• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

I'm more enlightened than you!

Simply_Live said:
Two and three sound perfect from this point of view, however. We as a "society" have come too far into trying to sort everything into categories of "moral" and "immoral". We understand consequences of killing someone else. It doesn't make it "immoral" though. It's just a pain in the ass trying to hide the evidence after the kill.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry but I have to not agree with this. And any one who's body needs to be hidden probably did it in what society would agree is an "immoral" way of executing it. I could imagine plenty of scenarios that can be played as a moral killing, but not the one you posed.
I just can't see how you're saying it doesn't make it immoral. Unless you're just saying if you take words and meanings out of the picture, and ways to express feelings, THEN there would be no such thing as immorality vs morality.
 
enlightenment comes with a free t-shirt. if you aren't sure about someone's position in the universe, see if they have the shirt. i got one, but i stole it from some loser.
 
Laika said:
I'm sorry but I have to not agree with this. And any one who's body needs to be hidden probably did it in what society would agree is an "immoral" way of executing it. I could imagine plenty of scenarios that can be played as a moral killing, but not the one you posed.
I just can't see how you're saying it doesn't make it immoral. Unless you're just saying if you take words and meanings out of the picture, and ways to express feelings, THEN there would be no such thing as immorality vs morality.
Click to expand...

How can we separate "moral" from "immoral" killing? Killing is the death of another creature, large or small. How can we possibly be the judge of whether something is moral or immoral to begin with? What gives us the power to determine levels of morality in the face of death?

Scenario 1: Killing an animal out of pity.
Animal one has been injured after being hit by car. Person one determines it is better to kill the animal.

Scenario 2: Killing a human out of pity.
Similar scenario.

As people in a worldwide society, it would more likely be determined that killing the animal out of pity is less immoral than killing the human. Deliberations would be made between panels of humans to separate the cost and potential risks of saving the human. And if the human was killed before the deliberations came to a close, a lawsuit might ensue.

However, this is the same scenario. The experiment is stable except for what is being hit. How can we say that the death of the human is more immoral than the death of the animal? They are both very important members of our ecosystem, society and the ever changing lives we live. Yet, the death of the human is more immoral.

Therefore, my inner conclusion on the face of morality due to death and killing is morality is judged by those who think of some beings as higher than others.
 
Simply_Live said:
How can we separate "moral" from "immoral" killing? Killing is the death of another creature, large or small. How can we possibly be the judge of whether something is moral or immoral to begin with? What gives us the power to determine levels of morality in the face of death?
Click to expand...

We (as humans) may be the judge of moral vs immoral by being the very exact creatures that invented the words and assigned meanings to them. Certainly the views will vary from people to people on what their personal morals should be, and what they feel proper morals are. But when you feel in your mind that something is cruel or has been done out in an immoral fashion aren't you gonna tend to get along better with the people who feel the same about it?
So to say the two words are meaningless isn't right.
Evil people have certain morals & good people have certain morals and standards they live by. The two words may be interchangeable depending on what team you're playing for, but I believe this doesn't render the words and their meanings as useless.
 
"Highest" level of understanding is understanding that one knows almost nothing in the face of the vast abyss of meaning we call phenomenal reality.

Sorry about my post being not connected to previous ones, I am just responding to the OP's statement.
 
"He who sets himself up as the judge of truth, is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods" ... alas, this statement too should do well to see to it that a lighthouse is set up upon distant shores before being proclaimed.
 
i wonder if enlightenment through pain is possible. i went through sooo much pain last friday. i think my resolve grew stronger through that pain
 
Lost Ego said:
i wonder if enlightenment through pain is possible. i went through sooo much pain last friday. i think my resolve grew stronger through that pain
Click to expand...

Do you mean any kind of pain or pain in general??
Well i kno Ascetics are ppl who starve themselves of nourishment n vow poverty to transcend this materialistic physical universe.
 
stonerfromohio said:
Who is this "I" that is enlightened? What is enlightened?
Click to expand...

Well if we semantically break it down; 'enlightened' could mean under the sway of the European philosophy of the 'Enlightenment' movement, or it could mean being endowed with 'light'; further, which is historically an analogy of wisdom; meaning as it does the elucidation of knowledge from the revealing of 'dark' (or "concealed") subject matter. To throw the light on the situation; someone who is thus 'enlightened' does "see clearly" what would beg questions from others "still in the dark".

"I" would be, in this case, the original poster, to whom I am still in the dark and unenlightened as to their personal, empirical, identity outside of the internet and as to whom they may be in 'real time'.
 
Also, enlightenment via pain is legit. Pain and loss (and coming to terms with it) makes one a bit less attached to things. This is ultimately good.
 
RhythmSpring said:
Also, enlightenment via pain is legit. Pain and loss (and coming to terms with it) makes one a bit less attached to things. This is ultimately good.
Click to expand...

Pain is an illusion.

What is loss? The feelings of unease after something has been taken from you? Loss is an illusion too.

Good...? Bad...? All impermanent.
 
I'd say the concept of 'illusion' is illusory. If something is apparent; that is all the meaning its existence can have, and therefore the only criterion for existing whatsoever. Just because all is process, does not make any part of the process false: it is true that now is the only thing that's real, but impermanence does not render anything unreal for the now is impermanent too. In fact, impermanence is an facility of what has eternity or absolute content.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top