Marriage

Quote :

In my diction adultry (that is, cheating on you wife or girl friend) or rape etc. are immoral.

You might want to clarify that.

In my book adultry is immoral. I agree with you 100 per cent Averroes. An honest partner if they have made a marriage vow or even a vow of fidelity should absolutely do the right thing and at least inform the other partner.

However I believe this is a completely moral issue and not legal.

Rape on the other hand is a vile criminal act of violence.

There is a world of difference between someone cheating on his/her partner (which is morally wrong); and, say, a man visiting prison and getting kidnapped and violated, for instance, up the bum.

Helium wrote:

Quote :

We rape, we kill, we commit a myriad forms of sexual deviations running the gamut from merely kinky to outright obscene, we oppress, enslave, and brutalize our own without so much as a second thought, and even our highest human ideals are based on the sublimation of our more animal, our innate, desires and motivations.

I can dismiss free will and morality so quickly because they are nothing but abstract ideas, neither is a concrete, solid, living thing. We foist those ideals upon ourselves so that we may better operate within a cultural context but underneath that onion skin facade of civilization is a hedonistic, self-serving, and predatory animal.

Yes, I too would like to see another string on this one. Unfortunately for Averroes, I will probably be putting the full force of my logic on his side.

Seriously I think Uriah's contention that we are no more than animals barely able to contain our cultural or societal facades is a cop out.

I think he's putting us on a bit with his usual anarchic take on things, nothing means nothing, we have no free will, etc. Having said that, I certainly do enjoy his take on his things, as I find them interesting and edifying even if I usually don't obviously agree with his conclusion.

But anyway, yes we are animals. Period. There's no dispute for deists because we don't believe we have a direct special relationships with God. The only relationship in fact would be indirect or second hand in that many deits propose a "greater complexity" model for the universe and few would argue that we are probably the most complex brain, I don't know if dolphins for elephants would beat us.

So perhaps we shouldn't even say we can act like "animals" as that is perjorative.

But I think what Uriah is doing is the equivlent of saying that because we can all still act like babies we are nothing more than babies, with the facade of adulthood.

And similarly, because we can act like savages that we are nothing more than savages.

That my friend is a cop out.

Babies grow up.

Animals evolve (and yes devolve) both physically and in their brains.

But it's also really highjacking this very interesting marriage string, I agree.

The other comment about Uriah is that he somehow criticizes AVerroes logic, which is fair enough, after all that's why we're here, for trying to formulate the human condition into a logical conhesive system.

But the only thing I would comment on is that in my unbiased position, I would say that Uriah, perhaps by default, has simply put forward his own system, his own explanation.

So I'm sure I or somebody will create a thread on this issue in the near future!

It absolutely not a cop out, it is a rational, and objective opinion based on the available evidence. Mankind, other than a few bright sparks of hope, is collectively destructive, both to our environment and to ourselves. That has been the case at pretty much every point in history, and that is indeed the case now.

We have the potential to be humans, to strive for enlightenment (whatever that is), or to raise ourselves - in that Greek sense, cultivate Arette, become human, you get the idea - but most of us today, just like in the times of Socrates and Plato, do not strive for that place.

I don't really revel in the fact that humanity, as a collective organism, is ruled by its innate animal drives more than its ability for sentient self-actualization. It definitely doesn't make me happy, though my cynicism may make it appear so.

I am only trying to expose the glaring, and benighted, misconception that Western civilization's “path will necessarily lead to heights of unimaginable perfection”. It is a fallacy, and one which may cause us to self-extinct. In fact, humanity has perhaps a 50/50 shot at surviving the next hundred years.

I agree with you that we can evolve, that we can grow both spiritually and psychologically, I just don't think we are. Maybe I am a pessimist, but I can't really - in good conscious - ignore the truth that we are beyond the Rubicon. Our collective story has come to own us, we have forgotten what we are, if we don't fix that, if we don't have a collective remembering of what it is to be human - we'll just go bye-bye.

That's just what one hairless monkey thinks though.

well if you put it that way, I kinda agree with that statement, but I guess I just survey the scene with more optimist-coloured glasses on!

Just a quick reminder that we develop, but we don't all develop to the same extent.



Here's an example of what the percentages look like at any given level of development.


IMO, (provided we don't back slide) the percentages of people at the higher stages of development will continue to rise. At least that's the hope. If that happens, I think we'll see a movement of society living in better harmony with the environment and with each other.

In other words, we should be getting better at overcoming our animalistic and egocentric behavior.

Quote :

IMO, (provided we don't back slide) the percentages of people at the higher stages of development will continue to rise. At least that's the hope. If that happens, I think we'll see a movement of society living in better harmony with the environment and with each other.

In other words, we should be getting better at overcoming our animalistic and egocentric behavior.

Ah, another optimist.

Quote :

In other words, we should be getting better at overcoming our animalistic and egocentric behavior.

Ah, another optimist.

Our animal behavior wouldn't be a problem if we were just egoistic animals. But, since we are self-reflective animals, we are forced to worry about such altruistic matters as the future of the human race.

There's no hope for the animals, because they have no choice in their destiny. But humans collectively seem to have quite a bit to say about how our story turns out. Considering the ongoing struggle between Good & Evil, Ego & Other, the appropriate attitude toward the future may be neither optimism nor pessimism, but "peptomism".

Our will may be free, in some sense, yet we have no choice but to choose.

Quote :

we have no choice but to choose.

Yes that is basically true. Any approach you took would necessarily involve a choice.

"Peptomism" - that's awesome.

Gnomon wrote:

Our animal behavior wouldn't be a problem if we were just egoistic animals. But, since we are self-reflective animals, we are forced to worry about such altruistic matters as the future of the human race.

Just to clarify, humans are the only animals (on earth) with fully developed egos. The ego is integrally connected with the ability to rationalize the world around us and separate ourselves from it. Most of our "animalistic" behavior is actually pre-egoic (or pre-rational).

IMO what we need to develop in order to live in harmony with "nature" is a trans-egoic level of development. One that recognizes the importance and necessity of both pre-egoic and egoic behaviors however one that also realizes the value of the world "outside of us". Only when we have realized that "we" and the "outside world" are inseparable will we ever be able to devise of a society that is truly sustainable.

But I'm getting way off topic here.

One thing I think is outdated is the ceremony. I'm engaged but feel that I'm married because I committed myself to her. I believe the ceremony is just a ritual and the commitment is the real marriage. You can be committed and married without the ritual. You can have the ritual but no commitment and not be married. Nothing should change between us after the ritual but for some strange reason it will magically turn us from perverted fornicators into moral republicans(: It will make us as pure as the day of my baptism(: Thank you Jesus(:

I'm not big on ceremonies, but I think it can help cement and emphasize their commitment. It's a major life event equivalent to being born and dying.

What's really obscene is the money people are spending on the ceremony, and all the trite, superficial bs that goes on. Have friends and family to witness it, exchange rings and vows with emphasis on future offspring, party all night, and most people should skip the pretense of a honeymoon and virginity.