View Single Post
Old 01-03-2010, 04:52 PM   #103
purifier's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: DisneyLand
Posts: 725
LF Jester 
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
Let's try that in dialog, just to see if it makes any sense:

"Why are we here?"
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

Forgive me, but I just don't see it.

Your input would seem more appropriate to questions of to HOW (!!!) we should conduct ourselves, but I don't see anything related to why we are here.

As for the golden rule and questions in relations to the "HOW", I agree with that too. But from a philosophical point of view, my own point of view, I believe it to be the "WHY" also. So I guess we will hafta to agree to disagree on that, wouldn't you agree? But seriously though, I really believe the golden rule relates to both the "HOW" and "WHY".

Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
And for what it's worth, Kant's categorical imperative carries the same theme, with a superior structure and without any superstitious baggage. So again, why opt for the inferior option?
Well I never saw that before, that's kinda interesting. I'm suprised that I never heard of Kant's Categorical Imperative view before until you introduced it to me just recently, thank you sir for the reference.

But still.. as for the reasons that I adopt the inferior ver. (The Golden Rule) is because it's simple and direct in it's meaning, from my philosophical point of view only; as I mentioned above.

Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
So why not follow one of those religions?
Well over time those religions became corrupt and lost the true direction in which they were actually meant to go; as most religions do eventually. But some of the philosophies that they incorporate within there teachings do appeal to me, yet I don't accept them as a religion for me; or any religion for that matter, really just the truths that make sense. Yes, I know..that's unheard of isn't it?

Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
Welcome to the argument for secular humanism
"Secular Humanism" you say. Well, as a matter of fact...once upon a time..I too followed that way of thinking for a long time without ever hearing of the words "Secular Humanism." The need of proving things only through a scientific method was my belief at one time too. But, as I got older..some of life's experiences force me to change my idea's about that and so it became clear to me that not everything can be explained within the use of the scientific method.

Although I would agree with some aspects of Secular Humanism, like the search for truth, ethics and building a better world, the scientific method dosen't always help me in a explanation of the many different mysteries that still lurk out there and that the scientific method just cannot explain; and may never explain as well too.

Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
I don't know that I would agree with the "eternal universal truth" part, but I could definitely subscribe to the argument that it's a good idea and that good ideas should be accepted over bad ideas, etc, etc.
Well the "eternal universal truth" statement that I associated the "golden rule" with, is from my own philosophical point of view more than anything, yet it can be the idea of a "universal morality" from another point of view as well. And I agree too as for the "good idea" over "bad idea" point you made, can't be wrong with that way of thinking as far as I'm concerned.

purifier is offline   you may: