There is no good or evil....., ... only human suffering. Options

[Shinjuku]

With all this talk of karma I decided to start this thread to try to understand better where a concept of morals develops. The purpose of discussion is really this:

"All connotations of good and evil are founded on the awareness of the individuals own suffering."

therefore

"There is no good or evil, only human suffering"

What do you think?

[ill Rich]

yeah i guess that makes sense

[ob_muaj_ib]

With all this talk of karma I decided to start this thread to try to understand better where a concept of morals develops. The purpose of discussion is really this:

"All connotations of good and evil are founded on the awareness of the individuals own suffering."

therefore

"There is no good or evil, only human suffering"

What do you think?

how does one know one is suffering if one does not know what good or evil is?

the reason why good and evil exist, is to allow us to differentiate the two. to know what is good, one must know what is evil. opposites exist for reasons of differentiation and understanding the relationships of it's nature. then one can differentiate the two and make an analysis of what one's experience is and thus, one can know. with knowledge comes choices, which is what is given to us as our birth right as human beings.

2=1

[Chun Li]

there is suffering cos man has free will..... he can choose to do good or bad freely, so some choose bad and there is suffering ^_^..... but this does not account for suffering in nature... e.g. eartquakes, volcanoe reuptions etc. which is downside...

[HmOnG_bOi]

there is good and evil...the Ying-Yang expains all....lolz

[Shinjuku]

how does one know one is suffering if one does not know what good or evil is?

the reason why good and evil exist, is to allow us to differentiate the two.  to know what is good, one must know what is evil.  opposites exist for reasons of differentiation and understanding the relationships of it's nature.  then one can differentiate the two and make an analysis of what one's experience is and thus, one can know.  with knowledge comes choices, which is what is given to us as our birth right as human beings.

2=1

For the sake of rising to the antagonism I will reply. Chicken and egg, rationalist/imperialist, banging head on brick wall time.

lets try :

the only reason a notion of good and evil exist is because they have been defined by subjective experience of suffering. In principle good and evil exist only as expressions of our understanding of suffering, "people existed before a notion of good and evil" is the speculation here.

Suffering is apriori knowledge and manifests in every employment of the notions of good and evil. Suffering allows us to determine what is good and evil. Personal suffering also gives a basis for understanding how a situation may cause suffering (for example watching someone being badly beaten will be considered evil by anyone who can relate to the act as suffering).

the main argument behind this is that no universal definitions of good and evil exist that every individual can agree on. Somebody may think (without remorse) that killing somebody is utterly acceptable and is not founded in moral judgement, this is likely if they do not suffer from knowing the implications of their own mortality.

[ob_muaj_ib]

For the sake of rising to the antagonism I will reply. Chicken and egg, rationalist/imperialist, banging head on brick wall time.

lets try :

the only reason a notion of good and evil exist is because they have been defined by subjective experience of suffering. In principle good and evil exist only as expressions of our understanding of suffering, "people existed before a notion of good and evil" is the speculation here.

Suffering is apriori knowledge and manifests in every employment of the notions of good and evil. Suffering allows us to determine what is good and evil. Personal suffering also gives a basis for understanding how a situation may cause suffering (for example watching someone being badly beaten will be considered evil by anyone who can relate to the act as suffering).

the main argument behind this is that no universal definitions of good and evil exist that every individual can agree on. Somebody may think (without remorse) that killing somebody is utterly acceptable and is not founded in moral judgement, this is likely if they do not suffer from knowing the implications of their own mortality.

chicken and egg, chicken first. rationalist and imperialist, rationalist first.

if one does not know what "good" and "evil" is first (the degree of what one constitute what is good and/or evil for oneself), one can not know one is suffering. it is not the latter that makes aware of the former but vice versa.

how does one know the degree of one's suffering, if one does not know what suffering is? one can not know suffering unless one is aware/know what good and evil is, with this knowledge of "good and evil" one then can evaluate the degree of one's suffering.

suffering is an experience. good and evil are knowledge. if one does not know (have the knowledge of good and evil), how can one relate/evaluate what his experience (suffering) is.

how does one know one is playing baseball, if one did not know what baseball is?

doing arithmetic is an experience. knowing the process of how to "add and subtract, etc" is the knowledge.

how does one knows one need to eat, if one does not know what hunger is?

suffering is not a priori knowledge because of the fact that it MANIFESTS in every employment of the notions of good and evil. suffering has a need for the knowledge of what good and evil is in relation to ones own understanding/knowledge before it is known as suffering to oneself. likewise, if one is to perceive suffering of another is in relation to one's understanding of what good and/or evil is. then one determines the degree of suffering, what kind, tolerance of it, etc. as one weighs that experience with ones own understanding/knowledge of what is acceptable to oneself, namely, what one considers good or evil or the degree of these two.

if one does not know what is good and/or evil, one does not know suffering. one may show signs of suffering, but one does not know one is suffering.

ie: mentally challenged person does not know he/she is suffering from mental disorder if the mentally challenged person isn't aware of his suffering. others who know, can tell that this person is suffering, but it is because the other person knows.

pt is: suffering is an experience. and good and evil are the knowledge needed to define the experience. one can not know good and evil from suffering because one wouldn't know one is suffering to begin with.

like i said, the chicken first.

2=1 (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Rappapa]

With all this talk of karma I decided to start this thread to try to understand better where a concept of morals develops. The purpose of discussion is really this:

"All connotations of good and evil are founded on the awareness of the individuals own suffering."

therefore

"There is no good or evil, only human suffering"

What do you think?

how does one know one is suffering if one does not know what good or evil is?

the reason why good and evil exist, is to allow us to differentiate the two. to know what is good, one must know what is evil. opposites exist for reasons of differentiation and understanding the relationships of it's nature. then one can differentiate the two and make an analysis of what one's experience is and thus, one can know. with knowledge comes choices, which is what is given to us as our birth right as human beings.

2=1

That made no sense. Good and Evil exists so we know the difference between Good and Evil? That's like saying Cats and Dogs were made so you know the difference between a Cat and a Dog (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/embarassedlaugh.gif) 2

Nice Logic (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbsdown.gif)

[Shinjuku]

Is this is some kind of joke? Are you just messing with me or what? (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

suffering is an experience. good and evil are knowledge. if one does not know (have the knowledge of good and evil), how can one relate/evaluate what his experience (suffering) is.

There is no denying that good and evil are knowledge but we are discussing the origin of this knowledge.

how does one know one is playing baseball, if one did not know what baseball is?

The experience of baseball is seperate to the name given to it. When baseball was invented/discovered somebody chose that name for it.

pt is: suffering is an experience. and good and evil are the knowledge needed to define the experience.

You were nearly there:

"suffering is an experience. and good and evil are the knowledge invented to define the experience."

but you want this (above) to be an illusion so:

"suffering is an experience. and good and evil is the knowledge discovered to define the experience."

In any case (and now to the point) experience still precedes knowledge regardless of what that knowledge is part of - even if there is a great definiton of good and evil experience is required to understand what this knowledge means.


lets question:

How can good and evil be understood without a personal experience of suffering? How does someone relate to something they have no experience of?

(somebody else tells them, shows them a picture, a film? If one showed a child a film of violence what would their opinion be if asked if it were good or evil? Perhaps that child hasn't sojourned enough to know or maybe they repeat what their parents told them? Perhaps the sojourning you speak of is experience.)

[Rappapa]

That's right. People don't know the difference of Good and Evil without experience suffering.

A baby does something wrong. Why? Because he doesn't know any better. People and especially children take things for granted. That's another example.

Is this is some kind of joke? Are you just messing with me or what?

Was that comment directed towards me?

[Shinjuku]

No, I think you make sense. Sorry should have made that more clear (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/icon_smile.gif) (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/icon_smile.gif)

I'm convinced ob_muaj_ib is just getting involved to rile things up a bit in this thread (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/icon_wink.gif) which is a great idea.

[ob_muaj_ib]

maybe too many, too much is confusing ya'll. i was trying to stay with the "good/evil" and "suffering" thing. anyway, your premise:

how do you know you are suffering?
you say, you experience a suffering.
how do you know you've experienced a suffering?
you answer, by your experiences.
how do you know you're experiencing "an experience"?
what, by another experience.
how would you know you're experiencing this other experience to explain your experience of suffering?
what, by another experience.
how did you know of your very first experience?
by what?

well, you can see, it's redundant to keep repeating the question.

therefore, one must first know that one has knowledge, that one can think/can know before one can know that one has had an experience thought/action/feelings or any other processes.

well, how does one know/have knowledge. knowledge is a given, it has always been there. as one knows one can experience the first experience, which is one knows one can think. then yada, yada to all other knowledge. as one discovers other knowledge, one will come to know all these knowledge was always there, that all these experiences are nothing more than tools, the mind/soul conjures up to awaken itself to the ONE MIND.

2=1 (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/biggthumpup.gif) (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/biggthumpup.gif) (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/embarassedlaugh.gif) 2 (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/embarassedlaugh.gif) 2

[Rappapa]

No, I think you make sense. Sorry should have made that more clear (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/icon_smile.gif) (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/icon_smile.gif)

I'm convinced ob_muaj_ib is just getting involved to rile things up a bit in this thread (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/icon_wink.gif) which is a great idea.

Yeah, I love debating but there aren't any people to debate with. Now we got fresh meat (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Shinjuku]

maybe too many, too much is confusing ya'll.  i was trying to stay with the "good/evil" and "suffering" thing.  anyway, your premise:

how do you know you are suffering?
you say, you experience a suffering.
how do you know you've experienced a suffering?
you answer, by your experiences.
how do you know you're experiencing "an experience"?
what, by another experience.
how would you know you're experiencing this other experience to explain your experience of suffering?
what, by another experience.
how did you know of your very first experience?
by what?

well, you can see, it's redundant to keep repeating the question. 

By experience I mean something that has occured to introduce a new feeling/thought/knowledge to the mind. The virute of experience is that it requires no other experience to define it, it becomes the definitive aspect. Perhaps this is what you mean when you say knowledge?

[Tuan Nayland]

"All connotations of good and evil are founded on the awareness of the individuals own suffering."

So, good & evil are 'subjective' and in reality lack an 'objective' existence upon which all people can agree?

Is this right?

Tuan

[Shinjuku]

"All connotations of good and evil are founded on the awareness of the individuals own suffering."

So, good & evil are 'subjective' and in reality lack an 'objective' existence upon which all people can agree?

Is this right?

Tuan

Thats part of the implication of that phrase, yes.

The discussion is about the origin of morals rather than the nature of morals (although this plays a large part in discussing the origin).

[ob_muaj_ib]

By experience I mean something that has occured to introduce a new feeling/thought/knowledge to the mind.  The virute of experience is that it requires no other experience to define it, it becomes the definitive aspect.  Perhaps this is what you mean when you say knowledge?

but this new experience can not occur without the prior experience. it is the prior experience that introduces one to the latter experience, even if one is to consider the latter experience, new and different from the former, it can not occur until the former experience is known. therefore, the latter is dependant on the former, thus, the "virtue of experience" is expunged.

experiences, by virtue, is governed by time and space. it is a sequential happening.

2=1 (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Shinjuku]

In another of your posts you said Descartes should have said "I am, therefore I think" (its weird because I thought you were a fan of rationalism).

This clearly places existing before thought. Existing is an experience and if you need to have a sequential flow of experience then let "exsiting" be the first experience.

Thus from the experience of existing one has thought and in thought knowledge.

[ob_muaj_ib]

In another of your posts you said Descartes should have said "I am, therefore I think" (its weird because I thought you were a fan of rationalism).

This clearly places existing before thought. Existing is an experience and if you need to have a sequential flow of experience then let "exsiting" be the first experience.

Thus from the experience of existing one has thought and in thought knowledge.

dont' get me wrong, i will usually argue both sides, just depends. simply because i said something in another post, doesn't mean i'm retracting back what i said.

my premise still stands.

good and evil are subjective
suffering is objective
knowledge is subjective
experience is objective

the subject must exist before the object. even if the object is there, with no subject to observe the object, the object ceases to exist or be made known. when the subject exist, then the object exist or can be made known to exist.

2=1 (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Shinjuku]

In another of your posts you said Descartes should have said "I am, therefore I think" (its weird because I thought you were a fan of rationalism).

This clearly places existing before thought. Existing is an experience and if you need to have a sequential flow of experience then let "exsiting" be the first experience.

Thus from the experience of existing one has thought and in thought knowledge.

dont' get me wrong, i will usually argue both sides, just depends. simply because i said something in another post, doesn't mean i'm retracting back what i said.

my premise still stands.

good and evil are subjective
suffering is objective
knowledge is subjective
experience is objective

the subject must exist before the object. even if the object is there, with no subject to observe the object, the object ceases to exist or be made known. when the subject exist, then the object exist or can be made known to exist.

2=1 (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Sorry, I thought your belief system relied on consistency to bring about the existence of the one mind so I quoted from another of your posts about the existence of God.

Anyway you know that the premise I am presenting is:

suffering is subjective, good and evil are the objective derived from the subjective.
experience is subjective knowledge is the objective derived from the subjective.

the subject must exist before the object. even if the object is there, with no subject to observe the object, the object ceases to exist or be made known. when the subject exist, then the object exist or can be made known to exist. Knowledge cannot exist without a subjective experience with which to understand it.

I think what I refer to as experience overlaps with your definition of knowledge.