29 Jan 16
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdThing is I dont always want people to treat me exactly the way i treat them.
Whether you treat others well or badly,
I only wish you upon yourself.
It's just more of a declaration of non violence and basic human freedoms
edit: your "Golden Rule" has a ring of truth and has given me some food for thought. thanks
29 Jan 16
Originally posted by vistesdThat might work as an encouragement or rebuke to someone else for their behaviour, but explain how it would govern your own beahviour. Perhaps I am missing some aspect of what you are getting at here.
Whether you treat others well or badly,
I only wish you upon yourself.
Originally posted by FMFIt’s simple, really: Would I wish me upon myself (based on how I actually treat others)? Why or why not, to what degree? And can that thought inform my future behavior?
That might work as an encouragement or rebuke to someone else for their behaviour, but explain how it would govern your own beahviour. Perhaps I am missing some aspect of what you are getting at here.
Yes, it can certainly be taken as a rebuke (and, in the original, more sharply specific form in which I first came across it, it was just that). But I intend it more as a sharp personalization—for whomever reads it—in the face of facile recitations of this or that version of “the golden rule”. And this version struck me as one that seems to embody a certain “karmic” justice. That seems to me to be something of a twist on the way that many people seem to think of it.
I personally have always favored Hillel’s version: “What you do not like done to yourself, do not do unto others.”
But who can really object to it? “However you treat others, I only wish you upon yourself.” Seems pretty straightforward. And you (that’s the general “you” ) can decide for yourself about what is treating others “well or badly”. If you don’t wish to have you wished upon yourself—then change, so that you would be fine with it. [Again, the general “you”, there.] Or don’t.
It also stands against attempts at deflection: I’ll worry about me—it’s only you that I wish upon you, not myself with my judgments.
Now, that stands as the kind of long-winded explanation that I was not going to do—but, with you (the personal “you” here: FMF), I take it as an honest question that may address something that seems missing. On the other hand, I think that there are any number of such questions that can be prized out of that simple statement—if people are actually willing to consider it seriously—without my explanations.
And so, I will not myself wander further afield—
Whether you treat others well or badly,
I only wish you upon yourself.
________________________________________
EDIT: Maybe one could assume, for argument's sake, that my wishes are, in just this case, efficacious. 😉
29 Jan 16
Originally posted by karoly aczelHi, Karoly. Long time. Hope you;'re well.
Thing is I dont always want people to treat me exactly the way i treat them.
It's just more of a declaration of non violence and basic human freedoms
edit: your "Golden Rule" has a ring of truth and has given me some food for thought. thanks
29 Jan 16
Originally posted by vistesdAre you suggesting that your "Kind of Golden Rule" is different in any significant way from 'Do to others what you'd have them do to you' i.e "The Golden Rule"?
It’s simple, really: Would I wish me upon myself (based on how I actually treat others)?
29 Jan 16
Originally posted by FMFIn the sense that the versions you cite merely offer a kind of general instruction. With a reminder that I (intentionally) put a question mark on the thread title, what I am saying is (and I am trying different revisions, in hopes of further clarity)—
Are you suggesting that your "Kind of Golden Rule" is different in any significant way from 'Do to others what you'd have them do to you' i.e "The Golden Rule"?
Insofar as how you choose to treat others,*
just so, I wish you upon yourself.
[*Whether by the golden rule or not.]
As you noted, surely one needs also to turn that on oneself as well. In either case, rather than just a generalized instruction, it embodies a kind of karmic test. For example, if one has a problem with the sentiment, then the place to look is at one’s own behavior.
(Thanks for helping me clarify.)
Originally posted by wolfgang59Perhaps this makes both my point and FMF's. What I've suggested is not really a version of the golden rule--more a kind of "karmic test". Like a Zen koan, one can spend a lot of time examining what all it might be about, rather than letting it point directly (especially if that is uncomfortable). Thanks.
I prefer the Golden Rule.
I wouldn't wish myself on anyone!!!
_____________________________________________
EDIT: "Karma" perhaps implies just desserts for past behavior. I mean this in the present tense: as you change your behavior, it is the now-You that I wish upon yourself. We hopefully have the possibility of changing our behavior, such that we are each, individually, more willing to accept such a sentiment from others, as well as from ourselves (FMF's point about also applying it in the first-person).
29 Jan 16
I generally dislike putting morality into rules. Much better to simply be empathetic. Rules are most often used as excuses not to do something empathetic and much more rarely as direction to actually do something empathetic.
Rules are most frequently used for admonishing others rather than a guide for oneself.
When used for oneself they tend to be of the form: you only need to do this much and you won't feel guilty any more.
29 Jan 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadAnother reason why I now think the answer to the question in the thread title is "No."
I generally dislike putting morality into rules. Much better to simply be empathetic. Rules are most often used as excuses not to do something empathetic and much more rarely as direction to actually do something empathetic.
Rules are most frequently used for admonishing others rather than a guide for oneself.
When used for oneself they tend to be of the form: you only need to do this much and you won't feel guilty any more.
29 Jan 16
Originally posted by vistesdAfter reading through this thread I think you're right. The thing with the golden rule (biblically speaking) is, is that it is in the affirmative tense, i.e., to "do" unto others what one would have done unto themselves as apposed to not "doing". It assumes that one would do well unto others.
Another reason why I now think the answer to the question in the thread title is "No."
"Whether you treat others well or badly, I only wish you upon yourself". I think you defined it well above. It's not necessarily a bad way to put forth the idea of treating others well for one's own sake.
How are you vistesd?
30 Jan 16
Originally posted by josephwI don't think that the "Do unto others..." formulation rules out inaction, since a valid answer to the question "What are you going to do?" in this kind of context might be "Leave them alone.". Interestingly it allows for negative feelings since "Never speak to again." is unfriendly, but if one is happy with the other never speaking to one again then it fits the formulation.
After reading through this thread I think you're right. The thing with the golden rule (biblically speaking) is, is that it is in the affirmative tense, i.e., to "do" unto others what one would have done unto themselves as apposed to not "doing". It assumes that one would do well unto others.
"Whether you treat others well or badly, I only wish you upon y ...[text shortened]... ad way to put forth the idea of treating others well for one's own sake.
How are you vistesd?