Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
XenoFish

Pointlessness of Religion

2,605 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Leonardo

I completely agree with the first half of your post.

And with the your last paragraph, I see religion as an unnecessary overlord of human freedoms and ideals, as well, but I am saying that human nature has weaknesses, which religion and politics capitalize on, and I am saying that religion and politics are humanistic in their origin, in other words they see themselves capable of self rule, and leadership over others.

If human nature was perfect, then of course it would work globally. There would be no need for authority or police.

In which case we agree with the topic.

Unless, even though men are deemed equal, they still have to have organization which involves hierarchy. What are you thoughts on that?

That's where the Golden Rule applies. People can be different yet still equal, and that is the basis of acceding to the wisdom of that Rule. It doesn't matter what social station anyone occupies we are all still human beings.

That is what the Golden Rule is all about - recognition of our common humanity. It doesn't really have anything to do with idealism.

Edited by Leonardo
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Starhunter

That's where the Golden Rule applies. People can be different yet still equal, and that is the basis of acceding to the wisdom of that Rule. It doesn't matter what social station anyone occupies we are all still human beings.

That is what the Golden Rule is all about - recognition of our common humanity. It doesn't really have anything to do with idealism.

When people lean on this golden rule thing as if it were wholly part of their own nature, they will make comments like "If only we could all get along,"- "one big happy family." And then point the finger at some place of trouble in the world as a sample of what happens if we don't "all get along."

I bet that if they were in the same situation as those under scrutiny they would be fighting too.

This self induced notion that people have about their natural inherent goodness, is a little bit naive and self sufficient.

If it were true then why the evil?

Can we blame religion/politics? Yes.

Are they not part of history and today's society?

Are they not human institutions?

What about revolutionary France the crownless movement of the people? One of the bloodiest times in history?

No Government, no church, yet full on chaos. The executioners and crowds were so enraged and confused that they lopped off the heads of their own type as well.

Is the golden rule really human or Divine in origin?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

When people lean on this golden rule thing as if it were wholly part of their own nature, they will make comments like "If only we could all get along,"- "one big happy family." And then point the finger at some place of trouble in the world as a sample of what happens if we don't "all get along."

I bet that if they were in the same situation as those under scrutiny they would be fighting too.

This self induced notion that people have about their natural inherent goodness, is a little bit naive and self sufficient.

If it were true then why the evil?

Can we blame religion/politics? Yes.

Are they not part of history and today's society?

Are they not human institutions?

What about revolutionary France the crownless movement of the people? One of the bloodiest times in history?

No Government, no church, yet full on chaos. The executioners and crowds were so enraged and confused that they lopped off the heads of their own type as well.

Is the golden rule really human or Divine in origin?

The Golden Rule does not have any authority of it's own. It is not an 'entity' able to exert some force of authority - so I don't see why you are arguing what you are?

Of course that Rule needs to be implemented by humans to be effective and, yes, there are conditions/situations where passion overrules reason and the Rule is all but forgotten. But is it not true that there can be no Rule without exceptions?

The Rule is entirely human in origin precisely because it has no 'power' of its own, but must be enacted to have any effect. It requires the exercising of human Reason to be enacted which, if it had some divine origin, would not be necessary.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

If your attempting to live by the golden rule, your making an effort to control yourself. Living by your own code. Not all conflicts have to come to violence. Not everyone is the same and some people are born "evil" while other choose to become this way. Some people are natural good or choose to become this way. This world will never be at peace sadly. However I choose to at least have a positive and production impact while I'm alive.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright

I think the point was brought up about how some religious use it to absolve personal responsibility. I think so too, at some level. Then the point of relying on religion so not to take the responsibility of the work themselves (am I getting this part right? ), and expecting their belief system to take over. And I'm thinking, that could be.

Then I think of myself, and wonder if I am guilty of that. I think, that maybe I am. But, there are times I feel life itself is pointless. If I have some form of clinical depression or some form of something similar, that also could be, but to what I feel of life, I wonder how I could go on. I think of what I could do, to achieve what I think I want from life, all by myself. I think I can't. Do I rely on my belief? I think I do. :o

Here's the thing, I think my belief system saves me from the pointlessness of life sometimes. I think it guides me to do what I should take responsibility for, so I do the work to achieve what I want from it. At the same time, it guides me into the right way of thinking, when working at my own things in life, so I have the enthusiasm to continue. I think it also guides me in taking responsibility for my own life, and taking away the pointlessness of it and leaving me feeling satisfied instead.

Is tise hard to believe for some people? I think so. Is it me hiding behind it? That is what got me thinking, while reading some of the posts here. I think then I use it to be human, if that makes sense.

I will always think it's up to every individual to be a part of humanity in a healthy way, with what guides them. I think that is important. I think it can be done to a non-believer and a believer, to which 'tools' they need. I don't think we should be judging anyone on that. I guess, maybe this is part of another old adage, there is a reason for everything. *shrugs*

This could be me, but I thought the OP was about there were feelings connected to thinking how pointless religion was to their point of view. Reading on, I realize there was no pointlessness for the state of being. It was a reasoning for the rest of us. I'm sure that doesn't mean we all should feel that.

Be happy for what they and what we have. Just understand, one man's gem, is another man's rock. ;)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Starhunter

The Golden Rule does not have any authority of it's own. It is not an 'entity' able to exert some force of authority - so I don't see why you are arguing what you are?

Of course that Rule needs to be implemented by humans to be effective and, yes, there are conditions/situations where passion overrules reason and the Rule is all but forgotten. But is it not true that there can be no Rule without exceptions?

The Rule is entirely human in origin precisely because it has no 'power' of its own, but must be enacted to have any effect. It requires the exercising of human Reason to be enacted which, if it had some divine origin, would not be necessary.

My main argument is if there is a golden rule which is natural to man, history proves that it does not work, and like you have pointed out it has to be enacted.

Those in Authority are either or both religious and political, because the golden rule is in the domain of morals which religions like to own, and politically, we find that the laws of not killing, stealing etc, are fundamental to life, whether it be human or other.

But since man seems to have lost his ability to be reliable when it comes to being good consistently, either as individuals or as a nation, these laws have to be enforced where needed.

Even so, too much goes unpunished.

The drive of religions is to enact the moral laws, but because they have been stripped of civil power, they use sentimentalism and fear as the tools to control.

Are religions pointless?

Well, if the authorities are religious then we would have to abide by civil law, which at the end of the day is not any better than political power.

However, careful study of world history proves that religions and ideologies of some sort are always behind political powers, it is hardly ever purely civil.

So those who say that religions are pointless are also arguing that civil laws are pointless.

You also said that if the golden rule was of Divine origin it would not be powerless?

We could say that the golden rule is love, and if God is love then it cannot be enforced to be of any Divine value.

The golden rule without love is purely conceited. It is like a partner faking it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Starhunter

If your attempting to live by the golden rule, your making an effort to control yourself. Living by your own code. Not all conflicts have to come to violence. Not everyone is the same and some people are born "evil" while other choose to become this way. Some people are natural good or choose to become this way. This world will never be at peace sadly. However I choose to at least have a positive and production impact while I'm alive.

There is no doubt that self control is necessary for order and peace of some sort.

If it is a self regulated principle alone - without any civil rule, or religious influence, then we have the people you said are born bad.

But are they bad because you don't like their ideals - their concept of what is right and wrong?

Our immediate reaction is to say that we need common sense. Common sense is what the majority think. So it's a case of the majority ruling again. And history proves that the majority can be very wrong time and time again.

What the world is saying at the moment is that the majority want peace, and they are singling out the trouble spots as 'the problem.' Remember an ideal has to have an enemy, even if it invents one - such as "the Jewish problem."

Still, the general consensus is that people want peace, and don't want crime, and they say that if we all communicate that, it should work, without religious authority or influence.

It sounds good to me, but something tells me it is another ideal which will go wrong, or is that just being pessimistic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

My main argument is if there is a golden rule which is natural to man, history proves that it does not work, and like you have pointed out it has to be enacted.

Of course the Rule works, when it is enacted. Your sentence here implies what I before accused you of regards your thinking in this respect - the Rule does not have any 'power' of its own. Your sentence above implies it does.

There are no ethical standards which have any 'power' unless enacted by those wishing to apply them.

And the Golden Rule is as natural to Humanity as is our instinct towards tribalism. Both are adapted natural behaviours.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Starhunter

Of course the Rule works, when it is enacted. Your sentence here implies what I before accused you of regards your thinking in this respect - the Rule does not have any 'power' of its own. Your sentence above implies it does.

There are no ethical standards which have any 'power' unless enacted by those wishing to apply them.

And the Golden Rule is as natural to Humanity as is our instinct towards tribalism. Both are adapted natural behaviours.

A natural instinct which has to be enacted...is that really a natural instinct, or is the enacting an instinct?

Who does the enacting if not religious and political movements?

So religion can't be pointless?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

Ugh put hand in fire, fire hurt. Ugh no hit Ogh, cause Ugh no like getting hit. I like to think of the golden rule being a part of our survival instinct. Because Ugh knew he'd get a Flintstone beat down if he did.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

A natural instinct which has to be enacted...is that really a natural instinct, or is the enacting an instinct?

Who does the enacting if not religious and political movements?

Individuals, of course.

All instincts are 'enacted'.

So religion can't be pointless?

Who needs to believe in a deity before deciding to act?

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits

Under the less grandiose moniker "tit for tat" (searchable, somestimes called T4T) this modified golden rule is surprisingly hard to do much better than FROM A SELFISH PERSPECTIVE in a variety of strategic situations:

* If I've never met you before, then I'll play nice until and unless you don't.

* If I have met you before, then I'll treat you the way you treated me last time we met..

This pair of rules leads with the usual golden rule, and if you reciprocate, then we're golden forever if you'd like. The second part says I won't be played foe a sucker, but redemption is always possible on easy terms - you just take once what you've dished out at least once. Note that "last time" really is the one last and single last time.Even if you've been a problem for our last 100 meetings, and now you play nice, you get thwapped just this once. Next time, you'll be treated nice because this time is next time's last time, and this time you played nice.

(T4T provably can be immproved upon strategically in some situations, for example, there is an obvious problem if I know that this our last meeting, and playing not nice while you play nice is advantageous. But most of the time, T4T works great, is easy to remember and easy to implement.

It is, however, "unfair." The price of redemption is the same for Genghis Khan as it is for the schmuck who needed to play a round before catching on to how we play around here. Either way, you play nice once, taking the hit of being treated nastily, and don't be nasty again, and you're all set. Turns out that "settling scores" is counterproductive from a selfish standpoint. The Buddha and Jesus said stuff like that, well, they pretended that it wasn't just shrewdly applied selfishness.)

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

Under the less grandiose moniker "tit for tat" (searchable, somestimes called T4T) this modified golden rule is surprisingly hard to do much better than FROM A SELFISH PERSPECTIVE in a variety of strategic situations:

* If I've never met you before, then I'll play nice until and unless you don't.

* If I have met you before, then I'll treat you the way you treated me last time we met..

This pair of rules leads with the usual golden rule, and if you reciprocate, then we're golden forever if you'd like. The second part says I won't be played foe a sucker, but redemption is always possible on easy terms - you just take once what you've dished out at least once. Note that "last time" really is the one last and single last time.Even if you've been a problem for our last 100 meetings, and now you play nice, you get thwapped just this once. Next time, you'll be treated nice because this time is next time's last time, and this time you played nice.

(T4T provably can be immproved upon strategically in some situations, for example, there is an obvious problem if I know that this our last meeting, and playing not nice while you play nice is advantageous. But most of the time, T4T works great, is easy to remember and easy to implement.

It is, however, "unfair." The price of redemption is the same for Genghis Khan as it is for the schmuck who needed to play a round before catching on to how we play around here. Either way, you play nice once, taking the hit of being treated nastily, and don't be nasty again, and you're all set. Turns out that "settling scores" is counterproductive from a selfish standpoint. The Buddha and Jesus said stuff like that, well, they pretended that it wasn't just shrewdly applied selfishness.)

Excellent, thought provoking post, great insight and really practical. In fact, teenagers tend to have the T4T down quite well. My teenager was just telling me today, "Mom, if so and so talks to me respectfully; I'll do the same. This is just how I am," he said. And what a great pull with Jesus and the Buddha!

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Starhunter

Individuals, of course.

All instincts are 'enacted'.

Who needs to believe in a deity before deciding to act?

You don't need the belief in a deity, all you need is a religion or a philosophy such as you are serving which is - the grand instinctual "golden rule" and the need "to enact" it, because "it is powerless" as you stated.

You say that we don't need a deity to act out the golden rule. More specifically the God of the Bible is the one targeted here.

As far as God is concerned the golden rule is not an outward action alone, but one that has to come from a genuine love for others. Otherwise it is condemned as a lie.

But if you think that the golden rule works without love, then you end up with a contrived world, pretenders and do-gooders.

Edited by Starhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

It can and obviously is argued that things like the Golden Rule come from logical selfish thinking such as tit for tat or karma (what you do tends to come back on you) and so on. I don't however notice that the proponents of things like the Golden Rule usually offer such reasoning as the reason we should follow them. Instead they are offered as axioms of goodness, not something in our personal interest, and we do them out of a desire to do what is good. Besides, often enough it is to our selfish advantage to not follow the Golden Rule, and even in society's rational advantage (such as punishing criminals, even though we would not want to be punished).

We also see examples of human kindness and generosity that goes way beyond anything that could earn reward for us -- saving beached whales, at great inconvenience and expense, or people dying (maybe or maybe not foolishly) for causes they perceive as greater than they, such as country or God.

It is in the modern "materialist" frame of mind to try to explain everything with some sort of selective advantage, including this amazingly widespread Golden Rule type of thinking, in spite of all the cultural differences from which such thinking derives. The thing is the thinking does not come from ordinary people but from what we would call religious geniuses or saints or prophets or things like that, and then gets adopted by their followers because of its inherent rationality and appeal. It took Jesus to introduce it into Abrahamic thinking, Buddha into Indian thinking, and so on. (I rush to aver that similar thoughts can be found in the OT or in Hindu teaching -- again from limited sources). Most of us are not born with the Golden Rule, we are born more selfish but with a desire to get praised. We learn if we are able.

So I have trouble saying this is an evolved instinct. It is I think instead a rational proposition derived by religious geniuses from their meditation or prayer or just reasoning that gets adopted quite widely because of its power, and biology is not involved.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

It can and obviously is argued that things like the Golden Rule come from logical selfish thinking such as tit for tat or karma (what you do tends to come back on you) and so on.

I agree with you and others that such an argument can be made, however the Golden Rule actually proposes an ethic quite different to that "tit-for-tat" proposes.

T4T proposes we should treat others as they treat us, while the Golden Rule proposes we should treat others as we wish them to treat us.

Yes, the 'selfish origin argument' for the Golden Rule is still valid, but I don't see how the argument that the Golden Rule derives from "tit-for-tat" (or vice-versa) is valid.

So I have trouble saying this is an evolved instinct.

Respectfully, I disagree. Given the probable selfish foundation for the development of the ethic outlined in the Golden Rule I can't see how it cannot be anything but an "evolved instinct". We all desire to be treated well, survive and reproduce (well, maybe not all individuals specifically desire the last but it is a natural consequence of the former two when viewed at a species level) and so the Golden Rule proves to be evolutionarily desirable as a behaviour.

Edited by Leonardo
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits

Leo

T4T proposes we should treat others as they treat us, while the Golden Rule proposes we should treat others as we wish them to treat us

I understand the confusion, but no. T4T is a term of art in the theory of cooperative games, and it is also a common English expression. I gave, said nice things about and defined the term of art, not the informal English language phrase.

The T4T rule is, on its face, a member of the strategic category where the default play is the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule played unconditionally is another member of this category. There are any number of reciprocity-based strategies that prescribe behavior that resembles the idea expressed by the English phrase "tit for tat," including some strategies that do not default to the Golden Rule, but which aren't called "Tit for Tat" in discussions of game theory.

Obviously unconditional play of the Golden Rule (UGR) has exploitable vulnerabilities that make its adoption risky unless almost all your dealings happen to be with people who reciprocate. That is interesting in itself, since it predicts that UGR encourages (ironically enough) not dealing with unconstrained strangers when that can be avoided. This might encourage group insularity and an "in group" mentality generally, which may confer survival advantages for some groups. T4T, in contrast, is "in group" neutral, but as I mentioned, it suffers from a possibly troublesome "shallow" condition for adapting to the other person's character (but less shallow than UGR's no condition at all).

A case can be made that T4T, warts and all, is "ethically better" than UGR. Nevertheless, both T4T and UGR result in identical behavior if everybody adheres to what each prescribes.

As to "derivation," I think that T4T and UGR (including the "weak" or "negative" Golden Rule - refrain from behavior you would dislike) equally derive from experience, as abstractions and heuristics. They do work sometimes, often enough to be remarked upon, People notice they work, and so people recommend using them. Religion, the cradle of "mission creep," simply markets the obvious as yet another intellectual triumph of its unseen superhero(es).

Edited by eight bits
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright

My main argument is if there is a golden rule which is natural to man, history proves that it does not work, and like you have pointed out it has to be enacted.

Those in Authority are either or both religious and political, because the golden rule is in the domain of morals which religions like to own, and politically, we find that the laws of not killing, stealing etc, are fundamental to life, whether it be human or other.

But since man seems to have lost his ability to be reliable when it comes to being good consistently, either as individuals or as a nation, these laws have to be enforced where needed.

Even so, too much goes unpunished.

The drive of religions is to enact the moral laws, but because they have been stripped of civil power, they use sentimentalism and fear as the tools to control.

Are religions pointless?

Well, if the authorities are religious then we would have to abide by civil law, which at the end of the day is not any better than political power.

However, careful study of world history proves that religions and ideologies of some sort are always behind political powers, it is hardly ever purely civil.

So those who say that religions are pointless are also arguing that civil laws are pointless.

You also said that if the golden rule was of Divine origin it would not be powerless?

We could say that the golden rule is love, and if God is love then it cannot be enforced to be of any Divine value.

The golden rule without love is purely conceited. It is like a partner faking it.

I may not be sure if i got this here, but I wonder if the reference to the golden rule, is the same thing to God and the laws brought in the religious thinking. If we really want to go into semantics about actually being punished, well of course, that is where the real laws come in. Bringing in the Golden Rule is done in the same way, people bring up religious rules and laws. The same thing can be said about religious rules and laws not getting the actually seen punishment too, and that is where you have the debate of them being both the same. You want actually results, there are always the laws of the land.

There is no doubt that self control is necessary for order and peace of some sort.

If it is a self regulated principle alone - without any civil rule, or religious influence, then we have the people you said are born bad.

But are they bad because you don't like their ideals - their concept of what is right and wrong?

Our immediate reaction is to say that we need common sense. Common sense is what the majority think. So it's a case of the majority ruling again. And history proves that the majority can be very wrong time and time again.

What the world is saying at the moment is that the majority want peace, and they are singling out the trouble spots as 'the problem.' Remember an ideal has to have an enemy, even if it invents one - such as "the Jewish problem."

Still, the general consensus is that people want peace, and don't want crime, and they say that if we all communicate that, it should work, without religious authority or influence.

It sounds good to me, but something tells me it is another ideal which will go wrong, or is that just being pessimistic?

Well, what is it, and why do you say that?

Ugh put hand in fire, fire hurt. Ugh no hit Ogh, cause Ugh no like getting hit. I like to think of the golden rule being a part of our survival instinct. Because Ugh knew he'd get a Flintstone beat down if he did.

Yeah, me too. :)

Under the less grandiose moniker "tit for tat" (searchable, somestimes called T4T) this modified golden rule is surprisingly hard to do much better than FROM A SELFISH PERSPECTIVE in a variety of strategic situations:

* If I've never met you before, then I'll play nice until and unless you don't.

* If I have met you before, then I'll treat you the way you treated me last time we met..

This pair of rules leads with the usual golden rule, and if you reciprocate, then we're golden forever if you'd like. The second part says I won't be played foe a sucker, but redemption is always possible on easy terms - you just take once what you've dished out at least once. Note that "last time" really is the one last and single last time.Even if you've been a problem for our last 100 meetings, and now you play nice, you get thwapped just this once. Next time, you'll be treated nice because this time is next time's last time, and this time you played nice.

(T4T provably can be immproved upon strategically in some situations, for example, there is an obvious problem if I know that this our last meeting, and playing not nice while you play nice is advantageous. But most of the time, T4T works great, is easy to remember and easy to implement.

It is, however, "unfair." The price of redemption is the same for Genghis Khan as it is for the schmuck who needed to play a round before catching on to how we play around here. Either way, you play nice once, taking the hit of being treated nastily, and don't be nasty again, and you're all set. Turns out that "settling scores" is counterproductive from a selfish standpoint. The Buddha and Jesus said stuff like that, well, they pretended that it wasn't just shrewdly applied selfishness.)

I like this. Kind of gives it a logically conclusion here. Or that could be me. :D

You don't need the belief in a deity, all you need is a religion or a philosophy such as you are serving which is - the grand instinctual "golden rule" and the need "to enact" it, because "it is powerless" as you stated.

You say that we don't need a deity to act out the golden rule. More specifically the God of the Bible is the one targeted here.

As far as God is concerned the golden rule is not an outward action alone, but one that has to come from a genuine love for others. Otherwise it is condemned as a lie.

But if you think that the golden rule works without love, then you end up with a contrived world, pretenders and do-gooders.

Well, I can see your point here. I see it as there being that feeling of love, but I also think there also is a point of self-confidence and the care for others, that I think can be instinctually felt for this golden rule to play out.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

Leo

I understand the confusion, but no. T4T is a term of art in the theory of cooperative games, and it is also a common English expression. I gave, said nice things about and defined the term of art, not the informal English language phrase.

That's fine, but then we are speaking of different things and my use of T4T as short-hand for the common English phrase "tit-for-tat" means exactly what I said it means. Your use of T4T as the term of of art in the theory of co-operative games means exactly what you said it means.

There is no disagreement between us.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beany

If your attempting to live by the golden rule, your making an effort to control yourself. Living by your own code. Not all conflicts have to come to violence. Not everyone is the same and some people are born "evil" while other choose to become this way. Some people are natural good or choose to become this way. This world will never be at peace sadly. However I choose to at least have a positive and production impact while I'm alive.

That's the important part, isn't it? Consciously choosing and letting those choices guide us, instead of our emotions or ego.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

What ever the results are, if they are not the desired result, or worse results that makes a situation worse, then it's still in vain.

Well one, sad, like any emotion, is something that comes by experience. No control over it. I chose to work through sadness, but I cannot chose to not be sad. That's impossible.

Sheri's right, a funeral director does not have the educational training to be a psychologist. I think there is a line that was crossed dangerously when you do that. In fact, in my grief, I personal had to work through it, or it would have torn me a part. I talk of my experience to help those here who have gone through it, ( :wub: to Sheri (((HUGS)) ) that it's what you have to do before it hurts you in the end. [/background][/size][/font][/color]

Only one response here but it is critical. NO human emotion is unavoidable or inevitable Every human has the potential ability to control, direct, and even eliminate emotions from their response to a situation. Not saying this is always good or necessary but it is possible. So you do not HAVE to feel sad ( Or angry or resentful )about anything. You can adjust your mind to feel happy instead of sad but you respond with what you have learned is expected of you and what is appropriate.

You are human and that means you CAN chose not to feel sad if you don't want to.

(Unless "you" have a clinical form of depression which requires medication)

It is frustrating that so many people do not realise this, and so suffer so much during their lives, when they do not have to.

I was taught as a child to discipline my emotions and demonstrate stoicism and a calm rational response to stresses, dangers, aggravations etc; and then deliberately in early adolescence went on to eliminate fear, jealously, anger, hate, greed envy etc. from my emotions. Anyone can do this and it is not even hard. It just requires will and discipline.

it is not impossible to chose not to feel sad. It is actually very easy and simple to learn how to not feel sadness (or any other emotion.)

Most Australian schools teach resilience and anti bullying to very young children This teaches them both how not to be afraid, and not to be angry, but also not to respond to aggression and teasing etc

In other words it gives resilience and skills and basically shows children how to have control over their emotional responses.and not be forced into reactive response to others.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranoid Android

Mr Walker. You can't stop feeling emotions. You can regulate how you react to those emotions, however. And the way you react to those emotions will go a long way to how those emotions manifest in the future. Whether that emotion dissipates and let's you move on, or whether it intensifies and eats you up, this is dependant on your reaction to an emotion. But telling someone who has just lost a loved one and is mourning their passing to "cheer up, kipper, you don't have to be sad now" is bull. Grief is natural, how you respond to grief is a different question, but your last reply doesn't seem to acknowledge the distinction.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lightly

simple compassion negates T4T behavior , and simplifies the discussed Motives behind the Golden Rule ? We are compassionate creatures because we Love We love Mama, We love baby brother and grampa, and on and on ...

I've long wondered what basis Morality and Compassion might be based on for an atheist ,apathist ,wonderist , or whatever .. I'm thinking it must be because we are capable of Love .

Love, Compassion,Golden rules, are more than survival tools?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

Mr Walker. You can't stop feeling emotions. You can regulate how you react to those emotions, however. And the way you react to those emotions will go a long way to how those emotions manifest in the future. Whether that emotion dissipates and let's you move on, or whether it intensifies and eats you up, this is dependant on your reaction to an emotion. But telling someone who has just lost a loved one and is mourning their passing to "cheer up, kipper, you don't have to be sad now" is bull. Grief is natural, how you respond to grief is a different question, but your last reply doesn't seem to acknowledge the distinction.

Why tell me something you believe but I know to be untrue. I can stop feeling emotions and choose an emotional response which is appropriate; and have been developing that ability with parental guidance since childhood. My point is that, as I am just a normal Human, and if I can do it,so can everyone . The first step, which we teach children, is to control the response to your emotion. so you don't hit someone who makes you angry or swear/ scream inappropriately. But then we teach them not to feel angry as a response, by recognising and controlling the biological reactions of anger or fear until they no longer appear in our minds or bodies

.Anger, like all emotion is a learned situational response from our social environment, and can be unlearned as can fear, grief, loneliness etc.

I a not telling anyone to cheer up, if they do not want to cheer up, just that they do not have to be debilitated or made less functional from grief. This is not being harsh. It is being helpful and honest. A man des not HAVE to feel anger at a woman who annoys him. It s good if he can control such anger but better when he is taught not to develop it in the first place. A child does not have to feel jealousy of another child, and can be taught not to. It is now recognised that all human fears and phobias are learned, and can be unearned, so you do not feel them any more.

I think much of the resistance to this knowledge comes from people who do not like the idea of being held accountable for the consequences of their emotional responses, and claim they cannot control them.

The classic Is, " I loved her, and didn't want to kill her ,but she made me so angry that I couldn't help myself" That is pathetic, untrue and no excuse/reason at all.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranoid Android

<p>Mr Walker, in the (hopefully very distant) future as you mourn the passing of your wife, I hope your friends, family, and neighbours show more compassion to your grieving than you seem to place on it.

I'm not saying people have no ability to regulate behaviour, and I'm not saying that the more you train yourself to live by certain actions that emotional responses to certain stimuli will lessen, perhaps to imperceptible levels. That's part of growing up and learning. But sometimes you just gotta let it out and cry (or laugh, or scream [positively, screaming at someone is not necessarily positive]). I cried while watching a movie the other day, not only is it

Edited by Paranoid Android
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.