Golden rules like: "Do onto others as you would wish them do onto you." (from Talmud)

"Descending to their level" is such self-righteous nonsense.

The fool who cannot see the difference between response and initiation needn't even be addressed.
 
Prince_James said:
"Descending to their level" is such self-righteous nonsense.

The fool who cannot see the difference between response and initiation needn't even be addressed.
Click to expand...

Why commit the same act they did to you?

OR

You could look at in another light and say that doing what they do only promotes that act instead of nipping it in the bud.
 
atitagain said:
Could you post some great golden rules in life, you heard/know of?

"Do not onto others what you would wish not them do onto you." (from Talmud, Shabbat)

PS
Talmud was before Jesus' new testament.
Click to expand...


Stupid rule, because some people hate themselves, so a person who is killing themselves will just as easily use that golden rule on you.
 
samcdkey said:
So do you descend to their level, then?

And if you do, whats the difference between the two of you?
Click to expand...

No, you treat people as they treat themselves. This is not the same as an eye for an eye. However if someone treats themselves bad, of course they'll treat you bad too.

As an example, Sam is an ethical human, she loves herself, and a casual observer can see this by how she treats herself. Someone like her should be treated with the respect that she gives to herself.

NOW, you have other people who don't respect themselves, who aren't ethical, who hate themselves, and to the casual observer, they will carry themselves in a very self destructive way. This sort of person you treat differently, you treat them as they treat themselves.

So thats the rule, you treat people as they want to be treated based on how they treat themselves. The best anyone will ever be able to treat you, is how they treat themselves, so if they treat themself like shit, you'll be treated worse than shit, because thats just how it goes. In some ways, morality is a rational calculation, a calculus, and it could be described in numbers, or words, or letters, but it's really just a calculation. The conclusion of it, love yourself and I'll love you.
 
Do unto others as if they are you.
IMU
URI

Problem is many (most) people are psychopaths now-days........

The overall guide was once the pure direct common conscience of sane (natural.. unpolluted) people.

All past golden sayings should only be interpreted in the light of sanity... which is to be guided by the pure direct common conscience
 
Thelema: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law."
 
tiassa said:
Thelema: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law."
Click to expand...

There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt.
Love is the law, love under will.

So what does it actually mean? Is it, do whatever you feel like doing, as long as it's done in love?
 
True, I picked up on it first via Crowley, but it seems a simple enough instruction if looked at a certain way: Do what you will that you might do what you will.

A more complicated way of putting it, that I wrote recently for another topic:

Do what thou wilt may be the whole of the law, but without rational consideration, it becomes unhealthy. Rape and murder sprees? Why not? Do what thou wilt, after all. Except that rape and murder sprees generally end with a person unable to do what they would: in prison, or perhaps dead. In a group dynamic, the same principle applies through natural consequence. We can certainly do what we will and would, but, and I'm not claiming we're there yet, imagine pollution as an extinction-level event. Humanity could literally pollute its environment to the point that the planet can no longer sustain the species. This seems a bad outcome for the species. Considering that we seem to have an influence over our evolution unheard of among other species, that is to say we can choose certain things that ants, slugs, or even the beloved bonobos and chimpanzees cannot. What would it require for ants or slugs to pollute the world to such a point that they couldn't survive? Would nature itself, by its checks and balances throughout time, even allow such an outcome? We humans could definitely choose extinction. We've even designed weapons that would add up to the same. Warfare, anyone?

What about polluting the whales to death, or the spotted owls? For instance, and I can't find the reference right now, so I'll call it apocryphal: The story goes that a certain year of Les Paul guitar (1959, I think) is the greatest electric guitar ever made, and this is because of a combination of factors not the least of which are tone and sustain. There is a specific reason, though, why there will never be another guitar bearing its unique characteristics. I'm told, and read a couple paragraphs several years ago, that the wood for the '59 came from a specific grove of ash trees in South America, and that, well, all of the trees were destroyed before anyone realized they didn't grow anywhere else. Now, that's hardly the worst sin in the world, and a certain degree of ignorance is forgivable inasmuch as anyone can claim the right to judge. Making such a mistake again, however, would seem immoral, a kind of greed that endangers humanity itself: if we destroy enough species, around the world faster than nature can fill in the gaps, it would be bad for our species. (#1250444)
​

As a way of living, its only limitation is one's feeling of kinship with the Universe. Okay, there's the obvious limitation of the finite knowledge any one person can hold. So, yeah. Two. But that's just it: the Law's meaning changes with humanity. It grows. Where some Golden Rules glitter, this one gets up and walks around with us. And dances pretty well, too.
 
Athelwulf, Ayodhya:

People commit actions in hopes of getting away with it. The only way to stop them is to show them that they are not given such immunity.

Others may start, but one ought to finish.
 
Prince_James said:
Others may start, but one ought to finish.
Click to expand...

The question is: how do you finish?
Is punching someone because someone punched you the correct way to handle the problem?

This is not in an accusing tone. More or less, I think it is interesting application to our daily lives to think about this matter.
 
Ayodhya:

Is punching someone because someone punched you the correct way to handle the problem?
Click to expand...

In many (perhaps most) instances, yes. However, certain circumstances might suggest other means of dealing with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top