Discussion in 'Human Science' started by Malakas, Apr 29, 2008.
I'm starting to like you. Watch it..
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
That is true. Humans are indeed more intelligent than animals. On the whole. But I would disagree that this is a superior trait. It seems that our intellect has brought us war, famine, genocide, hate, greed and many more goodies besides. I value someone who can make good decisions based on their own good heart. A feminised quality that has been devalued because of sexism. The comments about being a housewife on this board go further to back-up this claim. Anything feminine is devalued because, well, it's weak. That is what I mean by there are different ways to dominate. It seems intellect and strength are valued among the highest of abilities, while compassion and love are brushed aside like a spec of inconvenient dirt. If evolution does favour the genetic abnormal, or different, then it's women who are surely the forerunners for this new evolutionary phase. It's the tortoise you see. Slow and steady, not like that loud brash hare. He's all "I'm faster, stronger and cleverer than you" [metaphorical for the gene patterns I'm talking here]. And the tortoise is the genetic make-up that seems to just happen, without anyone noticing. Like uprightedness and the questioning of reality.
No one ever said excessive intellect is a good thing.
I think the actual problem with having a good heart, compassion, love is not that they would be "feminine", but that many people are very unwise with how they employ these qualities - both when they employ them themselves as well as in how they interpret other people's actions.
In Buddhism, they sometimes use the terms "idiot compassion", "idiot patience", "idiot love" to denote an unwise employment of compassion, patience, love.
Men, women, the intersexed, the young, the old, the educated, the uneducated, the rich, the poor, the white, the black, the kings and the beggars ... - people from all walks and modes of life are often guilty of idiot compassion.
If anything, I think qualities such as compassion have become undervalued simply on account that people are so often so unwise in how they employ it, causing more harm than good.
Going by my experience, men are just as guilty of idiot compassion as women.
What's love worth when ou are taught that everyone deservs it or that it should be given freely to all?
The diminishment of human value.
You people forget that masculine/feminine dispositinos are found in both men and women.
That one is sually more diminating in one sex is due to evolutionary necessity.
That this is changing and mutations are clouding the lines, is due to the current environment's effecs.
Excessive intellec is a product of dominance where the organsims intellctual energies are freed from the necessities of survival and need and turn inwards or become bored.
It's end result is nihilism and the reaction to this varies.
Dellusion, the religious kind, is the prefered reaction
I know and use the term as compassion without wisdom. Obviously someone practicing Dharma doesn't use the word idiot with reference to another living being.
There is a great story to reiterate your point about practicing compassion which, if I may, I'll paraphrase, but please excuse the retelling. I'm not much of a writer.
The story goes; a man was walking through a village and spotted a dying fish in the middle of the road. He picked the fish up with and with a compassionate mind put it in the village pond with the rest of the other fish. He returned the following week to check on it and the fish was fine but all the other fish had gone. It had eaten them.
And so yes, it is possible to act with compassion but no wisdom, as too with patience. One might assume one is practicing patient acceptance of suffering with a sore foot and leave the foot to fester, for example, but if that foot then falls off no wisdom has been used. There are four types of love described by Atisha. He lists them, affectionate, wishing, admiring and cherishing love. None of these minds can be practiced to excess because these minds are a wish for living beings to be free from suffering. None of these are exclusive to either gender.
judging someone on the basis of their sex
judging someone on the basis of their race
doesnt have to be positive or negative judgement.just judgement.
Not at all. What of honour? Duty? Self sacrifice? Altruism exists in nature but lacks the crucial moral and cognitive component that distinguishes the human form. Yours is a very narrow, selfish and individualistic analysis that totally neglects man's social inclinations. Co-operation, and extension of a sense of inclusiveness to bond larger and larger social groups, is what got us off the plains and into the cities. Do you like having heat, water and food on tap?
Essentially what you propose is a form of Social Darwinism. This is as old as the hills (don't be insulted) and - bastardised by Hitler and others - has been tried many times, each attempt a failure. The moment you try to radically socially engineer humanity - and what is your philosophy worth if it has no practical application? - is the first step on the road to catastrophe. History has shown this many times over. Humans are not amenable to being bred like rats in a lab.
It is, in any case, based on a misunderstanding. Darwinism is a study of natural processes with no practical application. Here's what Dawkins has to say on the subject:
Morality is good - vital for our continuation as a species and an essential part of being human. Why do you continue to present one of our greatest strengths as a weakness?
Forgive me if I make no attempt at providing the requested definitions.
I'm not sure he does. Or was doing. I think he was offering up the question of morality. Correct me if I'm wrong. I love it.
I suppose you'll have to take my word for it, EmmZ.
Start here: http://www.sciforums.com/search.php...starteronly=1&exactname=1&searchuser=WANDERER
Then continue here: http://www.sciforums.com/search.php...=0&starteronly=1&exactname=1&searchuser=Satyr
Malakas is... an agenda poster.
I'm corrected. Ah I love it when I'm wrong. I love learning new things.
Actually, I do him a disservice when I say it's an agenda.
No, he really and truly passionately believes this stuff.
Please take him seriously.
It means a lot to him.
I can't Hun, I believe everything he writes is tongue-in-cheek
We are "taught" all sorts of things.
That doesn't mean though that (1) we should do as we are told, nor does it mean that (2) everyone does as they are told, nor does it mean that (3) everyone does as they say, nor does it mean that (4) not loving everyone freely will be sanctioned - because it is not.
Much of what people say is for effect - and I think we can agree on that.
Using absolute concepts -all, noone, always, never, everywhere, nowhere- can also be employed for effect, even though the person hasn't actually meant them in an absolute sense.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
At some point, it gets difficult, even impossible, to distinguish when he means something, and when not.
I am actually sick to death of hearing Darwin's life work reduced to the strap line 'survival of the fittest'. What he, and his contemporaries, actually discovered was that creatures which are flexible survive to pass on their adaptive genes. He didn't EVER say only the strong/fittest/most brutal survive. When he mentions fit he means 'fit for purpose' in response to a changing environment.
Where is malakas by the way?
Anyways don't take my word for it. Instead of resorting to wiki you can find the complete works of the great man himself here live and direct:
Actually reading it (hard copies are available you know!) will keep some of us sci for a while hopefully.
Separate names with a comma.