More CIP Questions.

[Charla]

Is pure happiness found in the acceptance of society itself or in the individual wants and desires even though they may be morally wrong? Explain

Happiness can be attained a great many ways, but the question changes completely depending on how you're using the word 'pure'. The simplest way to read that phrase would have it "absolutea happiness", and I don't think that absolute happiness is possible. One could argue that someone can "feel nothing but happiness" in a single given instant (the moments of orgasm and death being the two most likely candidates), but I think the more common interpretation of the word happiness itself would require it to be at least moderately persistent. And in considering what persistent absolute happiness would be like, one also has to consider it in terms of the selfish gene theory. And from what I understand, the genes would by no means be best served by anyone attaining absolute happiness, ever. Someone absolutely happy has no incentive to do much of anything, especially something that would threaten that happiness, such as reproduce.

Now, a more useful discussion might be one about where *any* happiness can be found. And as to that, I would point out that the wants and desires (or more generally, the motivations) of an individual living in a society commonly include those introduced by the society itself. The values and motivational priorities of a society usually end up being shared by many of its individual members (creating what they call the superego). As such, it can be said that because some of an individual's motivations are usually also those of the society, the two routes to happiness are in fact inextricable, and that maximizing happiness (in the game theory sense, among others) is best achieved by balancing the two sets of motivations when and if they come into conflict.

[Neosutra]

Forget what I said earlier: Happiness is a good BJ. Remember that women. When you are thinking about what gift to get your man: BJ. When you are thinking about how to cheer him up: BJ. If you are fighting, and you want to win the argument, just break down and give him a BJ. Every war in the world could be solved if people just followed this principle.

Now Takuun(OG), go turn that answer in.

[guartz]

Neo, the question wasn't to describe happiness.

Also wtf is pure happiness?


I have a question for you guys:

Please describe the difference between love and true love, and why one is more important!

CIP sounds like something from dianetics

[The_OG_Nelta]

1. Sin goes hand in hand with many different topics – desire, man, good vs. evil, punishment, etc. What do you normally associate with sin? Consider both ideas/concepts and more tangible objects. Explain.

2. Why do you think people sin? Do you think that most people do it just because they enjoy the mere act of sinning? That they sin just because the idea of disobeying itself is pleasing? Explain.

3. What is the difference between original sin and acquired sin? Which do you consider more important to the grand scheme of life? Explain

[Melchiah]

1. What are some different definitions you have for the word "nature"?

I define Nature as the entire environment being considered. I think it's reasonable to say that outside of doomsday ET objects colliding with Earth, the farthest object having any direct affect on our planet is the Sun, so our solar system is effectively a bubble. As for intangible qualities, I define nature as a progression in an environment over a vast length of time, or a sudden event not related to the actions of sentient beings(hurricanes, volcanic eruptions).

2. What is the difference between something "natural" and something "artificial"? Consider both physical objects and intangible qualities.

A natural event or progression is one having multiple environmental factors and, outside of sudden geological or meteorological events(which can be argued to be end results of extended processes themselves), proceeding over extended lengths of time(erosion, evolution, plate tectonics). I'm about to argue against myself here, but I have to include automatic processes of organic bodies, such as metabolization and healing. Again however, sentient thought is not a factor(a point I'll explore later).

3. If man is a natural entity, is there a difference between something man created and something nature created? Why or why not?

Man is a natural being, in that our bodies generally follow the natural order. We are made of carbon and water, we metabolize, and we expire. The difference is sentient thought. Sentient thought changes everything. Sentient thought seeks to defy nature at every turn. It takes the natural self-preservation drive past fight-or-flight and into proactiveness. Animals don't build hospitals, or create medicines. Sentience causes us to attempt to bend nature to our own will, instead of just riding the wave of nature's will. We change our environment to suit ourselves on a scale that no animal can.

To answer the question in (3), artificial versus natural comes down to sentience. A car is an artificial object because the probability of such a thing occurring without the influence of sentient thought is astronomically low, if not impossible. I'm leaning toward impossible given the current generation of smart cars. The Grand Canyon, for all we know, is a natural ediface formed by eons of erosion from the Colorado River. Water and gravity are not sentient and thus do not have intentions; they just are and they just do, according to the laws of physics. In closing, natural processes happen without the influence of, though not necessarily without the presence of sentience, whereas the artificial happens as a direct result of sentience.

4. Is pure happiness found in the acceptance of society itself or in the individual wants and desires even though they may be morally wrong? Explain

Evil is the pursuit of personal happiness to the extreme of selfishness, meaning the exclusion of consideration for the happiness or well-being of all others.

[The_OG_Nelta]

I guess i'll update the OP, anything is still welcomed.

[The_OG_Nelta]

Don't want to make a new thread, so new questions!


Considering the growing number of negative as well as positive aspects of life in recent history, is progress net beneficial or damaging to humanity?

Are grand visions of the future a prerequisite to creating a better world in the future? Or is progress the inevitable result of natural mechanics of society?

Is this retention of existing institutions which are effective and useful an important aspect of progress, or is there always room to improve what currently exists? Is it even possible to eventually reach an apex of progress – a state of perfection from which no further improvement is possible?

Are there certain truths that remain constant and true regardless of situation and future changes in society?

The undesirable aspects of society which must be eliminated in order for progress to occur are more than mere institutions; in some instances these aspects include living beings or cultural values. How can society maintain a balance between the removal of regressive societal traits while avoiding violence and exclusion?

All opinions are welcomed.