7 ms·

The world is filled with much good, but if you're looking at what is false, not good or rejecting what is good you shall find it hard to notice. If you look fo

The world is filled with much good, but if you're looking at what is false, not good or rejecting what is good you shall find it hard to notice. If you look for the good and aim toward it then you get more of it. If you aim to look for bad and search for it you shall get more of it. Everyone eventually reaps what they sow. And you can judge a tree by its fruit. Rather than focus on the badness of the bad situation or stare into the abyss. Pick good responses that are independent of bad. In other words, two wrongs don't mean right.

JadeNB 4y ago
This post seems almost comically like a collection of self-help slogans, and not far off from blaming people who are in a dark place for getting themselves there. (I also don't understand how "two wrongs don't mean right" connects to the rest of it. Is the idea that one is doing wrong by thinking bad things of wrong that has already been done?) Also, if this is meant as a corrective to the article (as suggested by "Rather than focus on the badness of the bad situation or stare into the abyss. Pick good responses that are independent of bad"), then it seems that it is a response to the title, not the content. The very beginning of the article emphasises that the point is not to dwell on the bad in order to foster despair, but rather to acknowledge the existence of the bad in order to be able to move from it towards a remedy. If you can't even acknowledge that a bad situation exists, then you can't make a good response to it.
- samsquire 4y ago
  Thank you for your reply. What I was trying to put across was that we get the results what we cause. I always bear the outcome of what I did. Can you think of an escape from the effects of what we do? (I deliberately ignore the other side of this, I'm not talking about effects we did not cause, such as trouble others cause for others) If you pick good, right, proper, meant to be, what should be, what is righteous, what is true, honest, genuine, with integrity actions, then you ought to bear fruit that is caused by that. I think that this produces better outcomes than picking bad, not good, wrong, untrue, false, not honest, not genuine actions/thoughts/speech. In hindsight we can determine what actions were not right, since they didn't produce the right, good results. So if we seek after good, shouldn't we get the effects of good back because we surround ourselves with it? This is separate independent reasoning from when bad things befall people who do all things right. I haven't thought much about that. Do we bear the effects of what other's cause? The two wrongs don't create a right refers to the idea of avoid basing my reasoning on doing something on something bad and calling it good. I should keep my reasoning of my reaction to bad things purely based on goodness and not based on the bad thing itself. I never want to say I did something purely due to a bad thing. I think you could call it motivation. I want to keep good and bad independent and not merge them into one. Can something bad cause something good in other words? Or did the good that it is a reaction to cause itself?
  - derivagral 4y ago
    >In hindsight we can determine what actions were not right, since they didn't produce the right, good results. Disagree, to the extent that you need to discount results against available information, processing ability, and alternatives at the time of the decision. Also, not all good or bad decisions have similar outcomes, the world is not just. Personally, I've found more use out of refining my decision process and what goes into it than focusing on results. Not to say results aren't a useful signal, but they're hardly the only or even the most important signal. I agree with you that the EV of trying to be "good" generally outweighs the other path. However, not getting discouraged by the marketing of "bad with no consequences" is difficult in today's world!
  - layer8 4y ago
    The article argues for not ignoring the parts of reality you’re uncomfortable with. Good or bad is neither here nor there. The point is to not be constrained by having a skewed view of reality or by avoidant behavior.
  - JadeNB 4y ago
    > Thank you for your reply. I still disagree with much of what you said, also in your follow-up, but I appreciate your replying so civilly to what was a fairly caustic post on my part. Thank you for exemplifying the best of HN discourse!
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
RajT88 4y ago
Nah. I know some real garbage people who seem to be immune to Karma. No bad ever comes their way. And some wonderful people who seem to attract all the Karma which slid right off the garbage people. The world is unfair, and the universe doesn't care. Morality is emergent from consciousness; in a time before our big thinky brains had evolved, there was no such thing as bad and good. Evidence: How many, many animals live and thrive is deeply immoral by human standards. With few exceptions, pick just about any horror movie and I can show you an animal who exhibits those behaviors in its normal life.
- paulpauper 4y ago
  Karma is just confirmation bias
  - anonporridge 4y ago
    Karma is a psyop perpetuated by people with power to keep that masses passive, because they think the universe will do the job of dealing out justice for them. Ditto belief in a god that judges and punishes the wicked in the afterlife.
- flashgordon 4y ago
  I agree with karma and deservedness not being aligned but I am pretty sure an animal doing what it is doing is limited by the need to hunt and feed rather than to subjugate and be sadistic?
  - AlexandrB 4y ago
    Not for more intelligent animals. Consider the footage of killer whales "playing with their food" from Blue Planet.
  - 0cf8612b2e1e 4y ago
    Clearly you do not own cats.
    - 4y ago
syzarian 4y ago
Bill Clinton and Donald Trump are notable examples of people who have not reaped what they sowed.
Atreiden 4y ago
“If you look for the light, you can often find it. But if you look for the dark, that is all you will ever see.” - Iroh
- robocat 4y ago
  I think the footnote from the article covers your point better?: [1] This phrase originates from a quote by Nietzche: He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you. I’m probably not using “stare into the abyss” in the exact same sense Nietzche intended, since I wouldn’t really describe what I’m talking about as “fighting with a monster” or like it has the potential to turn you into a monster. [snip]
eggsmediumrare 4y ago
Quality of fruit is the product of soil and climactic conditions, not the tree itself.

JadeNB 4y ago

This post seems almost comically like a collection of self-help slogans, and not far off from blaming people who are in a dark place for getting themselves there. (I also don't understand how "two wrongs don't mean right" connects to the rest of it. Is the idea that one is doing wrong by thinking bad things of wrong that has already been done?) Also, if this is meant as a corrective to the article (as suggested by "Rather than focus on the badness of the bad situation or stare into the abyss. Pick good responses that are independent of bad"), then it seems that it is a response to the title, not the content. The very beginning of the article emphasises that the point is not to dwell on the bad in order to foster despair, but rather to acknowledge the existence of the bad in order to be able to move from it towards a remedy. If you can't even acknowledge that a bad situation exists, then you can't make a good response to it.

samsquire 4y ago
Thank you for your reply. What I was trying to put across was that we get the results what we cause. I always bear the outcome of what I did. Can you think of an escape from the effects of what we do? (I deliberately ignore the other side of this, I'm not talking about effects we did not cause, such as trouble others cause for others) If you pick good, right, proper, meant to be, what should be, what is righteous, what is true, honest, genuine, with integrity actions, then you ought to bear fruit that is caused by that. I think that this produces better outcomes than picking bad, not good, wrong, untrue, false, not honest, not genuine actions/thoughts/speech. In hindsight we can determine what actions were not right, since they didn't produce the right, good results. So if we seek after good, shouldn't we get the effects of good back because we surround ourselves with it? This is separate independent reasoning from when bad things befall people who do all things right. I haven't thought much about that. Do we bear the effects of what other's cause? The two wrongs don't create a right refers to the idea of avoid basing my reasoning on doing something on something bad and calling it good. I should keep my reasoning of my reaction to bad things purely based on goodness and not based on the bad thing itself. I never want to say I did something purely due to a bad thing. I think you could call it motivation. I want to keep good and bad independent and not merge them into one. Can something bad cause something good in other words? Or did the good that it is a reaction to cause itself?
- derivagral 4y ago
  >In hindsight we can determine what actions were not right, since they didn't produce the right, good results. Disagree, to the extent that you need to discount results against available information, processing ability, and alternatives at the time of the decision. Also, not all good or bad decisions have similar outcomes, the world is not just. Personally, I've found more use out of refining my decision process and what goes into it than focusing on results. Not to say results aren't a useful signal, but they're hardly the only or even the most important signal. I agree with you that the EV of trying to be "good" generally outweighs the other path. However, not getting discouraged by the marketing of "bad with no consequences" is difficult in today's world!
- layer8 4y ago
  The article argues for not ignoring the parts of reality you’re uncomfortable with. Good or bad is neither here nor there. The point is to not be constrained by having a skewed view of reality or by avoidant behavior.
- JadeNB 4y ago
  > Thank you for your reply. I still disagree with much of what you said, also in your follow-up, but I appreciate your replying so civilly to what was a fairly caustic post on my part. Thank you for exemplifying the best of HN discourse!
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

RajT88 4y ago

Nah. I know some real garbage people who seem to be immune to Karma. No bad ever comes their way. And some wonderful people who seem to attract all the Karma which slid right off the garbage people. The world is unfair, and the universe doesn't care. Morality is emergent from consciousness; in a time before our big thinky brains had evolved, there was no such thing as bad and good. Evidence: How many, many animals live and thrive is deeply immoral by human standards. With few exceptions, pick just about any horror movie and I can show you an animal who exhibits those behaviors in its normal life.

paulpauper 4y ago
Karma is just confirmation bias
- anonporridge 4y ago
  Karma is a psyop perpetuated by people with power to keep that masses passive, because they think the universe will do the job of dealing out justice for them. Ditto belief in a god that judges and punishes the wicked in the afterlife.
flashgordon 4y ago
I agree with karma and deservedness not being aligned but I am pretty sure an animal doing what it is doing is limited by the need to hunt and feed rather than to subjugate and be sadistic?
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  Not for more intelligent animals. Consider the footage of killer whales "playing with their food" from Blue Planet.
- 0cf8612b2e1e 4y ago
  Clearly you do not own cats.
  - 4y ago

syzarian 4y ago

Bill Clinton and Donald Trump are notable examples of people who have not reaped what they sowed.

Atreiden 4y ago

“If you look for the light, you can often find it. But if you look for the dark, that is all you will ever see.” - Iroh

robocat 4y ago
I think the footnote from the article covers your point better?: [1] This phrase originates from a quote by Nietzche: He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you. I’m probably not using “stare into the abyss” in the exact same sense Nietzche intended, since I wouldn’t really describe what I’m talking about as “fighting with a monster” or like it has the potential to turn you into a monster. [snip]

eggsmediumrare 4y ago

Quality of fruit is the product of soil and climactic conditions, not the tree itself.