5 ms·

So...it might help you to realize that other people who you would normally think are "assholes", people who you don't know yet hate nonetheless, are nothing lik

by zzzeek 7y ago

So...it might help you to realize that other people who you would normally think are "assholes", people who you don't know yet hate nonetheless, are nothing like that, and maybe you've been making all kinds of judgments about people that aren't really true, and that in fact, reality calls for a vastly larger degree of love and compassion for others, even people who cut you off on the road. You treat people completely differently, you become kinder, more courteous, less hateful, and more patient, at larger scale animosity and hostility between peoples decreases to zero and world / universal peace is achieved. No biggie, so what!

gridlockd 7y ago
I don't hate anybody, I didn't need some crank who talks about omniscience to help me realize that. From a cosmological standpoint, of course one can argue that nobody has a free will and that nobody is ultimately responsible for anything. For practical purposes, this is a pretty useless insight. In practical terms, the people that cut you off in traffic for no good reason are what we humans call "assholes" (or similar). We sanction this behavior so that we can work better as a society. There's a purpose for you to get upset about such behavior. It is directly connected to your instinct for survival, your will to live. Yes, sometimes your will to live makes you suffer. That doesn't mean killing off that will is "enlightened", or that the people who "tune out" are to be revered for it. You're rebranding a thinly veiled "sour grapes attitude" into a virtue. > You treat people completely differently, you become kinder, more courteous, less hateful, and more patient, at larger scale animosity and hostility between peoples decreases to zero and world / universal peace is achieved. This is a foolish belief. If there is no such thing as an "asshole", there is no such thing as "murderer". Remember, nobody is responsible for anything. It's all just part of the cosmic ballet! That's how Zen Buddhism helped the Japanese commit all those atrocities: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_at_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_at_War Remember, not everyone actually buys into this philosophy, by their nature. Your brand of philosophy is one of weakness, of little resistance. It doesn't have the "tools" for survival on its own and it's easily exploited.
- 1000units 7y ago
  Your posting in this thread and particularly this comment is well-reasoned, civil, and on target, and I think it's a shame you're being censored. If you (or any bystanders of similar mind) email the address in my profile, I will reach out with an invitation to a forum for hard-skinned rationalists if/when I get around to creating it. Cheers.
- hooch 7y ago
  I think your judgemental reaction against the intended substance in my comment just proves the point. The comment I offered was an illustration that I found helpful in clarifying the Buddhist concept of non-self. In my book omniscience need not be some kind of superpower, even a sincere effort to comprehend and understand clearly, without heavy overlays, is on track. Learning to pierce those overlays with patience has never led to disappointment. Unless perhaps you were thinking I wrote omnipotence? As for the traffic examples, having spent a while in countries where nobody really bothers to sanction other motorists, motorcyclists, pedestrians, push carts, cows, etc, strangely it works out okay. It’s almost like the drivers stopping to blow their horn and yell “asshole” create exponentially more problems further back up the web of traffic, than had they refrained from doing that.
  - gridlockd 7y ago
    > I think your judgemental reaction against the intended substance in my comment just proves the point. It doesn't. Drawn to its logical conclusion, your philosophy can't prove anything. When challenged, you relegate to semantic games, diluting your terms and statements to the point where they can mean anything and nothing. You accuse me of being judgemental instead of actually defending your philosophy. Well, so what if I'm being judgemental? When it comes to philosophy, judgement is in order. > In my book omniscience need not be some kind of superpower, even a sincere effort to comprehend and understand clearly, without heavy overlays, is on track. Learning to pierce those overlays with patience has never disappointed. Omniscience not only is a superpower, it is a godlike superpower. It means "to know everything". Everything! Of course, if in "your book" omniscience means something else entirely, you shouldn't use that word without simultaneously giving your idiosyncratic definition. Otherwise, you're playing that semantic game where you can retreat from any position by changing the meaning of words after-the-fact. It's the cheapest trick in the book. > Unless perhaps you were thinking I meant omnipotence. No. To "know everything" is distinct from being able to "do anything".

by zzzeek 7y ago

gridlockd 7y ago

I don't hate anybody, I didn't need some crank who talks about omniscience to help me realize that. From a cosmological standpoint, of course one can argue that nobody has a free will and that nobody is ultimately responsible for anything. For practical purposes, this is a pretty useless insight. In practical terms, the people that cut you off in traffic for no good reason are what we humans call "assholes" (or similar). We sanction this behavior so that we can work better as a society. There's a purpose for you to get upset about such behavior. It is directly connected to your instinct for survival, your will to live. Yes, sometimes your will to live makes you suffer. That doesn't mean killing off that will is "enlightened", or that the people who "tune out" are to be revered for it. You're rebranding a thinly veiled "sour grapes attitude" into a virtue. > You treat people completely differently, you become kinder, more courteous, less hateful, and more patient, at larger scale animosity and hostility between peoples decreases to zero and world / universal peace is achieved. This is a foolish belief. If there is no such thing as an "asshole", there is no such thing as "murderer". Remember, nobody is responsible for anything. It's all just part of the cosmic ballet! That's how Zen Buddhism helped the Japanese commit all those atrocities: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_at_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_at_War Remember, not everyone actually buys into this philosophy, by their nature. Your brand of philosophy is one of weakness, of little resistance. It doesn't have the "tools" for survival on its own and it's easily exploited.

1000units 7y ago
Your posting in this thread and particularly this comment is well-reasoned, civil, and on target, and I think it's a shame you're being censored. If you (or any bystanders of similar mind) email the address in my profile, I will reach out with an invitation to a forum for hard-skinned rationalists if/when I get around to creating it. Cheers.
hooch 7y ago
I think your judgemental reaction against the intended substance in my comment just proves the point. The comment I offered was an illustration that I found helpful in clarifying the Buddhist concept of non-self. In my book omniscience need not be some kind of superpower, even a sincere effort to comprehend and understand clearly, without heavy overlays, is on track. Learning to pierce those overlays with patience has never led to disappointment. Unless perhaps you were thinking I wrote omnipotence? As for the traffic examples, having spent a while in countries where nobody really bothers to sanction other motorists, motorcyclists, pedestrians, push carts, cows, etc, strangely it works out okay. It’s almost like the drivers stopping to blow their horn and yell “asshole” create exponentially more problems further back up the web of traffic, than had they refrained from doing that.
- gridlockd 7y ago
  > I think your judgemental reaction against the intended substance in my comment just proves the point. It doesn't. Drawn to its logical conclusion, your philosophy can't prove anything. When challenged, you relegate to semantic games, diluting your terms and statements to the point where they can mean anything and nothing. You accuse me of being judgemental instead of actually defending your philosophy. Well, so what if I'm being judgemental? When it comes to philosophy, judgement is in order. > In my book omniscience need not be some kind of superpower, even a sincere effort to comprehend and understand clearly, without heavy overlays, is on track. Learning to pierce those overlays with patience has never disappointed. Omniscience not only is a superpower, it is a godlike superpower. It means "to know everything". Everything! Of course, if in "your book" omniscience means something else entirely, you shouldn't use that word without simultaneously giving your idiosyncratic definition. Otherwise, you're playing that semantic game where you can retreat from any position by changing the meaning of words after-the-fact. It's the cheapest trick in the book. > Unless perhaps you were thinking I meant omnipotence. No. To "know everything" is distinct from being able to "do anything".