Eastern philosophy says the self is an illusion

That is probably a common opinion for moral relativists and those who believe they lack free will.

Many of the great moral leaders of history taught that hate is a poison and ultimately self-defeating, e.g. Jesus, Confucius, the Buddha, Marcus Aurelius, Martin Luther King Jr.

Hatred can be suppressed and managed through a consistent program of self discipline, concious reflection, and cultivation of virtue.

The Buddha famously taught that things like not letting go of hate ultimately contribute to our own suffering.
Agreed hate is poison and self-defeating. It's such a strong emotion that it blocks reason. Many murders have happened because people hated so much they didn't fully realize the consequences what they were doing. Consider the murder of Ahmaud Arbery as an example.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...ven-stage-hate-model-the-psychopathology-hate
The Seven-Stage Hate Model: The Psychopathology of Hate
Not all insecure people are haters, but all haters are insecure people.

Hate masks personal insecurities. Not all insecure people are haters, but all haters are insecure people. Hate elevates the hater above the hated. Haters cannot stop hating without exposing their personal insecurities. Haters can only stop hating when they face their insecurities.
 
So, the assertion was made that not all AI is based on electronics, but based, more fundamentally, on mathematics. Do you not believe that if we truly understood the way external influences impacted the neurological functionality, we couldn't explain really all human behavior in some mathematical manner?

I don't know anything about AI, and your scenario about acquiring something approximating omniscient knowledge on a par with Maxwell's demon is so extremely speculative and hypothetical it's not even realistic to consider.

I simply asked where are the mathmatical equations or scientific law someone could use in real life to define when or if it's okay to lie, what's the boundary between righteous anger and fury, how does one choose a friend, what's the drawing line between complete loyalty and remonstrance, is it okay to hate, what is fairness?.

That's the kind of knowledge people need on a day to day basis in real life. They don't really need to know Einstein's field equations or the Schrodinger equation.
 
Agreed hate is poison and self-defeating. It's such a strong emotion that it blocks reason. Many murders have happened because people hated so much they didn't fully realize the consequences what they were doing. Consider the murder of Ahmaud Arbery as an example.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...ven-stage-hate-model-the-psychopathology-hate
[seB]The Seven-Stage Hate Model: The Psychopathology of Hate
Not all insecure people are haters, but all haters are insecure people.[/B]
:good4u:


It's best to purge oneself of hate, envy, avarice, through a consistent program of self discipline and reflection--> That knowledge was not acquired from physics, chemistry, or biology textbooks.
 
That is probably a common opinion for moral relativists and those who believe they lack free will.

Many of the great moral leaders of history taught that hate is a poison and ultimately self-defeating, e.g. Jesus, Confucius, the Buddha, Marcus Aurelius, Martin Luther King Jr.

Hatred can be suppressed and managed through a consistent program of self discipline, concious reflection, and cultivation of virtue.

The Buddha famously taught that things like not letting go of hate ultimately contribute to our own suffering.

But yet we see it manifest in people all over. Even on this forum itself. Hatred is quite comfortable for some. We see people willing to apologize who are met with insults and mockery. That is hatred made flesh.
 
Last edited:
But yet we see it manifest in people all over. Even on this forum itself. Hatred is quite comfortable for some. We see people willing to apologize who are met with insults and mockery. That is hatred made flesh.

Being mean, ornery or unsympathetic to liars is not hatred. Perhaps if you defined what hatred means to you, Perry, I could understand you better.
 
I wish that I had been born with a bit of the optimism gene as well!
I hope you're right.
I think moral relativism is cynical and self defeating.

Jimmy Carter was right to make human rights and morality an element of US foreign policy.

Europe, North America, and the USSR signed the Helsinki accords which a framework of universal expectations on human rights, freedom of thought, conscience, religion.

Some people think the Helsinki accords undermined Soviet authority, exposed their hypocrisy and did more long term damage to Soviet totalitarianism than Reagan's defense budget ever did. It was decisive in highlighting the moral inferiority of Soviet totalitarianism, and provided rocket fuel to the Soviet and East European dissidents.

We can submit to the notion of might makes right, or we can agree to a common set of moral principles that are widely viewed as a threshold to shoot for, even when we fall short.

A world that has the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Geneva convention, and the Helsinki accords makes a moral and philosophical statement about natural rights that aren't just words on paper, they say something tangible and fundamental about a moral goal humans wish to strive for, a target they are shooting at.
 
That is probably a common opinion for moral relativists and those who believe they lack free will.

Many of the great moral leaders of history taught that hate is a poison and ultimately self-defeating, e.g. Jesus, Confucius, the Buddha, Marcus Aurelius, Martin Luther King Jr.

Hatred can be suppressed and managed through a consistent program of self discipline, concious reflection, and cultivation of virtue.

The Buddha famously taught that things like not letting go of hate ultimately contribute to our own suffering.

"The fields are damaged by weeds, mankind is damaged by hatred: therefore a gift bestowed on those who do not hate brings great reward."
--> Siddhartha Gautama, The Buddha (Dhammapada, Chapter 24 - 357)
 
Being mean, ornery or unsympathetic to liars is not hatred. Perhaps if you defined what hatred means to you, Perry, I could understand you better.

Being dismissive and unsympathetic to lies and liars is part and parcel of a program of self cultivation. Keeping lies and liars out of one's life is consistent with keeping all manner of poison and toxins out of one's life.

My father always said if you lay down with dogs you'll get up with fleas!
 
Being dismissive and unsympathetic to lies and liars is part and parcel of a program of self cultivation. Keeping lies and liars out of one's life is consistent with keeping all manner of poison and toxins out of one's life.

My father always said if you lay down with dogs you'll get up with fleas!
Agreed about how to treat liars. Like studying venomous bugs, it can be done safely, but care must be taken to avoid being poisoned.

Your father was wise. :thup:
 
Being dismissive and unsympathetic to lies and liars is part and parcel of a program of self cultivation. Keeping lies and liars out of one's life is consistent with keeping all manner of poison and toxins out of one's life.

My father always said if you lay down with dogs you'll get up with fleas!

I am fascinated at your morality and ethics. You seem extremely well read in a wide variety of traditions but the ideal of "forgiveness" has evaded your reading. I apologized. I can do no more.
 
I wonder what philosophers say about "forgiveness". Maybe the Stanford Encyclopedia can help educate:

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy said:
"Within Western traditions, forgiveness has often been regarded as a “high” and “difficult” virtue (Scarre 2004), and its opposite, unwillingness to forgive, as a vice. Yet this poses an immediate problem of interpretation, namely, whether forgiveness is a “high” and “difficult” virtue in the sense that while it is morally laudable it is beyond duty (i.e., supererogatory). Since supererogatory actions are permissible, not obligatory, it follows that a failure to forgive, at least in circumstances where forgiving would be supererogatory, would not, contrary to the aforementioned view, be a vice. However, widespread and persistent disagreement within moral philosophy both about supererogation and the deontic nature of forgiveness have led to conflicting views on the relation between forgiveness and moral obligation (see, e.g., Gamlund 2010; Lauritzen 1987). Some thinkers have argued that forgiveness is a duty (Rashdall 1907) while others have maintained that, like a gift with no strings attached, forgiveness is utterly gratuitous (Heyd 1982). It might also be thought that, similar to the duty of charity in Kant’s moral system, forgiveness is properly regarded as an imperfect duty. Unlike perfect duties such as the obligation to justice or honesty, imperfect duties allow for agential discretion over when and with respect to whom to discharge the duty. In this way, forgiveness may be located in a system of moral duties that allows for no supererogatory deeds at all."(SOURCE)

No one owes anyone forgiveness, IMO. But I am still of the opinion that it isn't a vice as some might have it be.
 
Last edited:
Jesus you are unrelentingly unpleasant. You seem like a pretty horrible person at your core.

I've never met such a confused mind! He needs something to bring all his tangents together!
He searching but when you gets close to breaking through he runs and hides
 
Of course it's OK to hate.

That is probably a common opinion for moral relativists and those who believe they lack free will.

Many of the great moral leaders of history taught that hate is a poison and ultimately self-defeating, e.g. Jesus, Confucius, the Buddha, Marcus Aurelius, Martin Luther King Jr.

Hatred can be suppressed and managed through a consistent program of self discipline, concious reflection, and cultivation of virtue.

The Buddha famously taught that things like not letting go of hate ultimately contribute to our own suffering.

"The fields are damaged by weeds, mankind is damaged by hatred: therefore a gift bestowed on those who do not hate brings great reward."
--> Siddhartha Gautama, The Buddha (Dhammapada, Chapter 24 - 357)

"Among wise men there is no place at all left for hatred. For no one except the greatest of fools would hate good men. And there is no reason at all for hating the bad."
--> Boethius

"I have decided to stick to love…Hate is too great a burden to bear."
--> Martin Luther King, Jr.



^^ This type of knowledge was not found in any of my physics, chemistry, or biology textbooks.
 
"The fields are damaged by weeds, mankind is damaged by hatred: therefore a gift bestowed on those who do not hate brings great reward."
--> Siddhartha Gautama, The Buddha (Dhammapada, Chapter 24 - 357)

"Among wise men there is no place at all left for hatred. For no one except the greatest of fools would hate good men. And there is no reason at all for hating the bad."
--> Boethius

"I have decided to stick to love…Hate is too great a burden to bear."
--> Martin Luther King, Jr.



^^ This type of knowledge was not found in any of my physics, chemistry, or biology textbooks.

You really are well read on many of these topics. I will definitely admit that.

I'm curious why you bear the burden you do with regards to this. I wish my apology was accepted but I understand that you are not someone who "forgives". Forgiveness is for losers apparently and I will readily admit I am not worthy of your forgiveness even with my apology.

I am intrigued, though, are you a person of any faith whatsoever? You seem to have read so many texts on religions across so many traditions and I'm curious why, of all of these, you don't see the value in "forgiveness". So many traditions value this as a virtue but you seem to feel it for the weak or a vice or something.

What did your reading tell you about how weak you would appear if you forgave or if you would lose your power?
 
I am fascinated at your morality and ethics. You seem extremely well read in a wide variety of traditions but the ideal of "forgiveness" has evaded your reading. I apologized. I can do no more.
I have no doubt you are fascinated by the morality and ethics of others, Perry, just like you're fascinated by those who have free will. Like me, I think Cypress forgives the mentally ill and the stupid. People unrepentant liars, not so much.

How's your dog doing today? What's he think about this conversation?
 
You really are well read on many of these topics. I will definitely admit that.

I'm curious why you bear the burden you do with regards to this. I wish my apology was accepted but I understand that you are not someone who "forgives". Forgiveness is for losers apparently and I will readily admit I am not worthy of your forgiveness even with my apology.

I am intrigued, though, are you a person of any faith whatsoever? You seem to have read so many texts on religions across so many traditions and I'm curious why, of all of these, you don't see the value in "forgiveness". So many traditions value this as a virtue but you seem to feel it for the weak or a vice or something.

What did your reading tell you about how weak you would appear if you forgave or if you would lose your power?

Well read,but no personal beliefs or convictions
 
Back
Top