Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (30017)	9/28/2001 10:10:43 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

He prefers the concepts "base and noble" to the concepts "good and evil", I like that. Thank you.

To: Neocon who wrote (30017)	9/28/2001 10:12:03 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Laying aside the precise construct that Nietzsche articulates, there is something to the idea that the instinct to compete or distinguish oneself is the motor driving morality. First, we seek to distinguish ourselves from the other animals, This is not true of all cultures. Many American Indian tribes believe in the interplay between humans and animals- and some believe you can travel as an animal. So there is no wish to distinguish between, it is more a brotherhood of. I believe the Jains have a view of the brotherhood of all life as well- and do not seek to distinguish. While some cultures do want to distinguish themselves from animals, it isn't universal and this goes to prove relativism and thus dignify humanity as such. Then we seek to promote achievement within society, by rewarding those who make contributions, to a greater or lesser degree, and punishing or despising those who are useless or destructive. This statement totally depends on your definition of what is useful. In some countries holy people who travel in meditation and beg are revered above most men- what contribution are they making? You could see them as street people, and we probably would here. Again- different perception of contribution, and uselessness. This push to achieve leads to greater levels of civilization, as we raise the general level of the populace and refine our manners, build nobler domiciles and learn to eat with knives and forks, write poems celebrating great deeds and develop customs to honor the dead, and, in general, pursue the ennoblement of human life. .................. Since we are built in a similiar way, our morphology probably accounts for our similarities in thought. Our bodies all need to eat, most bodies want to procreate, and we need to sleep. We probably get our very basic ideas of what is good and what is bad from our wiring. After all, a full stomach is almost universally considered a good (althouhg not totally universally, because some people even go against this very basic "good" by constant fasting) We have other hidden wired in elemental needs (I suspect)- and on top of these we overlay the needs and desires of our society, first our society of home, second our society of status- where we are in our society, and lastly our society of culture. One could, of course, argue for some sort of "special creation" type of morality, that God made us this way so we would develop in a certain way- but then you have to wonder- so why did we all develop so differently? Why so many different religions? Why not just a choice between the right one or nothing? Why thousands (or more) of religions?