godscollie
Permabanned
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2012
- Messages
- 69
- MBTI Type
- intp
Do unto others as you would have done to yourself. The boundaries lie somewhere thereabouts.
Yeah definately something along those lines
Do unto others as you would have done to yourself. The boundaries lie somewhere thereabouts.
The greatest good: Elegant life-giving complexity alternatively love
The greatest evil: Non-reciprocal identity.
It is important to remember that a monk once asked Ummon, "What is Buddha?" To which he replied, "Kanshiketsu!"
Buddha is a very wise man but falls short for the promotion of obesity.
The greatest evil: Non-reciprocal identity.
It is important to remember that a monk once asked Ummon, "What is Buddha?" To which he replied, "Kanshiketsu!"
Nah thats not what he looks like
You make me laugh so hard.
He is my Buddy though.
You can have it two ways
1) I am Buddha
2) He is my buddy
My way
3) whatever i decide upon closer examination.
Ps : I do not have a huge problem with overweight people
i just cannot promote it as a good philosophy.
Yeah, you're not making any sense. I'm going to venture that you think you are Budai, who looks like a fatmat and is a Buddhist, but not Buddha.
The greatest good: Elegant life-giving complexity alternatively love
The greatest evil: Non-reciprocal identity.
It is important to remember that a monk once asked Ummon, "What is Buddha?" To which he replied, "Kanshiketsu!"
I believe in no such things.
Ethics is too hazy to me for such extremes.
Good and evil don't exist, they're just arbitrary judgments we make after the fact. I would argue that it makes more sense to ask which actions cause the most harm and which are the most beneficial.
From there, I would say the action that causes the greatest harm is diffusing blame through group behavior. A simple example of this is a firing squad; several men shoot at a prisoner, but none have to take sole moral responsibility for the execution. One or two can even miss on purpose. The larger the group, the less need there is for individual moral decisions, and the easier it is to deflect blame for actions that are unambiguously harmful.
I would argue that this type of behavior is not sufficient but at least necessary for large scale harm (like wars and apathy to large scale suffering) to occur.
sorry by non-reciprocal identity do you mean never to give back in relation to all things?
This would certainly fall under the guise of evil & a high contender for within
this character a taker is all forms of masks and subdefudges ?? hopefully you
know what i mean. There is a balance and under the balance is a great sway,
but giving nothing and taking everything is a cause to disaster.
Good and evil don't exist, they're just arbitrary judgments we make after the fact. I would argue that it makes more sense to ask which actions cause the most harm and which are the most beneficial.
From there, I would say the action that causes the greatest harm is diffusing blame through group behavior. A simple example of this is a firing squad; several men shoot at a prisoner, but none have to take sole moral responsibility for the execution. One or two can even miss on purpose. The larger the group, the less need there is for individual moral decisions, and the easier it is to deflect blame for actions that are unambiguously harmful.
I would argue that this type of behavior is not sufficient but at least necessary for large scale harm (like wars and apathy to large scale suffering) to occur.
I think an evil person is one who it gives pain to love. If you cannot see them as being able to become good or understand why it is they do what they do then they are monsters. They are anathema. In such a state there can be no forgiveness and thus no reconciliation.
Good and evil actions do exist though, don't you agree?
You are really on to something here. I think a lot could be learned about evil and an individual's relationship with and within a group is an interesting area to explore. And I agree this is probably how the most damage has been done to humans historically. Which then begs the question is it somehow a way nature culls population and attempts to stay in balance....But I digress.
What kinds of people find themselves drawn to groups? And is what drives them to be drawn to groups, what also drives them to be able to do evil within that group. This subject spawns lots of thought.
Human pack like behaviour & the problems it creates in terms of evil is
a problem Non INTP to the true description of Yung / myerrs / Biggs.
The INTP's on INTP Central might be trying to make a fallacy of the idea
but when did Yung etc get to observe INTP's in such a large pack. Followed
by over ninety nine per cent aren't even INTP's. A true INTP is a rarer creature
than believed INTP central is proof of that.
You have free will, human evil is human evil, nature does not cull humanity
it feeds & supports humanity. Man in turn destroyes his fellows animals &
enviroment with gay aplomb blieving himself to be master of his existance.
wrong.
Woman is not superior to man but is foolery to think God created man in
his own image and then Eve as an afterthought. God is Prime man Alpha
& Eve his dream.
Question: Did Jung find that non INTP, namely INFJ female, tended to be pack leaders?
And, if so, how do INTPs--on and off INTP central--accept that easily?
I think an evil person is one who it gives pain to love. If you cannot see them as being able to become good or understand why it is they do what they do then they are monsters. They are anathema. In such a state there can be no forgiveness and thus no reconciliation.
\well who am i to argue you have over a thousand post experience of these
worthless f*cks. I am a newbie. Basically to the few good we go up against
hundreds of bad. I should have obeyed my life lesson few good many many
bad behind there false masks with their hearts of hate.your right worthless
bunch of F*ckers not worth fighting for.I just wanted to save Kids.