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: Solon who wrote (35272)	10/23/2001 7:18:51 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 82486

A lot to respond to here. I don't have the time to respond to all of it now but I will answer one or two points. It now appears to me (in light of your last post), that you are using "objective" in another of its definitions, to wit: as relating to something which exists independently of mind. Is this correct? Is it exactly correct--or will you define what it is that you do mean? Yes. That is the way I have been using the term. "...but the supreme being does not reveal them for some reason or even acts against them (which would then mean that the world was created by and evil God," It wouldn't mean that. It would mean that the opinions which you currently happen to hold about good and evil (for whichever reasons you assess them as one or the other) hapen to be incorrect. A "Supreme" Being IS Supreme. If you believe in some "objective" good which exists independently of mind, then your opinion of what is good does not matter here. In that sentance I was talking about the posibility of good and evil being independent of the supreme being. Being even idependent of the mind of God. That idea can lead to a whole series of other questions which I don't have the time to raise or anwser now. I am just clarifying what I was saying rather then really tring to answer your post. Tim

To: Solon who wrote (35272)	10/23/2001 8:26:59 PM
From: s.jennings	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

"still...there is no evidence of absolutes in the secular world of personal bias and limitation." Is it possible that evidence exists but the mind is incapable of recognizing it? The body has a type of intelligence that enables it to function. The mind has another type of intelligence that enables it to do its job, but as you say, it is limited to the realm of relativity. So, is the mind any more capable of proving or disproving the existence of absolutes than the foot is capable of proving or disproving the existence of rational thought? The events of Sept.11 gave us many stories of people who "gave no thought" to their actions. They did what they did simply because it needed doing. If thought was not the basis of their actions, then what was? Training perhaps in the case of some of the professionals but what of the civilians?Instinct? Is this the word the mind uses to explain the unexplainable? Love perhaps, in the absolute sense, not the emotional, affectionate, sense. Is it possible that we are expecting proof in the form of some mind-blowing miracle of global importance, when in fact evidence is all around us but we don't have the eyes to see it? What explains our actions when we act without thinking? What explains the actions of a young child whose mind in not yet developed enough to have created his self image and individual identity? What is their operational base for thinking? What makes us willing to give when we perceive a real need without questioning or judging? If absolutes (truth, love, beauty, god whatever) are eternal, i.e. timeless, not past or future, but in the moment, is it a coincidence that in those moments that we "give not thought", instincts seem to take over?