 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
POST SIX |
|
|
|
In Spinoza's writings it seems that he feels that it is necessary to give up on pleasures since they use up energy and time. Spinoza feels that instead of wasting time on these things the time should be spent on meditating. He feels that social life is worth nothing and that there is nothing in this world that can give you unending happiness. He says that after the peaks of all pleasure you are left with being bored and dulled by it. He states that in fame you are absored in yourself and do nothing for society, you are useless almost. "Things most people value are "evil." "Only unhappiness can follow the love for what is perishable." Searching for these pleasure can cost you your life altogether to attain nothing. He says that it's more important to help others and work together that we should all have equal characters. He feels that nothing is either completely good or completely bad that we make things good or bad. "All men are born ignorant in the cause of things, all seek what is useful to them." They feel that they have freedom and get trapped by what they want in life. Spinoza feels that bad things just happen. He states that a belief in God is mere ignorance. He also feels that belief in any sense of freedom is ludicrous altogether. He feels that freedom raises false hopes in ourselves. He states that "true freedom is action in accordance with the laws of our reason." I feel that Spinoza is most like Epicurus in all these respects. Since they both feel there is no true destiny. Epicurus agrees in no God and Epicurus feels we are merely atoms moving together in a general direction. They both also seem to feel that we should care more about what we do for society then what we do for ourselves. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
POST SIX PART 2 |
|
|
|
How do I decide whether something is right or wrong? Well first off I believe that we humans are born with a pre-built set of morals and ethics. I believe that we get this from a Supreme Being. I feel that this is one of the ways we can know that there is a Supreme Being in this universe. When you look around you the general population believes universally that certain things are wrong. Killing someone for no reason, stealing from others what is rightfully theres, cheating on someone, etc. Some people do believe these things are OK however and I believe that that's only because they have a psychological disorder of some kind. Otherwise if you normalize everyone these characteristics would stand. Why would we have such a system of laws if this didn't exist anyhow?
Another thing about me is that I am a Christian. With that if I need to make a decision of morality or ethics the first place I turn to is the Bible. %99 of all things that I need answered can be found in here. For the rest you can pretty much use Biblical teaching and moral teaching from your parents and grandparents to figure out the rest. Some people say my ethical code is strict. I feel that it is actually quite free. It allows me to know what I decide is the right thing, yet also lets me know that I am free to chose the wrong way but I will suffer the consequences for that.
Hume believes that moralisty is practical and derived from sentiment alone and not from reason. However, he feels reason does play a role in it. I feel that he would probably disagree with me then in a lot of ways, since when I first read the Bible I reasoned with it and tried to disprove the stances in there first, when I no longer could I accepted it. However, I think that he would agree with me that some things we do decide on sentiment.
Kant states that health wealth and friendship are not good things. That only a good will is good. I like what he is saying that even if what you did turned out wrong or unaccomplished the fact you had a good intent and a good will makes the whole thing wholly good. However, I feel that health and friendship are gifts that were given to us to be good things. Wealth I feel is something you must work towards. I feel that it can be a good and negative thing depending on how you use it. If you use it to bless others then I feel it's a good thing yet if you use it to control and run over others it is a bad thing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
POST SEVEN |
|
|
|
Hobbes is in the party of people that feel everything is relational only to themselves. Everything is in the eye of the beholder, he feels that good is only what makes someone happy (love). Evil is what one hates. Good things are only things that help the individual. There is no common good or evil and there are no absolutes. He also states that if two men want the same good then they will no longer be friends and will become enemies. He feels that we humans are in a continual state of war and that there was never a state of nature. Men will always war for for gain, safety, and for reputation. Hobbes feels that society comes out of self-interest and being afraid. Society is merely a collective form of self preservation. He feels the only way nature is to work is to obey the golden rule.
Mill states that good is when things promote happiness and bad is when they produce the reverse of happiness. "Happiness is intended pleasure and unhappiness is pain and privation of pleasure". He feels that in the Epicurian belief the fact that humans and swine can have the same pleasure and only the same pleasure and happiness is ridiculous. He feels that humans have much more needs for pleasure then pigs do. I believe he is trying to say is that humans need more then other things and an Epicurian stand point doesn't hold to this. Good is more then just an interpersonal thing. It requires a society of goodness as well. A system of society set up for this.
Marx feels humans are simply happy when they get their desires. All humans do is "exist" or produce what they need to live and that is happiness. He feels that morality and religion, etc. are merely determined due to the economic conditions of a given society and are not on their own to everyone. So therefore these things may be happiness to others but happiness can be extremely basic to still others more. He feels that there are no moral philosophies that stand for all time and therefore the basic need happiness stands. I feel that Marx would agree with Hobbes and Epicurus mostly and disagree with Mill. |
|
|
|
CLICK HERE FOR MORE POSTS |
|