018 10:07 pm

I can't find the video where he said "how dare you have the disgusting effrontery to exist" from the christian perspective, but this one is pretty good too:



I was in Mexico last August
40:40
studying this, because I wanted to go down there and find out
40:45
why their form of Catholicism is so agonizing.
40:51
And...
40:53
I meditated a long time on this,
40:55
in the cathedral of Wahaga.
40:59
And
41:01
Here was the main altar
41:03
-- no, not the main altar. The chapel where the sacrament is reserved
41:07
The central figure behind the altar is a *huge* crucifix
41:12
of Christ covered in blood and wounds.
41:17
The sores are all modeled, you know?
41:20
And then on either side of the walls facing this,
41:22
there are great paintings.
41:24
One of Christ carrying the cross and being mocked and scourged,
41:29
and the other, of the agony in the Garden of Gethsemane,
41:33
and all around in the stores,
41:35
where they sell bondieuserie in the neighborhood of the cathedral,
41:38
you can buy these *agonized* faces of Christ
41:41
with a crown of thorns.
41:43
And every thorn individually sticking in,
41:45
and little dribbles of blood,
41:47
the face is kind of green and ghastly.
41:51
And the people dig this!
41:53
They love it!
41:55
They'll go walking into the Shrine of our Lady of Guadalupe,
41:58
go for a whole mile on their knees!
42:01
You see young girls doing this!
42:05
What is this about?
42:10
Well, you see, some people
42:12
don't really feel they exist until they are sitting on the point of a thorn.
42:17
Let me put it that way.
42:20
Like reality is a measure of pain.
42:26
See, pain, in this way of looking at things,
42:28
is the most real thing that there is.
42:32
Pleasure, the pleasures of this world
42:34
escape and disappear and pass away,
42:37
there's nothing to cling to, so don't go after pleasure, my dear friends!
42:41
That's awful, that's a deceit, because the *real* thing in life is pain.
42:46
And so, what you do is you train yourself from childhood
42:49
to deal with pain.
42:53
We were brought up in a school system
42:54
where it was simply axiomatic that suffering builds character.
42:59
So therefore, anytime you inflicted pain on anybody,
43:02
you were perfectly justified in your own conscience
43:04
because you were doing him a favor.
43:07
You were building his character for him.
43:09
Do him good!
43:10
Hit him hard on the head! (laughs) You know, that sort of attitude. (laughter)
43:14
And, uh...
43:18
(chuckles)
43:24
And so this is based on this philosophy of
43:28
"pain is reality."
43:31
Is the ultimate
43:34
penitential philosophy.
43:36
Going down, down, down into the most awful.
43:41
"I am wrong."
43:43
See? "I am a mistake."
43:46
"I am responsible for this mistake."
43:49
"Therefore, I ought to suffer.
43:52
and I go right into that state of mind."
43:58
"And if I've got guts and courage, I'll go as far into it as possible."
44:04
"And what will I find out at the end?"
44:16
Now, if you go far enough...
44:20
the trouble is, a lot of people don't.
44:23
And they stay around, mimble-mambling about
44:26
their sins and all that, which is sort of disgusting.
44:31
And they never really get down to it.
44:34
They never find out
44:38
what I'll call "the moment," the hidden motivation behind all this.
44:43
Behind self-renunciation.
44:45
Behind wallowing in
44:49
the reality of pain.
44:52
They don't see that it's phony.
45:00
Because
45:03
nothing can be more egotistical
45:06
than true repentance.
45:10
As I pointed out, you're safe
45:14
when you're repentant enough.
45:16
Therefore, you...
45:20
conceal from yourself, temporarily, what an egotist you are.
45:25
But if you really get down to the bottom of this thing
45:28
as some of the Christian saints have done,
45:31
and find out what that repentance is all about,
45:33
and you suddenly see
45:36
why it's your old sin all over again.
45:39
What I thought was good, was, as a matter of fact, evil.
45:42
It was the same self-seeking and self-righteousness
45:45
and ineradicable pride and irreducible rascality,
45:49
which the Hebrews call,
45:51
the yetzer hara.
45:54
Which means, 'the evil inclination.'
45:56
But they say that the evil inclination was created by the Lord God.
46:01
And probably the Lord God has a yetzer hara himself.
46:07
That the Lord
46:08
has his own element of irreducible rascality.
46:12
And that is, of course, what you might call the dark side,
46:14
the left hand of God.
46:18
The left hand that doesn't know what the right hand doeth.
46:23
'Cause that mustn't be let out; that's the secret.
46:27
You see?
46:27
If the game of the cosmos is of the fundamental pattern of hide and seek,
46:34
Then when 'hide' turns up, and it's the time for 'hide' to happen
46:38
Then
46:40
darkness has its day.
46:43
Hide in the dark.
46:45
But when it's time for 'seek,'
46:47
then light has its day,
46:49
and we find out what was hidden in the dark,
46:51
and then the right hand suddenly discovers what the left hand was doing.
46:54
(chuckles)
46:56
At first, it's shocked!
46:58
(chuckles)
46:59
What, that?!
47:00
(laughs)
47:01
What is that, by the way?
47:04
What is the fundamental taboo?
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1375
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby Serendipper » Thu Sep 20, 2018 10:12 pm

phyllo wrote:
Because selfless acts do not exist. I thought it was fairly common knowledge since my philosophy 101 class hammered the point home and it seems like we may have even entertained the idea in high school.
I never took philosophy 101 so that probably explains it.

I took it as an elective lol

Also Alan uses it to show that Christianity is an impossible religion since we cannot love God nor neighbor because we can only love ourselves.
Doesn't Alan also say that there is no self? Which technically would make all acts selfless.

He says there is just one thing: the self. I suppose he means the Brahman.

I'm really surprised that this has become a topic for debate on a philosophy forum.
It's weird that people debate stuff on a philosophy forum.

Why do you feel that way?
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1375
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby Serendipper » Thu Sep 20, 2018 10:13 pm

phyllo wrote:
Why do all acts need to be reduced to the two categories of selfish or selfless?


Because there is only self and other?
Sure, when considered as discreet objects.

But the motivation for an act can be any combination of interest in self and interest in others - one other or many others.

But any combination of interest in others will ultimately also come back to an interest in yourself, so there is no combination.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1375
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby Serendipper » Thu Sep 20, 2018 10:15 pm

phyllo wrote:
Serendipper wrote:
felix dakat wrote: It's absolutistic, all or nothing, black and white, zero-sum thinking. Why people prefer that kind of thinking over relativistic, both and, more or less, nonzero thinking is another question.

If love = X% selfishness + 100-X% selflessness then we couldn't have a definition for love since we'd spend all our time on the slippery slope looking for a place to draw the line. If you want definitions and communication, you have to have absolutes.
That's like saying water= only H2O molecules. And then looking around and saying there is no water anywhere. The water that we actually find in the world, always contains impurities and contaminants but that doesn't stop people from being able to identify water. They don't become paralyzed or obsessed by the problem of identifying water.

In fact, some impurities in give water a pleasant taste when compared to pure H2O molecules.

But water is not a function of impurities. Water is H2O and the impurities are not water. Tea is water + impurities (the tea flavors).
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1375
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby phyllo » Fri Sep 21, 2018 1:40 am

He says there is just one thing: the self. I suppose he means the Brahman.
In that case, there is no 'other'. What do 'selfless' and 'selfish' mean? Nothing?
I'm really surprised that this has become a topic for debate on a philosophy forum.

It's weird that people debate stuff on a philosophy forum.



Why do you feel that way?
One often encounters posters who are "surprised" that everyone does not think as they do. They are "surprised" that there is more than one way to look at a subject. They are "surprised" that there is something to debate.

LOL

What do you expect? People who thank you for posting informative videos and who always agree with you?
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10960
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes aga

Postby phyllo » Fri Sep 21, 2018 1:47 am

But water is not a function of impurities. Water is H2O and the impurities are not water. Tea is water + impurities (the tea flavors).
People were able to identify water long before anybody thought of hydrogen, oxygen or molecules. They could distinguish tea from water as well.

I think that they can identify love in spite of whatever selfish/selfless labels philosophers insist on attaching.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10960
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users