Donnadogsoth Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 Consider these two paradoxes. 1.From a Christian perspective, should we pursue Heaven or should we work to develop the world? 2.From a Classical humanist perspective, should we pursue pleasure or should we work to develop the world? To the first, it appears that they are one in the same: we should act in such a way as to develop the world, which, if we are sincere, will lead to Heaven. To the second, it appears that they are incompatible. However, if the individual can educate his emotions just so, he can find developing the world to be a pleasure. Thus, pursuing Heaven and pursuing pleasure converge in terms of developing the world. Ergo, we have reason to refer to Christianity (and all religion) in terms of world development, and to educate our emotions such that we promote such development. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siegfried von Walheim Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 Yes. I think this makes sense. Someone who enjoys being good is all-around a great guy--not only does him doing good enrich the world, it enriches himself. Someone who's evil can be made to act good (or at least decent) with the fear of damnation while someone who's predisposed towards neither good nor evil can be convinced to be good for the sake of feeling gratified for doing good. A practical and personal example: I want to build a family, and in the long run, a dynasty. Therefore anything I do that makes myself a wealthier man as well as a man more desirable to good women (which is needed to make a good family, which is needed to inspire a good dynasty/extended family) makes me happier because I feel progress towards achieving that goal. I think the problem is that only the K selected can be made to feel this pleasure. The r selected might be convertible--I don't know--but I do know there are people who start off one way and become the other. I suppose if I wanted to convince an r to be K, I'd look for any K leanings as well as ways being K can satisfy r desires, and hope the guy can make the decision himself to transition into being a K. However genes might get in the way of free will. I don't know for sure. I think that's an important variable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barn Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 Hi @Siegfried von Walheim On 11/12/2017 at 6:27 AM, Siegfried von Walheim said: I think the problem is that only the K selected can be made to feel this pleasure. The r selected might be convertible--I don't know--but I do know there are people who start off one way and become the other. I suppose if I wanted to convince an r to be K, I'd look for any K leanings as well as ways being K can satisfy r desires, and hope the guy can make the decision himself to transition into being a K. However genes might get in the way of free will. I don't know for sure. I think that's an important variable. When the possibility of upward mobility in terms of r/K ('r' really) comes up I can't help but get reminded of similar challenges people wishing to solve at the issue of life choices & I.Q. correlation down to seemingly the 'immovable object vs. irresistible force' paradox. So far, no one could 'engineer/find a design for a bridge with sufficient reach, enough'. [non argument, but may I add.. 'F' determinism!] I've only seen K deterioration, repressed K regeneration (my line of thinking at the second one, if it requires gradual counterforce = escalation, it has to be evidence of a strong property, not a transition, hence the clue). 'r' conversion? Seriously doubt it. Sort of a square circle... I want to be wrong, though. Discard hope, has nothing to do with it, 'F' determinism. One day someone will figure it out... or not. Simbolically or not, I can't be a Christian as of yet (don't think of futures) and don't care for it, even if by bettering oneself that means it's a net benefit for the Christians included. Aren't we sharing constituting, life giving whatever? It's only logical to start with the care and respect that prevents destruction. (=be smart, or accept being threatened by others) Can be called humility or short sightedness, whatever... Guess if heaven existed, it won't become a worse place when some of us works harder regardless of believing or not & whether it made any difference. I never considered negative motivation / untangible goals efficient anyway(=sustainable). I'm repeating but with a twist... We stopped being born a long time ago. What if there's the '0' ahead of us, ever closer? Barnsley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siegfried von Walheim Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 29 minutes ago, barn said: Hi @Siegfried von Walheim When the possibility of upward mobility in terms of r/K ('r' really) comes up I can't help but get reminded of similar challenges people wishing to solve at the issue of life choices & I.Q. correlation down to seemingly the 'immovable object vs. irresistible force' paradox. So far, no one could 'engineer/find a design for a bridge with sufficient reach, enough'. [non argument, but may I add.. 'F' determinism!] I've only seen K deterioration, repressed K regeneration (my line of thinking at the second one, if it requires gradual counterforce = escalation, it has to be evidence of a strong property, not a transition, hence the clue). 'r' conversion? Seriously doubt it. Sort of a square circle... I want to be wrong, though. Discard hope, has nothing to do with it, 'F' determinism. One day someone will figure it out... or not. Simbolically or not, I can't be a Christian as of yet (don't think of futures) and don't care for it, even if by bettering oneself that means it's a net benefit for the Christians included. Aren't we sharing constituting, life giving whatever? It's only logical to start with the care and respect that prevents destruction. (=be smart, or accept being threatened by others) Can be called humility or short sightedness, whatever... Guess if heaven existed, it won't become a worse place when some of us works harder regardless of believing or not & whether it made any difference. I never considered negative motivation / untangible goals efficient anyway(=sustainable). I'm repeating but with a twist... We stopped being born a long time ago. What if there's the '0' ahead of us, ever closer? Barnsley If I understand you correctly, you're saying r's go dormant and take orders under K rule, not convert to K, right? I suppose that's true but under K rule the Ks gradually outnumber the r's to the point where if it wasn't for the welfare-warfare state the r's might have become so tiny as to cease to exist. Everyone has tendencies towards both directions however, hence why I think transition is possible though rare. I don't understand the Christian/atheist ramblings--are you saying you're an r and you find the future not worth living for? All right, if that's the case, then eventually you'll be forced to suffer the consequences at some point. I don't really care since I don't plan on waiting for the world to burn when I can move to another one (like Russia) and I have no power to stop rabbits from being rabbits, nor would I really want to if I could since I'd rather rabbits make themselves extinct rather than drag down the kangaroos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barn Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 Hi @Siegfried von Walheim 19 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim said: If I understand you correctly, you're saying r's go dormant and take orders under K rule, not convert to K, right? No you aren't. I meant 19 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim said: I've only seen K deterioration, repressed K regeneration (my line of thinking at the second one, if it requires gradual counterforce = escalation, it has to be evidence of a strong property, not a transition, hence the clue). Those are two things, right?! 19 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim said: the Ks gradually outnumber the r's to the point where if it wasn't for the welfare-warfare state the r's might have become so tiny as to cease to exist. Yeah, I can follow you. It's an interesting hypothetical you are proposing. Don't know if it's possible. 19 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim said: Everyone has tendencies towards both directions however, hence why I think transition is possible though rare. Sure, but the question is how much. As in, a strong feminist leaning individual has the (quite tiny) tendency towards rationality but I would not hesitate to place my bet on anyone else. 'Hell's the chance to freeze over too, right?!' Probabilities matter a great deal. 19 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim said: are you saying you're an r and you find the future not worth living for? Hmm, not sure what you are going for here but your imagination is commendable. 19 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim said: I don't really care since I don't plan on waiting for the world to burn when I can move to another one (like Russia) Hopefully the world won't burn, perhaps get scorched a bit. If you feel that's the way for you, 'God speed!' & more power to you in moving. Wish you find your calculations! Barnsley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts