Sex

^aaww
i meant what does "a virtue you hold above yourself " mean?
because i am thinking it means "if there is a virtue more important than yourself",but i am not sure he meant that, the way he asked,like it was strange .

perejil wrote:

solemnlysworn wrote:I'm not sure I could name a virtue I hold above myself. Could anybody here?

Depends, I guess. How perfect at it do you have to be before you can claim to hold a certain virtue?

... for the purpose of the question, i imagine intent rather than application would suffice.

i would have gone for love and truth, however, he wanted just one. so, i opted for the one that encompasses all. no pun intended here, by the way. maybe i should have gone for just love, as i hold love above truth and i could argue that truth is born of love too. love gives us compassion and mercy. truth gives us justice and freedom. of the three that are most often inferred: faith, hope and charity, charity is another name for love. and charity is acknowledged as the greater of the other two. i don't really do faith. and, not surprisingly, i'm pretty hopeless at hope too.

according to wiki ...

The three theological virtues are:
- Faith: belief in God, and in the truth of His revelation as well as obedience to Him.
- Hope: expectation of and desire of receiving; refraining from despair and capability of not giving up. The belief that God will be eternally present in every human's life and never giving up on His love.
- Charity: a supernatural virtue that helps us love God and our neighbors, more than ourselves.

the three theological virtues

... it should be noted that i regard faith, belief and knowledge as distinct. faith is something that you take purely on trust. belief is something that you have reason to think (or believe) is true. knowledge is something that you are sure (or know) is true. as such, faith and belief are a little meaningless when you already know.

solemnlysworn wrote:I'm not sure I could name a virtue I hold above myself. Could anybody here?

... i take this to mean: can you name a virtue that you place greater importance upon than your own self-interest.

1PolarBear wrote:What do emotions have to do with anything?

If you are against killing cats, and you are in a group where people kill cats, and you can't really stop them, then you will posture, and say you disapprove, and might possibly leave that group, otherwise, you are complicit in the behavior. It's about principles, not how you feel. So there is nothing pathetic in doing that, aside that you are powerless to change anything, but at least you tried.

I don't think it's pathetic.

https://harvardmagazine.com/2012/01/the-biology-of-right-and-wrong

The article is getting closer to my experience but I'm still dissatisfied with the "mechanic settings" analogy. I find that if my thoughts and feelings align, then it's often the right thing to do. So I always end up speaking also from my heart and there is nothing pathetic in that either.

1PolarBear wrote:What is pathetic is virtue signalling. So you are in a group against cat killing, and then you accuse people of cat killing, so that you are more accepted in the group. Either that, or you are hypervigilant to find an heretic in your group, and the virtue signal in order to ostracize people that are not extreme enough. That is pathetic. And it is pathetic because it is shallow and has no reason of substance except for a semblance of power.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling

I'm not one to defend virtue-signalling, for the reasons I explained above.

shock_the_monkey wrote:... i take this to mean: can you name a virtue that you place greater importance upon than your own self-interest.

That's how I conceived it as well. I would say that there is no virtue that I deem more important than myself, but there are some I consider as important as myself, and should I choose myself over them, I would end up feeling less like myself.

shock_the_monkey wrote:

solemnlysworn wrote:I'm not sure I could name a virtue I hold above myself. Could anybody here?

... i take this to mean: can you name a virtue that you place greater importance upon than your own self-interest.

perejil wrote:

shock_the_monkey wrote:Depends, I guess. How perfect at it do you have to be before you can claim to hold a certain virtue?

... for the purpose of the question, i imagine intent rather than application would suffice.

In that case:

There are several values I could claim to put ahead of my own self interest with some frequency However, I couldn't claim to consistently intend to nor consistently be successful in putting those ahead of my own interest.

I believe I often try to be fair, sincere, modest, generous, and to be no respecter of persons (to judge others on merit). I don't think I deliver on those promises often enough to claim any of them as defining values for my life, but I will occasionally put any of those ahead of my own self interest.

The one defining value that I believe I both consistently intend and consistently deliver on I is hard work (defining that as productivity in a professional environment). This is sometimes done at such an expense to my own interest that it's unsustainable and eventually causes a crash, so, again, I don't know if that really counts, but... I offer it for your consideration.

ShowJumpingRabbit wrote:I don't think it's pathetic.

pathetic (comparative more pathetic, superlative most pathetic)

Arousing pity, sympathy, or compassion.

If that is what the person is doing, it is pathetic. If it is done do dissociate, it is not.

ShowJumpingRabbit wrote:https://harvardmagazine.com/2012/01/the-biology-of-right-and-wrong

The article is getting closer to my experience but I'm still dissatisfied with the "mechanic settings" analogy. I find that if my thoughts and feelings align, then it's often the right thing to do. So I always end up speaking also from my heart and there is nothing pathetic in that either.

And again I am asking, what does it has to do with posturing? All it says is people make choices according to emotions and reason, which anybody that is not an ideologue knows already. The question was what is the reason for posturing? not how posturing happens.

If I ask what is the purpose of driving a car? the reason is to get somewhere. What you are saying is that the reason is because it has gas and a steering wheel. The question was about the final cause, not the material cause.

The ends and the means are two different causes. If you do things because of the means, it is the same as saying you do things because you can. It's not pathetic, just immoral or pointless at best. You need at least a goal to do things, and it says so in the article you posted. That goal is a principle. Your experience is one of complete entitlement. I have a car, I drive it if I feel like it. I have a nuke, so I will use it, because I thought about it, and I feel like it, therefore it is right.

A normal human being would start with a principle, like saving lives, and in the case of the trolley experiment, it is about a choice between the principle, or the guilt of killing someone, so two principles fighting each others. According the them, those with cognitive empathy tends to try and save the majority, if it is certain death. That is all the experiment demonstrates, not that people think and have emotions, or that those are always right.

shock_the_monkey wrote:i would have gone for love and truth, however, he wanted just one. so, i opted for the one that encompasses all. no pun intended here, by the way. maybe i should have gone for just love, as i hold love above truth and i could argue that truth is born of love too. love gives us compassion and mercy. truth gives us justice and freedom. of the three that are most often inferred: faith, hope and charity, charity is another name for love. and charity is acknowledged as the greater of the other two. i don't really do faith. and, not surprisingly, i'm pretty hopeless at hope too.

In my view, love and truth often seem to be at odds.

How do you reconcile them?

And how do you translate the ideals of love and truth to real life behavior?

perejil wrote:

shock_the_monkey wrote:i would have gone for love and truth, however, he wanted just one. so, i opted for the one that encompasses all. no pun intended here, by the way. maybe i should have gone for just love, as i hold love above truth and i could argue that truth is born of love too. love gives us compassion and mercy. truth gives us justice and freedom. of the three that are most often inferred: faith, hope and charity, charity is another name for love. and charity is acknowledged as the greater of the other two. i don't really do faith. and, not surprisingly, i'm pretty hopeless at hope too.

In my view, love and truth often seem to be at odds.

How do you reconcile them?

... well, love and truth aren't the same sort of thing. love is about application. truth is about knowledge. so, it's really all about how you apply knowledge. aspies are very attached to truth. not so much love. they intellectualise rather than emote. so, it's sort of counter-intuitive for an aspie to recognise emotion over intellect. but i do, because i recognise that emotion is closer to spirituality than intellect. emotion, what we feel, is the way that spirit communicates with us, not intellect.

perejil wrote:And how do you translate the ideals of love and truth to real life behavior?

... short of writing a book, i, being a christian by upbringing, follow the example of jesus ... and, of course, other such enlightened beings. i'm particularly fond of the dalai lama. also, as a panentheist, i see myself reflected in everyone else. as such, there is no 'us' and 'them' to me. everyone is everybody else. so, as i do unto others, i am doing unto myself.

"Jesus loves me"

I wonder how many people that statement has turned into narcissists

Shock the monkeys seems really kind and helpful here though.
My grandmother was very religious. obsessive even lol
The other grandmother was religious too but more flexible and fun.
The first wasn't understanding nor accepting.nor empathizing much.i was avoiding her. Almost never saw her.
She was really lonely after her husband dies.maybe that is why she obsessed.
One time i told her i wanted to be an actor as a child and said that i am a whore,she start crying and that i will go to hell. Sounds like comedy.
I think this hypocrisy makes most children want to rebel.because they think if that is god i don't want it.
But i don't think that is love really.i see god=love.and nothing else basically.
I love shock value though. Especially if you going to shock these hypocrites. But with looks and words not actions.
But i am not in the age where i need to rebel anymore to these things.because some things seem long gone now

solemnlysworn wrote:"Jesus loves me"

... jesus is a greatly misunderstood historical figure. and the church have a habit of perpetuating that misunderstanding. what people said of jesus and what jesus said of himself often don't match. and this is further complicated by the fact that jesus acted as a channel for god - the person of jesus and that of god get very confused.

solemnlysworn wrote:I wonder how many people that statement has turned into narcissists

... people can conjure up all sort of excuses for their choices in life. it should be no surprise to anyone that jesus is one of them.