Morality

[Anonymouse]

Do you honestly not see that this depends on defining dark as the complete absence of light? This is not the way the term is commonly used. Even in a dark room, there is always some amount of light. I'm sure you can see that many concepts are only relative concepts. A small sample:

Large - Small

Short - Tall

Sharp - Dull

Fat - Thin

etc.

I'm not trying to say dichotomies don't exist. But not all concepts exist as dichotomies. Many concepts are only relative. We don't live in a world composed entirely of opposing ideas.

You are, for the fourth time, misconstruing things for the sake of having something opposing to say. What is "commonly used" has no bearing on the idea itself, for ideas revolve around opposites. When I am in a room full of light, I know this, I see this, I understand this. When I go to my basement it is dark because there is no light. We are not interested in relativity based on situations of reality, we are only interested in what the idea means for man. If something appears light, then something must appear dark. If something is hot, then something must be cold. If something has a positive charge, then something else must have a negative charge. If something or someone is good, something or someone must be evil. If someone is a male, someone must be a female ( since there exist genetic freaks like hermaphrodites I am to guess you would use that as an excuse for your relativity? ) If something is alive, something else must be dead (Your relativity could even apply to someone half dead, or half alive from a wound. It knows no bounds). You are however, incorrect. The Dusken understood when I explained it, but you are persistent because you do not wish to understand. Ideas exist in opposites.

To illustrate the point, look at the colors.



These are all different shades of black. While we can get into technical terms and say this is dark black or light black or what have you, when we see these colors randomly in our lives we don't discern them by technicalities, we just say "It is black".



The same applies to the different shades of green. We may see these shades in the outside world and say "Hey that's green", even though can get into technicalities. Man looks at things objectively, for ideas are objective, defined, and complete and exist in opposites. That is the point, and you are still drilling a non-issue.

[dusken]

This thread, as always, became ridiculous when Anonymouse denied losing sight of the purpose and started making attacks that can only be responded to by pages of statements that require nothing more than common sense. I am done.

[dusken]

Dusken, i cant help but notice how many times you have allready said you have answered my question.. which you have not. And if you think you have, obviously it is not enough.. so... since you are such a factual person.. i will leave you and your atheistic views to add to your intelligence what it may... I just have no idea when i ever didnt agree with you.. or aree with you.. i asked you somethign you said youv allready answered.. which.. u havent. Anyways.. a thread with this much intelligence doesnt need me around.. u must be enough...

Holy crap! Below is the question you asked and the answer I gave before you asked it:

You must now explain what is the base of human morality... since you so successfully wronged anonymouse's claims. so... come now.. we are waiting...

People are driven by instinct and, at a great scale, certain instincts are more dominant, like not killing and not stealing. Such instincts, born from natural selection and there to guarantee the success of a pack animal, is what you are confusing with morality.

For the love of dyck, are we done yet?!

[Anonymouse]

Speaking of making attacks, the only one that makes attacks is always you, with youre stupid statements like "You are an idiot" or "You're phucking stupid". Why don't you go swallow some poisonous mushrooms? As far as losing sight of this thread, it wasn't I. Take a look at who is actually losing sight.

[Anonymouse]

Holy crap! Below is the question you asked and the answer I gave before you asked it:





For the love of dyck, are we done yet?!

What were you saying about making attacks?

[dusken]

Speaking of making attacks, the only one that makes attacks is always you, with youre stupid statements like "You are an idiot" or "You're phucking stupid". Why don't you go swallow some poisonous mushrooms? As far as losing sight of this thread, it wasn't I. Take a look at who is actually losing sight.

I never said anything of a sort to you in our discussion in this thread. And by "attacks" I was not referring to those of a personal nature but arguments against the points I make. And, yes, it was you.

[dusken]

What were you saying about making attacks?

That is not an attack. It is me providing what he requested. Nevertheless, I do think he is an intellectually deficient and immature individual.

[dusken]

You should agree that most of the judgements you claim to be derived from Reason (with a capital R) are merely personal conclusions you arrived to using your own logic based on a few personal observations ("I have never met..."...), that is partial/biased and flawed input. Even admitting the fact your logic is flawless, its working on empirical data doesn't allow for deriving definite conclusions or absolute judgments for you may at best work out an approximate representation of reality in your mind.

You are confusing yourself with your defensiveness. First, of all logic is technically not personal. Second, my saying that I have not met anyone of that nature is not my logical input to the discussion in this thread; it is stated as a fact about myself. Go back and reread the contexts if you care but you are arguing with me about something I said to alleviate the misunderstanding of what I said earlier; essentially, you are getting defensive about that which is a positive remark.

That said, the subjective nature of the human mind doesn't imply the non-existence of objective truths. Actually, claiming the contrary would be attempting to state an absolute truth (that which negates the existence of absolute truth). Quite a paradox.

Not only are you making an obvious, commonly sensed statement, but you are placing it in this context, in which it has no place.

There may be zillion ways to spiritual illusion, but there is only one truth.
For the christian, the outlook is quite clear "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad." (Mat 12:30).

Sure, there is only one truth. That is obvious. My point, however, is that if you claim you know the truth about such things as creation or the presence and nature of the divine then you have necessarily reached your conclusion illogically. I personally am not making many assertions; I am only pointing out the illogical ones. If you chose to give less credit to logic, that is up to you. Have a blast. But do not tell me that there is anything better. The most you can do is to bring it to the same level (not below) of your own methods of understanding and that is still not a reason to chose it over logic.

The modern dilemna has best been expressed by F.M. Dostoyevsky in the Legend of the Grand Inquisitor.
http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist/dostgi.html. Probably the most important lines in the literature of the last few centuries.

Thank you, but I have read the "Brothers Karamazov" and, seperately, "The Grand Inquisitor."

[dusken]

Just one more thing...

You are apparently back to your old form, tryin to nitpick some non-issue to have a simple reason to disagree, not because it is logical, but because it comes from me. However, back to the point. We are not talking about little details here loser, we are talking about concepts, that unfortunately, you aren't probably familiar with, since the world is consisted of ideas and ideas revolve around opposites, the idea of dark opposes light, regardless of what is darker or lighter. Positive negative. Hot and cold. Life and death. Male and female, etc. This isn't about cut off points. Unfortunately, you didn't think your response through all the way for in your hurry of trying to have something to argue with, you apparently ignored that I already explained this to the dusken.

This is not a non-issue. The whole issue is whether or not we exist in a world composed entirely of dichotomies. You contend that we do, and I contend that we don't. Life and death is a dichotomy. Male and female is a dichotomy. Dark and light is not. Big and small is not. They are not opposing concepts. I am dark relative to my mother and light relative to my father. I am big relative to my little sisters and small relative to Shaquille O'Neal. Do you not see this? An object can be both light and dark, both big and small. These are not opposing concepts.

None of this matters.

It all started with this quote...

The sad truth is that mans real life consists of a complex of inexorable opposites - day and night, birth and death, happiness and misery, good and evil.

The point is that this is Carl Jung was planting the seeds of convincing people that God exists by making the subtle but incorrect statement that everyone's life is subject to the dichotomy of good and evil. But that is wrong. Whether something is good (as opposed to evil) or evil is not relevant to everyone; it is only relevant, and inexorable, to those who believe it. Good and evil exist as ideas and are definately opposites, but their very existence, beyond mere pragmatism, is dependant on perception. I do not believe there is evil. Therefore, from my point of view, all aspects of my life, all occurrences, that can be viewed as evil by another, have a different nature to me. Saying that good and evil exist because we can talk about them and therefore God exists because there is good and evil is wrong and that is what he was suggesting.

[loseyourname]

dusken's right. This stupid argument is not relevant to this thread. Never mind.

Nonetheless, Jung is wrong. Man's life is not composed of a complex of inexorable opposites. I am not always miserable or happy. There is an infinity of moods that lie between these two extremes. Whether or not good and evil exist as absolute concepts, life itself is not composed of things that are either good or evil. People, in particular, are quite often both good and evil, and there are many degrees of both. The world is not as one-dimensional as he seems to think.