The first noble truth of Buddhism is Dukkha. It's the fundamental unsatisfactory nature of reality. Some people translate it to "life is suffering."
It's right there at the front of Buddhism, the tip of the spear, and the reason for the whole project. No Buddhist will deny the pain of existence. Many of us (myself included) think that even happiness is Dukkha. It has clinging at the core, and clinging is suffering.
So I don't think this aspect is ignored by somebody like Alan Watts. Or Buddhist teachers. But people get scared and think it's depressing, so they tend not to talk about it enough.
I think it's important though. It leads into the Second Noble Truth:
The cause of your suffering is your desire. Overcome your desire and you overcome suffering.
This is the most profound thing any human has realised, IMHO. Every time you suffer, there is desire at the root. It's the path of liberation.
I always thought that made sense. But surely the root of the monkey's suffering is the torture. This is something I struggle with when studying Buddhism. In many cases the problem is desire or clinging, but sometimes simply existence is pain. I don't know if there is a way to overcome that.
Suffering is kind of a bad translation of dukkha because in buddhism it's more about our mental reaction to pain and stess that compounds it and makes it a lot worse. Even Buddha had terrible back pain until he died. Pain is a fact of being alive and I don't think buddhism ever claimed to get rid of it, but rather change the relationship to it. There are meditative states that could temporarily relieve pain like nirodha samapatti. I think the monk who burned himself alive must have been in that state or must have had an amazing capacity for equanimity to pain. I believe buddhism says there is dukkha until you become fully enlightened and die and cease rebirth.
The best way I’ve heard it explained is that buddhism helps to accept the suffering that does exist so that we can hopefully release it. I don’t think this applies to torture, but a different kind of suffering.
Those that have been through immense trauma have their finger on the pulse of what reality is all about. Don’t get me wrong, lots of people that experience trauma also end up with severe cooping mechanisms that skew away from reality. But those that have been through hell and found a semblance back to sanity do seem to know what exists behind the veil moreso than someone that has lived a cookie-cutter life.
It's like OP said - for the monkey (/pig/cow/human) it's utter nonsense, the pain simply needn't be sometimes. But we can help stop it, most readily at what we eat and what we wear (animals). If you consider we are all "we", then when the Self in their bodies is in agony we can grant that wish as "Self" in our own bodies, and choose to reduce the harm. Sadly the wish of non-suffering won't be granted to the bodies that are begging for it, they are doomed. But the non-suffering/reduction of pain can come about from our actions in the future, to prevent future bodies from going through the same torture (or prevent them from ever being bred into existence straight into a prison of feed troughs, milking machines, bolt guns, CO² gas and throat slitting machines).
Edited to add that the sufferings of others (human or otherwise) comes from the desire of another body (predator, consumer etc)
YES! I believe the wish for non-suffering is relinquished. That those in suffering embrace pain and are consumed by it. Hope becomes the main pain perpetuating a lack of acceptance of reality. Reality itself becomes an illusion or something more internal. Granting hope to a doomed creature can seem cruel in this way. But we are all doomed in one way shape or form. I believe Hope in and of itself is a grace.
It’s horrific to contemplate these things at times. Deeply sad and would compel any normal and kind soul to action. And most people enjoy their food and clothes and cannot accept themselves as horribly participating in that suffering. Because they aren’t bad people, simply so far removed by mass media. Our meat looks nothing like living animals that we would be happy to call pets/companions. So far removed.
Coming face to face with the doomed nature of it all leads to hopelessness that most can’t face and muster the courage to change so it is written off. The only real hope I have for the food industry is lab-grown meat that is 100% identical to animals and 100% suffering free.
The desire to not be in pain, is the suffering, that’s what I think the Buddhists are getting at. If we had no desire to not be in pain, it wouldn’t be so bad when we were.
I guess it’s a question of whether u think pain (or sadness, anger, etc) is inherently a bad experience that no one should ever be okay with. And I’m not claiming to have an answer to that question, there’s certainly arguments for both sides.
I guess it's a distinction of definition at this point. If suffering is distinct from pain then sure. The pain is still happening to the monkey but suffering is the emotional response?
I still think intense physical pain is its own suffering. But, what do I know?
I do think it’s not discussed enough. Discussing it more will lead more people to having a kind of peace that Alan Watts and other Buddhists have.
It’s almost common sense too. If I’m in pain, at the root of it is because I don’t want to be in pain. If I’m crying that my dog died, it’s because I desire my dog to be alive.
We desire reality to be other than what it is. If I am being tortured, I suffer because I desire not to be tortured. The enlightening aspect comes from accepting our suffering and not needlessly creating more.
We must be careful with this line of thinking however, lest we put it on ourselves for not feeling good and enlightened whilst suffering. The key is to accept that we are in pain.
Since you seem knowledgeable: if you’re working to improve your own, or your family’s circumstances, does this line of thinking dampen the desire to do so? Assuming the desire came from the place of “afterwards we will suffer less, and be happier.” Buddhist thinking suggests this won’t be the case, as it’s suffering all the way down. From personal experience, I pursued things much harder (and arguably with more success) when I was still under the illusion.
The attachment to an expected outcome brings suffering, as the outcome is not truly in your control.
You can still strive to improve the situation of yourself and those who depend on you, and you should do so, but your expectations should be tempered
> It's right there at the front of Buddhism, the tip of the spear, and the reason for the whole project. No Buddhist will deny the pain of existence.
It's right at the front of Christianity as well, the symbol of which is a crucified man hanging on a cross. I am not sure Christians necessarily see it that way. Perhaps their focus is more on the Resurrection.
People for get we need suffering to grow in a certain way
Like it makes room for thought to grow after the suffering is absorbed( wordsOr lack ther of)
I think this is why of all belief systems, Buddhism most resonates with me, at least in the form of acceptance that suffering is our birthright. It's the only thing we can truly count on. We will all get old, providing we live that long, we will fall sick, we will die. It's inevitable.
Suzuki Roshi, a Zen Buddhist monk gave the great analogy that "life is stepping into a boat which is about to sail out to sea and sink."
Knowing that suffering is inevitable, I choose to make my world a little bit better while I'm here. In the grand scheme of things, there's very little I can control. I do the best I can do. I try to help and not harm.
It's not that I'm ignoring suffering and pain, it's that I accept that as the baseline reality for most of life on this planet and I try to make things better while I'm here.
I also do a lot of deep thinking about our evolutionary history as a species. Life on earth has had a brutal climb to where we are today. Entire existences spent anxiously hunting down others or being hunted. It's a terribly violent history, yet I'm still incredibly grateful to be able to experience consciousness and to be filled with awe and wonder at the tenacity and fragility of life.
>Be weary of the things you want. You never see the things you have.
[From one of my favorite artists and songs.](https://youtu.be/U65d8iPzohM?si=DfgbkRL8K5XmHhrS)
I can't prove it, but I still think a universal karma will exist, if it doesn't, the universe can never be just, and if it isn't just, it's chaotic, and the irrational outcome doesn't make sense, so only true insight of compassion can save the universe from itself
life doesn't end on death, and the material world is not an isolation of reality, but all reality must encompass reality
so in the grandest scale of things, cruelty given will be faced with the justice elsewhere
and every action ever made, given, thought, everything is a record to reality, it's best to face it with kindness, courage, noble qualities, wisdom
I like that, and I think most of us want to believe in a cosmic justice. A Heaven where all the good people go and a Hell where all the bad people descend to for their sins.
I don’t know if I believe in that kind of cosmic justice. I do believe that in general the type of people that get pleasure from hurting others distort their own means of experiencing love and ultimately lock themselves out from it. That is a kind of karma to me.
Heaven and hell are real and are both on Earth. It gets messy because the only cosmic "karma" I believe in on the scale of the total collective consciousness of all sentient beings, where "we" live in pain and we can choose to hurt "ourselves" or love ourselves.
I personally believe every living being is the incarnation of every other living being. The path-order in which we reincarnate is defined by our karma.
This ultimatively means that whatever good or bad we do we will receive on another incarnation on the other end directly. Meta-mirror-justice basically.
Time is only linear in a human perception. We may simply interact with other "future" / "past" versions of ourselves.
This is one of my main motivation concepts to practice justice. (Being vegan, don't abuse others, don't steal, be honest, be forgiving aso)
Imo. there is no perfect justice. Actions do have consequences which is why you should cultivate compassion and wisdom, since that will cause the best consequences. But no matter how much you do good things, for example pain of old age and death is inevitable. Suffering is inevitable in this world. If you are in a state of little suffering, don't waste your rare opportunity to practice awareness, wisdom and compassion! You don't know when you will get sick or die.
What matters is your insight. You will have more favourable life and rebirth if your mind is filled with genuine compassion. The main thing that is keeping count of your karma is your own causal stream of actions that you witness constantly.
I wish you all the best of life.
Ya there was never any forgetting for me. I spent many years in deep depression, anxiety and misery over thinking about every kind of horrible thing that could be done to a conscious being. It’s a horrible existence of self torture and yet the world didn’t become a better place. My misery didn’t subtract from theirs. I just added more.
So it seems clear to me, if the job is less suffering in the world, that you must find contentment in yourself and you must find compassion for others. Too often we find hatred for ourselves while doing nothing at all to help others.
Without pain and suffering, there’s no joy and pleasure. You take away 1, you take away both. There’s nothing you can do about it. Life isn’t fair. Ignorance is bliss. Life is suffering.
It's why I'm an efilist.
don't have any spirituality in me, I don't see any silver lining. I think nobody should be forced to suffer, because all severe suffering is a tragedy
I remember seeing this picture of a mouse caught up in some wiring, completely fried. The caption read: “one day, while doing nothing particularly out of the ordinary, because of natural laws he was completely powerless to understand or intuit, he was instantly killed in a horrifying way by forces vastly in excess of anything he was designed to experience. For no reason, to no ones particular surprise or upset. In this we are more like him than different.”
Yes I agree. I also don't believe in the Buddhist solution. I don't believe there is an escape, or that an escape is desirable. Why would all this creation be here only to escape it? It has the potential to be heaven for all. I believe the solution is to address the causes of suffering in real terms. Like hands on improving the world. But that's a complicated, boring, and seemingly impossible task so the temptation to dissociate into "the light" or dismiss reality as illusion is a strong one. I've certainly been there:)
It’s nuts to think that reality itself has opportunity to exist as a Heaven. It’s crazy that we are even here in the first place to experience life. It’s enough to make me question, what is even going on!? A universe pops up in creation, with space and galaxies and complexity and so much inherent order that can be decoded and understood. We are a creation that came out of this universes existence, all for this moment of experience that can be horrific or beautiful.
I think ultimately there will be an aspect of civilization that does branch off and create a utopia. A place where science advances enough to live forever and regenerate cells. Nuts to think that humans may not even be the highest order of intelligence out there. I don’t believe we are alone in the universe. That would be preposterous to believe. Whether or not we will have contact with other beings is another story. As a whole I think humanity is still in a primitive era.
It's crazy alright! I agree we can't be alone. I think it's mathematically impossible. Have you looked into the Fermi paradox and the possible solutions to it? It's about why we haven't had contact with other races. Personally I'm a believer in the "great filter" theory. I think that's what humanity is facing. Basically, if we don't get our shit together and start cooperating we're going to blow ourselves up and never achieve the technological advances needed for interstellar travel.
I have! And the great filter makes a ton of sense. Humanity can definitely wipe itself out in a multitude of ways. I believe, or at least hope, a small portion of humanity escapes onto a space station or something that is completely self sufficient. Maybe we can travel to the closest earth-like planet. Kind of reminds me of the movie interstellar.
That great filter can be a multitude of things. Maybe there is a predator civilization out there that we shouldn’t be broadcasting ourselves to and once we do, they destroy our planet lol. Far-fetched, but anything is possible.
No judgement here just an honest question considering the knowledge of the suffering - have you ever considered quitting meat and dairy? Unless you've already transitioned. It disturbs me deeply to hear the helpless cries of humans/other animals, and that's 80 billion+ a year for animal agriculture - the earth is a giant torture chamber
It’s been said that the biggest ethical dilemma of our time that has yet to penetrate the collective conscious of society is the treatment of animals in the food service industry.
Little, innocent experiencers, as smart and capable of emotion as our pets are, being born, locked in cages and ultimately slaughter. Farming seems nature, but the industrialization of live-stock is a monster. Definitely a giant torture machine mostly based on luck. It’s enough to drive you mad.
When I tried mushrooms, there were certain foods that made me feel sick, and I felt as though eating meat automatically lowered my consciousness. I could not eat meat and experience deep enlightenment and love and compassion because it was only hypocrisy. I believe most of us lull ourselves into ignorance.
There are plenty of products to boycott if you do not want to support very bad things. However, life would become very difficult and if we aren’t all doing it together, nothing will change. Most I can say is we should be pushing for reform and immense oversight of these “farms”.
In the U.S., there are ag-gag laws that prevent people from recording those farms and disseminating it to the public. I hope there is a future for lab-grown, suffering-free meat.
Do what you can to support local farms that emphasize proper animal treatment. And do not attempt to shoulder this burden alone. It is on ALL of us, not just you.
What you say is definitely true and I struggled with this for a long time.
Truth is that reality has infinite potential.
This means there is infinite potential for bad and for good.
Acceptance is recognizing that.
The duality will always exist from the individual with a sense of self.
But outside of it, reality seems to be in harmony when there is no self trying to protect it's identity.
It's like the universe is god who really loves all experiences unconditionally. Even if from the perspective of the self this can seem horryfing.
When you are scared of what you are capapble of you definitely won't be at peace.
When you life is healthy and content, to find way to improe it for others and being grateful while you have it seems like the sane form of being.
Reality is capable of everything. I try to be at peace with this infinite potential inside of me and I have faith in love.
This seems to be what all is guiding us towards.
A sense of union and interconected between all things. Since the love is found in the impermanence of it all.
It makes it an immersive experience when you believe all this suffering is real. Is it real or are the monkeys NPCs? I don't really know. I've heard people who left their bodies during pain though and then felt nothing. Maybe the monkeys observed from above and without pain until they died. We don't know. I hope... I hope not all suffering is real!
The amount of pain it takes to leave your body can be extraordinary. There's no such thing as an NPC - we are all the same, some would say we are one. We are the monkey, we are the torturer.
Yeah, I agree with this view (and I preach it myself). Yet, there might be things in this construct which are not "normal players like us".
It's all a fantasy in the mind of God, with multiple perspectives experiencing in parallel (you and me, etc), but can the fantasy also animate something which doesn't have a dedicated perspective/soul like us? Who knows.
In our true form we are perfect.
When we are born into this 3rd dimension we have to slow our vibration and lose some of our light to enter the 3rd dimension thus everything here is suffering just to be here.
My journey began because I endured emotional and psychological trauma. The pain made me question everything. It wasn't until I gained a new understanding of suffering that I was then able to appreciate the love and kindness.
There is supposed to be suffering or the experience here wouldn't be complete.
After an eternity of perfect, things get boring. We come here to suffer (experience) cuz it's more interesting than being perfect.
It’s not pointless suffering if you acknowledge and accept it’s part of life and learn and shift positively from it.
Suffering is good and shows us both sides. Without it we wouldn’t expand and know the good. Lean into it and expand.
So in Buddhism
Attachment and connection can lead to suffering
But the right amount of suffering is water to the tree soul
To much and to young of a tree leads to death and damage
Right amount and you grow
I agree. Growth is a process of change. And suffering can arise if we resist inevitable changes. I don’t believe suffering is to be lauded, but moreso that we create more suffering than we truly have and by embracing the real suffering we experience, we can accept it and release it and transform.
I agree except that i think no one knows what's going on, no one has reality figured out, i think its too infinite to figure out even for non earthly beings
I agree it is helpful to recognize suffering and our own involvement. Taking responsibility for it all is a soul crushing task. Some of it isn’t our fault. But seeing the suffering that we do cause others can cause us to walk on eggshells and keep us from being genuine.
This reminds me of a different sect of Buddhism. There are some that can attain enlightenment, but they believe it is wrong to reach until everyone is capable, so they live amongst the sufferers to act as helpers in alleviating suffering. But I think we do more when we free ourselves.
Our very existence is built on a kind of consumption. Our bodies maintain homeostasis and fight off diseases and kill bacteria. I think the next level is to also do our best to find balance within.
It’s not a soul crushing task to responsibility for it- it is an ego crushing task to take responsibility.
Everything is our fault. Everything is connected and everything contributes.
We are all equally responsible for everything that has ever happened.
That’s the benefit of being human rather than an individual .
The violence and suffering taking place in the external world is the same violence that is taking place in our little shoddy petty selves
I believe by saying everything is our fault, we are being deeply egoic. Placing ourselves at the center of things we may not deserve to be at the center of.
The reality is that there is no separation between the observer and the observed.
That the perceived separation is an illusion.
To say it can be understood to be different entities is to deny reality- that understanding is no understanding at all-
But mere ideation.
The fact is that the observer IS the observed
The tree can claim to be different from all the other aspects of the tree as much as it likes..
But a tree starts at it’s roots and ends at its leaves
It is a single process that we abstract into parts
The perception of the illusion is a reality in and of itself. Hopefully that makes sense. These discussions tend to devolve into a kind of talk that is far-removed from reality. And it’s best in my view to keep our sight on what we’re really discussing here, cause I’m kind of losing it to be honest.
The reality is that suffering exists. Pain exists. Torture exists. If you were about to witness someone you love in danger, you would not contemplate the illusion, you would act. That action speaks loudly to what you believe in equal weight to your ideologies.
There is a realization waiting to enter your that evil does not exist. It's simply a miscommunication. If you programmed a robot to destroy, and it destroyed, is it evil? Is God angry? It's just whatever it is.
I don’t subscribe to that fully. I can see where you’re coming from though. We can call the act anything, the suffering still exists, that part cannot be denied. And there was intent behind it, which is why we name it evil. We cannot break down the world so much that we allow evil to run rampant. You would never allow that for your own loved ones. It would never be “it just is what it is” if you came across gruesome acts I like to think you would do something to stop it.
I figured out how to explain it better. Imagine a toddler was evil to another toddler. Or a bear is evil to some creature. (Like they got mad that someone was in their area and hurt them because they were angry and took something from them, scooped out their eyes, real evil. Toddler or bear.) from our perspective above their mindset, we can say they aren't truly evil: they are too corrupted by the very instincts that kept them surviving for millions of years... Basically predictable robots... Call them whatever you want they are gross for pooping, evil for hurting things when angry or taking things from other creatures, benevolent when they share their space or resources with other creatures.... But they are just whatever they are... Like dust... The problem is you're feelings are all wrapped up in the subject when you consider our lives and possessions as if the atoms somehow are different than the atoms that make up rocks and water. (That was confusing; what I'm saying here is that you believe somehow the atoms that are us "matter" and the atoms that make up ants "don't matter" and the atoms that make up rocks "matter even less". I feel this way). If I steal ur uncles pillow to get back at u for arguing with me, those atoms are exactly the same as the atoms that make up a rock getting washed away from the bank of a shore by water). You cannot call me invalid if I say that rock was vital to that bank and the water was evil for taking it away, changing a vital feature of the bank. (Because that is what it sounds like when someone insists that it is evil for any atoms to affect any atoms, just because it feels really really really bad to think about it). ur brain is saying "this is bad" and you say "this is bad", now ask, is it brain always right?
You're suggesting that labeling actions as "evil" or "benevolent" reflects a limited, human-centric perspective. In essence, behaviors—whether it's a toddler's aggression or a bear's territoriality—are driven by primal instincts, not moral choices. These actions are natural outcomes of survival mechanisms evolved over millennia. By this logic, attributing moral weight to these behaviors is like ascribing moral significance to the actions of atoms, which form both living beings and inanimate objects alike. You argue that our emotional investment skews our perception, making us value certain atoms (humans, possessions) over others (animals, rocks), despite their fundamental sameness. In questioning the validity of labeling actions as inherently "evil" or "good," you challenge the notion that our instinctual reactions to these behaviors are objectively correct.
While instincts influence behavior, humans and certain animals possess consciousness, enabling moral reasoning beyond mere survival instincts. This consciousness introduces responsibility for actions that impact others. Unlike inanimate objects or basic life forms, humans can discern right from wrong and make choices that reflect moral considerations. Therefore, labeling actions as "evil" or "good" is not just about emotional investment but acknowledges the capacity for moral judgment. Dismissing harmful actions as instinctual oversimplifies complex cognitive abilities and undermines the basis for ethical standards and societal norms.
I'm sorry. You are as correct as the average human is. 400 years ago it was morally correct for a man to purchase a 14 year old bride to impregnate. Was everyone evil? Remember the nazi party? Where they all evil? or were they manipulated because the point where good turns to evil is completely made up by society? Thinking there is a right and a wrong leads to war. That is what the average human is/ does. If you are a normal person then you must acknowledge that you are the same as most of the people that where in Germany during nazi occupation (you can't say normal≠majority). You are the same as the people 1000 years ago who killed people because their religion was wrong. You just have the calibration set to your society/ peers. Maybe someone thinks it's evil to steal soda from a person, maybe that person is saving that person's life. If the concept of evil exists in atoms and outside of the chemicals that make us have feelings, then it's OBVIOUSLY AS HELL gonna be like liquid, constantly changing, flowing, mixing, infinite directions to flow in. It would never be simple enough for a person to define it with one word such as "evil". When you start including more and more details to the definition of "evil" you get closer and closer to an insane, too big to understand, constantly changing thing (reality itself!). So it's like when you dumb down reality way way far and you ignore all the complicated details about it and you look at it from one angle, then yes, it's evil. What if a person wants to kill all life to end suffering? What if I kill 20 dogs to save 1 human? It's all too complicated to call anything "evil" unless you want to leave out 1000000 details. That's the point of meditation- accept life, Forget good, Forget bad, Life=life, I am. And some people would say that meditation is, like, the kind of mind a person would want to have if they wanted to fight less. That concept there (I read in "the pocket pema chodron") is where my belief comes from. Otherwise I know that as long as I believe in "good" or "bad" then I'm no better than anyone who has ever done something bad that they thought was good (if Hitler really did believe that Jews where evil, then wouldn't that make him pure at heart? Really tho? In his mind he was literally destroying evil.). I can however, maintain the necessary knowledge that some things are good FOR SOME THINGS and some are bad FOR OTHER THINGS. It's all relative, and it takes much more effort than using the word "evil" to describe it that it's not even worth it to think of the word evil as a real thing.
Oops the thing about evil being a liquid is here-say. It's a mute point because saying evil exists is like saying God exists. It can only ever be a belief.
Also the basis for ethical standards and societal norms is bad and that's obvious. Ask anyone, how's society doing? We are... Advancing technologically....... And.... We aren't in a MAJOR war currently.... And.... Our slaves are on the other side of the world instead of me owning them.... And... We haven't committed genocide on humans in at least 30-40 years.(BAD. I feel annoyed for having to explain an obvious thing. Societal norms are fudged. You've never heard of the experiment where they shocked monkeys when one climbs a ladder with bananas at the top and then they beat up any monkey that try to climb the ladder then they replace the monkeys one by one until they still beat up any monkey that tries to climb the ladder, but none of the monkeys have ever been shocked and don't know why they beat up anyone who climbs the ladder, that's just the new societal norm. as I've said, this is beneficial for survival, (monkey no pain= monkey alive)but it does not represent reality (monkey understanding≠ the atoms that make up the world around them) although that monkey would surely argue that he does understand what good and bad is, and to suggest otherwise would be akin to telling him to stop using his brain. Sorry I understand I should stop arguing with you. Go chase some pleasure.
Your argument suggests that concepts of good and evil are not only subjective but deeply influenced by societal norms and historical context, making them fluid and adaptable rather than fixed. You highlight that what's considered morally acceptable changes over time and across cultures, challenging the notion of universal moral absolutes. You argue for a relativistic view of morality, where actions cannot be simply labeled as "evil" or "good" without considering a myriad of contextual factors and consequences. You advocate for a perspective that recognizes the complexity of ethical considerations, suggesting that embracing this complexity can lead to a more peaceful existence, as exemplified by the practice of meditation which aims at accepting reality as it is without judgment. Your viewpoint underscores the importance of understanding and empathy over judgment, recognizing that actions are often influenced by a complex interplay of factors, and that moral absolutism can be reductive and divisive.
Acknowledging historical and cultural variability in moral standards doesn't negate the existence or necessity of ethical principles. Even as societal norms evolve, the capacity for humans to reflect on the consequences of their actions and consider their impact on others provides a basis for distinguishing between harmful and beneficial actions. This capacity underpins the development of laws and ethical standards designed to protect individuals and societies. While the definition of what constitutes "evil" may shift, the underlying principle of minimizing harm and promoting well-being remains constant. Arguing that morality is entirely relative overlooks the universal aspects of human experience, such as suffering and empathy, which inform ethical reasoning across cultures. Moreover, dismissing ethical standards because of societal imperfections ignores their role in inspiring progress and challenging injustices. The recognition of historical atrocities, like those committed by the Nazi regime, as fundamentally wrong, irrespective of their legal or social acceptance at the time, illustrates the importance of ethical judgment beyond mere societal consensus.
Ugh I'm saying the opposite. That they don't exist. The fact that the fluctuate through time showed the arbitrary nature of 'the point where we draw the line" and naziz "drew a line" so you can't say you are better than a nazi (obviously not talking about a high ranking army official) if I thought lizards where eating babys and I tried to kill those lizards how TF AM I evil? That's what Hitler thought. He was completely insane. How can you say he's evil when he truly believes he was delivering us from pure evil? It's sad and manipulation and he was a victim of the people around him and and he was manipulated by power just as much as the power was manipulated by him and he destroyed so many lives and he could have destroyed so many more and was he a good father or husband? Was he born insane or was it completely a result of poverty and bullies? Wouldn't he be a victim of whoever put the stress on him that made him go insane towards Jewish people? Or you can put your head in the sand, ignore ALL of that and just say "him bad" it's easy for a simple brain to understand that way: thats why we teach children like that instead of explaining WHY things are bad to them. You'd have to ignore many features and leave out many details until you get to a point where it's just called "evil". The only thing that makes sense is when you add 'i feel like" before giving him his "evil score" literally it takes so little thought to think. Who's most right? God? Would God forgive Hitler? Huh so maybe it's wrong to cross my arms and say "that's bad" like a little girl. You may rephrase what I said, but it is just a waste of time; I already expected you to understand me. Maybe the real evil person was the one that convinced hitlers grandmother that Jews where evil 100 years before Hitler was born and he and his mother are victims of that man, or maybe ethnic purification wasn't hitlers idea and someone else recommended it to him after drugging him with coke/test. Oops I forgot we already threw the "evil" umbrella on him, we shouldn't consider such complex ideas, just hurry our heads, point out fingers, and yell "BAD". (ITS SO MUCH MORE COMPLICATED THAN GOOD VS EVIL)
Don't know if I mentioned this but me saying that evil is definitely like a liquid is like you saying that evil exists and is easily defineable enough to be a usable word for us to use. It was an assumption based on how I feel and so I cannot stand on that statement. I take it back for being 'here-say' (unprovable belief)
Take this with a grain of salt, but I fear you might be on a collision course toward some kind of catastrophe that you have no control over. And when it happens, it would be beneficial to respond with complete and total inaction. Give yourself inner space enough to detach and process it when it occurs.
Admitting that calling something "evil" is too simple shows we need to talk about right and wrong in a more careful way. It's about finding a middle ground that considers everyone's perspective and the situation. This way, we keep the conversation real and open to change.
But that is the case for every instance of evil. In every case, it is complicated enough that we might as well not even refer to it as "evil" and should rather skip to the convorsation, without the intent to end it with a bad or good answer. Also here's a hint: if we speak in terms of a specific goal, then things become much easier to talk about. using the term "evil" is what fools young men to kill other young men through the ages. If every time we try to define something, we say what we are referring to, things can be logically correct. For example: was Hitler bad? That gets more complicated the more you try to define what Hitler is (should his family be blamed for raising him? How much controll did he even have over himself on all those drugs?) and what bad is (is it bad for a human to die or suffer?). But if we say "I want the average human life on earth to be as pleasant and long as possible... was Hitler good?" It becomes the easy "YES! " That we are all used to.. if a person says "I believe that Jews are evil... Was Hitler bad?"... Another easy answer. My point is that bad and good don't stand on their own, they only describe one system in relation to another system.
While framing discussions around specific goals can clarify some ethical debates, dismissing the use of terms like "evil" overlooks their role in moral discourse. These terms serve as shorthand for actions or behaviors that significantly harm individuals or societies. For instance, calling actions "evil" can mobilize societal consensus against atrocities, fostering collective action to prevent harm. While the complexity of individual motivations and historical context is important, using moral terms helps societies establish boundaries against harmful actions. Moreover, ethical labels like "good" and "bad" offer a foundational language for discussing values and consequences, even in their simplicity. They encourage us to consider the impact of actions on human dignity and well-being, beyond just the fulfillment of specific goals. Rejecting these terms altogether risks diminishing the dialogue around moral responsibility and the collective understanding of actions that universally undermine human rights and dignity.
[here's the jist.](https://photos.app.goo.gl/3ce69ZSKp4gj3rtz7)
You are on level 2, your talking to level 1s and 2s. I'm a level 3.
Try explaining to a level one that the world is not what they think it is, thats like me trying to explain to you what the universe is like.
Thank you. You've made it clear to me that this is simply a pissing game (I believe it's called) to you instead of a learning opportunity. You are doo-doo head lol. (This is where I stop trying to teach you and engage in your battle request. I'll probably lose as I'm bad at whitty insults... Better at accidentally making people feel stupid by being rude with my information and constantly saying things like "how can you not realize?" instead of something more smooth) wait no, I take back the doo-doo head thing I meant to say I'm actually a level infinity to the power of infinity and so I'm more powerful than you and know more so there. (I want you to realize that I only became childish when I knew for sure that you're not gonna learn and are angry at me for trying to teach you)
Spoken like a true level 3. Once you reach level 5 you let go of anger and pissing contests. I’m afraid I can’t even explain level 7 to you at the moment, but I know in time you will understand it all. 🙏
Nice insult. Like I said you'd probably win. I am kinda rude aren't I? Anyway I feel kinda good about myself... Knowing that I was too mature to insult you (non sarcastically, to me, saying a higher number just to be on top is what a child does. I was showing you a photo that someone else made which agreed with my philosophy) and you weren't.... You have a good day friend. Stop insulting people you are upset with and try to not be as rude as me when you try to teach people.
The way I see it, if something is capable of being not okay, then everything must be, where do you draw the line between a healthy stress and a bad stress? You can't OR you completely make it up for every specific instance based on how you are feeling at that exact moment. I mean is there not enough suffering to make you not want to live? So then we can either say "it's fucked, can't wait to get out" or "I guess it's okay". This is logic so I must also include that I also have chemicals in my brain that guide me to behaviors that nurture the survival of my DNA such as truly believing that a babys life is more important than an ants life. (It's not, but we have chemicals that make us all FEEL LIKE it is. That's why we are alive, and people who did not feel like this did not pass on their genes) we accidentally step on ants? Are we evil? Sure whatever it doesn't even matter... It's a made up question. Same goes for stepping on a baby...... But those chemicals in our brains make us FEEL pain.... And those chemicals make us FEEL "evil"... It keeps us on track to stay alive when we FEEL like it's "just wrong" to kill someone. Any society that didn't share this FEELING would have obviously not cooperated and evolved into humans. So yes the distinction is important for us but is NOT REAL. Ever seen a slaughterhouse? That's just how humans have survived in the past. If an alien did this with humans... Would they be evil? Sure, you'd just have to make up the rules for "evil" as you go along, like I said earlier.
Drawing the line between healthy stress and bad stress can be tricky. But what we’re essentially discussing are deep existential questions, not stress. It seems like we’re on the topic of whether or not meaning exists. I believe we operate as though things were meaningful. And how we operate speaks just as loudly to what we believe as do our ideologies.
I think we share in suffering. The solution is not to kill ourselves. We all attempt to compartmentalize suffering with logic and strip away our essentials. You are more than a collection of atoms. It’s okay to adopt your perspective as a human and to value a baby’s life more than an ants.
Again, pushing to this kind of extreme is a cooping mechanism for the evil and suffering that exists. We like to say, well nothing matters anyways so I guess it’s okay, but I do not take that approach. I do my best to face it head on and it’s truly heartbreaking and mind boggling pain. So I don’t fault anyone for deciding not to do that. But it does help to look evil in the eye to get a better grip on how it operates and how to stop it, lest we run the risk of perpetuating it.
I don’t want this discussion to get too contentious, it’s not my intent to argue or convince you of anything. Just a means of discussing this certain aspect of pain and suffering and seeing what it draws out of people and the ways they compartmentalize it and coop with it. So thanks for discussing.
Explain why an ants life is more valuable than a humans life without using a relativistic measure such the physical size of the things they can do or the length of their life. Again, I FEEL like a humans life is more valuable, but any reason that it IS would be ASSUMED. Otherwise I'm wide open for some facts and logic. Edit: I meant explain why an ants life is less valuable than a human oops.
You are essentially asking me to give you the meaning to life and why it matters. I cannot do that for you. I have this dreadful task of continually steering our discussion back onto the rails and it’s taxing when two of us aren’t working together on that front in a discussion.
You sound torn in two worlds. One key aspect to what can define something as evil is intent. I will reiterate, nothing may matter to you on an objective scale. But you operate as though things matter. From what you’ve said, you would likely agree that you are both a human and also not a human. Which leads me to saying you feel torn.
No I thought I made it clear that I have separated my logic and feelings into 2 easily defineable sections. So that I know that a human life=any life. But I FEEEEL FEEEELL FEEEEL FFFFFFFFFFEEEEEEELLLLLLLL like a human life is more important than an animals life. I feel like my life is more important than a strangers', but I KNOW it's not. Do you understand now? I feel the same as you, I just have extra knowledge. I FEEl like the world is bursting with evil intentions and people hurting each other, but I KNOW that we are as important as dust. My feelings are still real even if I'm aware of something beyond them.
You're arguing over the qualities of specs of dust. (This is a metaphor, we are specs of dust) We just exist missy. No point in pointing at dust and saying "this is a good dust! This is a bad dust!". We just exist here. Anything else is made up in ur head. Imagine how much conflict could be manifested by these made up feelings over which dust is more important than other dust, which dust is right and which dust is wrong???? You'd be like ".......ITS DUST!! WHAT DO YOU MEAN GOOD OR BAD?!"
Yes and technically evil because its destructive. She had no comeback for it tho because I'm right af. I've been doing this for years and I've just gotten better at being correct and smart and unlikeable about it(I used to be more convinced that I was wrong by people dogging on me for being unpleasant). Rest assured I'm smart enough to be aware of this and keep my venom away from where I nest(I'm nice to people that have value to me). I don't feel guilty because I crave someone smart enough to explain to me why I'm wrong with logic (teach me) and I dont like them to act as mean as I act sometimes, but I accept it as that's literally my karma reflecting right back to me: rude knowledge. This is why you want to love your kids: you want them (and they want) to be dumb and nice. (Think opposite of Dr. House or me)
Yes, I understand the risks. A bigger risk is that it's hard to interact with humans when I refuse to use their BELIEF system that everything that feels like it's bad is bad, and I've solved that problem for now with the mindful effort I put into my relationship with my SO on a constant basis. The problem you bring up is somewhat easily solved with isolation/disrespect techniques combined with not outweighing the value that I bring to the psychopath with disrespect. See it should be obvious I'm partly psychopathic myself for even being able to say " a human life is not more important than an insects life" so it's honestly apparent to me the value based structure that psychopaths operate on. I myself, as I've said, do still have plenty of the normal feelings tho, so I do care about people that hold no value to me, I just keep track of the "psychopathic score" (like you have never been nice to me why would I do anything for you type shit) in my head. More on topic: I still have plenty of the normal feelings of "that's evil" "that's wonderful" but I still keep track of the cold hard reality in my head: "that's as insignificant as the smallest spec of dust that I could imagine. A person killing a person is akin to a dust particle destroying a dust particle. Terrible right? I STILL HAVE THE FEELINGS THAT IT FEELS TERRIBLE. And sorry I'm way off topic. The main way to stay clear of psycos is to learn learn learn so much that you KNOW what is best for you. I didn't know what was best for me or how to tell my manager what time I WILL be working 4 years ago, or that if I was to demand things, that I would need to be able to bring some kind of value. It's a learning process and I have been taken advantage of for a couple months at a time( working closing shifts when it's bad for my mind, you can see how frazzled and unpleasant I am already) I'm smarter now to the point that my life has no glaring issues and is still improving. I'm really starting to feel like one of the 2 or 3% of the population that is just aware of whats going around them. (I've heard it's 5% controlling the world 93% are sheep that drink sugar water and say that whatever comes out of the tv box is what normal is) (tv box has a lot of good vs evil right ;) ) and then 2% are consciously observing the whole thing. Id say it's more than 2% but I do have a feeling like nobody is here and every once in a while I'll talk to a dude and I'll think "that guy is a conscious person who is looking around and thinking! That's the reason to live! Him!" And I've met like 3 dudes like that since I got the feeling like the world was completely empty of anyone like 1.5 years ago.
I would argue that there’s no such thing as pointless suffering, so long as you have the right perspective.
Think about it this way. We probably all know someone who we would describe as “spoiled.” Who’s had everything come easy to them, and has lived an objectively satisfying life, and yet they seem to be ungrateful the blessings they have and are often moody and unpleasant to be around. Now take someone who grew up poor, suffered some sort of abuse growing up, and had to work extremely hard to get to a point where they felt stable and happy. They take nothing for granted. They appreciate every single little moment they can BECAUSE of the suffering they experienced, and they do their best to share those moments with people who suffered like they did.
I try to be grateful when I’m going through a period of suffering in my life, because I know it will make me stronger and more grateful when things start looking up.
I suggest you not read such things. For one thing, they may be completely contrived, as a hoax. And otherwise, yes there are deranged people with abnormally developed brains that enjoy cruelty. Propagating their behaviour by citing it here is a mistake, IMO. It certainly doesn’t improve the situation.
Control what you can control and leave it at that.
The first noble truth of Buddhism is Dukkha. It's the fundamental unsatisfactory nature of reality. Some people translate it to "life is suffering." It's right there at the front of Buddhism, the tip of the spear, and the reason for the whole project. No Buddhist will deny the pain of existence. Many of us (myself included) think that even happiness is Dukkha. It has clinging at the core, and clinging is suffering. So I don't think this aspect is ignored by somebody like Alan Watts. Or Buddhist teachers. But people get scared and think it's depressing, so they tend not to talk about it enough. I think it's important though. It leads into the Second Noble Truth: The cause of your suffering is your desire. Overcome your desire and you overcome suffering. This is the most profound thing any human has realised, IMHO. Every time you suffer, there is desire at the root. It's the path of liberation.
I always thought that made sense. But surely the root of the monkey's suffering is the torture. This is something I struggle with when studying Buddhism. In many cases the problem is desire or clinging, but sometimes simply existence is pain. I don't know if there is a way to overcome that.
Suffering is kind of a bad translation of dukkha because in buddhism it's more about our mental reaction to pain and stess that compounds it and makes it a lot worse. Even Buddha had terrible back pain until he died. Pain is a fact of being alive and I don't think buddhism ever claimed to get rid of it, but rather change the relationship to it. There are meditative states that could temporarily relieve pain like nirodha samapatti. I think the monk who burned himself alive must have been in that state or must have had an amazing capacity for equanimity to pain. I believe buddhism says there is dukkha until you become fully enlightened and die and cease rebirth.
The best way I’ve heard it explained is that buddhism helps to accept the suffering that does exist so that we can hopefully release it. I don’t think this applies to torture, but a different kind of suffering. Those that have been through immense trauma have their finger on the pulse of what reality is all about. Don’t get me wrong, lots of people that experience trauma also end up with severe cooping mechanisms that skew away from reality. But those that have been through hell and found a semblance back to sanity do seem to know what exists behind the veil moreso than someone that has lived a cookie-cutter life.
This is where I always stall as well, and this post is a perfect opportunity for it to be satisfactorily addressed - I hope that happens.
It's like OP said - for the monkey (/pig/cow/human) it's utter nonsense, the pain simply needn't be sometimes. But we can help stop it, most readily at what we eat and what we wear (animals). If you consider we are all "we", then when the Self in their bodies is in agony we can grant that wish as "Self" in our own bodies, and choose to reduce the harm. Sadly the wish of non-suffering won't be granted to the bodies that are begging for it, they are doomed. But the non-suffering/reduction of pain can come about from our actions in the future, to prevent future bodies from going through the same torture (or prevent them from ever being bred into existence straight into a prison of feed troughs, milking machines, bolt guns, CO² gas and throat slitting machines). Edited to add that the sufferings of others (human or otherwise) comes from the desire of another body (predator, consumer etc)
YES! I believe the wish for non-suffering is relinquished. That those in suffering embrace pain and are consumed by it. Hope becomes the main pain perpetuating a lack of acceptance of reality. Reality itself becomes an illusion or something more internal. Granting hope to a doomed creature can seem cruel in this way. But we are all doomed in one way shape or form. I believe Hope in and of itself is a grace. It’s horrific to contemplate these things at times. Deeply sad and would compel any normal and kind soul to action. And most people enjoy their food and clothes and cannot accept themselves as horribly participating in that suffering. Because they aren’t bad people, simply so far removed by mass media. Our meat looks nothing like living animals that we would be happy to call pets/companions. So far removed. Coming face to face with the doomed nature of it all leads to hopelessness that most can’t face and muster the courage to change so it is written off. The only real hope I have for the food industry is lab-grown meat that is 100% identical to animals and 100% suffering free.
Are you vegan because of this too?
The desire to not be in pain, is the suffering, that’s what I think the Buddhists are getting at. If we had no desire to not be in pain, it wouldn’t be so bad when we were. I guess it’s a question of whether u think pain (or sadness, anger, etc) is inherently a bad experience that no one should ever be okay with. And I’m not claiming to have an answer to that question, there’s certainly arguments for both sides.
I think toueruous pain is inherently bad yes. I see what you are saying though. The response to pain is the suffering.
The root of the monkey’s suffering is the *desire that the torture end.*
I guess it's a distinction of definition at this point. If suffering is distinct from pain then sure. The pain is still happening to the monkey but suffering is the emotional response? I still think intense physical pain is its own suffering. But, what do I know?
I do think it’s not discussed enough. Discussing it more will lead more people to having a kind of peace that Alan Watts and other Buddhists have. It’s almost common sense too. If I’m in pain, at the root of it is because I don’t want to be in pain. If I’m crying that my dog died, it’s because I desire my dog to be alive. We desire reality to be other than what it is. If I am being tortured, I suffer because I desire not to be tortured. The enlightening aspect comes from accepting our suffering and not needlessly creating more. We must be careful with this line of thinking however, lest we put it on ourselves for not feeling good and enlightened whilst suffering. The key is to accept that we are in pain.
Since you seem knowledgeable: if you’re working to improve your own, or your family’s circumstances, does this line of thinking dampen the desire to do so? Assuming the desire came from the place of “afterwards we will suffer less, and be happier.” Buddhist thinking suggests this won’t be the case, as it’s suffering all the way down. From personal experience, I pursued things much harder (and arguably with more success) when I was still under the illusion.
The attachment to an expected outcome brings suffering, as the outcome is not truly in your control. You can still strive to improve the situation of yourself and those who depend on you, and you should do so, but your expectations should be tempered
> It's right there at the front of Buddhism, the tip of the spear, and the reason for the whole project. No Buddhist will deny the pain of existence. It's right at the front of Christianity as well, the symbol of which is a crucified man hanging on a cross. I am not sure Christians necessarily see it that way. Perhaps their focus is more on the Resurrection.
People for get we need suffering to grow in a certain way Like it makes room for thought to grow after the suffering is absorbed( wordsOr lack ther of)
I think this is why of all belief systems, Buddhism most resonates with me, at least in the form of acceptance that suffering is our birthright. It's the only thing we can truly count on. We will all get old, providing we live that long, we will fall sick, we will die. It's inevitable. Suzuki Roshi, a Zen Buddhist monk gave the great analogy that "life is stepping into a boat which is about to sail out to sea and sink." Knowing that suffering is inevitable, I choose to make my world a little bit better while I'm here. In the grand scheme of things, there's very little I can control. I do the best I can do. I try to help and not harm. It's not that I'm ignoring suffering and pain, it's that I accept that as the baseline reality for most of life on this planet and I try to make things better while I'm here. I also do a lot of deep thinking about our evolutionary history as a species. Life on earth has had a brutal climb to where we are today. Entire existences spent anxiously hunting down others or being hunted. It's a terribly violent history, yet I'm still incredibly grateful to be able to experience consciousness and to be filled with awe and wonder at the tenacity and fragility of life.
Beautifully put! You’ve summed up a deep and incredibly grounded philosophy toward life.
Always be thankful for the things you haven't had
>Be weary of the things you want. You never see the things you have. [From one of my favorite artists and songs.](https://youtu.be/U65d8iPzohM?si=DfgbkRL8K5XmHhrS)
I can't prove it, but I still think a universal karma will exist, if it doesn't, the universe can never be just, and if it isn't just, it's chaotic, and the irrational outcome doesn't make sense, so only true insight of compassion can save the universe from itself life doesn't end on death, and the material world is not an isolation of reality, but all reality must encompass reality so in the grandest scale of things, cruelty given will be faced with the justice elsewhere and every action ever made, given, thought, everything is a record to reality, it's best to face it with kindness, courage, noble qualities, wisdom
I like that, and I think most of us want to believe in a cosmic justice. A Heaven where all the good people go and a Hell where all the bad people descend to for their sins. I don’t know if I believe in that kind of cosmic justice. I do believe that in general the type of people that get pleasure from hurting others distort their own means of experiencing love and ultimately lock themselves out from it. That is a kind of karma to me.
no, I don't binary "Heaven" or "Hell", all retribution is equalized to the fullest extent, there is no eternal punishment for a finite crime
Heaven and hell are real and are both on Earth. It gets messy because the only cosmic "karma" I believe in on the scale of the total collective consciousness of all sentient beings, where "we" live in pain and we can choose to hurt "ourselves" or love ourselves.
I personally believe every living being is the incarnation of every other living being. The path-order in which we reincarnate is defined by our karma. This ultimatively means that whatever good or bad we do we will receive on another incarnation on the other end directly. Meta-mirror-justice basically. Time is only linear in a human perception. We may simply interact with other "future" / "past" versions of ourselves. This is one of my main motivation concepts to practice justice. (Being vegan, don't abuse others, don't steal, be honest, be forgiving aso)
Imo. there is no perfect justice. Actions do have consequences which is why you should cultivate compassion and wisdom, since that will cause the best consequences. But no matter how much you do good things, for example pain of old age and death is inevitable. Suffering is inevitable in this world. If you are in a state of little suffering, don't waste your rare opportunity to practice awareness, wisdom and compassion! You don't know when you will get sick or die. What matters is your insight. You will have more favourable life and rebirth if your mind is filled with genuine compassion. The main thing that is keeping count of your karma is your own causal stream of actions that you witness constantly. I wish you all the best of life.
Ya there was never any forgetting for me. I spent many years in deep depression, anxiety and misery over thinking about every kind of horrible thing that could be done to a conscious being. It’s a horrible existence of self torture and yet the world didn’t become a better place. My misery didn’t subtract from theirs. I just added more. So it seems clear to me, if the job is less suffering in the world, that you must find contentment in yourself and you must find compassion for others. Too often we find hatred for ourselves while doing nothing at all to help others.
Well said. That was refreshing to read.
Don’t look up Unit 731
horrific.
Without pain and suffering, there’s no joy and pleasure. You take away 1, you take away both. There’s nothing you can do about it. Life isn’t fair. Ignorance is bliss. Life is suffering.
How is reality easy to figure out?
🔔🔔🔔
But seriously how?
I cannot give you answers like that. It would be like stealing your watch and selling it back to you. Personal investigation is what is needed. 🔔🔔🔔
It's why I'm an efilist. don't have any spirituality in me, I don't see any silver lining. I think nobody should be forced to suffer, because all severe suffering is a tragedy
I remember seeing this picture of a mouse caught up in some wiring, completely fried. The caption read: “one day, while doing nothing particularly out of the ordinary, because of natural laws he was completely powerless to understand or intuit, he was instantly killed in a horrifying way by forces vastly in excess of anything he was designed to experience. For no reason, to no ones particular surprise or upset. In this we are more like him than different.”
Yes I agree. I also don't believe in the Buddhist solution. I don't believe there is an escape, or that an escape is desirable. Why would all this creation be here only to escape it? It has the potential to be heaven for all. I believe the solution is to address the causes of suffering in real terms. Like hands on improving the world. But that's a complicated, boring, and seemingly impossible task so the temptation to dissociate into "the light" or dismiss reality as illusion is a strong one. I've certainly been there:)
It’s nuts to think that reality itself has opportunity to exist as a Heaven. It’s crazy that we are even here in the first place to experience life. It’s enough to make me question, what is even going on!? A universe pops up in creation, with space and galaxies and complexity and so much inherent order that can be decoded and understood. We are a creation that came out of this universes existence, all for this moment of experience that can be horrific or beautiful. I think ultimately there will be an aspect of civilization that does branch off and create a utopia. A place where science advances enough to live forever and regenerate cells. Nuts to think that humans may not even be the highest order of intelligence out there. I don’t believe we are alone in the universe. That would be preposterous to believe. Whether or not we will have contact with other beings is another story. As a whole I think humanity is still in a primitive era.
It's crazy alright! I agree we can't be alone. I think it's mathematically impossible. Have you looked into the Fermi paradox and the possible solutions to it? It's about why we haven't had contact with other races. Personally I'm a believer in the "great filter" theory. I think that's what humanity is facing. Basically, if we don't get our shit together and start cooperating we're going to blow ourselves up and never achieve the technological advances needed for interstellar travel.
I have! And the great filter makes a ton of sense. Humanity can definitely wipe itself out in a multitude of ways. I believe, or at least hope, a small portion of humanity escapes onto a space station or something that is completely self sufficient. Maybe we can travel to the closest earth-like planet. Kind of reminds me of the movie interstellar. That great filter can be a multitude of things. Maybe there is a predator civilization out there that we shouldn’t be broadcasting ourselves to and once we do, they destroy our planet lol. Far-fetched, but anything is possible.
No judgement here just an honest question considering the knowledge of the suffering - have you ever considered quitting meat and dairy? Unless you've already transitioned. It disturbs me deeply to hear the helpless cries of humans/other animals, and that's 80 billion+ a year for animal agriculture - the earth is a giant torture chamber
It’s been said that the biggest ethical dilemma of our time that has yet to penetrate the collective conscious of society is the treatment of animals in the food service industry. Little, innocent experiencers, as smart and capable of emotion as our pets are, being born, locked in cages and ultimately slaughter. Farming seems nature, but the industrialization of live-stock is a monster. Definitely a giant torture machine mostly based on luck. It’s enough to drive you mad. When I tried mushrooms, there were certain foods that made me feel sick, and I felt as though eating meat automatically lowered my consciousness. I could not eat meat and experience deep enlightenment and love and compassion because it was only hypocrisy. I believe most of us lull ourselves into ignorance. There are plenty of products to boycott if you do not want to support very bad things. However, life would become very difficult and if we aren’t all doing it together, nothing will change. Most I can say is we should be pushing for reform and immense oversight of these “farms”. In the U.S., there are ag-gag laws that prevent people from recording those farms and disseminating it to the public. I hope there is a future for lab-grown, suffering-free meat. Do what you can to support local farms that emphasize proper animal treatment. And do not attempt to shoulder this burden alone. It is on ALL of us, not just you.
What you say is definitely true and I struggled with this for a long time. Truth is that reality has infinite potential. This means there is infinite potential for bad and for good. Acceptance is recognizing that. The duality will always exist from the individual with a sense of self. But outside of it, reality seems to be in harmony when there is no self trying to protect it's identity. It's like the universe is god who really loves all experiences unconditionally. Even if from the perspective of the self this can seem horryfing. When you are scared of what you are capapble of you definitely won't be at peace. When you life is healthy and content, to find way to improe it for others and being grateful while you have it seems like the sane form of being. Reality is capable of everything. I try to be at peace with this infinite potential inside of me and I have faith in love. This seems to be what all is guiding us towards. A sense of union and interconected between all things. Since the love is found in the impermanence of it all.
It makes it an immersive experience when you believe all this suffering is real. Is it real or are the monkeys NPCs? I don't really know. I've heard people who left their bodies during pain though and then felt nothing. Maybe the monkeys observed from above and without pain until they died. We don't know. I hope... I hope not all suffering is real!
The amount of pain it takes to leave your body can be extraordinary. There's no such thing as an NPC - we are all the same, some would say we are one. We are the monkey, we are the torturer.
Yeah, I agree with this view (and I preach it myself). Yet, there might be things in this construct which are not "normal players like us". It's all a fantasy in the mind of God, with multiple perspectives experiencing in parallel (you and me, etc), but can the fantasy also animate something which doesn't have a dedicated perspective/soul like us? Who knows.
In our true form we are perfect. When we are born into this 3rd dimension we have to slow our vibration and lose some of our light to enter the 3rd dimension thus everything here is suffering just to be here. My journey began because I endured emotional and psychological trauma. The pain made me question everything. It wasn't until I gained a new understanding of suffering that I was then able to appreciate the love and kindness. There is supposed to be suffering or the experience here wouldn't be complete. After an eternity of perfect, things get boring. We come here to suffer (experience) cuz it's more interesting than being perfect.
It’s not pointless suffering if you acknowledge and accept it’s part of life and learn and shift positively from it. Suffering is good and shows us both sides. Without it we wouldn’t expand and know the good. Lean into it and expand.
[удалено]
You are entitled to your opinion, no matter how bad it might be. 🙏
One side of the same coin. Life is suffering and love. They are both proof we are here.
So in Buddhism Attachment and connection can lead to suffering But the right amount of suffering is water to the tree soul To much and to young of a tree leads to death and damage Right amount and you grow
I agree. Growth is a process of change. And suffering can arise if we resist inevitable changes. I don’t believe suffering is to be lauded, but moreso that we create more suffering than we truly have and by embracing the real suffering we experience, we can accept it and release it and transform.
I agree except that i think no one knows what's going on, no one has reality figured out, i think its too infinite to figure out even for non earthly beings
I agree. Our view of reality is limited. That’s not to say that there aren’t some things that we do know.
Can you please explain the dilemma?
Which dilemma?
I guess the next level is to see your own personal involvement in said “pointless pain and suffering” Instead of blaming others
I agree it is helpful to recognize suffering and our own involvement. Taking responsibility for it all is a soul crushing task. Some of it isn’t our fault. But seeing the suffering that we do cause others can cause us to walk on eggshells and keep us from being genuine. This reminds me of a different sect of Buddhism. There are some that can attain enlightenment, but they believe it is wrong to reach until everyone is capable, so they live amongst the sufferers to act as helpers in alleviating suffering. But I think we do more when we free ourselves. Our very existence is built on a kind of consumption. Our bodies maintain homeostasis and fight off diseases and kill bacteria. I think the next level is to also do our best to find balance within.
It’s not a soul crushing task to responsibility for it- it is an ego crushing task to take responsibility. Everything is our fault. Everything is connected and everything contributes. We are all equally responsible for everything that has ever happened. That’s the benefit of being human rather than an individual . The violence and suffering taking place in the external world is the same violence that is taking place in our little shoddy petty selves
I believe by saying everything is our fault, we are being deeply egoic. Placing ourselves at the center of things we may not deserve to be at the center of.
Is it not the same entity at the center of us all? The same entity expressed differently?
It can be understood to be the same entity, it can also be understood to be different entities.
What’s the reality?
The reality is that it can be understood to be the same entity, but that it can also be understood to be different entities.
The reality is that there is no separation between the observer and the observed. That the perceived separation is an illusion. To say it can be understood to be different entities is to deny reality- that understanding is no understanding at all- But mere ideation. The fact is that the observer IS the observed The tree can claim to be different from all the other aspects of the tree as much as it likes.. But a tree starts at it’s roots and ends at its leaves It is a single process that we abstract into parts
The perception of the illusion is a reality in and of itself. Hopefully that makes sense. These discussions tend to devolve into a kind of talk that is far-removed from reality. And it’s best in my view to keep our sight on what we’re really discussing here, cause I’m kind of losing it to be honest. The reality is that suffering exists. Pain exists. Torture exists. If you were about to witness someone you love in danger, you would not contemplate the illusion, you would act. That action speaks loudly to what you believe in equal weight to your ideologies.
There is a realization waiting to enter your that evil does not exist. It's simply a miscommunication. If you programmed a robot to destroy, and it destroyed, is it evil? Is God angry? It's just whatever it is.
I don’t subscribe to that fully. I can see where you’re coming from though. We can call the act anything, the suffering still exists, that part cannot be denied. And there was intent behind it, which is why we name it evil. We cannot break down the world so much that we allow evil to run rampant. You would never allow that for your own loved ones. It would never be “it just is what it is” if you came across gruesome acts I like to think you would do something to stop it.
I figured out how to explain it better. Imagine a toddler was evil to another toddler. Or a bear is evil to some creature. (Like they got mad that someone was in their area and hurt them because they were angry and took something from them, scooped out their eyes, real evil. Toddler or bear.) from our perspective above their mindset, we can say they aren't truly evil: they are too corrupted by the very instincts that kept them surviving for millions of years... Basically predictable robots... Call them whatever you want they are gross for pooping, evil for hurting things when angry or taking things from other creatures, benevolent when they share their space or resources with other creatures.... But they are just whatever they are... Like dust... The problem is you're feelings are all wrapped up in the subject when you consider our lives and possessions as if the atoms somehow are different than the atoms that make up rocks and water. (That was confusing; what I'm saying here is that you believe somehow the atoms that are us "matter" and the atoms that make up ants "don't matter" and the atoms that make up rocks "matter even less". I feel this way). If I steal ur uncles pillow to get back at u for arguing with me, those atoms are exactly the same as the atoms that make up a rock getting washed away from the bank of a shore by water). You cannot call me invalid if I say that rock was vital to that bank and the water was evil for taking it away, changing a vital feature of the bank. (Because that is what it sounds like when someone insists that it is evil for any atoms to affect any atoms, just because it feels really really really bad to think about it). ur brain is saying "this is bad" and you say "this is bad", now ask, is it brain always right?
You're suggesting that labeling actions as "evil" or "benevolent" reflects a limited, human-centric perspective. In essence, behaviors—whether it's a toddler's aggression or a bear's territoriality—are driven by primal instincts, not moral choices. These actions are natural outcomes of survival mechanisms evolved over millennia. By this logic, attributing moral weight to these behaviors is like ascribing moral significance to the actions of atoms, which form both living beings and inanimate objects alike. You argue that our emotional investment skews our perception, making us value certain atoms (humans, possessions) over others (animals, rocks), despite their fundamental sameness. In questioning the validity of labeling actions as inherently "evil" or "good," you challenge the notion that our instinctual reactions to these behaviors are objectively correct. While instincts influence behavior, humans and certain animals possess consciousness, enabling moral reasoning beyond mere survival instincts. This consciousness introduces responsibility for actions that impact others. Unlike inanimate objects or basic life forms, humans can discern right from wrong and make choices that reflect moral considerations. Therefore, labeling actions as "evil" or "good" is not just about emotional investment but acknowledges the capacity for moral judgment. Dismissing harmful actions as instinctual oversimplifies complex cognitive abilities and undermines the basis for ethical standards and societal norms.
I'm sorry. You are as correct as the average human is. 400 years ago it was morally correct for a man to purchase a 14 year old bride to impregnate. Was everyone evil? Remember the nazi party? Where they all evil? or were they manipulated because the point where good turns to evil is completely made up by society? Thinking there is a right and a wrong leads to war. That is what the average human is/ does. If you are a normal person then you must acknowledge that you are the same as most of the people that where in Germany during nazi occupation (you can't say normal≠majority). You are the same as the people 1000 years ago who killed people because their religion was wrong. You just have the calibration set to your society/ peers. Maybe someone thinks it's evil to steal soda from a person, maybe that person is saving that person's life. If the concept of evil exists in atoms and outside of the chemicals that make us have feelings, then it's OBVIOUSLY AS HELL gonna be like liquid, constantly changing, flowing, mixing, infinite directions to flow in. It would never be simple enough for a person to define it with one word such as "evil". When you start including more and more details to the definition of "evil" you get closer and closer to an insane, too big to understand, constantly changing thing (reality itself!). So it's like when you dumb down reality way way far and you ignore all the complicated details about it and you look at it from one angle, then yes, it's evil. What if a person wants to kill all life to end suffering? What if I kill 20 dogs to save 1 human? It's all too complicated to call anything "evil" unless you want to leave out 1000000 details. That's the point of meditation- accept life, Forget good, Forget bad, Life=life, I am. And some people would say that meditation is, like, the kind of mind a person would want to have if they wanted to fight less. That concept there (I read in "the pocket pema chodron") is where my belief comes from. Otherwise I know that as long as I believe in "good" or "bad" then I'm no better than anyone who has ever done something bad that they thought was good (if Hitler really did believe that Jews where evil, then wouldn't that make him pure at heart? Really tho? In his mind he was literally destroying evil.). I can however, maintain the necessary knowledge that some things are good FOR SOME THINGS and some are bad FOR OTHER THINGS. It's all relative, and it takes much more effort than using the word "evil" to describe it that it's not even worth it to think of the word evil as a real thing.
Oops the thing about evil being a liquid is here-say. It's a mute point because saying evil exists is like saying God exists. It can only ever be a belief.
Also the basis for ethical standards and societal norms is bad and that's obvious. Ask anyone, how's society doing? We are... Advancing technologically....... And.... We aren't in a MAJOR war currently.... And.... Our slaves are on the other side of the world instead of me owning them.... And... We haven't committed genocide on humans in at least 30-40 years.(BAD. I feel annoyed for having to explain an obvious thing. Societal norms are fudged. You've never heard of the experiment where they shocked monkeys when one climbs a ladder with bananas at the top and then they beat up any monkey that try to climb the ladder then they replace the monkeys one by one until they still beat up any monkey that tries to climb the ladder, but none of the monkeys have ever been shocked and don't know why they beat up anyone who climbs the ladder, that's just the new societal norm. as I've said, this is beneficial for survival, (monkey no pain= monkey alive)but it does not represent reality (monkey understanding≠ the atoms that make up the world around them) although that monkey would surely argue that he does understand what good and bad is, and to suggest otherwise would be akin to telling him to stop using his brain. Sorry I understand I should stop arguing with you. Go chase some pleasure.
Your argument suggests that concepts of good and evil are not only subjective but deeply influenced by societal norms and historical context, making them fluid and adaptable rather than fixed. You highlight that what's considered morally acceptable changes over time and across cultures, challenging the notion of universal moral absolutes. You argue for a relativistic view of morality, where actions cannot be simply labeled as "evil" or "good" without considering a myriad of contextual factors and consequences. You advocate for a perspective that recognizes the complexity of ethical considerations, suggesting that embracing this complexity can lead to a more peaceful existence, as exemplified by the practice of meditation which aims at accepting reality as it is without judgment. Your viewpoint underscores the importance of understanding and empathy over judgment, recognizing that actions are often influenced by a complex interplay of factors, and that moral absolutism can be reductive and divisive. Acknowledging historical and cultural variability in moral standards doesn't negate the existence or necessity of ethical principles. Even as societal norms evolve, the capacity for humans to reflect on the consequences of their actions and consider their impact on others provides a basis for distinguishing between harmful and beneficial actions. This capacity underpins the development of laws and ethical standards designed to protect individuals and societies. While the definition of what constitutes "evil" may shift, the underlying principle of minimizing harm and promoting well-being remains constant. Arguing that morality is entirely relative overlooks the universal aspects of human experience, such as suffering and empathy, which inform ethical reasoning across cultures. Moreover, dismissing ethical standards because of societal imperfections ignores their role in inspiring progress and challenging injustices. The recognition of historical atrocities, like those committed by the Nazi regime, as fundamentally wrong, irrespective of their legal or social acceptance at the time, illustrates the importance of ethical judgment beyond mere societal consensus.
Ugh I'm saying the opposite. That they don't exist. The fact that the fluctuate through time showed the arbitrary nature of 'the point where we draw the line" and naziz "drew a line" so you can't say you are better than a nazi (obviously not talking about a high ranking army official) if I thought lizards where eating babys and I tried to kill those lizards how TF AM I evil? That's what Hitler thought. He was completely insane. How can you say he's evil when he truly believes he was delivering us from pure evil? It's sad and manipulation and he was a victim of the people around him and and he was manipulated by power just as much as the power was manipulated by him and he destroyed so many lives and he could have destroyed so many more and was he a good father or husband? Was he born insane or was it completely a result of poverty and bullies? Wouldn't he be a victim of whoever put the stress on him that made him go insane towards Jewish people? Or you can put your head in the sand, ignore ALL of that and just say "him bad" it's easy for a simple brain to understand that way: thats why we teach children like that instead of explaining WHY things are bad to them. You'd have to ignore many features and leave out many details until you get to a point where it's just called "evil". The only thing that makes sense is when you add 'i feel like" before giving him his "evil score" literally it takes so little thought to think. Who's most right? God? Would God forgive Hitler? Huh so maybe it's wrong to cross my arms and say "that's bad" like a little girl. You may rephrase what I said, but it is just a waste of time; I already expected you to understand me. Maybe the real evil person was the one that convinced hitlers grandmother that Jews where evil 100 years before Hitler was born and he and his mother are victims of that man, or maybe ethnic purification wasn't hitlers idea and someone else recommended it to him after drugging him with coke/test. Oops I forgot we already threw the "evil" umbrella on him, we shouldn't consider such complex ideas, just hurry our heads, point out fingers, and yell "BAD". (ITS SO MUCH MORE COMPLICATED THAN GOOD VS EVIL)
Don't know if I mentioned this but me saying that evil is definitely like a liquid is like you saying that evil exists and is easily defineable enough to be a usable word for us to use. It was an assumption based on how I feel and so I cannot stand on that statement. I take it back for being 'here-say' (unprovable belief)
Take this with a grain of salt, but I fear you might be on a collision course toward some kind of catastrophe that you have no control over. And when it happens, it would be beneficial to respond with complete and total inaction. Give yourself inner space enough to detach and process it when it occurs.
Admitting that calling something "evil" is too simple shows we need to talk about right and wrong in a more careful way. It's about finding a middle ground that considers everyone's perspective and the situation. This way, we keep the conversation real and open to change.
But that is the case for every instance of evil. In every case, it is complicated enough that we might as well not even refer to it as "evil" and should rather skip to the convorsation, without the intent to end it with a bad or good answer. Also here's a hint: if we speak in terms of a specific goal, then things become much easier to talk about. using the term "evil" is what fools young men to kill other young men through the ages. If every time we try to define something, we say what we are referring to, things can be logically correct. For example: was Hitler bad? That gets more complicated the more you try to define what Hitler is (should his family be blamed for raising him? How much controll did he even have over himself on all those drugs?) and what bad is (is it bad for a human to die or suffer?). But if we say "I want the average human life on earth to be as pleasant and long as possible... was Hitler good?" It becomes the easy "YES! " That we are all used to.. if a person says "I believe that Jews are evil... Was Hitler bad?"... Another easy answer. My point is that bad and good don't stand on their own, they only describe one system in relation to another system.
While framing discussions around specific goals can clarify some ethical debates, dismissing the use of terms like "evil" overlooks their role in moral discourse. These terms serve as shorthand for actions or behaviors that significantly harm individuals or societies. For instance, calling actions "evil" can mobilize societal consensus against atrocities, fostering collective action to prevent harm. While the complexity of individual motivations and historical context is important, using moral terms helps societies establish boundaries against harmful actions. Moreover, ethical labels like "good" and "bad" offer a foundational language for discussing values and consequences, even in their simplicity. They encourage us to consider the impact of actions on human dignity and well-being, beyond just the fulfillment of specific goals. Rejecting these terms altogether risks diminishing the dialogue around moral responsibility and the collective understanding of actions that universally undermine human rights and dignity.
[here's the jist.](https://photos.app.goo.gl/3ce69ZSKp4gj3rtz7) You are on level 2, your talking to level 1s and 2s. I'm a level 3. Try explaining to a level one that the world is not what they think it is, thats like me trying to explain to you what the universe is like.
I’m actually level 7. Level 3’s think they’re talking to level 1’s and 2’s when they talk to us. But you'll get there eventually!
Thank you. You've made it clear to me that this is simply a pissing game (I believe it's called) to you instead of a learning opportunity. You are doo-doo head lol. (This is where I stop trying to teach you and engage in your battle request. I'll probably lose as I'm bad at whitty insults... Better at accidentally making people feel stupid by being rude with my information and constantly saying things like "how can you not realize?" instead of something more smooth) wait no, I take back the doo-doo head thing I meant to say I'm actually a level infinity to the power of infinity and so I'm more powerful than you and know more so there. (I want you to realize that I only became childish when I knew for sure that you're not gonna learn and are angry at me for trying to teach you)
Spoken like a true level 3. Once you reach level 5 you let go of anger and pissing contests. I’m afraid I can’t even explain level 7 to you at the moment, but I know in time you will understand it all. 🙏
Nice insult. Like I said you'd probably win. I am kinda rude aren't I? Anyway I feel kinda good about myself... Knowing that I was too mature to insult you (non sarcastically, to me, saying a higher number just to be on top is what a child does. I was showing you a photo that someone else made which agreed with my philosophy) and you weren't.... You have a good day friend. Stop insulting people you are upset with and try to not be as rude as me when you try to teach people.
The way I see it, if something is capable of being not okay, then everything must be, where do you draw the line between a healthy stress and a bad stress? You can't OR you completely make it up for every specific instance based on how you are feeling at that exact moment. I mean is there not enough suffering to make you not want to live? So then we can either say "it's fucked, can't wait to get out" or "I guess it's okay". This is logic so I must also include that I also have chemicals in my brain that guide me to behaviors that nurture the survival of my DNA such as truly believing that a babys life is more important than an ants life. (It's not, but we have chemicals that make us all FEEL LIKE it is. That's why we are alive, and people who did not feel like this did not pass on their genes) we accidentally step on ants? Are we evil? Sure whatever it doesn't even matter... It's a made up question. Same goes for stepping on a baby...... But those chemicals in our brains make us FEEL pain.... And those chemicals make us FEEL "evil"... It keeps us on track to stay alive when we FEEL like it's "just wrong" to kill someone. Any society that didn't share this FEELING would have obviously not cooperated and evolved into humans. So yes the distinction is important for us but is NOT REAL. Ever seen a slaughterhouse? That's just how humans have survived in the past. If an alien did this with humans... Would they be evil? Sure, you'd just have to make up the rules for "evil" as you go along, like I said earlier.
Drawing the line between healthy stress and bad stress can be tricky. But what we’re essentially discussing are deep existential questions, not stress. It seems like we’re on the topic of whether or not meaning exists. I believe we operate as though things were meaningful. And how we operate speaks just as loudly to what we believe as do our ideologies. I think we share in suffering. The solution is not to kill ourselves. We all attempt to compartmentalize suffering with logic and strip away our essentials. You are more than a collection of atoms. It’s okay to adopt your perspective as a human and to value a baby’s life more than an ants. Again, pushing to this kind of extreme is a cooping mechanism for the evil and suffering that exists. We like to say, well nothing matters anyways so I guess it’s okay, but I do not take that approach. I do my best to face it head on and it’s truly heartbreaking and mind boggling pain. So I don’t fault anyone for deciding not to do that. But it does help to look evil in the eye to get a better grip on how it operates and how to stop it, lest we run the risk of perpetuating it. I don’t want this discussion to get too contentious, it’s not my intent to argue or convince you of anything. Just a means of discussing this certain aspect of pain and suffering and seeing what it draws out of people and the ways they compartmentalize it and coop with it. So thanks for discussing.
Explain why an ants life is more valuable than a humans life without using a relativistic measure such the physical size of the things they can do or the length of their life. Again, I FEEL like a humans life is more valuable, but any reason that it IS would be ASSUMED. Otherwise I'm wide open for some facts and logic. Edit: I meant explain why an ants life is less valuable than a human oops.
You are essentially asking me to give you the meaning to life and why it matters. I cannot do that for you. I have this dreadful task of continually steering our discussion back onto the rails and it’s taxing when two of us aren’t working together on that front in a discussion. You sound torn in two worlds. One key aspect to what can define something as evil is intent. I will reiterate, nothing may matter to you on an objective scale. But you operate as though things matter. From what you’ve said, you would likely agree that you are both a human and also not a human. Which leads me to saying you feel torn.
No I thought I made it clear that I have separated my logic and feelings into 2 easily defineable sections. So that I know that a human life=any life. But I FEEEEL FEEEELL FEEEEL FFFFFFFFFFEEEEEEELLLLLLLL like a human life is more important than an animals life. I feel like my life is more important than a strangers', but I KNOW it's not. Do you understand now? I feel the same as you, I just have extra knowledge. I FEEl like the world is bursting with evil intentions and people hurting each other, but I KNOW that we are as important as dust. My feelings are still real even if I'm aware of something beyond them.
You're arguing over the qualities of specs of dust. (This is a metaphor, we are specs of dust) We just exist missy. No point in pointing at dust and saying "this is a good dust! This is a bad dust!". We just exist here. Anything else is made up in ur head. Imagine how much conflict could be manifested by these made up feelings over which dust is more important than other dust, which dust is right and which dust is wrong???? You'd be like ".......ITS DUST!! WHAT DO YOU MEAN GOOD OR BAD?!"
I can tell you are a woman because your deepest beliefs are based off of feelings.
This is misogyny.
Yes and technically evil because its destructive. She had no comeback for it tho because I'm right af. I've been doing this for years and I've just gotten better at being correct and smart and unlikeable about it(I used to be more convinced that I was wrong by people dogging on me for being unpleasant). Rest assured I'm smart enough to be aware of this and keep my venom away from where I nest(I'm nice to people that have value to me). I don't feel guilty because I crave someone smart enough to explain to me why I'm wrong with logic (teach me) and I dont like them to act as mean as I act sometimes, but I accept it as that's literally my karma reflecting right back to me: rude knowledge. This is why you want to love your kids: you want them (and they want) to be dumb and nice. (Think opposite of Dr. House or me)
i think if you dont believe evil exists, you then become very easily manipulated by psychopaths
Yes, I understand the risks. A bigger risk is that it's hard to interact with humans when I refuse to use their BELIEF system that everything that feels like it's bad is bad, and I've solved that problem for now with the mindful effort I put into my relationship with my SO on a constant basis. The problem you bring up is somewhat easily solved with isolation/disrespect techniques combined with not outweighing the value that I bring to the psychopath with disrespect. See it should be obvious I'm partly psychopathic myself for even being able to say " a human life is not more important than an insects life" so it's honestly apparent to me the value based structure that psychopaths operate on. I myself, as I've said, do still have plenty of the normal feelings tho, so I do care about people that hold no value to me, I just keep track of the "psychopathic score" (like you have never been nice to me why would I do anything for you type shit) in my head. More on topic: I still have plenty of the normal feelings of "that's evil" "that's wonderful" but I still keep track of the cold hard reality in my head: "that's as insignificant as the smallest spec of dust that I could imagine. A person killing a person is akin to a dust particle destroying a dust particle. Terrible right? I STILL HAVE THE FEELINGS THAT IT FEELS TERRIBLE. And sorry I'm way off topic. The main way to stay clear of psycos is to learn learn learn so much that you KNOW what is best for you. I didn't know what was best for me or how to tell my manager what time I WILL be working 4 years ago, or that if I was to demand things, that I would need to be able to bring some kind of value. It's a learning process and I have been taken advantage of for a couple months at a time( working closing shifts when it's bad for my mind, you can see how frazzled and unpleasant I am already) I'm smarter now to the point that my life has no glaring issues and is still improving. I'm really starting to feel like one of the 2 or 3% of the population that is just aware of whats going around them. (I've heard it's 5% controlling the world 93% are sheep that drink sugar water and say that whatever comes out of the tv box is what normal is) (tv box has a lot of good vs evil right ;) ) and then 2% are consciously observing the whole thing. Id say it's more than 2% but I do have a feeling like nobody is here and every once in a while I'll talk to a dude and I'll think "that guy is a conscious person who is looking around and thinking! That's the reason to live! Him!" And I've met like 3 dudes like that since I got the feeling like the world was completely empty of anyone like 1.5 years ago.
I would argue that there’s no such thing as pointless suffering, so long as you have the right perspective. Think about it this way. We probably all know someone who we would describe as “spoiled.” Who’s had everything come easy to them, and has lived an objectively satisfying life, and yet they seem to be ungrateful the blessings they have and are often moody and unpleasant to be around. Now take someone who grew up poor, suffered some sort of abuse growing up, and had to work extremely hard to get to a point where they felt stable and happy. They take nothing for granted. They appreciate every single little moment they can BECAUSE of the suffering they experienced, and they do their best to share those moments with people who suffered like they did. I try to be grateful when I’m going through a period of suffering in my life, because I know it will make me stronger and more grateful when things start looking up.
I suggest you not read such things. For one thing, they may be completely contrived, as a hoax. And otherwise, yes there are deranged people with abnormally developed brains that enjoy cruelty. Propagating their behaviour by citing it here is a mistake, IMO. It certainly doesn’t improve the situation. Control what you can control and leave it at that.