If I held a glass in my hand and dropped it, is the cause of a broken glass only because I dropped it or if I had the ability to prevent the outcome by not dropping it. Well intention aside I’m sure I was the cause of it regardless.
Now I’m standing holding this glass with someone next to me, I drop the glass and it breaks, now is the guy next to me part of the cause for for not to stop the cause that caused the outcome of a broken glass?
Now what if he didn’t know I was to drop it?
Was his failure to know part of the cause for him not being able to decided to prevent the outcome? Would we blame him if he the ability to know the outcome, and the ability to prevent the outcome after knowing it?
My conclusion is that the label of obligation is the release of cause and the release of moral guilt. For it is wasn’t the obligation of the man not to prevent the cause that caused the cause of the broken glass, than he was not part of the contributing factor of the outcome of a broken glass. Even though the outcome was determined by the lack of action to stop the cause that caused the outcome.
What is obligation in your thoughts do you believe this?
In the world of thoughts (what most people live in), there exists opposites and cause/effect. Everything has an opposite, and everything has to have some cause. Why?
Why must there be cause and then effect? Why can’t the cause be the effect?
Here is a little story that my meditation master told me:
There is a man running through a jungle from a lion. He is afraid and in the most turmoil possible. He reaches a cliff, and begins climbing a rope that is hanging down towards the bottom of the cliff. He looks down and notices that there is another lion below him, and he fears for his life even more now. Above him there is a lion and below him there is a lion. But, then! He notices a sweet grape hanging from the cliff, and reaching for it, he eats it. It tastes good.
One event cause another the second event the came after the first is the effect, it keeps going as it’s a infinite chain of events, but the we pick a out come and find the cause of that outcome. I picked the broken glass and began going backward to find the causes of that event.
The main point I was trying to make is that we can use the word obligation to free ourselves from cause. As how it is the obligation of the doctor to save lives , if he does not fulfill his obligation, the death of his patents are said to be his fault, even though it was the disease that killed them. Thus he had control over the outcome. In contrast as with I said about the glass, some would say that it wasn’t the obligation of the one person to stop the other from the breaking the glass. And that it is only the fault of the person who dropped it. But really it was lack of cause that that allowed the chain of events to aspire to become the outcome of the broken glass. That lack of cause is cause with in it’s self.
So I see it to be that obligation is what distinguishes the two from fault, but regardless how can cause know the boundries of obligation, as it’s not a person it is a event. It is a process of life, as everything is from the effect from another cause.
You may have to explain this one, does it mean we do the best we can do regardless of our curcumstances?
why must there be one hour to the next hour?
Obviously all time does not happen at once, every event is the result of different times.
As with time, one comes before the other, each event being a separate place in time from the last event, but the cause is the name that we give the event that created the next. This will lead you down to one conclusion.
Here is the answer, everything was the cause of the broken glass, the person who dropped it the person who failed to prevent it, the maker of the glass the very fact the person was born was the cause of the broken glass, the very earth underneath it was the cause, everything.
Here is something wild for you,
They very fact you die is the cause of your own birth, and the cause of your mother and her mother. For if you didn’t exist there would not be death.
but cause as we know may just be the ability to change the event.
Surely, yes, we all bear upon our shoulders the guilt of letting the glass break, either directly or indirectly. By the strict laws of judicial retribution, we are bound by sin. We have sinned towards glass. The screeching and gnawing of teeth. We need a saviour.
Funny how I can break something and bare the hole world responsible.
Your response makes me a little curious to wonder what you mean by The screeching and gnawing of teeth and why it’s in italics, Screeching opera singers perhaps… And maybe your use of an obscure word like rammish, that put my online dictionaries to the test. Me and my spell checker are a little confused.
I guess what I’m trying to say is this: how do we trully know that there are separate objects around us? If, indeed, we can say “look, this is an object” then cause and effect exists. However, if things are not separate and all one, then how can a thing cause something if everything is just one thing?
As far as I know, I know that I exist. But does this computer exist beside me? How can I be completely be sure that it is separate from me? Even if someone tells me “your crazy, the computer is separate from you” that tells me nothing, since how do I know that person is separate from me? That is what I think is the assumption behind the reasoning of cause and effect. It is a crucial assumption, and seems very trivial, granted, but is it not true that what seems very trivial is missed and then picked up by a great philosopher as something profound?
My question is this, give me a good argument that everything is not one; that everything is separate.
I’m surprised no one found that answer the first time I asked the question. I think it is good at least maybe two people have actually thought it through and came up with something that challenged me to oppose it.
You don’t know that it actually exist, that’s the point everything could be fabricated. As with the Matrix story, all of reality could be just a dream, but that’s outside are ability to prove or disprove, so even if that was the truth of life, because it can’t be seen it isn’t the truth. Make sense? Let’s say the matrix was true, it still wouldn’t be true because we can never know if it was. This kind of speculation outside of anything that can be seen will never give you an answer. Again why? Let’s say we somehow found out to be that the matrix was true that all of life was a illusion, how do we know part of what we found out about that illusion is not part of the fabrication. That’s goes up there with trying to find out there is a god, you will never know. I had a long conversation with someone with something like this and we came to the conclusion that anything in the realm of speculation whether it could be true or not is always false, as it can’t be perceived by reality. If we were wrong coming to this, one of us would have found out as we spent and good deal thinking about it.
I bring up the matrix because it suites what your saying well, as it could be very well plausible.[/b]
If we are talking about cause in present time then the question seems to be about the dropper’s awareness of possibility.
If the dropper believes in himself as just a biological specimen, then only that type of argument is permissible.
So what are the limitations on this argument?
Cause would be distributed among the energy effecters of the dropper.
Did someone bump him or startle him or did his dead grand mother break a fifty-year silence of communication with him at the time of the dropping, was there a sub conscious dropping? was there a nervous struggle to not drop?
