this post was submitted on 06 Dec 2024
3 points (57.1% liked)

Philosophy

1817 readers
1 users here now

All about Philosophy.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
SnowC0de@lemmy.ml
3
A lack of knowledge is what's at the core of suffering. (lemmy.world)
submitted 3 weeks ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) by Codrus@lemmy.world to c/philosophy@lemmy.ml
16 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Suffering\Hate\Anger\Fear\Selfishness\Conciousness

What would be the remedy of fear, and the selfishness that creates it? Knowledge, but of the value of virtue and selflessness specifically. Therefore, all hate and evil would be a lack of knowledge—an ignorance. This is what inspired Socrates (debatably, the founding father of philosophy) to begin teaching strangers around his community, because he knew that it's a knowledge that needs to be gained thus, taught, to the point where he even took his own life to die a martyr to what he had to say. And the knowledge that the fear that would've otherwise have stopped him from even teaching anything at all would be a selfishness. This is what warrants hate and evil to any degree infinite forgiveness, and why it's so important to teach it the error of its ways, through love. Whether through meeting what you would consider as hate when you're met with it, with love, or exemplifying it via selfless actions. Because some people don't even have the ability to tell their left hand from their right (Jonah 4:11), but we can use the influence of an Earth (what a collection of people are presently sharing in—society, driving cars, holding the door open for strangers etc.) to teach the more difficult to do so; if everyone were sharing in selflessness and virtue, wouldn't it be seen as typical as driving a car is today? Therefore, nowhere near the chore it would be seen as otherwise, considering everyone would be participating in it. And what does a cat begin to do—despite its, what we call "instinct"—when raised amongst dogs? Pant. We are what we've been surrounded with, like racists, they just don't know any better, being abscent of the other side of it especially. And love (selflessness) is the greatest teacher, it renders the ears and the mind of a conscious, capable being—on any planet, to be the most open-minded, thus the most willing to truly consider foreign influences.

"We can't beat out all the hate in the world, with more hate; only love has that ability." - Martin Luther King Jr.

all 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

brb gonna go tell starving people to stop being so stupid

[–] Codrus@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

I'm obviously referring to those that cause anyone any amount of suffering, starving children in this case, apparently. Humans are where any amount of morality in the world originate.

While you do that, I'm going to be toiling, even suffering over teaching the youth of today the knowledge that's required to gain the incentive that's needed, to even consider the will that's necessary to be selfless to the extremes of it. And the irrelevance and the hell that comes with living a life revolved around yourself, ultimately.

[–] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I see. It is honestly difficult to tell exactly what you mean. Education is, of course, essential to making change for the better, but the content of that education is just as important. Being selfless as a person on an individual can mean doing good things while actually entrenching the forces that create systemic suffering. For example, volunteering to feed people and convincing others to do the same. It would be difficult to call that a bad thing. And yet, the way it is funded tends to mean it is a way to distract from the root causes, from what impoverishes and deprives, from the destruction of community and lives. There are entire industries predicated on converting people's empathy and desire to help each other into a tax write off and cheap PR.

So yes, there is an education problem there, but it is more challenging than teaching empathy alone. Empathy is only a basic starting point and is insufficient. One must plug into a political program that correctly analyses societal systems and directs action through an organized program intended to address those systems.

[–] Codrus@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Of course the content is important, that should go without saying.

Yes that's something that can happen, so what are you saying? We shouldn't do good at all and the "value of virtue" is nonsense just because there's a potential of that happening?

Of course there's more to it. It's far from simple, I'm not arguing that at all. Especially when it comes to the way we organize ourselves. But we can never imagine a future where ourselves are no longer the emphasis if the way we organize ourselves contradicts with it so much, and even forces one in the opposite direction of the true life lived most in the present that a life of selflessness has to offer anyone of any belief. Selflessness is far from being beneficial from only the beneficiaries side of things.

[–] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 weeks ago

The key is that once you emphasize the content, the discussion itself changes. It ia no longer abstract, just about knowledge, but is now a political education: what are the forces at work causing suffering (it is not just ignorance), how do they function, and how can we work together to address them?

The reason this us so important is that oppressive forces are mainstream and dominent and they will determine was avenues you have for, say, charity. The system will craft society such that your work provides a release valve for the suffering it causes, which can actually entrench and normalize those oppressive forces. They provide the funding, after all. They will expect to be credited for their "generosity" with ill-gotten gains and, say, a carceral system they maintain premised on punishment rather than public betterment and healing. People motivated by empathy, who are taught empathy, may get caught up in that charity system and thereby, overall, help cement the opprrssive ruling powers that create the disposession in the first place.

So, one muat be educated in correct ideas with sound analysis based on a critical study of society and its material oppressive forces. You must know how the political economic system functions if you are to understand the roots of suffering. And must then push farthee to ask how it has been challenged historically and how you might assist that process.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Okay Abrahamic Yoda 🙄

[–] Codrus@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

I equate what we call wisdom as logic, and logic doesn’t become any more or less logical or significant when considering its source. 2+2 is still 4 regardless if it came from Hitler or Jesus; meeting hate with love is significantly more logical than meeting it with the age old hate, even if its Hitler suggesting it.

Star Wars is based off multiple differnet real world theologies: https://writerbuddha.tumblr.com/post/655761886122475520/george-lucas-buddhist-methodist

[–] balderdash9@lemmy.zip 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

You should sharpen your claims to make them more apparent. There are moral claims thrown in with religious presupposition in a way that is neither illuminating for ethics nor philosophy of religion. Alternatively, this may be the wrong sub for your post.

[–] Codrus@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

What I have to say regarding all hate and evil being an ignorance is what Socrates (debateably the founding father of philosophy) had to say, as well as the Christian and Hebrew Bibles. I can't speak for any other man made thing being held as unquestionably true via the influences of the idea of a heaven however.

[–] Linktank@lemmy.today 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Ignorance is bliss.

[–] Codrus@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Humans are how any amount of love exists in the world; if everyone's so busy being so content and comforted with their peace, or to busy willingly blinding themselves via ignorance to remain in a blissful state, who will be there to worry, even suffer for others to find theirs? "The hardest to love, are the ones that need it the most." - Socrates

[–] Linktank@lemmy.today 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

You think other animals can't love? That's an extremely limited world view.

[–] Codrus@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

I'm saying in contrast, our capacity to not only imagine selflessness in our heads, but to even toil and suffer for it, not to mention the extent we can then act to apply it to our environment—this especially, is clearly significantly more profound. Stopping other species—not to mention our own, from ceasing to exist for example, or to even pet a cat, etc.

[–] Unquote0270@programming.dev 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

You are assuming that people don't want to be selfish and that everyone wants to live in peace, this is simply not true. People aren't "evil" because they lack knowledge, nor because they are unloved. Meeting evil with love is a great way to get yourself killed or psychologically damaged by someone who enjoys being "evil" and thinks you're an easy target to play with.

[–] Codrus@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

From the knowledge that comes from experiencing or learning of great hate, evil, and selfishness comes the knowledge and a newfound appreciation for the potential of great love, goodness, and selflessness; even to the point of giving your life for it. I'm sick and tired of hearing about stories like these:

https://apnews.com/article/missouri-execution-christopher-collings-f5a027c86c53725556a5a66751abd36d

Only when we no longer see the fulfillment of our greatest desires as being our highest happiness—individually, are we able to move beyond the inherently self-obssessed barbarian that's still within all of us, to a future where at least violence is considered obsolete—collectively.