Egoism is the nature of humanity. — Gus Lamarch

Perhaps it is the nature of your humanity.

You'd not have come here to say this, if it wasn't fulfiling you individually. — Gus Lamarch

I believe what is truly good for the individual is also good for the whole.

The ego is an illusion based on past experiences and future aspirations. It is literally worthless and the cause of much personal grief. If one is interested in happiness for oneself or others, the ego should be regarded with nothing but suspicion.

If I could add to that;

Philosophy should teach one how little we know for certain. Once one gets that insight, one generally becomes a lot more reserved about telling others what to do.

Good thoughts. But can perfection finally happen in the universe? — Gregory

If you are talking about 'the Perfection of Beauty', according to Plato it can certainly be experienced. If I'm not mistaken Plotinus also goes into great depth about these experiences and he states to have had them on multiple occasions.

As I've understood the One in Plato, the One is not an object of knowledge, and since it is a pure 'one' any distinctions made in it or attributes ascribed to it turn it into a 'many', so one would inevitably err in its description.

The One is approached through dialectic, based on the experience that is called 'The Idea of the Good' (idea as in 'to behold'), where the One is said to be the source of this experience. This experience is also called 'the Perfection of Beauty' or 'Divine Luminousity'.

If you're interested in delving deeper into Plato (or maybe you already have), I can really recommend this YouTube channel:

Pierre Grimes and the Noetic Society

Pierre Grimes made many of his early lectures available in which he discusses a great deal of topics. He seems to have a real soft spot for Plato and Neoplatonic thinkers. His lectures really opened my eyes to the richness of Platonic thought, and how badly represented it is in contemporary education.

In my mind though the existence of a privilege doesn't imply reparations though. — BitconnectCarlos

What does it imply, then?

Your height is something over which you have some control? — Banno

No, and neither is skin color or sex.

We need to have a conversation about height privilege! And what about beauty privilege?

I am ready to receive reparations from all the tall and handsome people in this world, for I have been the victim of much injustice!

By inflicting it upon others?

Seems like a questionable idea; to be able to inflict suffering on others according to one's own vague and subjective notions of suffering.

Reminds me of the saying: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

I think if you bring a poor child into existence you can't blame society (not the government) for not helping you as you are the one with the greater moral sin — Gitonga

How would you rate the sin of whatever government is forcing people not to have children?

Recent developments in Belarus look promising and should hopefully inspire many of the downtrodden populace in Russia. — Professor Death

I don't think the situation in Belarus looks promising at all.

A successful coup is unlikely, since both Lukashenko and Putin will do everything to avoid it from happening. If Putin's aid is required, it will only strenghten Russia's control over Belarus, bringing it one step closer to becoming a part of the Russian Federation.

Western aid is unthinkable. Even less likely than in Ukraine.

No, these small crises on Russia's border have had a tendency to work out in Russia's favour, as they have in Georgia and Ukraine.

As for China; China probably has more power over western internal affairs than vice versa. We all know the measures China is willing to take to ensure its population remains compliant, and under such circumstances a popular uprising is unlikely to get off the ground, let alone succeed.

The veil of civilization is thin indeed.

If it is such a universal good, as you say, then how come for such issues there exist also opponents? Are all opponents of such issues simply ignorant? Are the facts they quote wrong and are yours right?

they just might not know the facts or believe they know the facts when really they don't. — Aleph Numbers

What if the proponents of some collective action think they know the facts when they really don't?

And so what if we affect other people in the process of growing? That doesn't nullify the growth. — Aleph Numbers

What is growth for one, may not be growth for another.

I think this type of one-sided thinking lays bare exactly the type of tension I am talking about.

Here are a few sentiments that I think echo throughout your post:

"I know what is best for others."

"My facts are right, and their facts are wrong."

"I am right, so I may tell others what to do."

Pursuing personal growth is something that by and large only affects the individual. You can pursue whatever you believe is good for you.

When we project our preferences on society, it is no longer just ourselves that is affected. Issues that would 'require' collective action often have proponents and opponents, since what is considered an improvement by some, may not be considered an improvement by others.

The tension here seems obvious.

It is somewhat ironic that in my personal search for happiness and wisdom I've had to unlearn pretty much everything 'modern society' had taught me. I struggle to think of anything about modern society that can be considered 'enlightened'. It claims to hold some noble ideals, but when push comes to shove it seems very few are actually willing to act in accordance with those ideals unless it suits their agenda (agendas which usually involve money). It provides a whole lot of physical wealth, that much cannot be denied. Materialism and consumerism; those are the core ideals that modern society acts upon, and I find very little enlightenment in that.

To a moral relativist, what is the purpose of morality?

The term 'tragic' would perhaps better describe that type of suffering from which no personal growth is possible.

It seems the problem lies with the meat industry then, and not necessarily eating meat.

the unnecessary pain caused to animals by their consumption doesn't come all at once with their painful (or painless) death. — fdrake

Could you elaborate?

This would imply that killing an animal painlessly is perfectly acceptable.

This leaves the most important part of my inquiry unanswered:

If pain becomes the critericum as to whether we can or cannot kill something, can we freely kill things that cannot feel pain? What if the act of killing is painless, thus no pain or suffering is inflicted? — Tzeentch

There's no good reasons to believe that plants suffer. Or bacteria. I dunno about insects. So the argument doesn't apply to them since killing them does not inflict harm. — fdrake

Science is inconclusive on whether plants feel pain. They certainly react to being killed.

But lets assume they cannot feel pain, then this just gets us into a right tangle. If pain becomes the critericum as to whether we can or cannot kill something, can we freely kill things that cannot feel pain? What if the act of killing is painless, thus no pain or suffering is inflicted?

Similarly, one could add that we should not make a distinction between animals and plants. Or mammals and insects, or even bacteria. We have to follow things through.

Then we have established that neither eating nor killing animals is categorically immoral, therefore let me suggest that the circumstances under which these things happen are way more important.

It is my experience that many vegetarians and vegans, when questioned, do not necessarily have a problem with hurting, killing or eating animals, (circumstances seem to matter) but with the treatment of animals, and more often specifically with the treatment of animals in what is commonly referred to as the 'food industry'. Though, correct me if this does not represent your views.

Well, that puts us in a rather odd position.

Veganism means one does not wish to use animal products at all, but not all animal products require the killing and hurting of animals. So by what you've said it seems you're not primarily interested in veganism.

Vegetarianism is also debatable, because it seems it would be perfectly acceptable for you to eat an animal that was struck dead by a bolt of lightning, dying instantly thus suffering no hurt, and dying by the hand of a natural occurence.

On the topic of the morality of killing an animal:

Would you consider it immoral for a hunter to kill an old, sickly member of a herd of animals in order for a young one to survive? This happens commonly to avoid healthy wildlife from starving. Let us also assume the hunter is skilled, and is able to ensure a painless death.

Perhaps you could elaborate further on what it is about eating meat that you find immoral.

Is it specifically eating animals?
Is it killing animals?
Is it hurting animals?
Is it the exploitation of animals?
Is it all of the above?

There's something terribly wrong with the way you are letting your personal beliefs and biases determine what is considered 'proper' for this forum and what is not. Impartiality is the basis of arbitration, and everywhere I see your posts I am reaffirmed in my impression that such impartiality is thoroughly lacking.

I have no illusions that this post will change your behavior, but nevertheless I feel the need to point out despotism when I see it. I think you're fooling only yourself.

Hm.

I'm not sure what you are getting at, but maybe you wish to elaborate further.

Coming back to your earlier posts, your point seemed to be that it is easier to conceive of a physical hell than it is a physical heaven?

What is interesting is that 'hell' or 'the underworld' (Hades, etc.) have often been associated with the physical world. One can even see parallels with Buddhism here, as attachment to the physical will prevent one from attaining (degrees of) enlightenment.

'Heaven' has more often been associated with the non-physical world. Perhaps that's why it's not so easy to conceive of a physical representation of heaven.

So what about these enlightenment experiences (note, not the same as "being enlightened") that people have had and described? Why would something like that not qualify as a kind of heaven?

No one, absolutely no one, since the Shakya sage Siddhartha Gautama about 2500 years ago, has been credited with a bona fide state of Buddhahood. Isn't this odd? — TheMadFool

I don't think that's odd. Let's assume attaining complete enlightenment is indeed quite rare. Let's then say I were to attain it right now. Who'd be there to judge the legitimacy of that experience? Or perhaps a better question: would someone who has attained enlightenment even care about matters of legitimacy in the eyes of the world?

It's worth noting that there isn't one enlightenment experience, but many. This is true for both Buddhism and many other wisdom traditions which involve so called 'peak experiences'. These experiences are in fact not so uncommon and described by many to be quite wonderful. Could that not be regarded as a form of heaven?

Could an enlightenment experience as described by various wisdom traditions not be considered as a form of heaven? And those are available to us while we are still on Earth.

:roll:

The premise of The Republic can best be summarized by the following passage:

“But to come now to the decision between our two kinds of life, if we separate the most completely just and the most completely unjust man, we shall be able to decide rightly, but if not, not. How, then, is this separation to be made? Thus: we must subtract nothing of his injustice from the unjust man or of his justice from the just, but assume the perfection of each in his own mode of conduct. In the first place, the unjust man must act as clever craftsmen do: a first-rate pilot or physician, for example, feels the difference between impossibilities and possibilities in his art and attempts the one and lets the others go; and then, too, if he does happen to trip, he is equal to correcting his error. Similarly, the unjust man who attempts injustice rightly must be supposed to escape detection if he is to be altogether unjust, and we must regard the man who is caught as a bungler. For the height of injustice is to seem just without being so. To the perfectly unjust man, then, we must assign perfect injustice and withhold nothing of it, but we must allow him, while committing the greatest wrongs, to have secured for himself the greatest reputation for justice; and if he does happen to trip, we must concede to him the power to correct his mistakes by his ability to speak persuasively if any of his misdeeds come to light, and when force is needed, to employ force by reason of his manly spirit and vigor and his provision of friends and money; and when we have set up an unjust man of this character, our theory must set the just man at his side—a simple and noble man, who, in the phrase of Aeschylus, does not wish to seem but be good. Then we must deprive him of the seeming. For if he is going to be thought just he will have honors and gifts because of that esteem. We cannot be sure in that case whether he is just for justice' sake or for the sake of the gifts and the honors. So we must strip him bare of everything but justice and make his state the opposite of his imagined counterpart. Though doing no wrong he must have the repute of the greatest injustice, so that he may be put to the test as regards justice through not softening because of ill repute and the consequences thereof. But let him hold on his course unchangeable even unto death, seeming all his life to be unjust though being just, that so, both men attaining to the limit, the one of injustice, the other of justice, we may pass judgement which of the two is the happier.” - Plato, The Republic, Book 2, 360a - 361a

Plato describes two kinds of men. One completely unjust, but with the appearance of a just man. The other completely just, but with the appearance of an unjust man. He then makes the point that, when given the choice, one should always choose the just man over the unjust man.

This is the core of what The Republic is about; the role of justice in the soul of man. The city-state is used as part of an analogy to make his point, as has been shown in the passage I quoted previously.

But I am not here to lecture you on Plato. After all, you profess to have sufficient understanding of his works. I obviously didn't come up with this on my own, and I could help you to some sources, but as they say 'pearls before swine'.

"I think we should employ the method of search that we should use if we, with not very keen vision, were bidden to read small letters from a distance, and then someone had observed that these same letters exist elsewhere larger and on a larger surface. We should have accounted it a godsend, I fancy, to be allowed to read those letters first, and examine the smaller, if they are the same.” “Quite so,” said Adeimantus; “but what analogy to do you detect in the inquiry about justice?” “I will tell you,” I said: “there is a justice of one man, we say, and, I suppose, also of an entire city.” “Assuredly,” said he. “Is not the city larger than the man?” “It is larger,” he said. “Then, perhaps, there would be more justice in the larger object and more easy to apprehend. If it please you, then, let us first look for its quality in states, and then only examine it also in the individual, looking for the likeness of the greater in the form of the less.” “I think that is a good suggestion,” he said. “If, then,” said I, “our argument should observe the origin of a state, we should see also the origin of justice and injustice in it.” “It may be,” said he. “And if this is done, we may expect to find more easily what we are seeking?” “Much more.” “Shall we try it, then, and go through with it? I fancy it is no slight task. Reflect, then.” “We have reflected,” said Adeimantus; “proceed and don't refuse.” - Plato, The Republic, Book 2, section 368d - 369b.

It's not exactly hidden. :chin:

Platos agenda was a totalitarian project and specifically designed for a political elite of "philosopher kings" Aka priests. — Asif

"He will gladly take part in and enjoy those which he thinks will make him a better man, but in public and private life he will shun those that may overthrow the established habit of his soul.” “Then, if that is his chief concern,” he said, “he will not willingly take part in politics.” “Yes, by the dog,” said I, “in his own city he certainly will, yet perhaps not in the city of his birth, except in some providential conjuncture.” “I understand,” he said; “you mean the city whose establishment we have described, the city whose home is in the ideal; for I think that it can be found nowhere on earth.” “Well,” said I, “perhaps there is a pattern of it laid up in heaven for him who wishes to contemplate it and so beholding to constitute himself its citizen. But it makes no difference whether it exists now or ever will come into being. The politics of this city only will be his and of none other.” “That seems probable,” he said." - Plato, The Republic, Book 9, section 592.

:roll:

Well, I don't think I ever mentioned that being case?

Yet, in a democracy, the voters do have power.

It depends on you knowing that you're misinformed. It also puts the burden on voters to find the truth rather than the burden be on the politicians to tell the truth. — Harry Hindu

Not quite. I regard the burden as shared.

Those with the power should be held to higher standard. — Harry Hindu

Perhaps. Though, I find it difficult to imagine why the bar should be lowered for those who are not in power.

So you're telling me that voters vote for people that they know lie? — Harry Hindu

No. Like I said, many are probably quite ignorant. Yet, it is my view that those who are ignorant have both the capability, the means and the responsibility to make it not so, or at the very least recognize their own ignorance!

It is in the politicians best interest to get you to think that only one party or candidate is righteous and the other evil. — Harry Hindu

This plays into what I was saying about the voters being barraged by misinformation perpetuates more ignorance by the media. — Harry Hindu

Every person has a responsibility in this regard, for thinking for themselves and being critical of what they are told.

This portrayal of voters as victims of misinformation is something I dislike, because this seems to treat people as children who do not know any better, rather than independent agents. Many voters may be ignorant, but I consider it within their capability and responsibility to make it not so.

As such, the misleader and the misled are both part of this problem.