So I've decided to write blogs about random topics I care about. Here's the first one. Please leave any comments that you may have.
The Necessity of Human Revolution
In this day and age, we are continuously faced with new atrocities and tragedies. Indeed, famines, genocides, and wars seem to be a daily occurrence. When one examines such situations, he or she will no doubt also find people trying to find ways to make a profit from the tragic event. Why is it that people act so selfishly? More importantly, why do we allow these tragedies to exist in the world? Some claim that the root cause of all these events is a selfish human nature, which cannot be changed or escaped. Regardless of how you feel about this idea, all can agree that humanity tends to act in a selfish manner. However, the deterministic idea of a corrupt human nature dangerously leads us to believe that we can never change our current situation and dooms our future to repeat our past.
So if the selfishness that so many people posses is not the result of an inherent human nature, how do we overcome it? The only answer is through human revolution. Human revolution, as the name suggests, is a radical overhaul of the way we view the world. Modern thought tends to view people as separate, exclusive individuals. However, this is not the case. As the poet John Donne wrote, “No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main.” Understanding the mutual inclusiveness of all life to which Donne suggests is the essence of human revolution.
This idea is easy to understand. When a person starts to view other people not as detached beings but instead sees himself in them, it is only logical that his attitude towards them would change. After all, who would treat themselves in a selfish and cruel manner? Few would, if any. Great things happen as one begins to effect this change in his or her life. Anger towards those who are disrespectful turns into compassion. Impatience with those who are in different life states turns into peace and understanding. This point of view is nothing new, however. Men throughout history, such as Jesus and Siddhartha Gautama—the founder of Buddhism—preached treating others as you would like to be treated. Human revolution takes this altruistic philosophy as its foundation.
But just as human revolution preaches the unity of all life, the benefits from this philosophy also expand to all humanity. As we create human revolution in our own lives, we also plant the seeds of human revolution in the lives of others without even trying.
As compassion is spread throughout the world, the world undoubtedly changes. The selfishness of the past is transformed into the selflessness of the future. The bitterness and strife that has been engrained into us for generations ceases to exist. The nations and cultures of the world are brought together, and the world will finally know the peace that so many have yearned for.
Of course, peace on earth has been attempted many times, and it has always failed. This fact has caused many people to write peace off as just an idealistic dream that will never become a reality. Human revolution, however, is unlike any other attempt for peace. Instead of the earlier misguided attempts, such as the hippie movement of the 1960s, which lacked focus and alienated the majority of people, human revolution does not make world peace its primary goal. Instead, world peace is just its natural side-effect.
Humanity seems to be on the tipping point. If we do not change our course, it is likely that the next generations will inherit a dark and cold world. Human revolution is no longer just a nice idea; it is a necessity. However, we should not view human revolution as some mundane task that must be accomplished. It is a joyous journey of continuous self-perfection. A world where human revolution has been fully realized is a world in which the limitless potential of humanity is finally recognized. Let us all work towards that noble goal.
“everything depends on what is in our hearts. If we decide to ourselves that something is impossible, then, consistent with our minds in thinking so, even something that is possible for us will become impossible. On the other hand, if we have the confidence that we can definitely do something, then we are already one step closer to achieving it in reality.” – Soka Gakkai President, Daisaku Ikeda
There is often a necessity of revolution of the state but explain how we are not 'separate, exclusive individuals'?
And explain why 'selflessness' and 'altruism' or 'otherism' is moral while selfishness isn't?
And how can you make the ridiculous claim that selfishness is to blame for 'famines, genocides, and wars'? Which you also claim are a 'daily occurrence'.
I clicked on this link expecting to read something similar to Thomas Jefferson's famous quote: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."
But all I got was some pointless baseless fantastical claims.
And explain why 'selflessness' and 'altruism' or 'otherism' is moral while selfishness isn't?
I never once spoke about the "morality" of selflessness or the "immorality" of selfishness. It is just simple logic that a society where individuals only pursue their own self-interests does not work. Unless, of course, you judge success in imaginary concepts of "profit." If that is the case, you and I are on completely different wavelengths.
And how can you make the ridiculous claim that selfishness is to blame for 'famines, genocides, and wars'? Which you also claim are a 'daily occurrence'.
Care to give examples of a "selfless war" or a "selfless genocide"? Also, if corrupt and selfish governments that rule some parts of Africa, for example, actually distributed the foreign aid that they receive to their people, there would most certainly be less starvation in the world. Lastly, I didn't say that they were actually a daily occurence.
Spamwise wrote on Feb 14th, 2009 at 8:43pm : I never once spoke about the "morality" of selflessness or the "immorality" of selfishness. It is just simple logic that a society where individuals only pursue their own self-interests does not work. Unless, of course, you judge success in imaginary concepts of "profit." If that is the case, you and I are on completely different wavelengths.
I'd argue that every society past, present and future runs of self interest to a large extent.
There has never been an completely altruistic society.
Spamwise wrote on Feb 14th, 2009 at 8:43pm : Care to give examples of a "selfless war" or a "selfless genocide"? Also, if corrupt and selfish governments that rule some parts of Africa, for example, actually distributed the foreign aid that they receive to their people, there would most certainly be less starvation in the world. Lastly, I didn't say that they were actually a daily occurence.
Many horrible things have been justified by people because they were for the 'greater good'.
Almost any religious act could be seen as 'selfless' and many horrible things have been done in the name of religion.
It is simply not in one's rational self interest to commit genocide.
There has never been an completely altruistic society.
You are exactly right. That is why the idea is called "human revolution" (I can't take credit for coming up with it, though), as it is something revolutionary. I am not saying that saying that society up until this point has been "immoral" or anything (I don't believe in moral absolutes), but I do think that if people took this worldview seriously, the world would be a much better place.
Many horrible things have been justified by people because they were for the 'greater good'.
You are right. It is disgusting how some choose to use humanity's desire for peace as a method to further their own agendas.
It is simply not in one's rational self interest to commit genocide.
And war is often a very necessary thing.
I think a person could view genocide as furthering his or her own self-interest. If, for example, a certain ethnic group threatened a leader's power, wiping them out could be in his view furthering to his self-interest.
That is one issue I still have to do a lot of thinking about. I wonder how many wars would have been fought if diplomacy was applied to the situation from early on. Maybe the number would be fewer, or maybe it would be the same. I don't know. I consider myself a pacifist, but I know that sometimes war is the only option. I guess my view right now is that we should approach hostile nations with a diplomatic and respectful attitude, but if they refuse to listen and threaten to harm innocents, we should do what is necessary.
And explain why 'selflessness' and 'altruism' or 'otherism' is moral while selfishness isn't?
And how can you make the ridiculous claim that selfishness is to blame for 'famines, genocides, and wars'? Which you also claim are a 'daily occurrence'.
I clicked on this link expecting to read something similar to Thomas Jefferson's famous quote: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."
But all I got was some pointless baseless fantastical claims.
We have all the food the world would ever need and people die hungry every day.
If that isn't just one sign of how selfishness is NOT to blame, what is?
People are becoming aware at a faster rate than ever. We are awakening to
our BEING. Some will not come along there EGO'S are too strong.
Spamwise wrote on Feb 15th, 2009 at 12:29am : You are right. It is disgusting how some choose to use humanity's desire for peace as a method to further their own agendas.
But it often wasn't for their own agendas but that they did actually believe that what evils they were doing were for a greater good.
Spamwise wrote on Feb 15th, 2009 at 12:29am :
I think a person could view genocide as furthering his or her own self-interest. If, for example, a certain ethnic group threatened a leader's power, wiping them out could be in his view furthering to his self-interest.
Death, suffering and slavery is not in one's rational self interest. Trade, freedom and as much peace as is possible to preserve that freedom is in one's rational self interest.
Spamwise wrote on Feb 15th, 2009 at 12:29am : That is one issue I still have to do a lot of thinking about. I wonder how many wars would have been fought if diplomacy was applied to the situation from early on. Maybe the number would be fewer, or maybe it would be the same. I don't know. I consider myself a pacifist, but I know that sometimes war is the only option. I guess my view right now is that we should approach hostile nations with a diplomatic and respectful attitude, but if they refuse to listen and threaten to harm innocents, we should do what is necessary.
Pacifism is immoral. It is the believe that nothing is worse than war. That is clearly not true. There are many things worse than war.
I think one often has to talk and discuss with tyrants but one should never give up an ounce of freedom to them for cowardice.
But it often wasn't for their own agendas but that they did actually believe that what evils they were doing were for a greater good.
That is really just speculation.
Death, suffering and slavery is not in one's rational self interest. Trade, freedom and as much peace as is possible to preserve that freedom is in one's rational self interest.
I don't think it is irrational to want power.
Pacifism is immoral. It is the believe that nothing is worse than war.
Also, I think I need to point out that while war is occasionally the only option, it is never a good thing. War is awful. War is a tragedy. Some people might say that war can be beneficial, such as in the case of WWII, which helped bring the US out the Great Depression, but each individual who lost his or her life in that conflict was more precious than all of the economies in the world, and I think we need to keep that in mind.
Spamwise wrote on Feb 16th, 2009 at 8:17pm : That is really just speculation.
Every totalitarian ideology has and is altruistic. Look at Nazism, fascism, socialism, enviromentalism and Islamism.
They are all very altruistic and collectivistic.
Spamwise wrote on Feb 16th, 2009 at 8:17pm : I don't think it is irrational to want power.
When you damage another human being and infringe on his or her rights, you have forfeited your own rights. That is irrational.
Spamwise wrote on Feb 16th, 2009 at 8:17pm : Maybe to some people. Not to me.
So you believe that there isn't anything worse than war?
Every totalitarian ideology has and is altruistic. Look at Nazism, fascism, socialism, enviromentalism and Islamism.
They are all very altruistic and collectivistic.
I think they thought they were (which contradicts my last point, but I didn't think that one through at all, ha). But it's hard to consider any system "altruistic" if it persecutes a segment of its population.
When you damage another human being and infringe on his or her rights, you have forfeited your own rights. That is irrational.
I don't know how I feel about that first statement. I definitely don't think that totalitarian leaders are "smart" in pursuing their self-interests of power, but I can understand it. I do think it is "more" rational for people to pursue self-interests such as you listed, though.
So you believe that there isn't anything worse than war?
I think arguing that one thing is "less bad" than something else is pointless, because what standard of morality would be used? It would all be subjective. I just feel that even though war can sometimes be necessary and that though it can occasionally bring things that are beneficial, it is still a tragedy because of all the human life lost.
Spamwise wrote on Mar 3rd, 2009 at 4:07pm :
I think they thought they were (which contradicts my last point, but I didn't think that one through at all, ha). But it's hard to consider any system "altruistic" if it persecutes a segment of its population.
Ever heard of the phrase, 'for the greater good'. That phrase has justified many atrocities. That phrase is also product of the ethics of self-sacrifice.
Spamwise wrote on Mar 3rd, 2009 at 4:07pm : I don't know how I feel about that first statement. I definitely don't think that totalitarian leaders are "smart" in pursuing their self-interests of power, but I can understand it. I do think it is "more" rational for people to pursue self-interests such as you listed, though.
To assert that Hitler was bring selfish in wanting to be Fuhrer, you'd have to show that him being leader brought him or made him happy. I'm not hedonistic. Look at the fate of Hitler.
A selfish man wouldn't kill himself as it would be cowardly and immoral.
Spamwise wrote on Mar 3rd, 2009 at 4:07pm :
I think arguing that one thing is "less bad" than something else is pointless, because what standard of morality would be used? It would all be subjective. I just feel that even though war can sometimes be necessary and that though it can occasionally bring things that are beneficial, it is still a tragedy because of all the human life lost.
Morality is not subjective.
When the life of a totalitarian aggressor is lost, it is good.
To assert that Hitler was bring selfish in wanting to be Fuhrer, you'd have to show that him being leader brought him or made him happy. I'm not hedonistic. Look at the fate of Hitler.
I'm not saying he was selfish; I'm saying that if a leader persecutes a segment of his population, then he is not "unselfishly concerned for or devoted to the welfare of others", which is the definition of altruism.
Morality is not subjective.
On what do we base our morals, then? The Bible, the Koran, or some other religious text?
When the life of a totalitarian aggressor is lost, it is good.
I will agree with you that it is good that his negative influence on the earth is gone, but I don't agree that it is good that he lost his life.
And the people in the 'Atheists of UG' group need to visit it more. Nobody has posted in it for months.
Heh, I visit every now and then. Are you an atheist, then, or religious? I'm assuming you're religious, as I've never met an atheist who believed in an absolute system of morals. But I guess there's a first time for everything, ha.
Spamwise wrote on Mar 3rd, 2009 at 9:22pm : I'm not saying he was selfish; I'm saying that if a leader persecutes a segment of his population, then he is not "unselfishly concerned for or devoted to the welfare of others", which is the definition of altruism.
He was arguably altruistic towards the 'Ayrans' as he believed that the extermination of 'lesser beings' would help the German people.
Spamwise wrote on Mar 3rd, 2009 at 9:22pm : On what do we base our morals, then? The Bible, the Koran, or some other religious text?
Reality.
Spamwise wrote on Mar 3rd, 2009 at 9:22pm : I will agree with you that it is good that his negative influence on the earth is gone, but I don't agree that it is good that he lost his life.
He forfeited his rights when he forfeited the rights of others.
Spamwise wrote on Mar 3rd, 2009 at 9:22pm : Heh, I visit every now and then. Are you an atheist, then, or religious? I'm assuming you're religious, as I've never met an atheist who believed in an absolute system of morals. But I guess there's a first time for everything, ha.
I'm an Objectivist. Ethical egoism is my system of morality and I'm certainly an atheist.
He was arguably altruistic towards the 'Ayrans' as he believed that the extermination of 'lesser beings' would help the German people.
You mean the "pure" German people, right? As he killed millions of German Jews, gypsies, blacks, etc. He favored one segment of the population and tried to exterminate the rest. That isn't altruism.
Reality.
Who's view of reality? I don't understand how you can reconcile an atheistic worldview with moral absolutism.
He forfeited his rights when he forfeited the rights of others.
I'm not talking about human rights; I'm talking about the intrinsic value of all human life. You can't really say that you value all human life and then pick and choose who you value.
Spamwise wrote on Mar 4th, 2009 at 10:49pm : You mean the "pure" German people, right? As he killed millions of German Jews, gypsies, blacks, etc. He favored one segment of the population and tried to exterminate the rest. That isn't altruism.
He would argue that what he did was for the benefit of the racially pure German people.
Spamwise wrote on Mar 4th, 2009 at 10:49pm : Who's view of reality?
? Reality is reality.
Spamwise wrote on Mar 4th, 2009 at 10:49pm : I don't understand how you can reconcile an atheistic worldview with moral absolutism.
All the atheists that you admire (Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris etc etc) believe in objective morality as well.
You've made moral judgements in the past therefore you believe in an objective morality as well.
I'd explain my position further if we had a better way of communicating but it would be hard on this message board.
Have you ever read Ayn Rand or Aristotle or Nietzsche by any chance?
Spamwise wrote on Mar 4th, 2009 at 10:49pm : I'm not talking about human rights; I'm talking about the intrinsic value of all human life. You can't really say that you value all human life and then pick and choose who you value.
Nothing has intrinsic value and I never said that I valued ALL human life.
He would argue that what he did was for the benefit of the racially pure German people.
That still doesn't fit the definition of altruism.
? Reality is reality.
Who's to say that your view of reality is the same as mine?
All the atheists that you admire (Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris etc etc) believe in objective morality as well.
I very much doubt that they believe in an absolute moral code.
You've made moral judgements in the past therefore you believe in an objective morality as well.
I have my own view as to what is "moral" and what is "immoral." That is my own subjective view, though. My view of morality is different than a christian's, for example.
Have you ever read Ayn Rand or Aristotle or Nietzsche by any chance?
I read Anthem by Ayn rand, which I liked a lot. I tried to read this collection of Aristotle's works, but I didn't get past the "categories" section. It really just seemed like pointless rambling to me.
i will put this quite simply.
china holds most of our economic standing in terms of the stimulous package through lending.
they are also responsible for darfur.
we need china.
we wont fuck with china
hence
reason we havent stopped darfur.
i will put this quite simply.
china holds most of our economic standing in terms of the stimulous package through lending.
they are also responsible for darfur.
we need china.
we wont fuck with china
hence
reason we havent stopped darfur.
should I elaborate more?
How is this relevant to this blog, at all? O_o
But, whatever. China holds most of our economy in general. We owe them trillions of dollars, and this is nothing new. China also needs us, though, as we are their largest trading partner. They need us to buy their products, and we need them to buy our debt.
they are also responsible for darfur.
You'd better provide some proof for that statement..
This article discusses the morality of the 'new atheists'.
And I would suggest that you read Nietzsche as he is very fun to read.
I finally got around to reading the article. It's a great article and is very well-written. But I don't accept that idea of rational-egoism as defined in the article. Indeed, it seems to contradict itself: "And because egoism recognizes that it is right for a man to think and act in his self-interest, it also recognizes that it is wrong for others to violate this right through physical force or fraud"
What if a person's self-interest lay in using physical force or fraud? Who is to decide what a "rational" self-interest is and what a irrational self-interest is?
Spamwise wrote on Mar 20th, 2009 at 4:17pm : What if a person's self-interest lay in using physical force or fraud?
A man lives by his mind and the resulting rational thought that he has chosen to do. He uses this to produce for himself for his survival. If you live off of the production of another, you are simply putting your own life at the mercy of the productive and rational thought of others. Meaning, without others you die.
Spamwise wrote on Mar 20th, 2009 at 4:17pm : Who is to decide what a "rational" self-interest is and what a irrational self-interest is?
What benefits one's life is good and you can rationally act to obtain that good.
A man lives by his mind and the resulting rational thought that he has chosen to do.
That doesn't dispute anything I said, though..
If you live off of the production of another, you are simply putting your own life at the mercy of the productive and rational thought of others. Meaning, without others you die.
I agree to an extent. I must say, though, that it is impossible to make it completely on your own in society. Whether you're a worker relying on a boss for a job, or a boss relying on workers for profit, you're going to be relying on people.
What benefits one's life is good and you can rationally act to obtain that good.
But there has to be a standard to judge what is rational or not, though, correct? You don't get that from a belief system which simply states that following one's own interests is the standard of morality.
Spamwise wrote on Mar 22nd, 2009 at 6:41am :
I agree to an extent. I must say, though, that it is impossible to make it completely on your own in society. Whether you're a worker relying on a boss for a job, or a boss relying on workers for profit, you're going to be relying on people.
Both of those examples are different from what we are talking about. Both of your examples are about mutually benefittial consent not parasitic reliance.
Spamwise wrote on Mar 22nd, 2009 at 6:41am : But there has to be a standard to judge what is rational or not, though, correct? You don't get that from a belief system which simply states that following one's own interests is the standard of morality.
Logic is the judge.
If you want to survive in the desert, for example, you ought to bring lots of water for hydration.
The same applies to life and morality.
Actions which act in favor of one's life and in pursuit of one's happiness are rational and good.
Both of those examples are different from what we are talking about. Both of your examples are about mutually benefittial consent not parasitic reliance.
Meh, not necessarily. The employee is trusting in the employer to continue to pay him a job, and his continued ability to sustain a life is dependent on that. In the same way, the owner is dependent on his employees to make him money, otherwise he too will not be able to sustain a life.
Logic is the judge.
Not everyone has the same standard of logic, though. Your arguments assume that everyone has a same way of thinking, but that simply isn't true. I don't think you can say that morality lies in following one's self-interest and then put a limit to that for the sake of others. You're not really following your own self-interest then, are you? In fact, it sounds like altruism to me at that point.
Spamwise wrote on Mar 25th, 2009 at 6:27am :
Meh, not necessarily. The employee is trusting in the employer to continue to pay him a job, and his continued ability to sustain a life is dependent on that. In the same way, the owner is dependent on his employees to make him money, otherwise he too will not be able to sustain a life.
But both parties have the option to withdraw their service. A victim does not.
Spamwise wrote on Mar 25th, 2009 at 6:27am : Not everyone has the same standard of logic, though. Your arguments assume that everyone has a same way of thinking, but that simply isn't true.
Spamwise wrote on Mar 25th, 2009 at 6:27am : I don't think you can say that morality lies in following one's self-interest and then put a limit to that for the sake of others. You're not really following your own self-interest then, are you? In fact, it sounds like altruism to me at that point.
There is no limit.
Harming others in this way is against your self-interest. That is my point.
| My Profile
The Necessity of Human Revolution blog
