has history been ethical? and is there a real ‘fate’.

has history been ethical? and is there a real ‘fate’.

in the words on monty python i think no, its been a very naughty boy! :smiley:

i will cite a few examples just to highlight some points…

i was watching a program about the inquisition and napoleon, the more i learn about this man the more i like him. he was a great liberator, perhaps we could go as far as saying he was the father of modern liberty! it seams like madness that at school all we were taught about him was that he was the french baddie, one who the great Wellington defeated.

was that defeat a catastrophe for man? perhaps its only recently have we risen to such levels of liberty that he endorsed, without him and science there would still be the inquisition.

ok now lets go back to ancient history…

if the romans were far less successful and as a consequence Christianity never went beyond a cult, how far would Greek culture and philosophy come by now! instead of an all powerful state of Rome, there would have been colonies all over the western world and civilisation would have spread without the complete destruction of many cultures. perhaps the Ptolemy’s would have not been so dissimilar to Rome? not sure on that, however the philosophical darkness which covered the world with religion ~ and still does today, would perhaps have been removed. Socrates challenged the then religion which was not challenged again until the renaissance or later, philosophy suffered too during this period.

perhaps man needed to go through all these phases to arrive where we are or shall be.

was history a series of bad choices? even if this is so, did those bad choices end up in good. is the reverse true? or does the world just keep on spinning with benefits and deficits in each era, and with no particular good or bad ends?

whilst i suspect the latter, i also wonder if finally we will arrive at true liberty [if thats what it is all about], after this final and perhaps most dramatic phaze.

nothing wrong with hope i suppose.

now how about FATE!

another interesting point for me is that ‘fate’ in a real context that is, takes on its own way. it is the net result of what we all do, not just famous leaders but everyone. at no point has the world been under the control of a single person or group, hence ‘fate’ is always the greater aspect, the result of all parties actions.

can we see that this ‘real fate’, can also have an effect? does it act like a third party to any two parties in a conflict for example.

edit;

here i am thinking of fate as literal, perhaps like a mathematical equation where you have parties and groups who interact [often through war], but there is a bigger picture because there are so many players. if we take e.g. huns and romans, the net result was the dark ages which i doubt if either would have expected as the result of their actions.

I think that the world is unethical. The world is full of people who cause other people harm and are the better for it. How is this ethical? It’s not just the people that are unethical, its the world itself. The world is a hostile place and is difficult to live on. People have had to toil away either hunting and gathering or growing food just to survive. Most people don’t want to be in pain their whole lives for survival. That however is the way life is. I can see no hope of change. Life is and I believe will always remain full of suffering.

ethical egoism is a perfectly good ethical standard…

history has been ethical… certain “historians” have been outright liars…

-Imp

I agree the world is unethical though we are far better off than even a hundred years ago let alone when we were hunter gatherers. This is what makes me wonder if the overall process has a cumulative effect of ‘goodness’.

History has never been ethical. Look at the Bible. It was full of incest, murder, witchcraft, betrayal, corrupt religious leaders. Even Jesus was murdered by a government doing what pleased the people,… instead of what the law and justice of the leader’s gut told them to do with Christ.

Did you know King Saul was a coward who sawt to kill King David (david, the great ruler who made infamous mistakes like adultry, and then murder to cover it up). Yet David’s faith grew through the years of saul hunting him Down, and God only interviened in minute moments that merely amplified Davids inharent charecter.

I hope you understand, that a liberator with such apathy is a tyrant. But whatever he was liberating people from, we don’t see them surviving in history. It might be that our imagination of what could have been is really just holiwood selling the dream. We had all these tyrants killing other villages back then because there was no protection of an order. Then silent despirations sold out their own children when the pay out was big enough. The only thing that stopped this in the family growing up next to them is their edified hearts. Or their growth of heart that supported them into standing tall in the face of hopeless walls.

So tell me, where is the essance of true liberation?

As your post suggests, we wont find it in the details, yet do we find it in the overall effect? Certainly life for a ‘peasant’ now is far better than it was, equally ‘kings’ [leaders, the rich etc] cant do what they want ~ to the same degree as they would have.

Can we see an essence that doesn’t belong to any given individual, nor state, nor a particular religion or political movement!

…is that not the most philosophical way to achieve things?

So is fate ethical in its overal manner? …its universalism.

of course. the farther we go into the future means the closer we get to utopia :smiley: good job- you’re on the right track…remember intelligence equals love- God bless

History has repeated itself.