Lost lands

[edithaint]

Originally Posted by freebird

Edithaint, maybe before people developing using stones in Africa, there were advanced civilizations. Think of it this way, we sort of consider ourselves pretty advanced compared to 1000 years ago say. What if a World War 3 or a natural disaster would take place and almost everything will be wiped out? The remaining people will remember how it was before WW3, but all they could do is to tell others about it (and that's prone to subjectivity) or at maximum write it on something, but their followers will be sceptical saying it's a myth. Most of what was built will perish if not maintained, so all buildings you see now might turn into nothing as they won't be able to repair them anyway.You will have let's say 10 000 people left scattered on Planet Earth (exaggerated I know but you get the point), no electricity, no internet, no books, no cars, no phones, they will have to build their way up to technology from scratch. Eventually they will get to a point again of high tech, and sceptical say: our ancestors were not high tech, we were the first, they developed in Africa using stones (as you mentioned) which is partially true. Maybe our ancestors were having other types of technology available completely different from ours and we can't compare since we create our definitions change constantly as we advance in time about what we consider technologically advanced, maybe they were less advanced, or maybe they didn't need to be so. As Einstein said if WW3 starts the next war will be with sticks and stones. What I want to point out is that the previous scenario that I stated maybe already happened, and we are sort of in a loop, reliving the scenario nobody knows for sure and I keep an open mind on that, I don't claim to know everything just my 2 cents

And this could very well be the case. But if you dig deep enough, through every civilization, you find worms. Our ancestors -- our ULTIMATE ancestors -- were primitive. We are all still primitive.

[Altair]

Originally Posted by edithaint

Why is it all about humanity though? What about the rest of the world? We are not the world, and what harms us may benefit another. How do you know otherwise? This isn't just fatalism, this is acknowledgment of our human limits.

But if I were to say.. ''Why not help the rest of the species?'' I suspect you would say that doesn't really matter either, because you seem to take a nihilistic approach..

Concerning Plato wrote about Atlantis, it might be interesting to note that his student, Aristotle, wrote about episteme, techne, and phronesis. Yes, what harms one can benefit another, and we are limited. But what were you actually saying with that..??? These are just observations. What many of us these days do a lot is just sharing those, ''nature is this or that'', forgetting that human nature is rather unique and asks additional questions..

To be human is to ask ethical questions, to know right from wrong. This is how human communities function. This is phronesis, and an essential ingredient of being human. Even the lazy person does it, even though he or she may not like to admit it, therefore any moral relativism doesn't really exist in reality ((only as a theoretical exercise, but not in practical life)) and I would also say that fatalism has no moral value for us..

[edithaint]

Originally Posted by Altair

But if I were to say.. ''Why not help the rest of the species?'' I suspect you would say that doesn't really matter either, because you seem to take a nihilistic approach..

Concerning Plato wrote about Atlantis, it might be interesting to note that his student, Aristotle, wrote about episteme, techne, and phronesis. Yes, what harms one can benefit another, and we are limited. But what were you actually saying with that..??? These are just observations. What many of us these days do a lot is just sharing those, ''nature is this or that'', forgetting that human nature is rather unique and asks additional questions..

To be human is to ask ethical questions, to know right from wrong. This is how human communities function. This is phronesis, and an essential ingredient of being human. Even the lazy person does it, even though he or she may not like to admit it, therefore any moral relativism doesn't really exist in reality ((only as a theoretical exercise, but not in practical life)) and I would also say that fatalism has no moral value for us..

No, I would respond with "How do we know we're actually helping the other species? Because they're alive, and we think that must be better than extinction?"

Sorry, but I find these labels like "nihilism" and "fatalism" to be overly reductive buzzwords used to deem a certain perspective undesirable. Kinda like how "pseudoscience" and "unscientific" is used to stifle genuine scientific inquiry. To be human is to ask many questions, and to ultimately decide for ourselves what "right" and "wrong" mean to us. Fatalism has moral value to me, as I personally find the sociocultural climate of humanitarian interventionism to be immoral. I would rather accept the world as it is than intervene in the life of another, lest they think it only fair to intervene in my life "for my own good" or whatever other patronizing platitude.

That said, I do intervene. I do help other species. Just as I help members of my own family, or even strangers who strike my fancy. Out of selfishness. At the heart of every selfless activity, which is indeed human nature, are selfish motives: because we like that person and don't want them to die, because we like polar bears and don't want them to go extinct, because the bees pollinate our food plants and we don't want to starve. If I save a worm from dehydration, it is not to save our planet, or to save worms from extintion, but to save that particular worm, give myself that warm fuzzy "do good" feeling, and hopefully benefit my garden. But these are ultimately selfish motives, and those worms could possibly even despise me for saving them. I certainly hope not though.

As for the topic at hand: I don't necessarily deny the existence of Atlantis or Lemuris. I just believe the legends of Atlantis have more to them.

[Altair]

Originally Posted by edithaint

Sorry, but I find these labels like "nihilism" and "fatalism" to be overly reductive buzzwords used to deem a certain perspective undesirable. Kinda like how "pseudoscience" and "unscientific" is used to stifle genuine scientific inquiry.

They're not ''buzzwords''. If you continue taking a disfavourable attitude towards a clear moral position in most things Edithaint, and you have a sense of ''It don't matter, everything eventually dies out, what's the point?'' then that's very much nihilism, and the recognition of such is not the selling of a buzzword..

Originally Posted by edithaint

To be human is to ask many questions, and to ultimately decide for ourselves what "right" and "wrong" mean to us.

Ultimately you do not live in a vacuum, you make your decisions based on your relation to others..

You may take a fatalist attitude as a fun theoretical position, but when you live life and someone asks for help it becomes a different matter, at least I hope that it does. I'm glad there are humanitarian interventions because it does help people. Try putting yourself in their shoes. Dare to do that..

Not every act is about selfishness, although it does play a big part in humans in general. You need to dig a little deeper to discern between pure selfishness and doing good that has no benefit to yourself necessarily. It is not as simplistic as you put it.

Originally Posted by edithaint

As for the topic at hand: I don't necessarily deny the existence of Atlantis or Lemuris. I just believe the legends of Atlantis have more to them.

In what sort of way..?

[edithaint]

Originally Posted by Altair

They're not ''buzzwords''. If you continue taking a disfavourable attitude towards a clear moral position in most things Edithaint, and you have a sense of ''It don't matter, everything eventually dies out, what's the point?'' then that's very much nihilism, and the recognition of such is not the selling of a buzzword..



Ultimately you do not live in a vacuum, you make your decisions based on your relation to others..

You may take a fatalist attitude as a fun theoretical position, but when you live life and someone asks for help it becomes a different matter, at least I hope that it does. I'm glad there are humanitarian interventions because it does help people. Try putting yourself in their shoes. Dare to do that..

Not every act is about selfishness, although it does play a big part in humans in general. You need to dig a little deeper to discern between pure selfishness and doing good that has no benefit to yourself necessarily. It is not as simplistic as you put it.



In what sort of way..?

I do indeed have a moral position: it is selfish to intervene in the lives of others, especially against their explicit will, but also nigh impossible not to. Aliens included. Thus, the most moral action (from my perspective) is to limit outside intervention, attempting to aid only your close family and immediate community. Those whom you have the most relation to. Those in your backyard, not in some "backwards" community a thousand miles away. And it is still selfish; there is no good that has no benefit to yourself, otherwise you would not do it. At the very least, you get that good feeling of helping another. There is no "pure" selfishness though.

I don't respond disfavorably to the concept of clear personal morals. I disagree with objective morals, the premise that our little questioning human brains could even comprehend a code of universal right or wrong, or that our preoccupation with what is "good for humanity" is not selfish, arrogant, and ignorant of whatever "bigger picture" our human woes may be an important part of. Of course it is. But there is nothing inherently wrong with our anthropocentric messiah complex, nor is there nothing wrong with denying it. It just (selfishly) frustrates me when people fail to see my perspective.

What you perceive as my fatalism or nihilism could be more appropriately defined as an isolationist protective mechanism. Of course I have my own moral stance, and I help those in need when I choose, inherently selfish as it may be. But I would rather someone think me amoral, fatalistic, nihilistic, etc and practice what may be the opposite of the Golden Rule: do NOT treat me how you would like to be treated, because we probably have quite different values. I have been in the shoes of both the helper and the helped. My conclusion? I would rather bandage a friend than stab a stranger, unless stabbing that stranger would prevent me needing to bandage my friend, and I would rather myself be stabbed by a friend than bandaged by a stranger. My morals certainly exist, but humanitarian (and most environmentalist) action goes against those morals by sheer nature of being too nosy.

As for Atlantis, the legend is much older. At least from our perspective of linear spacetime. I tend to lump Lemuria together with many other new-fangled beliefs I find personally distateful, which is probably uncalled for yet I suppose these beliefs all exist for reason. Or they simply would not. But other than that greater historical mention, my opinions on Atlantis and Lemuria would take up too much time and energy right now. My husband and I have errands to run, I have milk to drink, and this lovely migraine flared up around that "humanitarian intervention" bit. I'll have to elaborate later.

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by Altair

Help create that world..? It doesn’t have to be a mental imagination..
Spirituality is one way, but in day-to-day life we can all do small and great things..

This is why atheists tend to be better equipped to do it because they don’t *wait* for dreams and paradise.. I am no atheist but I believe this is something we can all learn.. to take matters into our own hands. Ancient ‘pagans’ did it as well, even if offerings didn’t go well. With Christianity and Islam came a sense of fatalism.. “Guys, lets just wait for God to fix things!” We changed our attitudes again after the churches slowly lost control..

I too long for a better world but I don’t see the use in just imagining it..
If we want that world we have to make it and be the change..

A week ago on here, I posted a short commercial from Thailand, called "Unsung Hero", all about a good Samaritan doing acts of charity out of the kindness of his heart, just to show others how such a world could start being created.

One person said that this was the way people should be living and put that ad in her signature...

Two people said it was "inspirational" but it was only just an advertisement and should not be taken seriously.

Three people said that it was just idealistic propaganda because if you even tried to be kind to anybody, you would end up with a knife in your back.

This simple, innocent commercial, posted from the love out of my heart was then complained about and staff locked the thread.

And this all happened on a "Spiritual" forum!

It is also what happened the last time I tried to "change the world" so I can see why the majority of people do not...the world just does not WANT to change!

From that experience, I turned from a person who was willing to be kind and help others, to a "why bother"? and I have this forum to thank for that.

[Altair]

Originally Posted by Edithaint

I don't respond disfavorably to the concept of clear personal morals. I disagree with objective morals, the premise that our little questioning human brains could even comprehend a code of universal right or wrong, or that our preoccupation with what is "good for humanity" is not selfish, arrogant, and ignorant of whatever "bigger picture" our human woes may be an important part of. Of course it is. But there is nothing inherently wrong with our anthropocentric messiah complex, nor is there nothing wrong with denying it. It just (selfishly) frustrates me when people fail to see my perspective. What you perceive as my fatalism or nihilism could be more appropriately defined as an isolationist protective mechanism. Of course I have my own moral stance, and I help those in need when I choose, inherently selfish as it may be. But I would rather someone think me amoral, fatalistic, nihilistic, etc and practice what may be the opposite of the Golden Rule: do NOT treat me how you would like to be treated, because we probably have quite different values. I have been in the shoes of both the helper and the helped. My conclusion? I would rather bandage a friend than stab a stranger, unless stabbing that stranger would prevent me needing to bandage my friend, and I would rather myself be stabbed by a friend than bandaged by a stranger. My morals certainly exist, but humanitarian (and most environmentalist) action goes against those morals by sheer nature of being too nosy.

Needless to say, and Edithaint, truly with respect, but I find that you display a bit of a lack of understanding here. Helping a ''friend in need'' than a stranger is not the point I was making, and a false dichotomy as well. It's not either/or. You are calling humanitarian action ''nosy'' and ''selfish'' and therefore concluding that it is unnecessary is bizarre. I'm glad there are people out there who think differently, whether it's helping those in poverty, the sick, or protecting those from an invading force. This is what I say when I mention you should dare to put yourself in their shoes. It's easy to statements in favour of non-action and fatalism online, but out there, in the real world it doesn't work like that..

Everything is interconnected, and so is human action. Nothing in our world exists in a vacuum, you may entertain the idea of keeping things ''little'', just you and the ones close to you, and nothing beyond the garden's wall, but every action you take will inevitably have consequences to the larger context, small as they may be. That is true for all of us. You are sort of talking like the fisherman who won't fish any less in a depleted lake because ''nobody else does ((a perception)) so I can continue doing what I do, why bother? It's only about me.'' The fisherman forgets the importance of human agency and that his perceived ''no moral position'' is already a position with impact.

To not take the larger context into consideration is intellectually lazy and irresponsible of us, and it makes any ''discussion'' a bit of an impractical thing because it's the easy way out. Whether we want to or not, we already have an impact on bigger contexts than our own garden and family, irregardless of whether we deem that important or not. We already act in the larger context, although we may choose to look the other way. Looking the other way makes a discussion or conversation about it rather non-engaging, because what you are basically saying ''I don't care at all''. However you do feel the need to talk about it with strangers, which is kind of ironic.


@Shivani; I'll just say one person on the internet isn't the world, and more people gave you their support than went against you. Time perhaps to turn your thinking mind around and look for validation of support instead of validation for non-support.

[freebird]

Originally Posted by Altair

Everything is interconnected, and so is human action. Nothing in our world exists in a vacuum, you may entertain the idea of keeping things ''little'', just you and the ones close to you, and nothing beyond the garden's wall, but every action you take will inevitably have consequences to the larger context, small as they may be. That is true for all of us. You are sort of talking like the fisherman who won't fish any less in a depleted lake because ''nobody else does ((a perception)) so I can continue doing what I do, why bother? It's only about me.'' The fisherman forgets the importance of human agency and that his perceived ''no moral position'' is already a position with impact.

Everything is interconnected, and so is human action - True, even something mundane as a barber's action can influence a person's life. How? The person has a job interview say, goes to a barber and the barber makes a mistake such as leaving holes on the person's scalp. That person goes to the job interview and is rejected (the employer judging him or her because of the looks), and that's how the person got depressed and ended up committing suicide and his death impacts his family and friends, and the shockwave propagates further at their working place, and even daily interaction and so on. Maybe I exaggerated a little, but I wanted to point out that every singe no matter how little impacts everyone, not just people, animals, plants but the whole world. It's futile until we don't take action in the real world and not the virtual one

[Altair]

Originally Posted by freebird

Everything is interconnected, and so is human action - True, even something mundane as a barber's action can influence a person's life. How? The person has a job interview say, goes to a barber and the barber makes a mistake such as leaving hole patches on the person's scalp. That person goes to the job interview and is rejected (the employer judging him or her because of the looks), and that's how the person got depressed and ended up committing suicide and his death impacts his family and friends, and the shockwave propagates further and so on. Maybe I exaggerated a little, but I wanted to point out that every singe no matter how little impacts everyone, not just people, animals, plants but the whole world. It's futile until we don't take action in the real world and not the virtual one

I don't think you can ever exaggerate here. There are always additional effects and multipliers! :>

It's also true when we are mostly concerned with our own place and those we love. If you use pesticides in the garden to get rid of insects it means the species will become dependent on liveability of other gardens for survival. If enough people follow your example the species will locally go extinct..

This is all a human choice. We are in a very precarious and responsible position, whether we 'like' that or not. This is why I say nobody can ever take a non-position as even doing 'nothing', or perceiving that you do nothing, will have impact on others. Sometimes that can even be beneficial, think about meditating in a forest quietly, instead of making noise and cycling through it. The simple truth is that there are no real walls. We may choose to create walls and choose to not look beyond the wall, but whatever we do, action or non-action, will have an impact..

So back to Atlantis maybe... I apologise for the off-topicness..

Perhaps Atlantis was dealing with 'similar' issues. I don't recall, but I'll have to read Plato again. I have read over the years, from other sources, that ''Atlanteans'' were a civilization that went careless and irresponsible. It has also been a theme that is really coming back in a lot of fiction..! Take Tolkien's Numenoreans, or Elven species in other works of fantasy, etc. They're all supposed to be the Atlanteans that fell from grace because they got careless and egoistic, eventually spelling their own doom. It’s a common “trope” in fiction, lol..

[Shivani Devi]

@Altair

You are correct, the internet in no way represents the 'real world' whatsoever.

I just returned from half a day of seeing a new behavioural psychologist who seems promising.

She is starting a process with me called "Compassion Focused Therapy" and has put me in touch with a professor Paul Gilbert.
http://cbttraining.com.au/workshops/...cused-therapy/

I have just started studying Meng-Wu.

Things seem to be finally looking up after many years lost in the wilderness of the www.

...and by the way...there is no such word as "irregardless". =)