Madelaine McMasters Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Randall Ahren wrote: Women don't have a lot of seed to spread around, although they're not adverse to letting a bad guy plant one in them on the sly. So yes, even wildly attractive women tend to want just one dude. Men and women have different mating strategies. Poor/unstable society? Ah unstable society is one that fails to produce enough offspring to preserve itself and gets replaced wholesale by a faster reproducing culture. Look at the US, soon to be mostly Latino or the post-Christian Europeans, soon to be Muslim. Unstable does not equal poor. It's not just rockstars. Look at star athletes. Google an article about the NFL players with the most kids. They have harems. Or read about Magic Johnson and his magic johnson. Got a book for you: Be The Worst You Can Be - Life's too long for patience and virtue. This isn't a how question, it's a why question. Not everything can be satisfactorily answered in terms of how. Your apparent infatuation with anecdotes is interesting, Randall. In an age and place where women have contraception and abortion available as alternatives to sprouting male seeds and are getting closer to economic parity (though we still have a long way to go) I think you may find yourself plowing unproductive ground for someone else's pleasure. The statistics indicate this is precisely what happens. As women become more self sufficient, and as child mortality decreases, they become more interested in physical attractiveness than male parental investment. At the same time, birth rate declines. Women have both short and long term mating strategies, which are affected by the environment. Males respond (to varying degrees) by altering their strategies to suit the females. This isn't an error-free process, so male reproductive success is more variable than female. In the US, Hispanic birth rates are dropping much faster than the rest of the US (and their birth rates are lower than in their home countries). I could argue that, coming from a poorer/less stable environment, Latinos bring with them a higher birth rate. Over time, as their cultural memory fades and they share in our relative success, one might expect their birth rate to approach the average for the entire population. This is what's actually happening, though I expect the totality of all underlying causes isn't understood. Or, if you prefer the anecdotal approach, given the dramatic rise in Latin players in the Major Leagues, I suppose I could conclude that Latino ballplayer sterility is rising faster than their bats. There is no doubt that males and female have different sexual selection strategies. There is also no doubt that those strategies are multi-dimensional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Ahren Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 None of which is an answer to the question that I posed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madelaine McMasters Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Randall Ahren wrote: The question I posed was "Why to be a better person" as opposed to "How to be a better person". We already know how, it's obvious. Don't lie or cheat, share, be friendly, clean up after yourself, be considerate, etc. Everyone already knows this. But why do it? Does evil really exist? Or is it just something imagined? The light from the stars shines down with cold indifference to both good and evil. Theories of the evolutionary advantages of altruistic behavior have been around for a long time. Game theorists are the latest to tackle this subject. If survival is desireable (good), then I think we have at least some grasp of the "why". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madelaine McMasters Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Randall Ahren wrote: None of which is an answer to the question that I posed. Well, for one who seems to derive a world view from anecdotes, what are my chances of providing an answer to any question you pose? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syo Emerald Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Yes, go outside. Rape, murder and steal. Wanna be philosopher....:catindifferent: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dresden Ceriano Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Hippie Bowman wrote: Dresden Ceriano wrote: Damn, I read the title as, "How to be a butter person"... how disappointing. ...Dres (But I did learn that the golden rule has nothing to do with urine.) LOL Dres! Peace! Laugh if you must but, I can't believe it's not butter. ...Dres Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Ahren Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 It is butter. The best answer is the one that makes you laugh the most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Ahren Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 Madelaine McMasters wrote: Well, for one who seems to derive a world view from anecdotes, what are my chances of providing an answer to any question you pose? It isn't easy having a mind that operates on a higher plane than everyone else, is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madelaine McMasters Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 Randall Ahren wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: Well, for one who seems to derive a world view from anecdotes, what are my chances of providing an answer to any question you pose? It isn't easy having a mind that operates on a higher plane than everyone else, is it? Maybe you're trying too hard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Ahren Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 I think you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ConvergentDynamicsReplican Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 There is no 'try'. Just 'do'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Ahren Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 Or as Bukowski's epithet states "don't try". @Maddy, Richard Feynman thought that one of the great heritages of Western civilization was Christian ethics. The answer to every question does not lie within the technical arts. Perhaps the answer to why one should be nice is better answered from a religious or moral perspective. Kindness is the beginning of wisdom, not technical mastery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charolotte Caxton Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Kindness is treating others as you would yourself. Unfortunately, not everyone is kind to themselves. We all want to do what is best, for us. Those that don't, don't. There is no question of why should we be kind, the answer is obvious. The question rather should be what is kindness and what purpose does it serve? I like it when you are kind to me, Randall, but I would hate to see you be kind to someone who themselves is mean. I also think those that are mean may need a little kindness shown to them, so in that regard, kindness to me is all about me, but so is everything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emmettcullen93 Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 Randall Ahren wrote: The question I posed was "Why to be a better person" as opposed to "How to be a better person". We already know how, it's obvious. Don't lie or cheat, share, be friendly, clean up after yourself, be considerate, etc. Everyone already knows this. But why do it? Does evil really exist? Or is it just something imagined? The light from the stars shines down with cold indifference to both good and evil. y are you not a contributor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinnamon Mistwood Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 Randall Ahren wrote: The question I posed was "Why to be a better person" as opposed to "How to be a better person". We already know how, it's obvious. Don't lie or cheat, share, be friendly, clean up after yourself, be considerate, etc. Everyone already knows this. But why do it? Does evil really exist? Or is it just something imagined? The light from the stars shines down with cold indifference to both good and evil. I believe there is no pure good or pure evil. Just shades of gray, everything in balance. We are good because it feels good to be, but we can not ONLY be good. There is no balance in that. So 'why' are we good? To balance out the evil in us. Why are we bad? To balance out the good in us. I can be sweet and nice for only so long. It is where I am happiest - being light... Eventually though, the dark side of me will assert itself and demand equal time and attention - then, watch out.... How is that for a completely sterile and clinical answer? Cinn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dresden Ceriano Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 Cinnamon Mistwood wrote: Randall Ahren wrote: The question I posed was "Why to be a better person" as opposed to "How to be a better person". We already know how, it's obvious. Don't lie or cheat, share, be friendly, clean up after yourself, be considerate, etc. Everyone already knows this. But why do it? Does evil really exist? Or is it just something imagined? The light from the stars shines down with cold indifference to both good and evil. I believe there is no pure good or pure evil. Just shades of gray, everything in balance. We are good because it feels good to be, but we can not ONLY be good. There is no balance in that. So 'why' are we good? To balance out the evil in us. Why are we bad? To balance out the good in us. I can be sweet and nice for only so long. It is where I am happiest - being light... Eventually though, the dark side of me will assert itself and demand equal time and attention - then, watch out.... How is that for a completely sterile and clinical answer? Cinn There's also a matter of perspective... what one person thinks is good, another may think is evil. Who's to say either perspective is wrong? ...Dres Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madelaine McMasters Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 Randall Ahren wrote: Or as Bukowski's epithet states "don't try". @Maddy, Richard Feynman thought that one of the great heritages of Western civilization was Christian ethics. The answer to every question does not lie within the technical arts. Perhaps the answer to why one should be nice is better answered from a religious or moral perspective. Kindness is the beginning of wisdom, not technical mastery. Randall also wrote: Got a book for you: Be The Worst You Can Be - Life's too long for patience and virtue. He said that in 1956. If you'd asked him about Christian ethics just after the A-bomb drops, when he was walking the streets of New York, wondering why everybody was smiling in the face of almost certain doom, he might have had a different view. If you'd asked him in 1988, as he was dying, me might have had a different view yet again. We've learned a lot in the last 56 years and I don't imagine Feynman would be surprised to see that science has pushed back on the metaphysics so far that naturalism has gained many adherents. He might still think that doesn't matter. In that paper, Feynman addressed (I think) the practical state of things, which is that our beliefs and need for inspiration were gonna hang on to the bitter end, particularly in light of the "cargo cult science" that so often accompanies discussions of religion. His observation that our morality and need for inspiration doesn't seem to erode in the face of the vanishing metaphysics is certainly noteworthy. He doesn't explain why he thinks morality and inspiration seem to run independently of (meta)physics, but people are working on explanations. We evolve much more slowly than we are advancing technologically and socially. So, evolutionary lag comes to mind in explaining the seemingly unchanging nature of morality and the need for us to think about it in the face of social advances it might not handle well. Life was vastly simpler just a few evolutionary moments ago. It may also be that the way we reason (or that we reason at all) evolved to think about gaps or errors in unconscious morality. That said, it's hard to reason through the moral consequences of things that themselves are too complicated to fully comprehend. So, our ability to reason might have limits as well, but it's a pretty neat evolutionary adaptation. Feynman was an athiest and saw no point to, or reason for, existence. I could certainly be wrong, but that belief would seem at odds with thinking that morality is some external thing with intent, guiding us. And so Feynman's "Christian Ethics" have no Christ in them. He simply seemed happy to know that, given our propensity to be moral to some degree, institutions had popped up to codify guidelines to help maximize our outcome. I also don't think Feynman meant to say that Christian ethics were somehow different from or superior to others, but that they were ours and he appreciated them. If science someday pulls back the curtain on the full workings of the human mind (I believe that would count as technical mastery), and discovers that it's all biochemistry and "nothing more", will we still have legions of believers in "more"? Will that belief yield better morality than the truth? That's a future Feynman didn't address. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Ahren Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Charolotte Caxton wrote: There is no question of why should we be kind, the answer is obvious. The question rather should be what is kindness and what purpose does it serve? I don't think the answer of why we should be kind is obvious. Cruelty seems more obvious. After Rome conquered Carthage, executed the men and infants, enslaved the women and children, burned the city and poured salt on the land, Carthage was eliminated as a threat for a very long time thereafter. Isn't that a more obvious way of dealing with threats? Does evil even exist in a godless world? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Ahren Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Cinnamon Mistwood wrote: I believe there is no pure good or pure evil. Just shades of gray, everything in balance. Cinn Instead of good and evil, let's just consider good and bad. If there was no good and bad, would art still exist? There would be no way to distinguish a bad painting from a good painting. Just hang anything on the wall and call it art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emmettcullen93 Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Randall Ahren wrote: Cinnamon Mistwood wrote: I believe there is no pure good or pure evil. Just shades of gray, everything in balance. Cinn Instead of good and evil, let's just consider good and bad. If there was no good and bad, would art still exist? There would be no way to distinguish a bad painting from a good painting. Just hang anything on the wall and call it art. mmmmmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madelaine McMasters Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Randall Ahren wrote: Cinnamon Mistwood wrote: I believe there is no pure good or pure evil. Just shades of gray, everything in balance. Cinn Instead of good and evil, let's just consider good and bad. If there was no good and bad, would art still exist? There would be no way to distinguish a bad painting from a good painting. Just hang anything on the wall and call it art. We've been hanging just anything on the wall and calling it art forever, Randall. It's not about good or bad, it's about variation in taste resulting from a combination of things, including cultural and environmental influences, personal nature, social effects and the environment of the art itself (galleries would not worry about presentation if art was impervious to it). When I see or hear famous art, the first question I ask myself is what succeeded most, the art, the artist or the advertising. When I hear a friend wax rhapsodic about the transcendent nature of the unicorn on black velvet hanging over the commode in her newly redcorated powder room, the reality of it slowly sinks in. The men in her life will gaze on it and cringe, likely unaware that the women in her life will not. Beauty is in the mind of the beholder. Cinn, I don't think good and evil are in balance. If the overall prosperity of mankind is "good", then I think good has been winning the war while we focus on the battles she's lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Ahren Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Madelaine McMasters wrote: We've been hanging just anything on the wall and calling it art forever, Randall. It's not about good or bad, it's about variation in taste resulting from a combination of things, including cultural and environmental influences, personal nature, social effects and the environment of the art itself (galleries would not worry about presentation if art was impervious to it). When I see or hear famous art, the first question I ask myself is what succeeded most, the art, the artist or the advertising. There is also a good taste and bad taste. Good and bad applies in many other areas as well, such as music. If there was no good or bad, how could anyone distinguish a master like Beethoven from lesser talents? Good and bad applies in SL as well. Some builds are really good and some aren't. Some skins are much better than others and some people are skilled at finding combinations of skin, clothes, and accessories to create avatars that are good. Others are not and look bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Ahren Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Madelaine McMasters wrote: He said that in 1956. If you'd asked him about Christian ethics just after the A-bomb drops, when he was walking the streets of New York, wondering why everybody was smiling in the face of almost certain doom, he might have had a different view. If you'd asked him in 1988, as he was dying, me might have had a different view yet again. Some people upon receiving new information, revise their opinion. Most don't. Their ego traps them. They can't admit to being wrong. John Galbrath noted that most people when faced with the need to change their mind or prove there is no need to do so, get busy on the proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madelaine McMasters Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Randall Ahren wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: He said that in 1956. If you'd asked him about Christian ethics just after the A-bomb drops, when he was walking the streets of New York, wondering why everybody was smiling in the face of almost certain doom, he might have had a different view. If you'd asked him in 1988, as he was dying, me might have had a different view yet again. Some people upon receiving new information, revise their opinion. Most don't. Their ego traps them. They can't admit to being wrong. John Galbrath noted that most people when faced with the need to change their mind or prove there is no need to do so, get busy on the proof. One solution to this problem is to have no opinion. Feynman was pretty good at this. On the issue of good and evil, I don't think I have an opinion overall, other than we seem to have evolved some sense of it and an ability to reason over it during a history that wasn't much like our present. While that might lead one to think we'll screw up a bunch, and we have, the actual evidence says we're doing better than we think. I have more questions than answers. That's fine, I'll have something to do tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Ahren Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Madelaine McMasters wrote: Randall Ahren wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: He said that in 1956. If you'd asked him about Christian ethics just after the A-bomb drops, when he was walking the streets of New York, wondering why everybody was smiling in the face of almost certain doom, he might have had a different view. If you'd asked him in 1988, as he was dying, me might have had a different view yet again. Some people upon receiving new information, revise their opinion. Most don't. Their ego traps them. They can't admit to being wrong. John Galbrath noted that most people when faced with the need to change their mind or prove there is no need to do so, get busy on the proof. One solution to this problem is to have no opinion. Feynman was pretty good at this. That's how he assisted in the development of the atomic bomb isn't it? His ony question was how to build it, not why he was building it. He had no opinion whether it was good or bad. It would be pretty strange to have no opinion about some subjects. Example: What's your opinion on genocide? Six million Jews killed in the holocaust, good or bad? Uh, no opinion.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts
Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now