(April 7, 2024 at 4:22 am)Fake Messiah Wrote:

(April 7, 2024 at 4:12 am)Belacqua Wrote: You assert this dogmatically.

Do you have an argument as to why this is true, or is it something you just know?

I did explain it, but you ignored it. Why do you think people fight for their rights? Like for gay marriage. Or to end slavery. Or right to go to school.

No, you didn't explain it. You just gave examples of the type of thing your dogma asserts. If it is true that "Living well means living as you want and not as others order you to live," then yes of course the examples you gave are good. But you haven't yet justified why this is the axiom of your belief. 

But this is always the case with dogma -- it doesn't have to be explained or justified. And anyone who dissents from it is, in the mind of the dogmatist, a bad person. 

In fact I think that your belief is the dogma of our time, place, and social class. It seems so self-evident to people exactly because it is our dogma.

(April 7, 2024 at 4:45 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(April 7, 2024 at 4:22 am)Fake Messiah Wrote: I did explain it, but you ignored it. Why do you think people fight for their rights? Like for gay marriage. Or to end slavery. Or right to go to school.

No, you didn't explain it. You just gave examples of the type of thing your dogma asserts. If it is true that "Living well means living as you want and not as others order you to live," then yes of course the examples you gave are good. But you haven't yet justified why this is the axiom of your belief. 

But this is always the case with dogma -- it doesn't have to be explained or justified. And anyone who dissents from it is, in the mind of the dogmatist, a bad person. 

In fact I think that your belief is the dogma of our time, place, and social class. It seems so self-evident to people exactly because it is our dogma.

You say that as if you know what 'dogma' means. I read it and can tell that you don't (the word is not a pejorative).

Boru

(April 7, 2024 at 2:55 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(April 6, 2024 at 11:37 pm)Jamie Boy Wrote: [...]

For me, I wonder if religious dogma might actually limit a person's ability to live well. 

[...]

Serious question, and to answer it I'd say we'd need to settle two big issues:

1) which dogma? and 

2) what does it mean to live well?

So, like -- that's pretty much all of philosophy right there. 

Presumably there can be better dogma and worse dogma. In theory, there might even be true dogma. That is, a set of principles laid down as true that actually are true. Since this is forum is extremely unsympathetic to such ideas, probably nobody here accepts that there could be a set of such principles that everyone really ought to live by. 

Of course if the dogma is bad, and you tried to live by it, then your life could get messed up. 

We live in an extremely liberal time, in which living one's own way is seen as the best thing. People will assert this as if it is dogmatically true. Of course there have been arguments throughout history that because of the kind of animals we are, there are certain parameters which should govern our behavior. Aristotle, for example, thinks that the nature of human beings points toward a certain end, and people who choose something else are simply incorrect. Dante adopts this in a Christian version, in which Christian dogma is not an arbitrary set of laws from on high but simply the best way for animals like us to be healthy and happy. 

So if there is, as has often been asserted, a set of parameters limiting what it means to live well, then a good dogma would be useful for living that way. 

Quote:After the affairs of this life are all said and done, eternity awaits, right? So, the flicker of time one spends on this side of death cannot possibly carry much significance. 

I don't know of any religion which asserts this. While some do think you'll be in eternity after death, that doesn't mean that the current life is of no significance. In fact building the right conditions of eternity for yourself is often said to depend on how you live your life in the world. 

Also, aiming toward eternity doesn't necessarily mean giving up good things in this life. Sometimes people talk as if the idea of heaven prevents them from having the kind of fun they really want. But if that kind of fun would prevent you from going to heaven, then it isn't a good thing to do. Basically, such people are saying they want to do bad things -- but it seems to me that a life of doing bad things is not living well. Unless your idea of living well is just being irresponsible and getting away with it all the time.

You forgot to tell us how wonderfully they do things in Japan.  You're slipping.

Can someone here define 'dying well'? To me, unless the person is in total control of their death (means/method) this sounds like fantasy. It may be interesting to discuss but I doubt it rarely happens no matter what culture the person lives/dies in.

I tend to think that even if someone hasn't lived well...whatever that may mean for the person...that being able to come to terms with things you maybe aren't so proud of and apologizing to those close to you that you may have hurt along the well helps in the idea of dying well. Of course, this is under the assumption that a person has time to do these things which doesn't happen in a sudden death.

My reason for saying this is largely based on the last few years of my dad's life when he took responsibility for prior actions and hurts caused. It wasn't so much a case of asking forgiveness and more a case of facing, and admitting, the fact that some big, damaging mistakes had been made.

Though atheist in his later years, I think that he was more at peace with his imminent death after facing some things that were hard to face.

I hope that makes some sense.

Humbert Humbert was free to live as he wanted, and not as others thought he should live, for a few years anyway.

I don't think very many people would say that he lived a good life.

(April 7, 2024 at 8:03 am)Belacqua Wrote: Humbert Humbert was free to live as he wanted, and not as others thought he should live, for a few years anyway.

I don't think very many people would say that he lived a good life.

Gee - no wonder you go to this person - you really are a joke.

Humbert Humbert uses language to seduce the readers of his memoir. He criticizes the vulgarity of American culture, establishing himself as an intellectual.

Belacqua is a medieval peasant who has never heard of modern concepts like Humanism, on which western societies are built upon. As such, a medieval peasant, he thinks that human opinions and feelings are as fickle as the wind. However, we modern people have heard that it is okay to live your life as you want as long as you don't hurt other people. This notion is something that Belacqua cannot seem to memorize, no matter how much I repeat it on this forum, either because he is an idiot or a troll. So, I have no hope that he'll remember it now.

Humanism has taught us that something can be bad only if it causes somebody to feel bad. Murder is wrong not because some god once said, ‘Thou shalt not kill.’ Rather, murder is wrong because it causes terrible suffering to the victim, to his family members, and to his friends and acquaintances. Theft is wrong not because some ancient text says, ‘Thou shalt not steal.’ Rather, theft is wrong because when you lose your property, you feel bad about it. And if an action does not cause anyone to feel bad, there can be nothing wrong about it. If the same ancient text says that God commanded us not to make any images of either humans or animals (Exodus 20:4), but I enjoy sculpting such figures, and I don’t harm anyone in the process – then what could possibly be wrong with it?

The same logic dominates current debates on homosexuality. If two adult men enjoy having sex with one another, and they don’t harm anyone while doing so, why should it be wrong, and why should we outlaw it? It is a private matter between these two men, and they are free to decide about it according to their inner feelings. In the Middle Ages, if two men confessed to a priest that they were in love with one another, and that they never felt so happy, their good feelings would not have changed the priest’s damning judgement – indeed, their happiness would only have worsened the situation. Today, in contrast, if two men love one another, they are told: ‘If it feels good – do it! Don’t let any priest mess with your mind. Just follow your heart. You know best what’s good for you.’

Death is nothing to get excited about. HOW you die is the fun part. I've been dead a few times, nothing of note. Coming back to life was painful, that's the unpleasant part of the grand scheme.

♫Season don't fear the reaper,
Nor does the Sun, the wind or the rain.♫

Death is a design flaw