Aardvark
angelman
CB100
Geoffrey Collier
LilyThePink
Marilyn
Road Hog
ron
Steve Morson
Other (Who?)
I am getting fuzzy about this .. is this about conscience ?.. because except for damaged people, I believe we are born with the capacity to feel guilt through our conscience.. many over-ride this due to various factors, but I think it is mostly the norm.
Pronunciation:/ˈkɒnʃ(ə)ns/
noun
- a person’s moral sense of right and wrong, viewed as acting as a guide to one’s behaviour:he had a guilty conscience about his desires
Last edited by Marilyn; 14-04-2012 at 07:49 PM.
Why not actually read Dee-Dee's post that I quoted in #289?Originally Posted by Besoeker
Or are you again being selective in what you attend to?
....................
Yes. I ignored your point about sweet wrappers.
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
It's just life. Things happen, people die, you make mistakes. It is a tragic universe filled with suffering that we live in because we cannot control everything. What we can control we can make mistakes about or just fail to influence. After a few experiences of this kind the human, like the animal, understands that it is not a perfect bubble and we are not expected to be anything at all. We make for ourselves what we think we should be. Inside of that we sometimes set standards that are impossible to maintain and we aren't always able to forgive ourselves for what we imagine are our trespasses against that standard. But everything fails eventually, everything dies, and if there are winners then there also have to be "losers", but these are just those who didn't get there first or succeed at some implemented standard or goal.
I have found, over a lifetime of trying to understand the seemingly inherent wickedness and spite in the human being that it is not something anyone can alter. The decent ones are born and not made and trying to remake some humans is like trying to remake the universe. This inherent negativity is what makes our existence imperfect and so we shall never be able to be as good as we feel we should be at what we feel we must be because the nature of our existence is that everything that comes into being gets eroded out of being in a number of different ways. This is possibly why we admire heroes and survivors and why we have implemented standards to live by and excel at. This makes of us a rather unique species because we question our world whereas those with no language simply accept it.
Suffering makes the universe transparent is the Buddhist belief and the Christian belief is that suffering makes the passage out of it a kind of badge of honour. Socialists have tried to relieve suffering but they are like people trying to stop the sea from rushing to shore. It is a noble enterprise and should be continued but no one should lose sight of the fact that our universe has a certain nature and operates in a certain way and that way and that nature are wild and chaotic and creative and destructive and the entire system seems wrapped into a struggle of forces so much greater than anything imaginable that when a single human thinks he or she may be responsible for an accident because he or she may not have been vigilant enough we see how sensitive and intelligent the human can be but how futile is our constant struggle against the sheer power of our matrix.
"Guilt" is for me what it is maybe also for someone like Northumbrian. Maybe it is our Anglo-Saxon heritage and genetics that makes us characteristically resigned to the way things are and disinterested in finding reasons why we might be responsible for what we cannot be responsible for. The Germanics are a very rational and pessimistic sort of human. For us, there is only what is and we have to make the best of what is rather than try to change what is. We do not seem to believe that vast changes are possible or perhaps worthwhile as the universe is so huge and we are a part of it. Under our atmosphere, where we imagine we are in some god bubble and everything is designed and planned, we merely fool ourselves that we can be as "god" and design and plan. But all that is designed and planned will end up eroding in the wind of time. Ancient Christians understood this well and it is only in recent evangelical manifestations of this creed that the hysteria and the bullsh*t of "miracles" and "blind belief" has become a feature of what is now a rather stupidly impractical cult on one hand and an ideology of secular liberalism on the other. The priests who had a skull on their desks understood that we are mortal and that anything we make better be good and decent because the only way it can endure beyond the life of the maker is for it to be carried on and preserved by those who live on after him or her. I suspect the old priests got this idea from their even more ancient Celtic and Germanic forebears who almost certainly felt the same way.
I don't know why some of us prefer to be decent and to help or make things better where we can and are capable of minding our own business where we should. I think this is genetic as it seems capable and eager to override belief. I think the busybody, interfering annoying manifestation of the modern western democracy botherer is quite recent and relates to an hysteria connected with materialistic control and prolonging life on earth beyond its reasonable and natural conclusion in good old fashioned death.
I lost my mother when she was only 48 and I was only 8 years old. I was already carrying a weight of experience and so her sudden disappearance from my life meant I had to do something about understanding this world and its often nasty inhabitants on my own and fighting my enemies with whatever little defences I could build in myself. It taught me a lot and I came across only relatively few good souls. I came across many nasty people and I learned that when you are young, weak, or poor, a minority, a politically oppressed group or just unlucky you are thrown into an arena of challenge that is not the experience of others who have advantages. Instead of helping they try to take away what you have and they will bully you, harass you and humiliate you until you feel you cannot go on. You have no defences like they do. They want you to join them or else. If you don't you become an enemy of sorts. So you come to a cross road and you either fight or you succumb. I decided to fight. As I matured I had many more nasty experiences permeated by those few shining lights among an otherwise rather murky species of selfish, pompous self appointed bigots and so I have arrived at my present view that humanity is not worth the paper it writes its own eulogies on. It has twisted its invented religions to suit itself and it still hammers anyone who doesn't approve or obey unconditionally its petty, stupid transient wishes while the universe scours us to shreds and we ignore the reality of our destinies in the tomb.
So, no, I have no guilt. Others in my life certainly do, and I am sure many reading this will be nodding and thinking of their own lives and experiences which will certainly be filled with similar events. Others will say they believe in God and that they have always had a great time on planet earth and been surrounded with hordes of fabulous folks and miraculous occurrences. Good for them. They are naive if they think this of life but they are lucky if they haven't been cast out of paradise to exist in those fields alongside Adam and Eve. This shouldn't make one bitter or disillusioned, though. Not as far as the universe is concerned. "Guilt" is a man made idea formulated from genuine remorse which is a human emotion of the decent individual. No matter what happens to you you must never allow what is manufactured by humans and their lunatic wish to be somehow special and have believed their own lies about themselves, to alter a more balanced view of existence, and indeed of humanity. Nothing is sacred unless one attaches special status to it. Everything erodes and dies and is recycled. Not all things return in the same shape they left. Once there were great reptiles wandering our world and now there are humans sprawling all over it and befouling its beauty and murdering its future. These too will pass away and become history. There may be no one left to record it or preserve it so people should consider this while they are engaged in the guilt business. The greatest responsibility they have is not to destroy what they have. I don't see them heeding this. Some always do and they may survive but what will be their heritage?
Does anyone feel in any way "guilty" about this terrible and dangerous situation brought about solely by human folly? If you listen you will hear a huge silence. "Guilt" for humans consists of whether or not they "did the right thing" and doing the right thing depends on some bullsh*t creed invented either by religious or by ideological plotters to control the way we think. The moment genuine remorse is felt for the unmitigated slaughter we engage in and the unimaginable destruction we wreak on the earth and its hapless animal, bird and plant life, there might be someone somewhere who begins to feel responsible to the point where he or she may consider that humanity is out of control, overpopulated and heading for the dustbin. And that humanity is taking earth as we know it with it. People prefer, however to continue to look up and seek "God" and to indulge in his guilt factory of manufactured sins. The real sins are studiously ignored and so the bodies and the statistics pile up of our unspeakable destructiveness and hubris and our unwillingness to look at ourselves as we are and not as we wish to see ourselves.
No wonder people used to leave the world and go and live in monasteries. No wonder the hippies "dropped out". They didn't want to look at the nightmare any more. They sought peace and harmony and true spirituality where none was permitted to exist. Their monasteries and enclaves are in ruins today. Nothing ecapes time and nothing escapes the rampaging onslaught of humanity's surge to live beyond its means.
Last edited by Dee-Dee; 15-04-2012 at 06:54 AM.
Why not explain further Mr Rob, because I am confused as we seem to be talking at cross purposes here .. I definitely don't belong on this ruddy poll .. (Matronnnnnn :-b )
I hold no guilt at all about e.g. slavery, war, the terrible actions of others because I took no part in any of it. I would definitely hold guilt for example if I caused upset to people I love, or an accident to anyone.. I drive very defensively, because if I hit someone through driving negligently I know I would be overcome with guilt via my conscience. I believe we are born with a inner conscience template of knowing right from wrong, & having empathy & compassion and thus capacity for feeling guilt as well ... For far too many that template is damaged, inadequate or missing. So, I think its already there in normal people to be developed by life, but it can also be wiped out as well by events.
Last edited by Marilyn; 15-04-2012 at 06:57 AM.
Would rep you, but can't. If you caused an accident by accident you would feel remorse. You wouldn't be "guilty" because you don't do anything to harm. You might be held responsible but that doesn't make you "guilty". If you are a homcidal maniac who drives too fast and collides with a child or a dog because all you can see is yourself and your juvenile wish to go as fast as you like then you will be "guilty". And only then.
Then remorse and guilt are being conflated here ? .. no wonder I am confused.Would rep you, but can't. If you caused an accident by accident you would feel remorse. You wouldn't be "guilty" because you don't do anything to harm. You might be held responsible but that doesn't make you "guilty". If you are a homcidal maniac who drives too fast and collides with a child or a dog because all you can see is yourself and your juvenile wish to go as fast as you like then you will be "guilty". And only then.
Just from a philosophical perspective, may I offer this?:
"Metaphysically and psychologically, guilt is the opposite of remorse. Guilt is founded on the illusory premise that we should have and could have acted differently in this or that situation, with this or that person or in the light of this or that ideal. Remorse, on the other hand, is rooted in the objective perception that it is the state of our being that has been revealed, that this is what we are—contrary to what we have believed about our moral capacities.
In guilt we may vow to do better—which is often a way the ego has of "quarantining" the momentary impression of deep-seated moral incapacity and preventing it from entering into us as truth. Remorse, on the other hand, brings with it no external or internal promises to do anything, but only the profoundly sorrowful acceptance of what we are, together with the physical and metaphysical relaxation of the ego's condition of tension, a relaxation that opens the heart and the body to receive a new quality of attention—an attention, or conscious energy, that in the Eastern Orthodox tradition has been called "the attention that comes from God."
It is imperative that we study this difference in ourselves, for it is such emotions as guilt and fear, with their reflexes of self-pity and anger, that arise in us with such force outside the theater of the mind, in the 'streets' of our everyday life; it is such emotions that we need to understand if there is to be any hope of manifesting in our actions the good that we discover in ourselves - even if it be only in "the theater of the mind"—when we try to touch or sustain in ourselves the power to love, which is the ultimate basis of all ethical action and principles."
Works for me.
Steve
Excellent. The philosophical perspective deals not only with definitions but also with concepts. Philosophy needs definitions so as to avoid illegitimate abstractions and category mistakes but it is a rational pursuit and so deals mainly with concepts. I am no longer in that field of study but it did teach me how to think.Just from a philosophical perspective, may I offer this?:
"Metaphysically and psychologically, guilt is the opposite of remorse. Guilt is founded on the illusory premise that we should have and could have acted differently in this or that situation, with this or that person or in the light of this or that ideal. Remorse, on the other hand, is rooted in the objective perception that it is the state of our being that has been revealed, that this is what we are—contrary to what we have believed about our moral capacities.
In guilt we may vow to do better—which is often a way the ego has of "quarantining" the momentary impression of deep-seated moral incapacity and preventing it from entering into us as truth. Remorse, on the other hand, brings with it no external or internal promises to do anything, but only the profoundly sorrowful acceptance of what we are, together with the physical and metaphysical relaxation of the ego's condition of tension, a relaxation that opens the heart and the body to receive a new quality of attention—an attention, or conscious energy, that in the Eastern Orthodox tradition has been called "the attention that comes from God."
It is imperative that we study this difference in ourselves, for it is such emotions as guilt and fear, with their reflexes of self-pity and anger, that arise in us with such force outside the theater of the mind, in the 'streets' of our everyday life; it is such emotions that we need to understand if there is to be any hope of manifesting in our actions the good that we discover in ourselves - even if it be only in "the theater of the mind"—when we try to touch or sustain in ourselves the power to love, which is the ultimate basis of all ethical action and principles."
Works for me.
One thing I would debate is the concept of "love". I do not believe this is well placed in some views. Humans do not seek to "love" when they seek to understand or discover or learn. Or, perhaps, they should not seek to do this because "love" is an emotion and differs within the eye of each beholder, much like "beauty" and "truth" and all the other concepts we abstract in order to try and make sense of the world and ourselves.
I do not, personally, think "love" is at the centre of ethics. I think justice and honorable dealing are. I think these are concepts that motivate the advanced human's desire to deal fairly with what he or she discovers or knows. I do not wish to "love" the criminal in the dock. I wish him or her to be treated fairly in the same way I wish those he or she has harmed to be understood in their need for resolution and perhaps punishment for any deed committed against them or those they love. I don't think "love" has anything to do with it. Love is an emotion one might feel that is the antithesis of "hate". I do notice that busy modern social engineers have this antithesis at the centre of their ideology. If you don't agree with them you become a "hater". It rolls off their tongues too easily and so I have to presume it has become a stock in trade phrase and belief component rather than a useful tool to engage with what is.
I place this love-hate dichotomy at the root of religious ethics. I would replace it in my own ethics with understanding and opinion. I may detest something or approve of it or even like it but only after I have understood it, comprehended its nature and found a suitable place for it on the shelf of what is and within my own ethical system. So I may understand a psycho has just murdered six people because he is mentally deranged but I will not feel any urge to "love" the b*st*rd or necessarily treat him badly. Instead I would wish to see him removed from society where he can never repeat his crimes. How that removal is carried out is another philosophical and ethical conundrum. Also an issue where love and hate have no reference if one wants to remain rational about what is.
Last edited by Dee-Dee; 15-04-2012 at 08:21 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks