Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Is life sacred?

Is life sacred?
April 09, 2013, 03:21:36 AM
Some people say itís not fair that this or that has happened to a child.

The same could be applied to a sick or dying man.

They assume that all human life is of the highest value

But like a certain seed which grows into a certain tree, I think the plight of the individual is often a small link in the much larger chain of human DNA. Whether environmental factors come into play or not, there is still some element of potential destinies built into the individual based on where they occur in that chain.

This also means that from distorted seeds grows distored lifeforms.

Yet rather than say to hell with certain types of life, I still find something sacred in it. No matter how distorted.
 
Or perhaps it is that I do not but should. Perhaps life is not intrinsically sacred, but should be.

Re: Is life sacred?
April 09, 2013, 03:51:03 AM
Yes. Life is sacred.
But there are these things called zombies, see, that wander around but have no life in them, and no possibility of ever having it. I don't feel, any more, that there is anything sacred about whatever those creatures have, in place of life.

Re: Is life sacred?
April 09, 2013, 04:05:40 AM
Yes. Life is sacred.
But there are these things called zombies, see, that wander around but have no life in them, and no possibility of ever having it. I don't feel, any more, that there is anything sacred about whatever those creatures have, in place of life.

Meaning, as the once great band AMEBIX put it:

"There's more to LIFE than what meets the eye!"

Phoenix

Re: Is life sacred?
April 10, 2013, 03:03:28 AM
Aquarius, I don't understand your question. What do you mean by 'sacred'? And what does sacredness have to do with potential destinies? What does it have to do with fairness?

Re: Is life sacred?
April 10, 2013, 07:20:05 AM
I think sacred is something that has value beyond reproach, it canít be questioned or defined and one would probably need a degree of faith to understand it. It must also accord with nature.

Though we are brought up in the west to put absolute value in human life, I donít think that sense of value equates to being sacred.

For example there are people that produce a child knowing that it will inherit a debilitating disease. People that have a child by accident. People that donít have a child by accident but are insightless as to their inability to provide as parents and so on and so forth.

Some might argue that such a child is an individual entity borne into unfavourable circumstances and perhaps even that god is unfair. Still, it is a valuable life.

Another way to see it is that the child is a vessel of potential and in reality nothing more than a product of the parents. A link in the chain so to speak (and the world is a network of chains).

So we may ignore dysfunction and rename it valuable or special all we like, but it will never be sacred and we will never be truly happy.

Re: Is life sacred?
April 10, 2013, 07:41:08 AM
I might be wrong, I'm just trying to figure all this stuff out myself.

Re: Is life sacred?
April 10, 2013, 01:15:21 PM
Sacred is something so precious that you know better than to mess with it.
Especially with so crude a tool as your mind.

Re: Is life sacred?
April 10, 2013, 02:29:02 PM
Perhaps life is not intrinsically sacred, but should be.

Inherency: life either is or isn't sacred.

Nihilism: I will it to be sacred, because this is a choice.

Re: Is life sacred?
April 11, 2013, 06:55:34 AM
I will it to be sacred, because this is a choice.
I had this same exact thought a few weeks ago. Although, I have to disappoint you: it was in regards to humanity specifically :)

Perhaps life is not sacred. I believe it is. Not because I see evidence for its sacredness. Not because I think this is the most logical course of thought. Not because I think this state is conferred by the natural world.

Rather, because I choose to. Even if we were to somehow prove the universe to be entirely materialist, I would still behave as if it were not. Not just behave, either; believe, as well. Even if we somehow knew, objectively and absolutely, that God and soul and importance and beauty are completely erroneous concepts no matter how they're formulated, I would still believe in them all.

This is, I admit, essentially taking pride in a dissonance between what is real and what is accepted. I also realize this is the main problem in sinister -i.e., left-leaning- ways of thought. The key difference is that, unlike the liberal's, this approach to life does not need to claim reality has re-aligned itself to my desires in order for me to have them. A liberal does not demand that society change itself according to his vision of utopia simply because he personally wants to control society. That would be too... authoritative. Monarchical. Will-driven. Masculine.

Of course, this is the only actual motivation behind his demands; it is the only actual motivation behind ALL such demands. But because he is so terrified of POWER, because he sees it as intrinsically flawed, he cannot accept such a motivation in others - leading him to be incapable of accepting it within himself either, as that would be hypocritical. So instead, his demands become justified by the rest of the world; they are fair, deserved, natural. It does not matter if the world does not actually reflect this; studies will be done, statistics quoted, exceptions pointed out, and metaphors made. All in an effort to prove that the natural, amoral world reflects his opinions of what he deserves.

Unfortunately, this makes it a lot easier for most people sitting in the middle to be convinced by the sinister ways than by the righteous. The left puts a lot of effort into distorting our image of reality, giving the impression that reality does support its methods of thought. It does this by default; it is completely necessary to liberalism, because liberalism is by definition a search for change - not an embracing of what is, but a rejection of it. Only it cannot admit that outright.

So the liberal's dissonance is hidden, unrecognized, and even denied. The dissonance inherent to my way of belief is openly acknowledged and understood for what it is. I do not require the universe to agree with me, in order to believe what I do. That is the blessing I have received as an occupant of the brotherhood of man. That is the unique and utterly salient power I possess as a human - the power to move beyond the realm of what is. The trick is to not to hate existence as a result, and thus imagine it to be something it is not.

Re: Is life sacred?
April 12, 2013, 05:25:12 AM
Is life sacred?
I've been contemplating this question for a day or so.
My life is sacred. That is all I can say, really.
Probably it is not for for anybody or anything to claim the life of anything or anyone else is sacred.

Today was a special day for me.
Today I am 60.
The way I've lived, I was lucky to see 20.
30 was mind-boggling.
40 was the outer limit of what was possible.
At 50 I was sure I had died somewhere, sometime, and somehow failed to notice.
Now, at 60, I conclude my life is sacred.

It's all borrowed time.
And I don't own it.



Re: Is life sacred?
April 12, 2013, 06:04:06 PM
Some people say itís not fair that this or that has happened to a child.

I like to think that the kids with cancer are reincarnated corporate lawyers. Justice at last.

Re: Is life sacred?
April 12, 2013, 10:13:13 PM
I will it to be sacred, because this is a choice.
I had this same exact thought a few weeks ago. Although, I have to disappoint you: it was in regards to humanity specifically :)

Perhaps life is not sacred. I believe it is. Not because I see evidence for its sacredness. Not because I think this is the most logical course of thought. Not because I think this state is conferred by the natural world.

Rather, because I choose to. Even if we were to somehow prove the universe to be entirely materialist, I would still behave as if it were not. Not just behave, either; believe, as well. Even if we somehow knew, objectively and absolutely, that God and soul and importance and beauty are completely erroneous concepts no matter how they're formulated, I would still believe in them all.

This is, I admit, essentially taking pride in a dissonance between what is real and what is accepted. I also realize this is the main problem in sinister -i.e., left-leaning- ways of thought. The key difference is that, unlike the liberal's, this approach to life does not need to claim reality has re-aligned itself to my desires in order for me to have them. A liberal does not demand that society change itself according to his vision of utopia simply because he personally wants to control society. That would be too... authoritative. Monarchical. Will-driven. Masculine.

Of course, this is the only actual motivation behind his demands; it is the only actual motivation behind ALL such demands. But because he is so terrified of POWER, because he sees it as intrinsically flawed, he cannot accept such a motivation in others - leading him to be incapable of accepting it within himself either, as that would be hypocritical. So instead, his demands become justified by the rest of the world; they are fair, deserved, natural. It does not matter if the world does not actually reflect this; studies will be done, statistics quoted, exceptions pointed out, and metaphors made. All in an effort to prove that the natural, amoral world reflects his opinions of what he deserves.

Unfortunately, this makes it a lot easier for most people sitting in the middle to be convinced by the sinister ways than by the righteous. The left puts a lot of effort into distorting our image of reality, giving the impression that reality does support its methods of thought. It does this by default; it is completely necessary to liberalism, because liberalism is by definition a search for change - not an embracing of what is, but a rejection of it. Only it cannot admit that outright.

So the liberal's dissonance is hidden, unrecognized, and even denied. The dissonance inherent to my way of belief is openly acknowledged and understood for what it is. I do not require the universe to agree with me, in order to believe what I do. That is the blessing I have received as an occupant of the brotherhood of man. That is the unique and utterly salient power I possess as a human - the power to move beyond the realm of what is. The trick is to not to hate existence as a result, and thus imagine it to be something it is not.

You mean neurosis? From what I gather life is rather subjective, the thing is very few have the will power to do much of anything other than do what they are told by those with stronger wills. Since we are all nihilist here there is no need for me to say that my opinion doesn't mean shit without my will to enact it.

Re: Is life sacred?
April 22, 2013, 04:42:35 PM
Today I am 60.

Happy birthday. Every one is good, as long as they last...

Re: Is life sacred?
April 22, 2013, 05:54:01 PM
Today I am 60.

Happy birthday. Every one is good, as long as they last...

Thank you.
Yes, they are all good, once you abandon the idea of paying any attention to them.
I had to be reminded of it, by my wife :)