100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: what is the meaning of life? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Love is life and life is sweetest!!!
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what is life ? just a simple you have no choice how you born in what form. simply you have to live that. only next is destiny and last is God acting first. All acts are only in between this first and last that is of circular path for unknown to known and viceversa. If you any how got understand then only you can say what is life?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what is life ? just a simple you have no choice how you born in what form. simply you have to live that. only next is destiny and last is God acting first. All acts are only in between this first and last that is of circular path for unknown to known and viceversa. If you any how got understand then only you can say what is life? The Badge of Man is a Straight Line,from Goal to Goal! (from the musings of Dagny Taggart) A circle, she thought, is the movement proper to physical nature, they say there is nothing but circular motion in the inanimate universe around us, but the straight line is the badge of man, the straight line of a geometrical abstraction that makes roads, rails and bridges, the straight line that cuts the curving aimlessness of nature by a purposeful motion from a start to an end. Dagny Taggart in Ayn Rand's ATLAS SHRUGGED |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
is it more than being better than nonexistence, the good things seem to be in balance with the bad. if there is no bad would life seem too short, or no good make it seem too long, why are we here and why are we the only species to question existence and try to improve upon it with things like technology and religion. animals don't build rockets or telescopes to see beyond this planet but we do, has curiosity replaced our survival instincts? Because they know it doesn't matter what we know of outside this world. Nothing of it will change our lives here on this world. They spend their time doing more valuable things like surviving and improving their existence on this world. And without the bad, how could you appreciate the good? We would never know what good is without first knowing what bad is. Because without bad, there is no good. Have you ever seen a baby smile? They know good long before they have any idea what bad is. Good and bad do not compliment each other they oppose each other, but clearly one can exist without the other. The smile just means they know love and happiness. They couldn't possibly know good or bad since good and bad are perspectives brought on by our experiences in life we've grown to learn. ok so by this, love and happiness are not associated with good, right? my question is, at what age do you think babies can tell the difference? I mean, after all they don't this "life experience" you believe is vital to our learning...wait let the people that study this answer the question... Professor Paul Bloom, a psychologist at Yale University in Connecticut, whose department has studied morality in babies for years, said: 'A growing body of evidence suggests that humans do have a rudimentary moral sense from the very start of life. 'With the help of well designed experiments, you can see glimmers of moral thought, moral judgment and moral feeling even in the first year of life. 'Some sense of good and evil seems to be bred in the bones.' For one study, the Yale researchers got babies aged between six months and a year to watch a puppet show in which a simple, colourful wooden shape with eyes tries to climb a hill. Sometimes the shape is helped up the hill by a second toy, while other times a third character pushes it down. After watching the show several times, the babies were shown the helpful and unhelpful toys. They showed a clear preference for the helpful toys - spending far longer looking at the 'good' shapes than the 'bad' ones. 'In the end, we found that six- and ten-month-old infants overwhelmingly preferred the helpful individual to the hindering individual,' Prof Bloom told the New York Times. 'This wasn't a subtle statistical trend; just about all the babies reached for the good guy...' now given this, i still suggest that good and bad do not necessarily rely on each other, they can and do exist in their own form. a tree is still, yet its leaves display motion, independent. one does not have to know hate to know love, each thrive independently. ok so by this, love and happiness are not associated with good, right? my question is, at what age do you think babies can tell the difference? I mean, after all they don't this "life experience" you believe is vital to our learning...wait let the people that study this answer the question... That question is quite impossible to answer. It is impossible because there is no set guidelines or for sure exacts on what is moral, good, bad, and so forth. It's all a perception. What I perceive as good, bad, moral, or anything of that such could be entirely different then yours or this persons or that persons. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
lol google knows everything >.< |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Sat 05/31/14 10:50 AM
|
|
is it more than being better than nonexistence, the good things seem to be in balance with the bad. if there is no bad would life seem too short, or no good make it seem too long, why are we here and why are we the only species to question existence and try to improve upon it with things like technology and religion. animals don't build rockets or telescopes to see beyond this planet but we do, has curiosity replaced our survival instincts? Because they know it doesn't matter what we know of outside this world. Nothing of it will change our lives here on this world. They spend their time doing more valuable things like surviving and improving their existence on this world. And without the bad, how could you appreciate the good? We would never know what good is without first knowing what bad is. Because without bad, there is no good. Have you ever seen a baby smile? They know good long before they have any idea what bad is. Good and bad do not compliment each other they oppose each other, but clearly one can exist without the other. The smile just means they know love and happiness. They couldn't possibly know good or bad since good and bad are perspectives brought on by our experiences in life we've grown to learn. ok so by this, love and happiness are not associated with good, right? my question is, at what age do you think babies can tell the difference? I mean, after all they don't this "life experience" you believe is vital to our learning...wait let the people that study this answer the question... Professor Paul Bloom, a psychologist at Yale University in Connecticut, whose department has studied morality in babies for years, said: 'A growing body of evidence suggests that humans do have a rudimentary moral sense from the very start of life. 'With the help of well designed experiments, you can see glimmers of moral thought, moral judgment and moral feeling even in the first year of life. 'Some sense of good and evil seems to be bred in the bones.' For one study, the Yale researchers got babies aged between six months and a year to watch a puppet show in which a simple, colourful wooden shape with eyes tries to climb a hill. Sometimes the shape is helped up the hill by a second toy, while other times a third character pushes it down. After watching the show several times, the babies were shown the helpful and unhelpful toys. They showed a clear preference for the helpful toys - spending far longer looking at the 'good' shapes than the 'bad' ones. 'In the end, we found that six- and ten-month-old infants overwhelmingly preferred the helpful individual to the hindering individual,' Prof Bloom told the New York Times. 'This wasn't a subtle statistical trend; just about all the babies reached for the good guy...' now given this, i still suggest that good and bad do not necessarily rely on each other, they can and do exist in their own form. a tree is still, yet its leaves display motion, independent. one does not have to know hate to know love, each thrive independently. ok so by this, love and happiness are not associated with good, right? my question is, at what age do you think babies can tell the difference? I mean, after all they don't this "life experience" you believe is vital to our learning...wait let the people that study this answer the question... That question is quite impossible to answer. It is impossible because there is no set guidelines or for sure exacts on what is moral, good, bad, and so forth. It's all a perception. What I perceive as good, bad, moral, or anything of that such could be entirely different then yours or this persons or that persons. still proscribing to that Cult of Moral Grayness,where anything goes? Relativity belongs into Physics,NOT into Ethics or Morality! http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/morality.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
is it more than being better than nonexistence, the good things seem to be in balance with the bad. if there is no bad would life seem too short, or no good make it seem too long, why are we here and why are we the only species to question existence and try to improve upon it with things like technology and religion. animals don't build rockets or telescopes to see beyond this planet but we do, has curiosity replaced our survival instincts? Because they know it doesn't matter what we know of outside this world. Nothing of it will change our lives here on this world. They spend their time doing more valuable things like surviving and improving their existence on this world. And without the bad, how could you appreciate the good? We would never know what good is without first knowing what bad is. Because without bad, there is no good. Have you ever seen a baby smile? They know good long before they have any idea what bad is. Good and bad do not compliment each other they oppose each other, but clearly one can exist without the other. The smile just means they know love and happiness. They couldn't possibly know good or bad since good and bad are perspectives brought on by our experiences in life we've grown to learn. ok so by this, love and happiness are not associated with good, right? my question is, at what age do you think babies can tell the difference? I mean, after all they don't this "life experience" you believe is vital to our learning...wait let the people that study this answer the question... Professor Paul Bloom, a psychologist at Yale University in Connecticut, whose department has studied morality in babies for years, said: 'A growing body of evidence suggests that humans do have a rudimentary moral sense from the very start of life. 'With the help of well designed experiments, you can see glimmers of moral thought, moral judgment and moral feeling even in the first year of life. 'Some sense of good and evil seems to be bred in the bones.' For one study, the Yale researchers got babies aged between six months and a year to watch a puppet show in which a simple, colourful wooden shape with eyes tries to climb a hill. Sometimes the shape is helped up the hill by a second toy, while other times a third character pushes it down. After watching the show several times, the babies were shown the helpful and unhelpful toys. They showed a clear preference for the helpful toys - spending far longer looking at the 'good' shapes than the 'bad' ones. 'In the end, we found that six- and ten-month-old infants overwhelmingly preferred the helpful individual to the hindering individual,' Prof Bloom told the New York Times. 'This wasn't a subtle statistical trend; just about all the babies reached for the good guy...' now given this, i still suggest that good and bad do not necessarily rely on each other, they can and do exist in their own form. a tree is still, yet its leaves display motion, independent. one does not have to know hate to know love, each thrive independently. ok so by this, love and happiness are not associated with good, right? my question is, at what age do you think babies can tell the difference? I mean, after all they don't this "life experience" you believe is vital to our learning...wait let the people that study this answer the question... That question is quite impossible to answer. It is impossible because there is no set guidelines or for sure exacts on what is moral, good, bad, and so forth. It's all a perception. What I perceive as good, bad, moral, or anything of that such could be entirely different then yours or this persons or that persons. still proscribing to that Cult of Moral Grayness,where anything goes? Relativity belongs into Physics,NOT into Ethics or Morality! How could it logically belong to physics? People aren't born with morals. Or otherwise relatives would have quite similar to exact morals and there wouldn't be so much independence in people's morals of right and wrong. Yes family members generally have the same type of morals to an extent because it is what they are raised with and or around and subject to through their lives. And what "Cult" are you referring to? rofl. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
is it more than being better than nonexistence, the good things seem to be in balance with the bad. if there is no bad would life seem too short, or no good make it seem too long, why are we here and why are we the only species to question existence and try to improve upon it with things like technology and religion. animals don't build rockets or telescopes to see beyond this planet but we do, has curiosity replaced our survival instincts? Because they know it doesn't matter what we know of outside this world. Nothing of it will change our lives here on this world. They spend their time doing more valuable things like surviving and improving their existence on this world. And without the bad, how could you appreciate the good? We would never know what good is without first knowing what bad is. Because without bad, there is no good. Have you ever seen a baby smile? They know good long before they have any idea what bad is. Good and bad do not compliment each other they oppose each other, but clearly one can exist without the other. The smile just means they know love and happiness. They couldn't possibly know good or bad since good and bad are perspectives brought on by our experiences in life we've grown to learn. ok so by this, love and happiness are not associated with good, right? my question is, at what age do you think babies can tell the difference? I mean, after all they don't this "life experience" you believe is vital to our learning...wait let the people that study this answer the question... Professor Paul Bloom, a psychologist at Yale University in Connecticut, whose department has studied morality in babies for years, said: 'A growing body of evidence suggests that humans do have a rudimentary moral sense from the very start of life. 'With the help of well designed experiments, you can see glimmers of moral thought, moral judgment and moral feeling even in the first year of life. 'Some sense of good and evil seems to be bred in the bones.' For one study, the Yale researchers got babies aged between six months and a year to watch a puppet show in which a simple, colourful wooden shape with eyes tries to climb a hill. Sometimes the shape is helped up the hill by a second toy, while other times a third character pushes it down. After watching the show several times, the babies were shown the helpful and unhelpful toys. They showed a clear preference for the helpful toys - spending far longer looking at the 'good' shapes than the 'bad' ones. 'In the end, we found that six- and ten-month-old infants overwhelmingly preferred the helpful individual to the hindering individual,' Prof Bloom told the New York Times. 'This wasn't a subtle statistical trend; just about all the babies reached for the good guy...' now given this, i still suggest that good and bad do not necessarily rely on each other, they can and do exist in their own form. a tree is still, yet its leaves display motion, independent. one does not have to know hate to know love, each thrive independently. ok so by this, love and happiness are not associated with good, right? my question is, at what age do you think babies can tell the difference? I mean, after all they don't this "life experience" you believe is vital to our learning...wait let the people that study this answer the question... That question is quite impossible to answer. It is impossible because there is no set guidelines or for sure exacts on what is moral, good, bad, and so forth. It's all a perception. What I perceive as good, bad, moral, or anything of that such could be entirely different then yours or this persons or that persons. still proscribing to that Cult of Moral Grayness,where anything goes? Relativity belongs into Physics,NOT into Ethics or Morality! How could it logically belong to physics? People aren't born with morals. Or otherwise relatives would have quite similar to exact morals and there wouldn't be so much independence in people's morals of right and wrong. Yes family members generally have the same type of morals to an extent because it is what they are raised with and or around and subject to through their lives. And what "Cult" are you referring to? rofl. so,in your book Murder or any other breach of Morality is OK if you can relativize it? So,because people have to learn a Moral Code,Morality is "Relative"? The Cult of Moral Grayness,The Claim that Morality is Relative,and thus doesn't matter,that's what I am referring to! But I doubt that at this Stage you would be able to break out of that Circle! You are not him!  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
is it more than being better than nonexistence, the good things seem to be in balance with the bad. if there is no bad would life seem too short, or no good make it seem too long, why are we here and why are we the only species to question existence and try to improve upon it with things like technology and religion. animals don't build rockets or telescopes to see beyond this planet but we do, has curiosity replaced our survival instincts? Because they know it doesn't matter what we know of outside this world. Nothing of it will change our lives here on this world. They spend their time doing more valuable things like surviving and improving their existence on this world. And without the bad, how could you appreciate the good? We would never know what good is without first knowing what bad is. Because without bad, there is no good. Have you ever seen a baby smile? They know good long before they have any idea what bad is. Good and bad do not compliment each other they oppose each other, but clearly one can exist without the other. The smile just means they know love and happiness. They couldn't possibly know good or bad since good and bad are perspectives brought on by our experiences in life we've grown to learn. ok so by this, love and happiness are not associated with good, right? my question is, at what age do you think babies can tell the difference? I mean, after all they don't this "life experience" you believe is vital to our learning...wait let the people that study this answer the question... Professor Paul Bloom, a psychologist at Yale University in Connecticut, whose department has studied morality in babies for years, said: 'A growing body of evidence suggests that humans do have a rudimentary moral sense from the very start of life. 'With the help of well designed experiments, you can see glimmers of moral thought, moral judgment and moral feeling even in the first year of life. 'Some sense of good and evil seems to be bred in the bones.' For one study, the Yale researchers got babies aged between six months and a year to watch a puppet show in which a simple, colourful wooden shape with eyes tries to climb a hill. Sometimes the shape is helped up the hill by a second toy, while other times a third character pushes it down. After watching the show several times, the babies were shown the helpful and unhelpful toys. They showed a clear preference for the helpful toys - spending far longer looking at the 'good' shapes than the 'bad' ones. 'In the end, we found that six- and ten-month-old infants overwhelmingly preferred the helpful individual to the hindering individual,' Prof Bloom told the New York Times. 'This wasn't a subtle statistical trend; just about all the babies reached for the good guy...' now given this, i still suggest that good and bad do not necessarily rely on each other, they can and do exist in their own form. a tree is still, yet its leaves display motion, independent. one does not have to know hate to know love, each thrive independently. ok so by this, love and happiness are not associated with good, right? my question is, at what age do you think babies can tell the difference? I mean, after all they don't this "life experience" you believe is vital to our learning...wait let the people that study this answer the question... That question is quite impossible to answer. It is impossible because there is no set guidelines or for sure exacts on what is moral, good, bad, and so forth. It's all a perception. What I perceive as good, bad, moral, or anything of that such could be entirely different then yours or this persons or that persons. still proscribing to that Cult of Moral Grayness,where anything goes? Relativity belongs into Physics,NOT into Ethics or Morality! How could it logically belong to physics? People aren't born with morals. Or otherwise relatives would have quite similar to exact morals and there wouldn't be so much independence in people's morals of right and wrong. Yes family members generally have the same type of morals to an extent because it is what they are raised with and or around and subject to through their lives. And what "Cult" are you referring to? rofl. so,in your book Murder or any other breach of Morality is OK if you can relativize it? So,because people have to learn a Moral Code,Morality is "Relative"? The Cult of Moral Grayness,The Claim that Morality is Relative,and thus doesn't matter,that's what I am referring to! But I doubt that at this Stage you would be able to break out of that Circle! You are not him! You really lost me here. How could morality not be relative? Are your morals the same as mine? Are they the same as that guy over there? If you say no to any of these questions then that proves morality is relative. And what book of murder do you speak of? You really lost me there. Just because something is relative eg., depending on the person doesn't make it no matter, how could that be? So,because people have to learn a Moral Exactly, it is not an automatic thing. It is learned. Thus why a baby would have no morals because it has not had the chance/time to "learn" morals, or moral codes, or however you wanna state it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
CowboyGH
on
Sat 05/31/14 11:21 AM
|
|
is it more than being better than nonexistence, the good things seem to be in balance with the bad. if there is no bad would life seem too short, or no good make it seem too long, why are we here and why are we the only species to question existence and try to improve upon it with things like technology and religion. animals don't build rockets or telescopes to see beyond this planet but we do, has curiosity replaced our survival instincts? Because they know it doesn't matter what we know of outside this world. Nothing of it will change our lives here on this world. They spend their time doing more valuable things like surviving and improving their existence on this world. And without the bad, how could you appreciate the good? We would never know what good is without first knowing what bad is. Because without bad, there is no good. Have you ever seen a baby smile? They know good long before they have any idea what bad is. Good and bad do not compliment each other they oppose each other, but clearly one can exist without the other. The smile just means they know love and happiness. They couldn't possibly know good or bad since good and bad are perspectives brought on by our experiences in life we've grown to learn. ok so by this, love and happiness are not associated with good, right? my question is, at what age do you think babies can tell the difference? I mean, after all they don't this "life experience" you believe is vital to our learning...wait let the people that study this answer the question... Professor Paul Bloom, a psychologist at Yale University in Connecticut, whose department has studied morality in babies for years, said: 'A growing body of evidence suggests that humans do have a rudimentary moral sense from the very start of life. 'With the help of well designed experiments, you can see glimmers of moral thought, moral judgment and moral feeling even in the first year of life. 'Some sense of good and evil seems to be bred in the bones.' For one study, the Yale researchers got babies aged between six months and a year to watch a puppet show in which a simple, colourful wooden shape with eyes tries to climb a hill. Sometimes the shape is helped up the hill by a second toy, while other times a third character pushes it down. After watching the show several times, the babies were shown the helpful and unhelpful toys. They showed a clear preference for the helpful toys - spending far longer looking at the 'good' shapes than the 'bad' ones. 'In the end, we found that six- and ten-month-old infants overwhelmingly preferred the helpful individual to the hindering individual,' Prof Bloom told the New York Times. 'This wasn't a subtle statistical trend; just about all the babies reached for the good guy...' now given this, i still suggest that good and bad do not necessarily rely on each other, they can and do exist in their own form. a tree is still, yet its leaves display motion, independent. one does not have to know hate to know love, each thrive independently. ok so by this, love and happiness are not associated with good, right? my question is, at what age do you think babies can tell the difference? I mean, after all they don't this "life experience" you believe is vital to our learning...wait let the people that study this answer the question... That question is quite impossible to answer. It is impossible because there is no set guidelines or for sure exacts on what is moral, good, bad, and so forth. It's all a perception. What I perceive as good, bad, moral, or anything of that such could be entirely different then yours or this persons or that persons. still proscribing to that Cult of Moral Grayness,where anything goes? Relativity belongs into Physics,NOT into Ethics or Morality! How could it logically belong to physics? People aren't born with morals. Or otherwise relatives would have quite similar to exact morals and there wouldn't be so much independence in people's morals of right and wrong. Yes family members generally have the same type of morals to an extent because it is what they are raised with and or around and subject to through their lives. And what "Cult" are you referring to? rofl. so,in your book Murder or any other breach of Morality is OK if you can relativize it? So,because people have to learn a Moral Code,Morality is "Relative"? The Cult of Moral Grayness,The Claim that Morality is Relative,and thus doesn't matter,that's what I am referring to! But I doubt that at this Stage you would be able to break out of that Circle! You are not him! You really lost me here. How could morality not be relative? Are your morals the same as mine? Are they the same as that guy over there? If you say no to any of these questions then that proves morality is relative. And what book of murder do you speak of? You really lost me there. Just because something is relative eg., depending on the person doesn't make it no matter, how could that be? So,because people have to learn a Moral Exactly, it is not an automatic thing. It is learned. Thus why a baby would have no morals because it has not had the chance/time to "learn" morals, or moral codes, or however you wanna state it. And maybe "relative" isn't the word I'm looking for. But each person's morals are different then another's. They aren't born with these morals, they learn them through life's experience. Morals are an opinion. There is no absolutes right or wrong. Your morals consist of what YOU have personally chose to think right or wrong. They are not hereditary or belonging to "physics". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
is it more than being better than nonexistence, the good things seem to be in balance with the bad. if there is no bad would life seem too short, or no good make it seem too long, why are we here and why are we the only species to question existence and try to improve upon it with things like technology and religion. animals don't build rockets or telescopes to see beyond this planet but we do, has curiosity replaced our survival instincts? Because they know it doesn't matter what we know of outside this world. Nothing of it will change our lives here on this world. They spend their time doing more valuable things like surviving and improving their existence on this world. And without the bad, how could you appreciate the good? We would never know what good is without first knowing what bad is. Because without bad, there is no good. Have you ever seen a baby smile? They know good long before they have any idea what bad is. Good and bad do not compliment each other they oppose each other, but clearly one can exist without the other. The smile just means they know love and happiness. They couldn't possibly know good or bad since good and bad are perspectives brought on by our experiences in life we've grown to learn. ok so by this, love and happiness are not associated with good, right? my question is, at what age do you think babies can tell the difference? I mean, after all they don't this "life experience" you believe is vital to our learning...wait let the people that study this answer the question... Professor Paul Bloom, a psychologist at Yale University in Connecticut, whose department has studied morality in babies for years, said: 'A growing body of evidence suggests that humans do have a rudimentary moral sense from the very start of life. 'With the help of well designed experiments, you can see glimmers of moral thought, moral judgment and moral feeling even in the first year of life. 'Some sense of good and evil seems to be bred in the bones.' For one study, the Yale researchers got babies aged between six months and a year to watch a puppet show in which a simple, colourful wooden shape with eyes tries to climb a hill. Sometimes the shape is helped up the hill by a second toy, while other times a third character pushes it down. After watching the show several times, the babies were shown the helpful and unhelpful toys. They showed a clear preference for the helpful toys - spending far longer looking at the 'good' shapes than the 'bad' ones. 'In the end, we found that six- and ten-month-old infants overwhelmingly preferred the helpful individual to the hindering individual,' Prof Bloom told the New York Times. 'This wasn't a subtle statistical trend; just about all the babies reached for the good guy...' now given this, i still suggest that good and bad do not necessarily rely on each other, they can and do exist in their own form. a tree is still, yet its leaves display motion, independent. one does not have to know hate to know love, each thrive independently. ok so by this, love and happiness are not associated with good, right? my question is, at what age do you think babies can tell the difference? I mean, after all they don't this "life experience" you believe is vital to our learning...wait let the people that study this answer the question... That question is quite impossible to answer. It is impossible because there is no set guidelines or for sure exacts on what is moral, good, bad, and so forth. It's all a perception. What I perceive as good, bad, moral, or anything of that such could be entirely different then yours or this persons or that persons. Neither I, nor the study say that they have a clear understanding of good vs. bad. What they, the people that have dedicated their lives to studying human behavior, are saying is that babies as young as 6 months old do in fact show some sense of the concept. The study goes on to conclude that by 21 months, (still qualifies as a baby to me) they have a far greater understanding than was widely believed to be the case. So it seems to be leaning towards 'not' impossible at all. Knowing the difference between good and bad may just prove to be inherent on some some level; not absolute, but perhaps the foundation for this code is somewhere deep in our dna. All of this has little to with your belief that you cannot have good unless you have bad. What makes you think the two are not independent of each other? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjqYkSf7pSE&feature=youtube_gdata_player
I don't know the meaning of life but Faith Hill sings about the secret of life. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
is it more than being better than nonexistence, the good things seem to be in balance with the bad. if there is no bad would life seem too short, or no good make it seem too long, why are we here and why are we the only species to question existence and try to improve upon it with things like technology and religion. animals don't build rockets or telescopes to see beyond this planet but we do, has curiosity replaced our survival instincts? Because they know it doesn't matter what we know of outside this world. Nothing of it will change our lives here on this world. They spend their time doing more valuable things like surviving and improving their existence on this world. And without the bad, how could you appreciate the good? We would never know what good is without first knowing what bad is. Because without bad, there is no good. Have you ever seen a baby smile? They know good long before they have any idea what bad is. Good and bad do not compliment each other they oppose each other, but clearly one can exist without the other. The smile just means they know love and happiness. They couldn't possibly know good or bad since good and bad are perspectives brought on by our experiences in life we've grown to learn. ok so by this, love and happiness are not associated with good, right? my question is, at what age do you think babies can tell the difference? I mean, after all they don't this "life experience" you believe is vital to our learning...wait let the people that study this answer the question... Professor Paul Bloom, a psychologist at Yale University in Connecticut, whose department has studied morality in babies for years, said: 'A growing body of evidence suggests that humans do have a rudimentary moral sense from the very start of life. 'With the help of well designed experiments, you can see glimmers of moral thought, moral judgment and moral feeling even in the first year of life. 'Some sense of good and evil seems to be bred in the bones.' For one study, the Yale researchers got babies aged between six months and a year to watch a puppet show in which a simple, colourful wooden shape with eyes tries to climb a hill. Sometimes the shape is helped up the hill by a second toy, while other times a third character pushes it down. After watching the show several times, the babies were shown the helpful and unhelpful toys. They showed a clear preference for the helpful toys - spending far longer looking at the 'good' shapes than the 'bad' ones. 'In the end, we found that six- and ten-month-old infants overwhelmingly preferred the helpful individual to the hindering individual,' Prof Bloom told the New York Times. 'This wasn't a subtle statistical trend; just about all the babies reached for the good guy...' now given this, i still suggest that good and bad do not necessarily rely on each other, they can and do exist in their own form. a tree is still, yet its leaves display motion, independent. one does not have to know hate to know love, each thrive independently. ok so by this, love and happiness are not associated with good, right? my question is, at what age do you think babies can tell the difference? I mean, after all they don't this "life experience" you believe is vital to our learning...wait let the people that study this answer the question... That question is quite impossible to answer. It is impossible because there is no set guidelines or for sure exacts on what is moral, good, bad, and so forth. It's all a perception. What I perceive as good, bad, moral, or anything of that such could be entirely different then yours or this persons or that persons. Neither I, nor the study say that they have a clear understanding of good vs. bad. What they, the people that have dedicated their lives to studying human behavior, are saying is that babies as young as 6 months old do in fact show some sense of the concept. The study goes on to conclude that by 21 months, (still qualifies as a baby to me) they have a far greater understanding than was widely believed to be the case. So it seems to be leaning towards 'not' impossible at all. Knowing the difference between good and bad may just prove to be inherent on some some level; not absolute, but perhaps the foundation for this code is somewhere deep in our dna. All of this has little to with your belief that you cannot have good unless you have bad. What makes you think the two are not independent of each other? Explain how you can have the concept of good without the bad and you'll answer your own question. Example purposes only, I understand not everyone will like the "good" in the examples or even possibly the "bad". How would say Lemonade taste "good" if you had never tasted something "bad"? Why would it stand out as "good" if you had never tasted the contrary? If one thing is all you know through life in context of the discussion, then how would you ever contemplate the contrary if you had never experienced it or heard of it or anything along those lines? Say someone prefers the warmth, to them it is good. But how would they know the warmth is good if they never felt cold? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whoever said life was suppose to have a meaning... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
willing2
on
Sat 05/31/14 04:21 PM
|
|
From the day we were born, our destiny is to die.
Reality can suck balls, no?  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Siduri urges Gilgamesh to be content with the simple pleasures in life. To quote, 'As for you, Gilgamesh, fill your belly with good things; day and night, night and day, dance and be merry, feast and rejoice. Let your clothes be fresh, bathe yourself in water, cherish the little child that holds your hand, and make your wife happy in your embrace; for this too is the lot of man'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wow, this topic has really kicked off since i started it. i really enjoyed all the answers and arguments that lead to yet more questions. maybe we are alive to ask questions, do other species ask questions? i tested this on my dog and he said "don't be so silly". maybe we will never understand this. like some animals are smart but only to a limit, so maybe us humans also have a limit to our understanding. like the LHC in Switzerland is close to understanding the origins of the particles that make the universe, but that's physics, life is more when chemistry became a single cell to become biology. so maybe physics to chemistry to biology is a pattern so maybe life is inevitable given enough time. but then the universe seems largely dead. but maybe it is in a higher state of life, one in which we are yet to understand. thought there are a lot of flaws in my logic
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wow, this topic has really kicked off since i started it. i really enjoyed all the answers and arguments that lead to yet more questions. maybe we are alive to ask questions, do other species ask questions? i tested this on my dog and he said "don't be so silly". maybe we will never understand this. like some animals are smart but only to a limit, so maybe us humans also have a limit to our understanding. like the LHC in Switzerland is close to understanding the origins of the particles that make the universe, but that's physics, life is more when chemistry became a single cell to become biology. so maybe physics to chemistry to biology is a pattern so maybe life is inevitable given enough time. but then the universe seems largely dead. but maybe it is in a higher state of life, one in which we are yet to understand. thought there are a lot of flaws in my logic Put the crack pipe down and step away! LOL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wow, this topic has really kicked off since i started it. i really enjoyed all the answers and arguments that lead to yet more questions. maybe we are alive to ask questions, do other species ask questions? i tested this on my dog and he said "don't be so silly". maybe we will never understand this. like some animals are smart but only to a limit, so maybe us humans also have a limit to our understanding. like the LHC in Switzerland is close to understanding the origins of the particles that make the universe, but that's physics, life is more when chemistry became a single cell to become biology. so maybe physics to chemistry to biology is a pattern so maybe life is inevitable given enough time. but then the universe seems largely dead. but maybe it is in a higher state of life, one in which we are yet to understand. thought there are a lot of flaws in my logic Put the crack pipe down and step away! lol, i don't do drugs but it sounds like i do, i guess i am a bit of an airy fairy child at heart. i think it's called fantasy implied curiosity. don't know who said it but they may have been imaginary. or maybe it's these sleeping tablets LOL |
|
|
|
|
