View Full Version : What's the highest virtue the human race should pursue?
Cobpyth
05-02-15, 01:34 PM
Truth or happiness?
I know they're not mutually exclusive in most cases, but what if there's a situation of conflict?
Citizen Rules
05-02-15, 01:40 PM
What's the highest virtue the human race should pursue?
Altruism
Cobpyth
05-02-15, 01:44 PM
What's the highest virtue the human race should pursue?
Altruism
Even if it makes you unhappy as an individual?
Citizen Rules
05-02-15, 01:50 PM
Yes, in the last 50 years there's been a huge shift from personal responsibility to personal self gratification. People put themselves first, second and third these days...much more so than in the past. We've become more of a society of 'must have it now', 'I don't care about the other person' types. That doesn't bode well for humanity in general.
matt72582
05-02-15, 02:08 PM
I actually think that if others were happy around us, we'd be a little more happy. And one doesn't usually have to sacrifice happiness for another. Sometimes a smile can do a lot.
In a perfect world, total truth would lead to total happiness. It's a sign of this world's corruption, that it almost seems the opposite now.
Mr Minio
05-02-15, 02:24 PM
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.
So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.
1 Corinthians 13
Truth or happiness?
I know they're not mutually exclusive in most cases, but what if there's a situation of conflict?
some prefer a real hell to an imaginary paradise.
As I grow older I think perhaps the truth is overrated.
We die and turn to dust.. that's the truth.
So try to be happy while you're still alive.
Personally my own happiness isn't a priority anymore I just want to make something beautiful before I die.
bouncingbrick
05-02-15, 03:19 PM
Understanding (true empathy?). Just ask the people in Baltimore/Ferguson/etc.
Based on science I think that purpose, as in "creating" something which has a positive benefit on others around you is what people should live for - this ties in with evolution, except animals can't "create" anything except through reproduction, but humans can also create art, invent things, start businesses, or raise families as well.
I don't agree with "extreme" ideologies such as altruism or individualism being the sole purpose - I think balance is the key. Extreme individualism would lead to people being nihilistic and apathetic to others and it would ignore the fact that people can accomplish way more when working together than when doing it completely alone.
However extreme altruism would lead to "group think", and possibly even oppressing others simply for being 'different' or having different ideas if the collective deemed them 'harmful to society' - it would lead too much to mob rule or authoritarianism; even dictators like HItler and Stalin claimed to be motivated by altruism or the "greater good" and were able to convince the masses into believing them and giving them their power.
I think God is the greatest thing a person can pursue, and God is truth and love. So pursuing truth and love go hand in hand with pursuing God. I'm a Christian. The most beautiful thing I've ever experienced is God, and I have even experienced things more amazing than I thought possible in this life.
I think a lot about transcending this world, and living my life to the fullest by pursuing God with all my heart. It's hard though, there are so many distractions. But I used to read the Bible for 3 hours a day on average, and pray for 2 hours a day on average, and in that time I heard God's voice. He spoke to me directly. I've had intimate encounters with God since I was a very young child. I was even run over by a car when I was 5, but I was completely unharmed.
Why would god have to use 'supernatural intervention' in the world - if he designed the world perfectly, then why couldn't he have designed it to run perfectly according to its own laws and functions, like a clock or a computer - why would have have to contradict the laws of his own creation? And why assume a literal divine intervention as opposed to natural explanations?
Plus why would god give humans the ability to reason and discover things about the world, only to defy the very laws he made observable, and expect people to go against the very judgment and reason that he designed for them?
I'll say this once: don't hijack this thread with theological arguments (especially ones where very common answers are easy to find for anyone who actually cares to look). If you want to branch off from what someone says, start a new thread.
Cobpyth
05-02-15, 04:00 PM
The intention of this thread was not to talk about what's truth and what's not, 90sAce. I wanted to talk about the importance of truth. ;)
The intention of this thread was not to talk about what's truth and what's not, 90sAce. I wanted to talk about the importance of truth. ;)
Well as far as that goes, I don't see how truth and happiness could conflict to begin with.
If there's a mentality that "truth and happiness" conflict, that sounds eerily similar to theism - as in blind adherence to religion even when it goes against all observable evidence. For example a Muslim might argue that even if studies show that alcohol in strong moderation isn't harmful, and may even have health benefits (happiness), that it's still wrong because God says so (truth).
So if I had to pick, I'd say happiness - since I'd be automatically skeptical of any 'truth' which claimed to contradict things observable in reality. Or anyone who claimed to have had some truth revealed to them (but can't prove it in any way), even when it goes against most other observations.
Sexy Celebrity
05-02-15, 04:10 PM
http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=21338&stc=1&d=1430593781
http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=21339&stc=1&d=1430593785
Kindness.
http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=21338&stc=1&d=1430593781
http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=21339&stc=1&d=1430593785
Kindness.
I'd say that's one of many virtues. IMO if it were practiced too literally on a wide scale it would lead to extreme pacifism - as in people unwilling to even defend themselves or their human rights in the face of oppression.
This is usually the one I see as the "go-to" response, which is why I'm pointing this out - but I think things are a lot more complicated and deeper than something which can be summed up in 2 words.
Cobpyth
05-02-15, 04:14 PM
Can a liar be kind?
The question was "highest," not "universal at the expense of all others."
Sexy Celebrity
05-02-15, 04:14 PM
Can a liar be kind?
Yes.
Can a liar be kind?
Well telling your boss "Hope you have a great weekend" when you really want to say "I hope you kill yourself" is an example of a 'kind lie'.
Sexy Celebrity
05-02-15, 04:17 PM
Well telling your boss "Hope you have a great weekend" when you really want to say "I hope you kill yourself" is an example of a 'kind lie'.
Well, see -- saying "Have a great weekend!" is better than saying, "Go die!"
You want your boss to go die? Kindly give a call to MovieGal and chat about the fantasy. It's better than saying it to the boss' face.
Cobpyth
05-02-15, 04:17 PM
Let's put if differently. Is a lie always justifiable when the result of the lie is more happiness?
Sexy Celebrity
05-02-15, 04:19 PM
Let's put if differently. Is a lie always justifiable when the result of the lie is more happiness?
Well, I hope you're talking to someone else, 'cause I wasn't talking about happiness, I was talking about kindness.
Cobpyth
05-02-15, 04:21 PM
Well, I hope you're talking to someone else, 'cause I wasn't talking about happiness, I was talking about kindness.
They're just general questions.
I assume you would not preach in favor of kindness if you wouldn't think it brings more happiness to the world, though.
Let's put if differently. Is a lie always justifiable when the result of the lie is more happiness?
Paging Christopher Nolan (http://www.movieforums.com/essays/christopher-nolans-useful-lies.html).
Sexy Celebrity
05-02-15, 04:25 PM
I assume you would not preach in favor of kindness if you wouldn't think it brings more happiness to the world, though.
Actually... not really. Kindness and happiness don't really go hand-in-hand.
I'm basically just saying... be nice as much as possible. It's easy to not be nice / it's harder to always be nice... so if you can be nice about something that's hard to be nice to.... that's striving for something higher. That's trying to go above our basic human nature.
Let's put if differently. Is a lie always justifiable when the result of the lie is more happiness?
It shouldn't be, but since we have to start the world all over again to make a more truthful world, I don't know. Two things I do know are that one lie usually needs more and more to back up the first, and most iies (or omissions of the truth) I commit or come across are to make me "happier" (or feel more secure), not somebody else.
Cobpyth
05-02-15, 04:25 PM
Paging Christopher Nolan (http://www.movieforums.com/essays/christopher-nolans-useful-lies.html).
Yeah, I was thinking about that essay when I made the thread actually. ;)
matt72582
05-02-15, 04:33 PM
I guess it depends on the lie, the situation, and the parties involved...
Cobpyth
05-02-15, 04:44 PM
Paging Christopher Nolan (http://www.movieforums.com/essays/christopher-nolans-useful-lies.html).
The point Nolan makes against the "useful lie" in his films is that the "relative hapiness" it brings to one group or individual doesn't outweigh the unhapiness and (physical or psychological) damage it brings to another. That is, in Memento and The Dark Knight Rises (as an answer to the ending of The Dark Knight) at least. It's a little more ambiguous of course, but at least this can be seen as his main argument against it in those films.
In Inception, he's more balanced (it's also my favorite film of his). During the film he basically shows the danger of (des)illusions, while in the end, he keeps open the option that there can still be found beauty in something that's potentially merely an illusion, a lie.
It shouldn't be, but since we have to start the world all over again to make a more truthful world, I don't know. Two things I do know are that one lie usually needs more and more to back up the first, and most lies (or omissions of the truth) I commit or come across are to make me "happier" (or feel more secure), not somebody else.
I agree with both of those points. In reality, lies are seldom committed for the greater good and even if that's the original intention, it can derail very quickly.
90'sAce, why do you always want to debate? :p
Writing lengthy debate posts takes me 1-2 hours, so you'll have to forgive me if I don't jump in every time. ;)
Sexy Celebrity
05-02-15, 05:09 PM
90'sAce, why do you always want to debate? :p
Some people like alcohol and cigarettes. He likes feuding.
Some people like alcohol and cigarettes. He likes feuding.
Some people like creating threads :rolleyes:
Sexy Celebrity
05-02-15, 05:13 PM
I am advocating more for HONEST, authentic kindness.
Since I realize there's quite a lot of fake kindness..... out there.
So I am not calling for kindness that's based on lies.
Some lies are actually good though. Like if you lied to save hiding Jews during the Holocaust.
Sexy Celebrity
05-02-15, 05:44 PM
Some lies are actually good though. Like if you lied to save hiding Jews during the Holocaust.
Absolutely.
Guaporense
05-18-15, 02:55 AM
More important is for people to learn better the domain of uncertainly. In other words, that the most important knowledge is to know what you do not know. For example, 7 years ago I said that 90% of all great movies are Hollywood movies, I had no idea what film was and I had no idea that I had no idea. Learning what I don't know is very important, like Socrates said something of the sort: All I know is that nothing I know.
bouncingbrick
05-18-15, 08:54 AM
More important is for people to learn better the domain of uncertainly. In other words, that the most important knowledge is to know what you do not know. For example, 7 years ago I said that 90% of all great movies are Hollywood movies, I had no idea what film was and I had no idea that I had no idea. Learning what I don't know is very important, like Socrates said something of the sort: All I know is that nothing I know.
I think you're confusing Socrates with Operation Ivy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cS1DgpNGy78
:D:D:D
The main purpose should be to live for a cause - rather than get bogged down with "uncertainty".
People should use reason and critical thought to arrive at the best conclusions possible rather than just parroting others' opinions - but personal certainty's way more important than "objective" ambiguity - that really just leads to being afraid to live for something and take a stand on anything.
On the flip side, refusing to learn results in just thinking that you know more than you do and coming to false or bad conclusions - the problem though with the trend to just talk about "how little we know" is that it's often used as a copout to avoid actually living for a cause and just deciding "life has no meaning or purpose" - so it ends up justifying being personally apathetic.
Cobpyth
05-18-15, 06:15 PM
but personal certainty's way more important than "objective" ambiguity.
If you're not able to embrace the existence of ambiguity and uncertainty, you can never truly find wisdom.
If you're not able to embrace the existence of ambiguity and uncertainty, you can never truly find wisdom.
If the Founders hadn't embraced their conclusions and focused only on ambiguity- they'd have never broken away from England. They'd have been too bogged down in wondering "what if I'm wrong" to take a stand for what they reasoned is right.
There's plenty of daylight between acknowledging uncertainty and being impotently indecisive.
There's obviously a lot of daylight between acknowledging uncertainty and being impotently indecisive.
Likewise there's also grey area between being impulsive conclusive and just standing strong in one's conclusions.
Personally I think of the two extremes (being too inconclusive and too impulsive about decisions) though the former offers too much of an illusion of "safety", even though it's actually "dangerous" in that people spending too much time dwelling on this may end up never accomplishing their goals due to procrastination, and trying too hard to "avoid being wrong" and not enough on "trying to being right".
Plus the risk of trying and 'being wrong', and learning from your mistakes isn't normally as threatening as it's made out to be - never trying at all is arguably way more harmful if it's believed as the "safer option".
doubledenim
05-18-15, 06:29 PM
Live like Bouli.
For example - from some books I've been previewing on starting a business and becoming wealthy, the opinions of these self made millionaires are that lack of intelligence, creativity, ideas, etc aren't the biggest thing which prevent successful business, but actually lack of initiative - as in being willing to take a risk and step outside one's comfort zone.
Their view basically is that while the popular view of becoming wealthy is an "event" such as "coming up with a grand idea" and "striking it rich" - it's actually proceedure, and simply being willing to do the steps and take the risks needed to succeed, and doing them over and over again.
That's all well and good in regards to succeeding in business, but I don't see any reason to think that this is relevant to determining the highest virtue.
That's all well and good in regards to succeeding in business, but I don't see any reason to think that this is relevant to determining the highest virtue.
That's kind of a non-sequiter since that's assuming (without any reason) that traits which are successful in business would be diametrically opposed to traits which are generally successful in life in general, and that they've not part of a broader spectrum of strong human traits rather than something completely exclusive to a social construct like "business'
gandalf26
05-18-15, 06:56 PM
To crush your enemies. See them driven before you. Hear the lamentations of their women.
To crush your enemies. See them driven before you. Hear the lamentations of their women.
And rape their livestock
Cobpyth
05-18-15, 07:04 PM
You can still embrace ambiguity and uncertainty while moving forward and making decisions. Because choosing is sometimes also losing, it doesn't mean that you shouldn't make a choice. The true wisdom lies in fully understanding the importance of the ambiguity you have to deal with. This doesn't mean not dealing with it.
I'm talking about the world of thoughts here, 90sAce, while you're talking about the world of actions.
I also agree with Yoda that succes in business doesn't automatically lead you to reaching the highest virtue. It could be a part of it, but it's definitely not the only thing that matters in life. Far from it.
That's kind of a non-sequiter since that's assuming (without any reason) that traits which are successful in business would be diametrically opposed to traits which are generally successful in life in general, and that they've not part of a broader spectrum of strong human traits rather than something completely exclusive to a social construct like "business'
It's not assuming that at all. It's perfectly reasonable to suggest that the kinds of traits that make someone a successful lawyer would also help make them a successful athlete or musician: ambition, diligence, intelligence, etc. The issue is thinking that vocational success is measured in the same way virtue is.
That's kind of a non-sequiter since that's assuming (without any reason) that traits which are successful in business would be diametrically opposed to traits which are generally successful in life in general, and that they've not part of a broader spectrum of strong human traits rather than something completely exclusive to a social construct like "business'
There's definitely an unfortunate pop culture trend of automatically putting measurable successes in life in opposition to "happiness" or "goodness" - but it's really totally unwarranted, and just passing blind judgment. This is a reason why it's trendy for tabloids to talk about famous people "screwing up" for example - because a lot of people basically "want" to hear about them failing just because they're "famous" or financially successful.
But this is really just the "sour grapes" in Aesop's fables - I hear this attitude the most when people aren't as successful in life as they'd like to be at something and just want a "self justification" for it.
Like the Occupy Wall Street member who decries "the rich" as all "greedy and lazy", but if he won the lottery probably would not be donating it all to charity.
It's a dumb attitude born from envy with not much factual support for it beyond popular maxims and messages in the media, and people ultimately should just learn to be content with what they have, as long as they know they're giving life their best shot, rather than demonizing success just to feel delusionally justified in not even trying.
It's not assuming that at all. It's perfectly reasonable to suggest that the kinds of traits that make someone a successful lawyer would also help make them a successful athlete or musician: ambition, diligence, intelligence, etc. The issue is thinking that vocational success is measured in the same way virtue is.
The 'success' itself wouldn't be the actual results (ex. becoming wealthy), the "success" would be in living the type of productive and purpose driven life itself - the journey would be its own success, the actual "results" would just be the reward.
Nobody here has demonized success in the slightest. Heck, nobody's even suggested (yet) that being successful makes it harder to be a good person. All that's been said is that the way you measure success in your career is not simply transferable to how you measure somebody's level of virtue.
I'm starting to get the impression you form your worldview simply by looking for foolish people and then deciding the exact opposite of what they think must be wise.
Nobody here has demonized success in the slightest. Heck, nobody's even suggested (yet) that being successful makes it harder to be a good person. All that's been said is that the way you measure success in your career is not simply transferable to how you measure somebody's level of virtue.
I'm starting to get the impression you form your worldview simply by looking for foolish people and then deciding the exact opposite of what they think must be wise.
But I wasn't suggesting that successful results are "the success" itself - my view is the "success" is actually the purposeful life and journey which tends to yield those results, and the actual material results are just the reward for being that kind of person.
From the biographies of most successful people in business, acting, etc that I've read - they truly loved what they were doing and had a real passion in life, they weren't just trying to find a "way to get rich and famous".
I said literally nothing about whether success should be defined by the results of one's effort of the effort itself. "The journey is the reward," yadda yadda. That's fine.
What I did say is that the traits which create success at a job are not the same things that make someone virtuous. Being intelligent and ambitious and taking chances will probably make you successful, but they're morally and virtuously neutral at best.
I said literally nothing about whether success should be defined by the results of one's effort of the effort itself. "The journey is the reward," yadda yadda. That's fine.
What I did say is that the traits which create success at a job are not the same things that make someone virtuous. Being intelligent and ambitious and taking chances will probably make you successful, but they're morally and virtuously neutral at best.
If people have little to no ambition they're less likely to have a motive to do virtuous things; if they're afraid to take chances they're more likely to be conformist and avoid doing good things if they fear personal harm (ex. if the founders had been too afraid of dying they would not have tried to break away from England).
So I'd definitely say ambition and virtue have a link. Intelligence, definitely not.
The attitude I was mentioning earlier which is trendy, is when ambition and purpose in life is talked about as being comptely unrelated to virtue, or even opposed to virtue.
I think this is dangerous when it's used by people as justification for not changing or improving things about themselves, while at the same time defining "virtue" as something completely ambiguous, with little or no way to actually measure its virtuosity. (For example some people will define being a member of the right religion as the ultimate virtue - while rending the claim non-falsifiable simply by claiming "their God said so").
Nostromo87
05-18-15, 08:14 PM
Unity
Unity
That's kind of cryptic - what's unity mean?
I'm hoping it doesn't mean communism, or a one world government.
Nostromo87
05-18-15, 08:28 PM
Harmony
(For example some people will define being a member of the right religion as the ultimate virtue - while rending the claim non-falsifiable simply by claiming "their God said so").
You always say things like this when very few people in the world actually talk or think like this. Do you know any religious people?
The Sci-Fi Slob
05-18-15, 08:36 PM
“The finest virtue of the great thinker is the magnanimity with which as a man of knowledge he intrepidly, often with some embarrassment, often with sublime mockery, offers himself and his life as the supreme sacrifice.”
– Friedrich Nietzsche
:cool:
Harmony
Do you mean on a personal or a global scale?
I don't see a workable way of doing so on a global scale since people are pretty much biologically hardwired. (People'd have to go through many, many years of evolution -probably a lot longer than the human race has currently existed).
On an individual level I think it's a good trait, as long as it isn't taken to negative extremes (such as avoiding necessary conflicts in life).
Communism.
Confused what that's a reply to - you were saying we could achieve world harmony through communism?
If you mean communism is the highest virtue - well that's odd to hear from you since Marx said religion is the opiate of the masses.
And communism wouldn't work on a global scale without a totalitarian state, only way it'd work is through individual groups voluntarily participating in it
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.