I do not think your words hurtful, or as Dark Elf put it, harsh. Your point of view is not alien to me; in fact, I went from where you're standing to
where I'm standing now: I don't see people as inherently good or inherently bad. We're neutral. We have the capability to be anywhere on the gammet
from good to evil. And we also have the ability to change our current position...
Our roots are beastly, so we'll take the easy way out whenever possible -- which can (or usually) lead(s) to bad ends (both within and without). But,
that does not mean that we completely lack the ability of realizing the various paths, and making conscious decisions about them, about which one we
choose to take.
I agree with the Hindus who believe that the physical realm is a realm of pain. Life is pain. But, I don't necessarily think that pain is a good
thing, nor a bad thing -- pain is as you take it. If my stomach hurts, I have the choice to whine and moan and be cranky, or to completely ignore it,
or to feel the pain and take delight in the fact that I can actually feel an otherwise silent organ. (The latter choice is mine -- how often do we get
to feel organs that we'll (hopefully!) never actually see, indeed, that we usually forget we even have?)
Originally posted by orangetom1999
Yes I too have compromised many times. When I see that something is not working out I take a different tack if the goal is worthy of my time if not I
discard the mess. And yes you often must fight hard for the few things which are so worthwhile.
Say that I choose to fight for morality. Obviously I am, but extend that to any and all situations (which is part of my internal debate). If that is
my path, then how can I turn against it, or deviate from it, and 'go with the flow' by joining everyone else in discarding morality? I'd be going
against my own grains, in trying to keep my grains alive!
If something (in my case, morality) is worth fighting for (or maintaining), then the question then becomes: How far am I willing to go?
I think though Diseria that you have a very different starting point than do I and some of the others who post on this thread. THis is
something I sense ...like radar....
*nods* I've got radar about people -- I know (usually upon first meeting) if the person is a truly good person, if I can trust them. (If that little
light doesn't go off, I don't know for sure.) It's gone of a number of times in my life, and a few times on this thread. (I'll echo the sentiment
again -- if the shtf, I hope I find y'all, or people like you guys. Seriously.) ((To my knowledge, my radar's been correct, possibly wrong(-ish)
However, your radar was correct, so go on - give yourself a cookie! ,)
I do not believe that people are basically good. I believe that people and their natures are basically bad. That is my starting point. All of
us ..no exceptions. Especially myself.
See, because (as with most things in life) I sit on the fence, I think that everyone has the potential to be good, to be bad, to do good and bad
actions. I refuse to call them one or the other, because I've known bad people who did good things, and vice versa. So, I hafta leave it open
We cannot determine a person's character based on one lone action, be it good or bad. We can only know if a person was truly good or bad by looking
at the entirety of their actions and behaviors, at the end of their life.
I include myself in that neutrality, although I'm not very good at giving myself the benefit of the doubt as well as I do others. (That's my
character flaw. The one benefit is that I know I will never suffer from arrogance and conceit.) Indeed, it's another baby step...
THe raw material we are made of is lousy material. No amount of education or knowlege is going to change this.
I disagree. The raw material is as it is - neither good nor bad. And without education and knowledge, we'd be hairless apes, but without the massive
and intimidating muscles. (In fact, I'd liken us more to hyenas, actually.)
It's from education (and, arguably, mis-education) that we learn to be good or bad, or even what is socially considered good and bad. Knowledge comes
with time, experience, and a certain level of self-reflection. These are key to our development... or lack thereof. (In this particular aspect, I
subscribe to Confucius... but I'll hafta put that on another post, as I'm quickly running out of room with all my adding/editting! *smirks*)
This is why you have problems with this morality. You know what you would like people to be and tend to give many the benifit. But I think you
have also at times paid a dear price for these beliefs....as have also many of us.
Yes, I've been disappointed and hurt many times, by others, by myself. I think that's a fact of life, no matter one's environment or society or
culture or education.
It saddens me that I give the benefit of the doubt, and am left holding the ball, so to speak. Reliability and trustworthiness are in a severe
But, how can I ever hope to see these wonderful qualities return if I do not give people the benefit of the doubt? the chance to prove me wrong? Is it
such a bad thing to hold hope, to have faith that maybe, just maybe, people will come around and return to some level of decency?
If I have even a smidgen of faith in myself, in the fact that I can change myself with time (which is slowly developing), then I have to have it for
other people, otherwise I leave absolutely no room for change...
...you are doing fine here on this thread. I as well as others enjoy your posts and frankness.
For this, i am grateful. While I've never met any of you face-to-face, don't even know names... I see no point in being dishonest. I learn nothing
about myself, about you guys, about people, or even life from lying.
(Although, I will admit that if anyone ever meets me irl, I'm not as elegant in my speech as I am in my writing!
[edit on 19-1-2007 by Diseria]