there aren't any gaurantees you won't become jaded, it happens for all sorts of different reasons. I didn't answer your question because i don't understand what you want, i thought you were hinting at wanting to get justice.

How do you cope with injustice done to you when you don't have the means to revenge yourself?

For example: You get falsely accused of some wrongoing at work, you get fired, you are blamed for losing your job, so you're not eligible for unemployment benefits; you don't have the money to pursue the matter legally. How do you get peace of mind in such a situation (without doing something illegal)?

For example: You get falsely accused of some wrongoing at work, you get fired, you are blamed for losing your job, so you're not eligible for unemployment benefits; you don't have the money to pursue the matter legally. How do you get peace of mind in such a situation (without doing something illegal)? — baker

Well, it seems like in that kind of a situation (being accused of something falsely) means there is no legal recourse without some evidence of the business behaving illegally. The unfortunate reality is that alot of times people do not get punished for harming us...even though dishonest behavior can have long term disadvantages (for example, alienating people who could useful or comforting in the future)

Just checking - does this work the other way? Would it also be naive and idealistic to think a person of high status could correctly measure or evaluate the words and actions of a person of low status.
— Tom Storm
This is moot, because the person of higher status is automatically correct by virtue of their higher status. — baker

I don’t think this is moot. In my experience, low-status people can and do question those of higher status. And changes may result.

Look, I'm not an elitist. I'm interested in having a measure of peace of mind and not becoming cynical and jaded in the face of injustice.

If you look at popular religion/spirituality, as well as popular psychology, the advice usually goes in the direction that the ordinary person (who doesn't have the means to revenge themselves) should embrace a type of amoralist, anomic stance where they are quietly okay with whatever happens or is done to them (or others). Morality doesn't seem to be something everyone could afford. — baker

Ok, thanks for the clarification.

I'm not sure I share this understanding. I guess I'd need to understand this through specific examples rather than abstract principles.

For example: You get falsely accused of some wrongoing at work, you get fired, you are blamed for losing your job, so you're not eligible for unemployment benefits; you don't have the money to pursue the matter legally. How do you get peace of mind in such a situation (without doing something illegal)? — baker

My previous was a little too depressing, as i was only thinking of it in terms of "getting justice". Things similar to what you have described have happened to me before.

While retaliation tends to be off the table, what does tend to help is finding a sympathetic ear, and looking for what can be learned from the situation. The saying "the best revenge is living well" speaks directly to situations where you want revenge but also realize acting on it just makes your life worse...

Whoo, whoo, you stirred too many thoughts. I can handle maybe 3 concepts at a time. Too many thoughts turn my head into mush, and my mind is like a kaleidoscope, changing shapes and colors, and I can not form a coherent thought from all this sensory overload. :worry:

Note, however, how the conception of 'what the good for us is' influences the 'ideal' of life we have and how the former depends also on the 'worldview' one has.

Absolutely!

By 'libertarianism' I mean the position that equates 'freedom' with the mere 'ability to choose between different alternative'. In my view, this understanding is incomplete.

For sure, it is incomplete. As social animals, our thinking must be inclusive. As supposedly intelligent animals, our thinking needs to consider future generations.

Regarding the differences between cultures, I do think that the best explanation is actually that societies can be wrong in their practices, just like individuals can.

Yep, nations and cultures can need psychoanalysis just as much as individuals. The way nations play war games makes psychoanalysis very important.


Something that you mentioned is the middle path, balance, and harmony. As you know, it isn't all about me or all about you, but it is about us. If I am knocking myself out to be the perfect daughter, wife, mother, woman, it doesn't matter. If I don't know everyone else's idea of perfection and meet it, I am not going to get what I want, approval and acceptance, maybe even honor? I used to do some public speaking, and perhaps the most important rule is "know your audience". This is essential if the goal is to persuade others to accept new ideas. In everything we do, who do we want to please and why?

It was a real shock to me to build my life on the 1950s ideal woman image and suddenly sink to being "just a housewife". Who wants to be just a housewife? It sounded like a dirty word. My 2 1/2 years younger sister was way ahead of me. She took the career path, while I felt like a fish out of water when the change was made. For me, this has everything to do with amoralism and moralism. How fast can we change our morals and keep up with a society that is on the move? But here is the question that really bothers me- was the force of social change really better for humanity?

You wrote in favor of this and that, both being part of the truth. I often find truth is both this and that. But right now, everything is moving too fast, and I am not sure we are on the right path. I am not Christian and want to point out that Christianity is in the line of destroying the goddess and supporting the patriarchy, and I have strong feelings against all this. Many native American tribes were matriarchal, and I think that is better for mankind.

There are so many things to think about, and I wish we began with scientific thinking, not Christianity a personal God, and individuality, that can be divisive and exclusive and include harmful rationalizations. Destroying the planet for temporary benefits is not good thinking. It is not moral thinking.

Whoo, whoo, you stirred too many thoughts. I can handle maybe 3 concepts at a time. Too many thoughts turn my head into mush, and my mind is like a kaleidoscope, changing shapes and colors, and I can not form a coherent thought from all this sensory overload. :worry: — Athena

Well, I was lucky enough to have enough time to write those long posts (and I also have a tendency to 'overelaborate'...). I'll have likely less time in the following days, so I'll reply less frequently .

Absolutely! — Athena

:up: Yet, sometimes it seems to me that many people do not seem interested to live a coherent life in beliefs and deeds, and/or do not seem to be able to appreciate the consequences of certain beliefs, and/or do not live up to their own standards...
Of course, I am included.

Doing philosophy however helps to do that or at least be aware of these kinds of disconnects.

For sure, it is incomplete. As social animals, our thinking must be inclusive. As supposedly intelligent animals, our thinking needs to consider future generations. — Athena

Agreed!

Yep, nations and cultures can need psychoanalysis just as much as individuals. The way nations play war games makes psychoanalysis very important. — Athena

Again, I agree with this. I believe that, in fact, societies and cultures can 'learn' in a way analogous to how individuals learn. One example is, for instance, how slavery became in time seen as the monstrousity which it is. Nowadays we think that a human being can be considered a property as an abomination but slavery was practised regularly. I believe that at least on this point it is safe to say that humanity (on average) has learned a bit better what is better for each and all individuals.

Something that you mentioned is the middle path, balance, and harmony. As you know, it isn't all about me or all about you, but it is about us. If I am knocking myself out to be the perfect daughter, wife, mother, woman, it doesn't matter. — Athena

Well, we can also say that both an 'unconcerned' and a 'perfectionistic' attitude can damage both oneself and others. If I don't care about the 'goodness' of my actions it is of course a problem. At the same time, however, if I care too much I will probably be unable to act in any way and we get entangled in despair. So, yeah, we need the proper balance. Easier to say than to to do.

In everything we do, who do we want to please and why? — Athena

In a way, both us and others. But, again, we should seek to 'please' in the right way. Assuming that the lecture aims to inform the audience of some theme, the goal is to inform the audience in the optimal way. So, one can't either cause boredom to the audience nor entertain them without any real information. The optimal way is to both inform and entertain. Again, more easily said than done. Realistically, this means that we need to put a limit on both the quantity of information we want to share and the 'entertainment/pleasure' we want to give to the audience.

Furthermore, in some context causing unpleasant feelings can be for the good of the other. While 'punishments' should be avoided as far as is possible, sometimes they are inevitable. Not punishing someone for their inappropriate behavior is hardly uneducative at least in some circumstances. Sometimes the right 'punishment' can be the proper way for a transgressor to come to their senses and change their ways (and if the intent is educative, perhaps it would be better to speak of 'corrections' rather than 'punishments').
Again, this equally applies to someone who behaves badly but also for an addict. If a parent knows that their teenage child assumed drugs, the parent might decide to ground the child and take the child to a doctor against their will. The child perhaps would perhaps find painful this kind of intervention but we can expect that, once the child has become wiser, he or she will be grateful to their parent.

How fast can we change our morals and keep up with a society that is on the move? But here is the question that really bothers me- was the force of social change really better for humanity? — Athena

Good questions. A famous aphorism of Kierkegaard says that life can be lived forwards but can be understood backwords. While I would disagree if this is taken to an extreme, this is largely correct. It is difficult to say if certain changes have been for the better. All we can do is form a well-reasoned opinion given evidence.

A rigid moralism has undoubtedly painful effects on people. Of course, I have said above that painful experiences can be for the better. But, at the same time there are cases where it is evident that a rigid moralism becomes self-referential and makes the 'code of law' something more important than the persons it is supposed to be useful to. If moralism becomes an obstacle to the process to realize the good for the individual and the community it should be put into question.
For instance, if a moral system is supposed to make people more loving but the practical effects are that people become more self-centred, suspicious and so one it is right IMO to question the moral system. But this should be done in a careful way and not in an unreflecting way.

You wrote in favor of this and that, both being part of the truth. I often find truth is both this and that. But right now, everything is moving too fast, and I am not sure we are on the right path. — Athena

Yes, I agree. And the problem with fast changes is that people have not time to think about them in a proper way.

I am not Christian and want to point out that Christianity is in the line of destroying the goddess and supporting the patriarchy, and I have strong feelings against all this. Many native American tribes were matriarchal, and I think that is better for mankind. — Athena

I am also not a Christian partly because I find it impossible to accept some social norms that are generally held by Christians to be 'non-negotiable'. I do believe that there are good arguments for theism and I am very sympathetic to some forms of Christianity but I can't right now join a religious tradition (Christian or otherwise). I know that, perhaps, it doesn't make sense to be a 'non-religious theist' but, to be honest, I can't help myself to be different.

Regarding gender inequality, I think it should be said that we tend to have an 'idealized' view of cultures we are not familiar with. I do not know about native American tribes so what I am saying doesn't apply to them, but over time I came to the conclusion that 'patriarchy' isn't really a problem of a specific religion or culture but simply was a common theme in Antiquity. Indian and Chinese religious traditions and societies haven't generally be 'more open' to gender equality than in the 'West'. Despite its reputation, for instance, you'll find more female writers among in the history of the Catholic Church - whose writings have been highly regarded for centuries - rather than, say, in Buddhist, Confucian, Hindu etc traditions (to my knowledge, I would be happy to be disproven here). I am not suggesting that Catholics are more 'inherently' open to gender equality than anyone else or anything like that but I just note how our assessment can neglect these things.

Furthermore, at least in recent times there are movements inside Christian traditions as well as for instance Buddhist traditions and undoubtedly other traditions that actively try to raise the awareness of the dangers of 'patriarchy', so I am a bit wary to make general assertion about what is the position of a given religion about this matter.

In general, I am persuaded that 'Christianity', 'Buddhism' etc are umbrella terms in which you find extremely huge variations in many aspects. So really if one tells me that he or she is a 'Christian', a 'Buddhist', a 'Muslim' and so on I have to say that I have little information about him or her.

In my humble opinion, I just think that neither 'patriarchy' nor 'matriarchy' perhaps are the best options. Indeed, it seems to me that biological sex shouldn't be thought as a reliable indicator of the place in society that an individual 'should have'. I wouldn't say that biological sexes do not matter at all, but they certainly seem to matter less than our ancestors seemed to believe so firmly.

There are so many things to think about, and I wish we began with scientific thinking, not Christianity a personal God, and individuality, that can be divisive and exclusive and include harmful rationalizations. Destroying the planet for temporary benefits is not good thinking. It is not moral thinking. — Athena

I agree. After all, irrespective of one's own religious beliefs I think that we can establish if certain things are good for us both individually and collectively. As you say ruining the very environment in which we live is certainly not a good thing to do. It is also frustrating how difficult is to get a substantial change here.

A rigid moralism has undoubtedly painful effects on people. Of course, I have said above that painful experiences can be for the better. But, at the same time there are cases where it is evident that a rigid moralism becomes self-referential and makes the 'code of law' something more important than the persons it is supposed to be useful to. If moralism becomes an obstacle to the process to realize the good for the individual and the community it should be put into question.
For instance, if a moral system is supposed to make people more loving but the practical effects are that people become more self-centred, suspicious and so one it is right IMO to question the moral system. But this should be done in a careful way and not in an unreflecting way. — boundless

We have so many agreements that there was nothing for me to add to what you said, except to confirm that we agree: only when a person knows better can they do better. Morals without virtues is a bad thing. I think far too many of our decisions are built on notions of reward and punishment, with far too much taken for granted, assuming the wrongdoer knew better or should at least automatically know better, and therefore, must be stopped from repeating a bad action by punishing the wrongdoer. The obvious bad judgment of relying on punishment is that it does not ensure the child/person understands the wrong and has learned what would be better.

I had several pen pals in prisons, long before the internet, and it was so sad to be aware of their failure to know better, and how the conditions of prisons can make things worse. Our correction system is not wise. Especially when it goes with an amoral society with weak family values. :lol: I must laugh at myself because I am imagining getting on a war horse with all my armor and rushing out to confront this evil of ignorance. I didn't know better when I was young, and I hate dying before correcting our shared ignorance and bad judgment.

The most important information I have come across in my lifetime was a Canadian woman's explanation of why we must teach virtues. Language is vitally important. When we do not have a word for something, we know nothing about that something. Children can not be virtuous without the language of virtues, and we can not depend on their parents to teach them about something when they themselves don't even have the words for virtues and therefore, can not have virtuous thoughts. Our education made good citizenship the priority of education until 1958. Now we are smart, but we have lost our wisdom.

I am not suggesting that Catholics are more 'inherently' open to gender equality than anyone else or anything like that but I just note how our assessment can neglect these things. — boundless

I have read that, in the past, Buddhism and Catholicism were so similar that there was concern about them blending. I do not think we can properly understand the words attributed to Jesus without an understanding of Buddhism, which came out of India with Hindu influences. If there is a "word of God", according to Joseph Campbell, that God spoke to everyone, but people in different places understood His words a little differently because of the different geology of people around the world. I think we can study the history of these religions and gain an understanding of their development and the historical and political influences. I think this is essential to a study of God's truth. To study only one holy book leaves a person ignorant of so much, and this is important if we want to be rational about our notion of truth.

I think Cyrus was one of the most awesome people to have ever lived and ruled a country. This is Whoops, had to delete that!

That is important because of how the Persian religion influenced the Hebrew understanding of good and evil, and the spread of superstition, leading to the belief in demons and torpedoing the intellectual developments coming out of Hellenism. On the success of patriarchy and failure of matriarchy, he who wins the war gets to tell the story and set the rules. But the gender thing is not just about patriarchy and matriarchy, making the discussion of gender differences extremely complex. I think a Japanese geisha is the ideal of femininity by any national standards, and I would love it if, like the French, we celebrated the difference. Hare Krishna is androgynous. Hey, this could make a fun thread. All the different flavors of male and female.

Good gravy, my thoughts are going all over the place, and this is not leading to the standard of good philosophical argument.

In my humble opinion, I just think that neither 'patriarchy' nor 'matriarchy' is perhaps the best option. Indeed, it seems to me that biological sex shouldn't be thought of as a reliable indicator of the place in society that an individual should have. I wouldn't say that biological sexes do not matter at all, but they certainly seem to matter less than our ancestors seemed to believe so firmly. — boundless

This might get my head back on track. I want all decisions to be in the best interest of children. Okay, this is virtues and morals. In a patriarchy land follows the line of males. In a matriarchy, land follows the line of females. Internationally, we have reason to believe that women tend to be the better caregivers for children, and empowering them seems to benefit the children more than leaving men in charge. But I know females who are terrible mothers! :gasp: I think fathers play a very important role in raising children; however, their role may be different from the mother's role. Both a mother and a father are important, and maybe both would do better if they believed how valuable they are. I did a Google check, and there is an important connection between child rearing and philosophy.

Well, it seems like in that kind of a situation (being accused of something falsely) means there is no legal recourse without some evidence of the business behaving illegally. The unfortunate reality is that alot of times people do not get punished for harming us...even though dishonest behavior can have long term disadvantages (for example, alienating people who could useful or comforting in the future) — ProtagoranSocratist

I think the situation of being wrongly accused, fired, and denied unemployment is very bad, and I can sympathize with the desire to harm those who wronged the person who was fired. What is left but revenge and a moment of feeling empowered, when all else has gone wrong, and one might feel powerless and need to act on that feeling. However, ProtagoranSocratist is correct. But how do we call up the inner strength to resist a desire for revenge?

When I experience such difficult times and don't know what to do, I draw a Virtue Card and/or check with the I Ching. Beginning with the injustice of being fired, I asked for the best way to deal with this situation and drew the card for "tact".

Tact is thinking before you speak. It is telling the truth in a way that does not disturb or offend others. It is knowing what to say and what is better left unsaid. Tactfulness is sharing your view with others in a way that makes it easier for them to hear it. This is especially important when you feel angry or upset. Tact also means knowing when to stay silent. It is telling the truth with kindness. You are as careful about others' feelings as you would like them to be of yours.

Acting on a desire for revenge is nonverbal communication and can lead to legal problems. I Ching says, "The Superior Man keeps his anger under control and is moderate in his desires".

Because I have been between a rock and a hard place many times, I know it is a whole lot easier to do the right thing when we are secure in our resources and have good support from family and friends. I would have sympathy for anyone without the resources and support, but this is all the more reason for not risking making matters worse and for clinging to the personal value by doing the right thing.

We used to think virtue and strength were synonymous. I think it would be nice if it were culturally recognized as important today. Most of us will not become part of the exclusive elite circle, but each of us can enjoy the strength of virtues.

I think philosophy can give us the grounds for a post-Christian culture that is successful.

The problem as always, is: that people adapt lies to fulfill the testimony of their senses. Such as the "truly" good. They formulate out of the prejudice of their conscious, what/how/when/who such and such ought to be. Anything not fitting within their platonic representations about the world are deemed as that sin that drives distance between they and another. The good grows out of the bad, and vice versa depending on how you initially posit values. They are all fruits on a plant, but very different plants all together. But all you'll find with metaphysicians is that such cannot be... but that they must consist within two completely distinct realms of "being," in that antithesis of values "Good" and "Evil." Because they see "becoming" is an illusion of the senses...

it's interesting how the definition of tact you quote is almost the opposite of what Winston Churchill describes. I guess there is a time for snark (churchill's tact), but i think the need for it often gets overstated by modern people...

I do not see any opposition in the understanding of tact. Both sides are about achieving good feelings.

At the moment, my head is full of a lengthy explanation of Carl Jung and the need to stop suppressing our dark side, but instead work to unite our psyche. Here is a need to stop projecting our evil onto others, creating a situation such as the world wars. Now that is the opposite of Christianity and declaring God wants us to destroy the evil enemy. I often wonder what the world would be like without a God of war.

sorry for not pulling up the churchill quote and explaining it:

Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip.

the quote you gave in describing tact was more about finding the truth, the churchill quote seems more about appearances, revenge, and politics than a renewed shared understanding. The quote you described explicity requests people don't offend each other...