Community Messageboard: It's funny anyway :P by Cannoli

Back to Messageboard

Post New Thread

Help

Stats

Rules

It's funny anyway

Cannoli Send a noteboard - 30/03/2017 05:19:43 PM

I figured you'd say something like that. To some extent of course it makes sense that people would be able to let go of their more petty emotions or struggles about material possessions - but to get to perfect harmony you'd have to go beyond that and basically remove most or all of a person's personality in life. And then you end up at a point where, as you say, only One / Three matter - who are, to quote your line further below, pandered to by slaves with no free will. As blissful as that may be for the slaves in question.

It's like a macro-scale version of a committed relationship. On paper, it's an absurd arrangement with responsibilities and a significant curtailment of agency, as well as enormous emotional vulnerability.

It's no more slavery than the same voluntary surrender of independence that comes with any relationship, except with none of risks that a relationship with a relatively fickle and inconstant human being entails.

If I envision an afterlife in which people do have those genuine connections and really get to spend time with their loved ones forever in a meaningful way - then that inevitably becomes a place that has room for negative emotions as well as positive ones, neither heaven nor hell.

But the circumstances would be so radically different that the negative stuff would not come into play. If it seems like a dimunition of self, well, there's a etymological reason for "selfish". Heaven is the place where any and all justifications of selfishness end.

If you're going to draw conclusions like that, you should probably replace 'liberal' and 'conservative' by 'non-believer' and 'believer'. There's Christians or other believers on all sides of the political spectrum, and the same for atheists. Obviously atheists, including myself, don't actually believe in heaven as a real thing - but make the point that they're not really interested in heaven anyway if it would involve giving up most of their personality in order to avoid all possible conflicts.

The lack of conflict is due to the utter fulfilment of one's personality. In worldly terms, conflicts are due to needs that are not met. If everything is being met, there is no need for conflict. An idea liberals have had no problem articulating in policy hypotheticals or ideals. There's no point to those sorts of conflict, unless it's just to be a dick, in which case, heaven isn't really appropriate for that sort of thing. Being good isn't an arbitrary requirement to get to heaven, it's a qualification.

Cannoli
“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” GK Chesteron
Inde muagdhe Aes Sedai misain ye!
Deus Vult!
*MySmiley*

Reply to message

Movie heaven is wierd Cannoli - 29/03/2017 12:05:19 PM 527 Views

Oh, fun, metaphysics debate.

Legolas - 29/03/2017 07:59:59 PM 361 Views

Re: Oh, fun, metaphysics debate.

Cannoli - 30/03/2017 01:31:38 AM 451 Views

I don't think that's a liberal/conservative divide. I think that's a religious/secular one. Ghavrel - 30/03/2017 07:30:42 AM 340 Views

I don't think you should view me as representative for all liberals.

Legolas - 30/03/2017 07:53:55 AM 419 Views

It's funny anyway

Cannoli - 30/03/2017 05:19:43 PM 457 Views

Hollywood is filled with vapid egotistical morons Tom - 30/03/2017 02:49:00 AM 361 Views

Back to Messageboard

Post New Thread

Help

Stats

Rules

Reply to Message

Subject

Formatting

Smiley Codes

Body

<quote id="293575">
<quote>
I figured you'd say something like that. To some extent of course it makes sense that people would be able to let go of their more petty emotions or struggles about material possessions - but to get to perfect harmony you'd have to go beyond that and basically remove most or all of a person's personality in life. And then you end up at a point where, as you say, only One / Three matter - who are, to quote your line further below, pandered to by slaves with no free will. As blissful as that may be for the slaves in question. </quote>
It's like a macro-scale version of a committed relationship.  On paper, it's an absurd arrangement with responsibilities and a significant curtailment of agency, as well as enormous emotional vulnerability.

<quote>If I envision an afterlife in which people do have those genuine connections and really get to spend time with their loved ones forever in a meaningful way - then that inevitably becomes a place that has room for negative emotions as well as positive ones, neither heaven nor hell. </quote>
But the circumstances would be so radically different that the negative stuff would not come into play.  If it seems like a dimunition of self, well, there's a etymological reason for "selfish".  Heaven is the place where any and all justifications of selfishness end.

<quote>
If you're going to draw conclusions like that, you should probably replace 'liberal' and 'conservative' by 'non-believer' and 'believer'. There's Christians or other believers on all sides of the political spectrum, and the same for atheists. Obviously atheists, including myself, don't actually believe in heaven as a real thing - but make the point that they're not really interested in heaven anyway if it would involve giving up most of their personality in order to avoid all possible conflicts.</quote>The lack of conflict is due to the utter fulfilment of one's personality. In worldly terms, conflicts are due to needs that are not met.  If everything is being met, there is no need for conflict.  An idea liberals have had no problem articulating in policy hypotheticals or ideals.  There's no point to those sorts of conflict, unless it's just to be a dick, in which case, heaven isn't really appropriate for that sort of thing.  Being good isn't an arbitrary requirement to get to heaven, it's a qualification.

</quote>

Link title

Link url

Send notification emails?

Username

Password