The Myth of Myths

As it were, human nature is part of Nature ; Nature gave rise to Human Nature (Albert Jacquard calls this humanitude). So, as it were, we cannot say that empathy, or compassion even, is unnatural. We may be able to say that NOT helping others who find themselves deprived of necessities behave contrary to nature -- and those who consciously deprive others for their own gain not only behave contrary to nature, but are committing a wilful act of violence. In Nature's law then, as our ancestors would have done, greedy people would be excluded from the group - not rise to be the leaders of it.

:dry:

That is natures law, not mine, thankfully we live in a society that dosn't agree withn nature, we all need help from time to time. My point is about stealing and is there a justification for it, i dont think so but hopefully we continue to live in a society which is giving and caring.

The fact is they Perish, this happens daily in this world we live in. Men, women and children are dying each day as the worlds governments stand by an watch, this is a fact of life. They only interfere when they feel their way of thinking is comprimised. In nature, man can be the cruelest of beasts yet the most forgiving. Which brings me back to my origonal point on Myths, they dont feed the staving millions or provide shelter and protection, if the aforementioned are trials then you can keep your Myths.

If someone was in a position of requiring help, let say for example they have no food and no way to earn money, and felt that stealing was their only option to feed themselves, would that be a justification? Perhaps if as Alexandre says "nature gives rise to human nature", is stealing a means of survival too? Is someone who is strong and succesfully stealing from the weak the "fittest" and therefore their survival is justified? It happens in "animal" nature after all.

Greed is a human trait, in nature there is very rarely the concept of sharing, for example why does a dog bolt its food quickly, simple, its scared the other dogs get to it before he does. Is this greed, no, just instinct telling it to survive.
Human nature have evolved beyond that of "mere" animals and to compre the 2 isnt quite right, similarities, yes, same as no.
Man has certainly become a breed apart.

So if greed is not a fear of lack, what is it?

The only thing which one attempts to clarify is that human nature and Nature are not different things. Nature gave rise to our Reason, but it is our de-Reason which makes us act contrary to Nature and thus also contrary to our own nature. Our societal laws are not 'natural' ones ; this gives rise to many of our social problems.

Greed is a learnt behaviour, not an inherent one. When one steals in order to fulfil some learnt desire (hypothetical), then most certainly that is abject behaviour. The easiest way to recognise this is when one steals something which has only 'instrumental' value (we can easily live without it). On the other hand, taking what is needed for living when one is put into the position of not being able to provide for oneself - and/or by extension, one's family - then I could not really qualify this as 'theft'. Not really ...

Nozick would say, actually he did say, that taxation was 'theft'. I could not agree. When one is given the liberty to not share with the less fortunate the benefits of one's labour, then one is acting in contradiction to natural laws and it could be prudent to treat that person for it - as one would 'treat' any psychopath. And greed is as psychopathic as lying and physical violence.

Please understand, I'm not necessarily talking about very average income families who are already under financial burden (namely consumer debt) having to worsen their situations by trying to help out all of the homeless of a city. On the other hand, I am questioning the morality of extreme fortunes and the ruling elite. If we are really going to base an economy on John Locke's philosophy, then let's do it according to what Locke really said.

Even if we have not come to any conclusions about right and wrong - gods know we philosophers have been baraguouining on about it for thousands of years - since ethics is such a persistent subject, like religion, it must also be inherent and natural to the human animal.

Society can't be giving and caring unless the individuals it unites are. If the individuals are selfish, miserly and apathetic, the society ... well, read/listen to/watch the news.

So, I'm not going to continue to insult you here with humanist considerations. If you really want to debate these things, it would be better to have more solid arguments than opinions (please provide support for what one states is a "fact"). I would suggest getting to know John Locke, John Stuart Mill, Robert Nozick, John Rawls, Dan Batson, Martha Nussbaum, Peter Singer &c. Otherwise we can't really have a conversation.

To return to the topic, myths are cautionary tales, they are not real accounts, nor are they merely 'stories which are not true'. They give us guides for living well. Myths are inherent to us, they do reflect a sort of shared value base. Modern myths often have stealing and killing in them : Star Wars, Harry Potter, The Lord of the Rings. And in all of these stories, we see the same recurrent themes as in classic mythology. It is not only because they are well marketed that these have become cult classics - it is because they respond to some basic need in the human psyche.

Most of society is just too domesticated to realise it.

WilliamHaining wrote: Which brings me back to my origonal point on Myths, they dont feed the staving millions or provide shelter and protection, if the aforementioned are trials then you can keep your Myths.

And, what of the myth of WilliamHaining?

Myths are there to transfer a point...

Me: "Son dont go swimming, there is a strong undercurrent"

Son: "What is that?"

Begin lengthy disertation on tidal currents...

Now, lets try that with a myth...

Me: "Son, dont go swimming there, there are monsters"

Son: "uh, really? ok..."

Now obviously this is a bit basic and simple but I think you get the point...

I have yet to see anyone put, " faith before anything else"...

You are hung up on the word 'myth' I think...

Try looking at it 'big picture style'....

+++++++++++++++++++++
Regarding 'nature's laws'...

You ever hear the term, "against nature's laws"?

Sure, but where are these? What are these?

These are 'laws' and rules of order that man has applied to the natural order... And when nature acts counterdictory, they exclaim, "thats against the laws of nature"...

As it is nature that acts this way, then it is not going against it's own law...

Because, in my opinion, it doesnt have any...

WilliamHaining wrote: "That is natures law, not mine"

Yea, if you subscribe to it, and think it real, it is yours just as much...

Just like a speed limit is 'man's law'... If you dont speed, you agree and take it as your own...

Whereas if you speed, you do not care for 'man's law' and do not take it for your own...

+++++++++
Stealing is wrong in the eyes of man...

It is against mans law...

I dont give a fig for mans law... I do what I feel is right, and what I can live with...

I think abortion is wrong (not the right thread, but I have a point), so I will not abort a pregnancy if I am ask...

Whether I can afford to pay for that baby or not...

I mighta used a condom, the pill, and pulled out... Trying to avoid a baby...

But ya know, "nature's law' () is "it will find a way/ will not be denied"...

So, while I have to play nice to live in society, please dont jack with my family... (not you, and indivdual)

I may have to break one of 'man's' laws and show a brother what hell really is...

++++++++++++++++++++
I do have a question, WilliamHaining...

You call yourself a "free thinker", but bind your thoughts by the laws of man, and nature?

WilliamHaining wrote: If you cant afford to feed your children, then don't bring a life into the world. To steal is inexcusable, period.

People get sick, lose jobs, lose money, are injured in accidents ....

You can't come up with a single scenario where stealing is justified?

It is easy to judge when one sets in a position of comfort.

I don’t think it is reasonable to create blanket rules/judgments. Each position is unique and I don’t feel anyone will understand another’s motives until they have walked in their shoes.

It is said, “give a man a fish and feed them for a day, teach a man to fish and feed for life.” But what good would it do to teach someone on deaths door how to fish when what they really need is a meal?

Sometimes you have to do both.

The same is true about condemning ones actions. I can tell you that it is wrong for you to steal, but is it not “more” wrong for me to stand by and watch one starve?


I feel that it is unrealistic to try and create rules that will cover all circumstances. And wonder if society might not be better off if we were taught a moral standard which we could draw from to evaluate the individual situation. :huh:

if greed is a human trait...then it is one i completely lack...

i worked my @$$ off for years, saving my money...then when the economy went to hell (thanks to greed) i was laid off...i had enough money saved up at this point to pay off my bills for 3 months without worry...unfortunately it took much longer to finally get a job again...in the past i have had to do things that were against the law in order to just get by...not to thrive...just survive...i'm not proud of it, but i understand its necessity, and therefor i don't sit on a pedestal in judgement of others that have to do the same...sure some people with wealth work hard for it, others do not, they take it...and i know plenty of inidividuals that no matter how hard they work can never get ahead...some of us simply weren't dealt a favorable hand...but rather than sit and whine about it we play with the hand we're dealt...and sometimes we even manage to find a way to win a round or two...

A basic (animal) Instinct

WilliamHaining wrote: A basic (animal) Instinct

I resisted the impulse to be flip and funny, cause you don't know me...

THis is an post addressing what?

Thanks...

I do regard myself as a free thinker, i'm open to any evidence presented to me that is based on fact.
It seems you have taken my words out of context to suit your side of the discussion, this is a classic trait that people of faith use to try and justify their beliefs and impose them on others.

we're not trying to impose anything on anyone...you can choose to accept that some have different views/beliefs or you can choose not to accept it...likewise they can choose to accept that some will be intolerant to their views/beliefs and some will not...the totjo door is always open, people can come and go freely, they can discuss and debate freely, we're not going to boot people simply for having differing opinions, so long as they are respectfull in thier approach...

we have some here that i don't agree with, but i'm still friendly with...likewise i'm sure there's plenty that don't agree with any or all of what i say/think...and they are still friendly with me...the world is too diverse for everyone to think the same....

i'm thinking you'd probably like my lesson based on bill maher's "religulous"...he's a staunch atheist, and i found religulous to be hilarious but also quite true...

WilliamHaining wrote: I do regard myself as a free thinker, i'm open to any evidence presented to me that is based on fact.
It seems you have taken my words out of context to suit your side of the discussion, this is a classic trait that people of faith use to try and justify their beliefs and impose them on others.

Please...

Show me where I took your words wrong, my apologies...

As RyJin has said, we are not trying to make you think anything...

Im only addressing your post as I read it..

That is a problem with internet forums, lol...

I like to joke, and if you could talk with me, my demeanor is one of amusement to all conversations...

But, I am often labeled as a smart ass, troll, or just being too silly, lol... Maybe on the last one...

Soooo.....

Where did I go wrong?

Thanks...

WilliamHaining wrote: That is natures law, not mine, thankfully we live in a society that dosn't agree withn nature, we all need help from time to time. My point is about stealing and is there a justification for it, i dont think so but hopefully we continue to live in a society which is giving and caring.

The fact is they Perish, this happens daily in this world we live in. Men, women and children are dying each day as the worlds governments stand by an watch, this is a fact of life. They only interfere when they feel their way of thinking is comprimised. In nature, man can be the cruelest of beasts yet the most forgiving. Which brings me back to my origonal point on Myths, they dont feed the staving millions or provide shelter and protection, if the aforementioned are trials then you can keep your Myths.

Greed is a human trait, in nature there is very rarely the concept of sharing, for example why does a dog bolt its food quickly, simple, its scared the other dogs get to it before he does. Is this greed, no, just instinct telling it to survive.
Human nature have evolved beyond that of "mere" animals and to compre the 2 isnt quite right, similarities, yes, same as no.
Man has certainly become a breed apart.

I think that you and I are saying pretty much the same thing, just from different angles. Or, saying it from slightly different points of view.

Having just watched the video by J Campbell on the Message of the Myths, I'm afraid it has just left me cold. He is obviously a very learned man and an excellent orator but to me a Myth is just that, a Myth.
I don't need fairy tales from times gone past used to frighten, impress or to try to justify their chosen religion or god to influence me. I may be un Jedi like in my thinking but I think logic, deal in facts and see things mainly in black and white, good and bad, up or down etc. For me the are very few grey areas, we are born-live and die, this is a fact of life. No metaphoric stories or tales will change that.
The sooner we leave behind these archaic religions and myths behind, they mean nothing, then we can look to the future. When I see some of these grand structures depicting Myths, all I see is the slavery and hardship endured by the poor people forced to build them, that is a fact.
After all the Force is seen as black and white, to that there is no Myth, go forward in peace,may the force be with you.

“After all the Force is seen as black and white…” I think that is what is causing what seems to be some disagreement in trains of thought. I do not see it has black and white; merely parts of the same whole. And, depending on your point of view, often times inseparable as if the line between the two is completely blurred. I do not see the Force as black or white at all but rather all shades of grey so to say. Some may be so dark they appear black and some may be so light they appear white, but they are still a part of the same grey.