Thanks - edited for clarity

I have no theory, I only propose that psychoanalysis has done more wrong for the average person and it shouldn't be a first place resource except for those who need it. People can overcome more things than they believe they can, but our market economy makes them a product or a means and not a participant of their own well-being.

I think such an approach to life is generally an unbalanced one. One should always spend time reflecting and evaluating their own judgment, sharpening the moral self if you will. I wouldn't practically heavily rely on one of my virtues such an intuit as attractive as it may seem. It's something I need more of personally, though.

Having anything that perishes is at loss of causing us grief in its absence. The way to live a life free of such grief, in my opinion, is to never be attached at all. (encroaching upon Buddhist territory...)

What I'm trying to find, though, is a balance between lack of attachment and ambition. That's the real problem. I wouldn't want to live such a sedentary life.

Advocating for the acknowledgment of death should never override moral principles. We are, after all, highly advanced creatures that depend on a shared/common language in order to be considered a member of society.

Do you mean acceptance of death is a suffering?

If it weren't, it'd be so easy that both/either:
A. Everyone would do it.
B. Wouldn't need mentioning

I may not be as intelligent as you are, I couldn't really follow the argument. Do you mind clarifying your stance? Are you advocating that hope is necessary for our survival? If so, how did this come to be? Why is it that it's necessary for us but not any other animal? What makes us so different that we require something so intangible in order to survive? That is, of course assuming you're talking about the power and essence of hope itself.

By proxy, do you advocate for suicide?

It's say in the Bible, blasphemy against God is the only sin that's never forgiven.

That's because it's all according to expectation. Why set your standards really high in such a chaotic universe?

Yeah I know. It sounds like it except the past experience is not only limited to yours. It's a very powerful statement, by the way.

It sounds like my argument, to be totally frank. I'm guessing you agree with it

Maybe that 1% covers a lot of genes. Or maybe humans have a way of over-emphasizing differences since similarities get muted.

Sounds related to the butterfly effect. Proves how powerful seemingly simple decisions are.

On a side note, do you think the butterfly effect is related in any way to determinism?

Very valid point, Joe. Maybe there is some sort of nearly universal moral conscience that forbids such behavior

Who is part of the universal consensus that decides who wishes to make who happy? For some, pedophiles have much of a right as other people.

In other words, who is the authority that decides that pedophiles should not be granted happiness?

I feel like happiness is more of a balance and process and not a point in time. Look up the hedonic treadmill. It states that no matter how good or bad things are, eventually your levels of happiness will settle to normal.

I classified it as metaphysics? Oh, my apologies. That should belong in Philosophy of Religion

Thank you for the compliment and understanding, T Clark.
----
You stand on firm philosophical ground, I've noticed!

So is happiness simply a reaction to external circumstances?

I'm starting to agree with you and Clark: Since happiness is a condition dependent upon your desires and ambitions, you have control over it. Not someone else.

-----------

As for the second part, I believe that there are some people that do exist that live happily robbing others of their contentment, whether it be intentional or unintentional. That is why we have greedy coworkers, CEOs, and, some may argue, president.

We live in a heavily interconnected world. The closer we become, the more our values and deepest treasures will be exposed and exploited.

You say happiness is a state. But it can also be affected by external circumstances (e.g. other people). So, if other people can affect the state of your happiness shouldn't they get a right to decide how you should receive it?

------

One example in which the happiness of one can negatively affect someone's else's: Let's say that your happiness is winning the lottery. You winning it would give you happiness but it would come at the cost of someone else's: they wouldn't receive the money. So by voluntarily playing the lottery, you are agreeing to taking away someone's happiness if you receive yours.

I don't think this proves that God exists. All that it does is give the definition of what traits or properties God must possess.

And please use more accurate words. "Better"? What does that mean?

A couple of mine:

• Using big words and concepts that you don't understand to prove a totally irrelevant point
• Having a flawed argument, realizing it, and not admitting it
• Someone proving you wrong but you still continue to believe in your wrong assumptions

Very amazing points you have there

A better way to understand it is that love is the foundation of all morality and to know it, perhaps feel it, is actually sufficient to make a person good, even without knowledge of good and bad. — TheMadFool

So you’re saying that under Love there is such thing as a universal law of morality ?

How does the Butterfly Effect play a role in this ? Is it just a coincidental phenomenon we made up to make sense of the world or does it actually “exist”?

Yes but as long as envy neither rage are present. If those are present then they take over. Why? I believe it’s because people are inherently evil.

If people are inherently evil then it means that people will be much more likely to display behavior we regard as negative or bad or moral than behaviors we consider positive or socially acceptable. And yet here we are with countless of examples of that: my favorite example being that there are many more negative words than positive words in the English language.

I feel like in order to develop guilt through empathy one must know what his morals are. How can you develop guilt without a basis of what to feel guilt on ?

So guilt through empathy alone would not suffice. You still need to instruct the child what is right and what is wrong.

Luckily culture, religion, friends, acquaintances can all shape the very nature of our ethics.

Where do parents play a role ?

I think a good way (maybe not the only way) is, as you mentioned, to indoctrinate fear and guilt. If that is the way other people communicate to their children and loved ones and you want your child to be able to communicate effectively then connecting on an emotional lève is crucial. Thus the child should be taught appropriate social emotional signs and expressions, in my opinion.

I totally agree. Good clarification

That’s the post I was referring to

I think I answered this in my thread about why we think about the past.

Well said. My answer exactly

I totally agree with you. However, I think empathy is out of the question here: When you do something that does not align to your moral principles there is a mismatch between behavior and ethics. Now you try to find a solution in order to remove the mismatch. So then you re-calibrate your behavior in accordance to those ethics so that there is some sort of internal/external alignment: what you do aligns with what you believe.

So now for the cheating example:
You wouldn't cheat because that is not in your ethics. So if you do cheat, you wouldn't feel empathy for the victim because you wronged them but rather because that is how you would try to reestablish the coherence between your actions and your morals.

Suppose x is defined as atemporal, “outside of time”. Well, then there can be no time at which x exists. And there can be no duration involved, x cannot change, or be subject to causation, cannot interact, and would be rather inert. — jorndoe

What if the being can be both temporal and atemporal? Can there be such a thing? The temporal side of the being would be allowed to communicate with what the atemporal side knows and thus the knowledge is shared being both sides. This would give the atemporal (Jesus, for example) the same exact knowledge as a God that is not subject to time.

I guess I did. But I wanted to know if there was an alternate explanation that anyone could propose