Sometimes, if you really want people to follow something, you should write it down. You can write down all of your beliefs, all of your laws, all of your rules, and all of your customs. If you do all those things people won't be able to say that you stand for something if, in fact, you don't. A disadvantage of this is that people will be able to say that you stand for things that, in fact, you do stand for. The Catholic Church's Catechism is a shining example of this. Often times you will hear Catholics who do not go to church say that you don't need to go to church to be a good catholic. It's true that the Catholics will always consider you a catholic, even if you don't attend mass, so that they can boast about it's number of adherents. If a catholic should come up to you and say that they are adhering Catholics who do not go to church, please refer them to the Vaticans's website (http://www.vatican.va/) and tell them to see Catechism 2180-2181 in Part(p) 3 Section(s) 2 Chapter(c) 1 Article(a) 3 which says that not attending Church is a grave sin and that Catechism 1857 in p3s1c1a8 states that this grave sin is a mortal sin. If a catholic should tell you that you can achieve salvation outside of the church show them to Catechism 845 in p1 s2 c3 a9 paragraph 3 which states quite the opposite.
Thank you Vatican for posting your Catechism and Canon Laws. It enable people like me to read basically the entirety of your beliefs, laws, rules, and so on. Interestingly, it's surprisingly difficult to find the document on the website, so here's a direct link for the interested http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM - if you are searching for a specific part in the catechism, ask and I can refer you to the correct part, if it exists. There are some things that people attribute to the Catholics unjustly.
30 March 2012
On Optimism
In response to Kelsey - full post here
In case you still think that life will eventually improve, I highly recommend you look into Franz Kafka. I don't think that any happy moments in his life could be looked at in a positive light considering everything else. I think that optimism, in part, is a false hope. Not everything gets better, and if overall your life is lousy, the moment were you are briefly happy is no reason to think it is better, you'll likely be disappointed - which will only make things worse.
Pessimism, however, is also a false despair. Not everything is bad. There are good times and those should be acknowledged as well. Furthermore goodness, is not the lack of badness. There can be good which is not related to bad. You could enjoy reading a book, but not reading a book isn't suffering. If you view hope and despair in this light you will never be satisfied.
The best thing, I think, is to take both the good and the bad into account. You can certainly create more overall happiness with less suffering so it could be beneficial to acknowledge the suffering that you may fix it. If, for instance, you notice that some disease is causing suffering, you should work to search for a cure. In class we suggested that the world was going to be consumed in the sun in a few billion years anyway. However, if we work towards it, we could eventually leave the solar system.
In case you still think that life will eventually improve, I highly recommend you look into Franz Kafka. I don't think that any happy moments in his life could be looked at in a positive light considering everything else. I think that optimism, in part, is a false hope. Not everything gets better, and if overall your life is lousy, the moment were you are briefly happy is no reason to think it is better, you'll likely be disappointed - which will only make things worse.
Pessimism, however, is also a false despair. Not everything is bad. There are good times and those should be acknowledged as well. Furthermore goodness, is not the lack of badness. There can be good which is not related to bad. You could enjoy reading a book, but not reading a book isn't suffering. If you view hope and despair in this light you will never be satisfied.
The best thing, I think, is to take both the good and the bad into account. You can certainly create more overall happiness with less suffering so it could be beneficial to acknowledge the suffering that you may fix it. If, for instance, you notice that some disease is causing suffering, you should work to search for a cure. In class we suggested that the world was going to be consumed in the sun in a few billion years anyway. However, if we work towards it, we could eventually leave the solar system.
Response (Corey (Who Owns Art)
In response to Corey - full post here
The question of who owns art has been questioned verily as of late. PIPA and SOPA has been driving many internet users crazy. I think that artists should own most of their works. Currently it seems like publishers and other contractors own the rights to the works. I have a problem with this when the industries controlling these rights have a problem with the spreading of works that the artists do not object to. I can think of one strong example now; John Lennon's Imagine was removed from youtube due to copyright issues. I cannot imagine (ha ha) that John Lennon would have approved of that. John Lennon, I think, would have wanted his work spread as far as it could be. Imagine was, after all, his vision of a perfect society. There is no reason why someone would not want their perfect society. I'm sure this has happened with literature as well.
The question of who owns art has been questioned verily as of late. PIPA and SOPA has been driving many internet users crazy. I think that artists should own most of their works. Currently it seems like publishers and other contractors own the rights to the works. I have a problem with this when the industries controlling these rights have a problem with the spreading of works that the artists do not object to. I can think of one strong example now; John Lennon's Imagine was removed from youtube due to copyright issues. I cannot imagine (ha ha) that John Lennon would have approved of that. John Lennon, I think, would have wanted his work spread as far as it could be. Imagine was, after all, his vision of a perfect society. There is no reason why someone would not want their perfect society. I'm sure this has happened with literature as well.
Ethics In A Determined Universe
We currently operate under the assumption that humans are the agents by which an action is made. Under this assumption, it seems right to hold people responsible for their actions, because they could have made a choice to not perform any given action. Given our current assumptions, it seems perfectly acceptable to treat people poorly after they have committed a crime; If person A kills person B, it seems right, to us, to deprive person A of comfort; thus we have punishment. Punishment, I think, is not the right approach.
Determinism has it that people cannot be held responsible for making a choice, because they are simply the agent through which, not by which, an action was made. To provide a good example of how a determinist could deal with crime, you have to invoke a lack of choice. Therefore, think of it this way:
A child is born with a severe, yet non-terminal communicable disease present from birth. Since the child had no control over this, the child cannot be held accountable for this circumstance. Most of can agree, then, that it would be wrong to lock this child in a cold, dark room which reeks of urine. Surely, however, the child must be quarantined from society. Given that the child cannot be held responsible for having a disease, we would likely treat the child as comfortably as could be allowed. Additionally, we would likely search for a cure to this disease.
This example shows that, in a deterministic universe, the punitive approach to dealing with crime would be far less fitting than a rehabilitative approach. Given that criminals are not responsible for their actions, it is wrong to punish them. It is not wrong, however, to supply them with as many comforts as can be allowed and help them to be rid of their criminal ways, that they do not act criminally again.
Similarly, since ethics still exists in a deterministic universe, it would be good to recognize, promote, and reward good actions. If a teacher dedicated years of his or her life to helping students become better people, it would be good to recognize that this is a good quality to have, and to promote the idea that people should aspire to be similarly good. Praising good qualities does not harm anybody, it only promotes it, which could one of the primary causes for someone else exhibiting similar qualities.
Determinism has it that people cannot be held responsible for making a choice, because they are simply the agent through which, not by which, an action was made. To provide a good example of how a determinist could deal with crime, you have to invoke a lack of choice. Therefore, think of it this way:
A child is born with a severe, yet non-terminal communicable disease present from birth. Since the child had no control over this, the child cannot be held accountable for this circumstance. Most of can agree, then, that it would be wrong to lock this child in a cold, dark room which reeks of urine. Surely, however, the child must be quarantined from society. Given that the child cannot be held responsible for having a disease, we would likely treat the child as comfortably as could be allowed. Additionally, we would likely search for a cure to this disease.
This example shows that, in a deterministic universe, the punitive approach to dealing with crime would be far less fitting than a rehabilitative approach. Given that criminals are not responsible for their actions, it is wrong to punish them. It is not wrong, however, to supply them with as many comforts as can be allowed and help them to be rid of their criminal ways, that they do not act criminally again.
Similarly, since ethics still exists in a deterministic universe, it would be good to recognize, promote, and reward good actions. If a teacher dedicated years of his or her life to helping students become better people, it would be good to recognize that this is a good quality to have, and to promote the idea that people should aspire to be similarly good. Praising good qualities does not harm anybody, it only promotes it, which could one of the primary causes for someone else exhibiting similar qualities.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)