I’m kind of just wondering, I’m not so sure about progress being universal good anymore but I have my doubt about the psychology segment of hunter gatherer. There’s just too much I don’t know and I’m not sure how to live.
Like how in the link they make it sound like that tribe not having so many self absorbed saying like “thank you” or “I am sorry” is somehow better than our society.
Xain: “There’s just too much I don’t know and I’m not sure how to live.”
So, you seek a philosophy for living your life. I suggest you visit the Decalogue and consider principles five through ten as a good starting place. Also see John 13:34. Of course there’s the old “do unto others …” and it doesn’t continue as “before they do to you”.
Bob, the aim of Catholic missionaries was to civilize the world. Back then, pagan folks were pretty backward. The Ten Commandments is a good moral code.
The 10 commandments? Oh yes, be sure not to have any gods before the primary imaginary deity. That’s the 1st one, is it not? We can’t do without that moral to live by.
The First Commandment speaks to our true being. To an evolutionist, a being is any living creature, from a human to a bug. Things that exist are in a state of being: this meaning of being is a little vague, but it has to do with the way things are alive and real. Imagine you are Superman, the fictional superhero who was raised as a human named Clark Kent. You don’t realize that your real name is Kal El and your true being is Kryptonian. The First Commandment is an appeal to your true being invoking you to inquire, to see through the lie about what you are: a human creature living on Planet Earth.
Where do you get this stuff Sree?
Sree: “The Ten Commandments is a good moral code.”
The first four, which I did not suggest to Xain, are there to provide an authority for the people to follow rather than a logical argument for a sustainable society. They perform the same function as “we the people” does for the socialists.
We face an uphill task when we appeal to the individual to take responsibility for his actions based only on the notion that each of us has all of the authority over our life and that the prescribed rules are for our own individual success as well as the success of our society. The socialists, especially, want us to accept notions such as “we are our brother’s keeper” and that it does “take a village to raise a child”, which negate individual authority and responsibility.
Bob: “The first four, which I did not suggest to Xain, are there to provide an authority for the people to follow rather than a logical argument for a sustainable society. They perform the same function as “we the people” does for the socialists.”
“…provide an authority for the people to follow…” doesn’t sound too good and plays right into the hands of those who perceive religion in general, and Christianity in particular, as mindless and harmful for society. So, where do you stand with regard to the role religion plays in our lives?
4 Honor thy Father and Mother.
5 Thou shalt not kill.
6 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
7 Thou shalt not steal.
8 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
9 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife.
10 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods.
So
Demonstrate respect for your parents. Don’t murder. Don’t F’ around on your spouse. Don’t steal. Don’t be a dick to your neighbor. (Seems to me that is about the jist of reasonable moral rules to be gleaned from the “10 Commandments”. The 1st few of the Commandments were pretty much just about maintaining the religious dogma.)
First of all, you are a human living on planet earth. That is no lie.
Second, this is all off topic and irrelevant. My op was wondering if we are broken as the link would suggest that we are. That as a result of “degraded” child practices we end up with this defect
That much of what I want to do in life: seeking new experiences, losing myself in music, dating, are all just to fill some alleged gap that was the result of some broken connection (according to the link in my op).
Xain, I find it sad that you would let any philosophical work disturb you so much that you question whether you are “broken”, that your parents subscribed to “degraded” child practices and that you have some “defect”. Whatever has happened in your life to date is history. There is nothing you can do about it. I advise you to let it go, stand up on your hind legs and take charge of your life.
The work in the link is obviously a downer for you; get away from it and find something uplifting. We only know the songs we hear. Find some new songs and a new positive philosophy.
I see nothing wrong, perverted or unusual in your list of wants. I suggest you might want to consider the joy you will get from sharing your time and talents with others and include doing that in you list.
Your opinion seems less credible than the rest on here since it sounds more like denial of contrary and perhaps valid life views
Xain: “denial of contrary and perhaps valid life views”
Only you have the authority to choose a life view for you, and only you are responsible for that choice. The validity of the life view you choose will be demonstrated to you in your choice of actions. You alone can truly judge you.
I believe each of us has an innate sense of right and wrong and our conscience is our highest authority. I think we will not go wrong by following our conscience. Ultimately our life is what we make of it. I prefer joy.
<p style=“padding-left: 40px;”>You are incorrect on that matter. Right and wrong might have some similarities but given how varied different cultures are I question how innate that is, although objectively speaking there is no right or wrong.</p>
<p style=“padding-left: 40px;”>The validity of a view has to correspond with data and the evidence, otherwise you are just living in denial of what is.</p>
TimB: “Seems to me that is about the jist of reasonable moral rules to be gleaned from the “10 Commandments”.”
So, would you expect any religion to promote behavior, or thinking, which would be destructive to the individual or to the society?
Most religions don’t appeal directly to the individual’s own authority over his or her life. Maybe Scientology does, I have not checked it out. The old religions were developed when the vast majority of people were uneducated and society was permeated with superstition. The preamble to (presented basis for) most religions has the same appeal as the US constitution does for people to recognize a higher authority. Even if you don’t accept a higher authority there are many principles in most religions that are worth following.
I doubt you can cite a culture past or present in which it was, or is, OK for one man to kill another, steal from another, take another’s wife or occupy what another thinks of as his property. Even our animal cousins have rules of conduct. Live and let live, do unto others as you would have them do to you, love (get along with, respect) your neighbor are universal. Exceptions are deemed sociopathic.
The fact that the “golden rule” is universal is an argument against religion. There are posters and websites about this, about all the variations. None of them require belief in a specific deity for the rule to work. The 10 commandments start out pretty specific about what and how you should worship. That’s the difference Tim was pointing to.
Lausten: “None of them require belief in a specific deity for the rule to work.”
What informs the atheist, who believes that he is a chimplike ape, to follow the golden rule of human culture?
If anyone else were asking that, I might give a more thorough answer, but I know you are not a serious person. What informs you Sree? Why are you nice to people? To me, it starts with an understanding that I don’t like my toes stepped on, and I can see that other creatures are like me and have similar senses, so I work with them to avoid mutual toe steppage. You can just keep building from there.
Am I informed about being nice? I thought I am the bad guy here stepping on everybody’s toes deliberately.
The “golden rule” in human culture varies and has created selfish “worse than beasts” practices to spawning do-gooders out to destroy evil doers at all costs. So, I doubt that Bob is correct in asserting that the creationist has gotten something beneficial from the Good Book.
The Tao said: “The truly good man is not aware of his goodness and is therefore good. The foolish man tries to do good and is therefore no good.”
If the Tao (another Good Book) is right, then there is goodness, in us; but not the kind we can perceive. Is this worth believing in even when we don’t have evidence, Lausten?