kctan

In the eyes of cowards, a 'courageous' person is showing courage. In the eye of another 'courageous' person, if this courage shown is more then he/she deem they've, they'll recognise this person as more 'courageous'. In the line of "I can do that too but you can do it much better".

Courage is shown when there is no showing of fear (one is not afraid of the event in the first place, so how to feel fear ?) or like you said when one mastered their feeling of fear.

Although fear is the opposite of courage, courage can still be shown in the absence of fear. Both of them needs 'danger' to be present that's all.

Mercy ? A person commits a crime as defined by the current existing laws, by lessening the punishment is already showing mercy. Anyway, this would depend more on what you're going to associate mercy with. Punishment against criminals or tyrants against victims or between 2 person with one having shown to have more might then the other ? What kind of 'sufferings' do you have in mind ?

BTW I can't think of why one would consider suffering as the pre-requisite of fear. No doubt one can suffer from the fear of something but it could be seen from, as a survivor trait (self preservation) to down right illogical feeling (phobias). In such cases I don't really think that a person is suffering. More like the body is telling the person to do something in response to a particular stimulae.

long winded fool

I would necessarily include suffering under any 'not-ok' feeling to avoid the slippery slope of the 'spilled ice cream' I mentioned earlier. If suffering is only those pains which a person allows to "get him down" which sounds like what you're talking about, then suffering is completely subjective and must always be a possibility if we have free will. (I should be able to be "down" if I want to.) If you see a logical difference between suffering and pain, then I suggest that any pain can also be suffering given the right conditions. This, I would think, would encourage one to group pain and suffering together as a single notion when contemplating the effects of the divine elimination of "suffering."

All virtue has value solely in comparison with pain/suffering/not-ok. While it is easy to see that "good" and "better" need not presently include suffering, suffering must be in existence, or have been in existence, for anything to be judged "good" or "better" by human standards. We can't label a thing "good" if we are unaware of bad, we can't know virtue if we are unaware of vice, and "vice" seems to be identified by some not-ok feeling.

kctan

Suffering is completely subjective. It's a state of our mind afterall. Physical pain & suffering can be the same only when you define them as the same. Of course it's completely valid to group pain & suffering together when one is contemplating the effects of the divine in eliminating 'sufferings'. Physical pain is one of the main cause of people when they talk about 'suffering'.

Not really. Things can be 'good' in the beginning but due to progress, the 'good' become not 'good' enough. It's still 'good' but just not 'good' enough. You can call it 'bad' if you like but the angle which we are looking at it is different.

The above POV remains me of two confucian premises with one stating that humans started off as 'good' while the other stating that humans started off as 'bad'. Depending on which angle you wish to view from, both are actually quite valid. Which does makes one realise that humans most likely started off as 'neutral'.

The neutrality can be effected into your suffering & virtue in that both are actually independent of each other. It's just how one goes about identifying each & reach a conclusion for themselves. Just like how some could see a 'virtue' as a 'suffering' while recognising that 'suffering' as a 'virtue' in themselves.

long winded fool

Interesting. I would argue that the very notion of starting out "good" requires previous knowledge of "bad" and vice versa. Theoretically (disregarding human experience) good might be independent of bad, but experientially they must coexist as seperate but interdependent ideas. If humans started out entirely good in the sense that there was no bad, good was not defined anymore than bad or neutral. For "good" to exist as an understandable notion, bad must exist. If bad doesn't exist, there can be no value judgements anyway because everything has equal value. If everything is and always has been A and only A, (as in the case of "starting out good,") A cannot be defined as not-B, therefore A cannot be a value judgement. A is simply reality which is not susceptible to value judgement, good or bad. "Good" in that context (A) then becomes descriptive of a reality that cannot be defined by the english word "good" because of the lack of the necessary notion of "bad." (B) So essentially one must change the definition of "good" to mean something that is not really good.

This also applies in reverse if humans started out "bad." In effect, good and bad would be identical until they were both present.

kctan

Realistically, 'good' & 'bad' are just how we look at things in the world which means that all things are neutral until we start interpreting them.

As stated, 'good' in the absence of 'bad' will be equivalent to neutral, likewise 'bad' in the absence of 'good' will be equivalent to neutral.

Of course 'good' can have 'better' & 'best' to differentiate between the difference without the 'bad' while 'bad' can have 'worse' & 'worst' as difference but they would fall at the 2 extreme ends of views. Optimistic vs pessimistic. So not only theoritically but actually do have their occurance in real life.

kkawohl

The spirit or soul exists in the collective mental processes of the subconscious. The subconscious part of the mind and is also where the mental processes of creativity originate. The conscience adds to and stores life experiences with the spirit/soul. If the conscience is anesthetized by other than righteous conduct the existence of the spirit gradually fades and is eventually extinguished.

Kurt

http://transcendentalism.us

long winded fool

Exactly. So there must be one to have the other. In the sense of "good, better, and best," good would be less ok than better, which would be less ok than best. Something less than best must exist. If "good" were the absolute 'worst' not-ok feeling we could have, we wouldn't call it good, we'd call it bad, or suffering, or evil. Even the most optimistic human always differentiates between better and worse. Humans must make value judgements to function psychologically. To get back to the op, our free will necessarily implies the existence of the state of not-ok. Whether you want to call it "anguish and misery" or even "better but not quite best," it's all the same thing. Only how we look at this phenomenon can change. As you say, we can be optimistic about our not-ok's or pessimistic, but whatever you call them, they must exist and cannot be artificially eliminated without precluding our free will. Whether it is extreme suffering or mild boredom God can't logically get rid of it because they're essentially one and the same, the only difference being human outlook. I assume you'd agree that an outside force can't eliminate your ability to be pessimistic without limiting your freedom to choose. (If everything is perfect, then what choice is there?)

kctan

With progress, best will degenerate into better then good & maybe into the realms of bad, worse & worst. So it's not neccessary that something less then best must exist at some point in time. Less ok doesn't mean that it's undesirable & would cause suffering.

Not really. It can still be term as good depending on what angle you're looking at it. For an optimistic human, there's no bad. They stop at good as the lowest denominator. You won't find them suffering just because something is good & not better or best. That's why they're optimistic.

Not really quite the same thing. Like the above, you ain't suffering because something is good but not better or best. Whereas you might be suffering because something is rated as bad, worse or worst.

We do make value judgements to function phychologically but that doesn't imply that in the absence of bad, we will stop functioning properly.

If you're optimistic, there ain't any not-oks. So it does seems that not-oks doesn't exist at all. It's all individual standards playing up to each. The best verdict we can reach is that all states are actually artificial occuring in the human mind. Such states of course can be eliminated & it ain't going to affect our free will at all. You won't loose your choice to choose just because you don't have any sufferings.

This part I can agree especially since there appears to be no evidence of god or gods. Since all these are dependent upon our outlook, it's up to each individual to choose what they want.

An outside force might be able to eliminate your ability to be pessimistic like drugs or help from fellow human beings. These kinds of help may impose some restrictions on an individual's freedom. If everything is perfect, choices will still be present for you to choose. It's only your outlook which may result in you thinking that everything is not prefect at this point in time due to your choice.

long winded fool

It does for me. If everything is not absolutely perfect, I suffer. So now why doesn't God eliminate it? People can certainly eliminate suffering for themselves with free will. God cannot if He desires us to have the ability to respond to free will. (I hate to be redundant. This is explained in detail below.)

Yes but there is still value in the form of good, better, and best, therefore suffering is absolutely accessible at all times. All one needs to access it is pessimism. For suffering to be completely non-existent even if desired, value must be non-existent. As long as value exists, pessimists can suffer.

So if I rate best as bad, better as worse, and good as worst, then I suffer. All you're doing is playing with labels. I agree that optimism can eliminate all forms of suffering to a certain degree with free will. I disagree that suffering can be non-existent and inaccessible (in the sense of being incomprehensible, which would necessarily be the case if it had never existed,) and that optimism, pessimism, good, or bad can still exist. (If that's really what you're arguing. I guess you never said that the knowledge of suffering needn't exist for good to be defined. But suffering is required to exist in the universe at some point for knowledge of it to exist.)

But it does mean that in the absence of value we will stop functioning. What is value? In the sense we're using it, value is the quality (positive or negative) that renders something desirable or undesirable. What you label positive and negative is irrelevant. They must both exist. We don't have to label negative bad, (or even 'negative') but it can be labeled bad, and therefore the thing which is often labeled with the english word 'bad' must exist. You're right that we can choose to rename it. We cannot, however, function without it having been manifest at some accessible point in the universe.

I disagree. Even optimists must recognize desirable and undesirable things. The undesirable things I call not-ok. The desirable things I call ok. You won't loose free choice if you don't 'suffer.' You will loose free choice without any negative value. It is possible to experience awareness of any negative value and label it as the english word 'suffering,' therefore, 'suffering' is subjective to the individual and the artificial elimination of "suffering" must lead inexorably into the artificial elimination of all negative value, (since people have the choice to label any negative value "suffering,") thus the elimination of free will. So the argument breaks down to, "God can't eliminate all possible suffering, but why can't he eliminate some?" Which can be easily countered with: "He has. He's eliminated all the suffering that can be eliminated. Aren't you happy?"

If everything is perfect there will not be choices. If everything is perfect, there is no negative value. No undesirable outcome. Therefore, there is no choice. You are using perfect to mean, "less than absolutely perfect but alot better than it is now," which is entirely subjective and definitely not perfect.

kctan

Different perspective & different way of looking at the world. You need your sufferings, I don't. That's all.

Whether suffering did exist or not doesn't matter abit at all. Realistically speaking, such concepts are not really there as they're all concepts within our minds just like what 'value' is.

Let me give you this chinese parable & see what you can gleam from it,

One day a chinese sage & his students are traveling along the road, feeling the fierce heat from the sun, they decided to take a rest under a tree by the side of the road. While resting, one of them remarked to the rest, "this tree is such a useless tree, it's too weak to be used for housing nor for making into furnitures or tools."

Suddenly, the tree speaks up to the man, "what an ungrateful man you're, not only did you missed the fact that I'm providing shade for you from the sun, you also missed out the fact that if I'll were to be of value to you as housing or furniture or tools material, do you think I can still be standing here after all these years ?"

Want to know the moral of the story or do you want to have a go at it ?

Ever wonder how a valueless world would be like ? It's exactly like the one we are having now.

I give you this ancient chinese saying as a parting gift & hope you could see some insight as to how we differ in our thoughts.

"Zhi Ju Chang Le" - "He who knows contentment is always in a state of happiness."

Edited to add,

If you ever decipher the difference between our lines of thought, you'll understand why I say this when I first replied to this thread.

Then you can proceed to ask me why I say that in the first place.