Some people think this speech is amazing. I don’t.
The whole idea is that humans are either good, or can become good, by thinking and conforming like the example person.
Motivational speakers are progressivists. All of them. They say you can do anything if you try.
What has mankind been doing all these thousands of years? I am certain mankind has been trying things, and in their own eyes, a majority of themselves are good, too.
I’ll tell you what I think. If the human population was much lower, the earth’s ecosystem wouldn’t get as wrecked, but humans would still cause suffering and suffer, because that is in our blood. It is the nature of human existence. Yes, we have natures. Humanity has always done generally the same things. They wont suddenly decide to change all their ways, and if they do change, it will be change from one aspect of human nature to another aspect of human nature. All of history proves my message true.
Actually, it was quite good. Martin Sheen is an excellent actor.
Nor was it a ‘motivational’ speech. It was, to me, a liberal protest–a call to arms, if you will, to young people to do what they can to help solve some of the inequities of the world by seeing humanity as it actually is and treating everyone equally. He actually presented it in 2010–by current standards, it’s rather old.
If Martin Sheen weren’t an actor, what would you think of the speech, dan~? If Martin Sheen weren’t Catholic, what would you think of it? If Martin Sheen weren’t a liberal, what would you think of it?
I’ll tell you what I think. For one, “our only weapon is peace” = crap. The 1% will have guns and mercinaries. They will fight to retain their privilage, whether it be a legal battle or a literal battle.
I don’t think it is seeing humanity as it actually is. He lists off statistics then mixes it with the idea that humans are good and deserving of good life and good treatment.
He’s an incredibly good actor, which is why his other skills must be spread very thin; his parenting, his politics, his complete lack of decency in asking people to do what they can when he has 50 million that’s not doing much of anything worth mentioning.
When it comes to morality, people love to talk, especially when the words make them feel good. In reality, helping people at all is quite difficult and it makes you feel like shit. Also there are times when the person having trouble brought it upon them-self, like alcoholics and crack heads.
Not always, maybe I should have said, it is tiring. Also it can be depressing and overwhelming if you are overly empathic towards it all. That is what I meant by ‘shit’.
Martin Sheen is from my generation; so I enjoyed his pep talk. As for his being wealthy, my dad used to say, “I’d believe the truth if a dog was to bark it.” What can be done? I once told a friend that if something is worth fighting for, it’s not worth having. I’m a pacifist who sees competition as making winners and losers; and I don’t believe anyone should lose.
Knowing how to help people is a skill. The Dalai Lama spends every moment of his life (IMO) doing it, and I don’t think he feels like shit. But people tend to picture some kind of martyrdom, some kind of battle with ego (good versus evil, lol) and lacking skill in that way can make you feel like shit. Better than just being ragingly selfish and stupid though.
Didn’t watch the video by the way. No clue what it’s like.
There are two types of help. There is talking, and then there is action. I think the Dalai Lama sits and talks, or meditates, or what ever. Is that truly helpful?
Yes, I would. But the most of wrongs done to persons are a bit more subtle than that. As for the Sheen talk, most will listen, will feel a pang of conscience and will feel that they have done what they could by listening.
Right now I’m thinking that morality can be a form of a principle of good logic.
I think logic is in some cases as “objective” as possible.
The law of non-contradiction is the main thing I think we can derive allot of morality from.
5=3 is wrong.
likewise, good=evil is also wrong.
5=5
good acts = good acts.
If someone is hypocritical, they will want good for themselves and want harm for others.
This is a form of contradiction, because the people someone abuses are also selves.
I think the golden rule goes well with eye for an eye, in a general basic way. It’s not perfect or always the case, but that is where I’m at.
My problem is with religious false goodness. Telling everyone to behave doesn’t make the talker good. Laying out a large list of rules, following those rules, making others follow them, that is not true morality. However, if someone is educating others, that is a form of good.