Originally posted by FreakyKBHBecause we already have alcohol and morphine if all we wanted was a lack of pain? 😛
Agreed: pleasure is good.
I like it at least as much as the next guy/gal, but prolly more.
Gordon Gecko intoned how "greed... is good"[hidden]http://www.americanrhetoric.com/MovieSpeeches/moviespeechwallstreet.html[/hidden] and offered a vague one-sided thumbnail support for it.
Without going into the mechanics of it, here's an open-ended question: ...[text shortened]... ter what the source, why was pleasure used as the carrot instead of, for instance, lack of pain?
In seriousness, it's because pleasure has proved to be the more effective motivator. That's why we're here to talk about it, and the strains of us that did not have it died out.
06 Dec 13
Originally posted by SwissGambitThis is taking a path other than originally intended, but I'm game.
Because we already have alcohol and morphine if all we wanted was a lack of pain? 😛
In seriousness, it's because pleasure has proved to be the more effective motivator. That's why we're here to talk about it, and the strains of us that did not have it died out.
If it is such a great motivator, why are there only about four classes (including humans) which have seen it employed? All other forms of life seem to be doing just fine with 'please, no pain' as a motivator.
06 Dec 13
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI see we're about to hit the limit of my biology knowledge.
This is taking a path other than originally intended, but I'm game.
If it is such a great motivator, why are there only about four classes (including humans) which have seen it employed? All other forms of life seem to be doing just fine with 'please, no pain' as a motivator.
What do you mean by 'classes'? Would you please name the four classes?
My guess is that there is a transition from auto-reproduction to pleasure-induced when the act of conception starts to feel like 'work' instead of being automatic.
06 Dec 13
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThat would be a question that may regard the truth conditions of aesthetic claims.
Was Narcissus wrong in his assessment of his own beauty?
Regardless, let's suppose it was a fact that Narcissus was exceedingly physically beautiful. Then, no, he would not be wrong in assessing himself as such. Recognition of that fact, per se, was not Narcissus' problem. The problem was his inner consortium of affective attitudes toward the object of that fact, his fixation with his own image to the exclusion of all else. (Ultimately, his real problem was simply vengeance of the gods.)
A narcissistic person may well be, in fact, exceedingly beautiful on the outside. Regardless, narcissism itself is ugly on the inside and not something one would want to press into his own service. So, having a moral exemplar who is hella-narcissistic is properly relegated to the bizarro world. (Having a moral exemplar who sees fit to sanction genocide and the like is bizarro as well, but that is the subject of another current thread as you know.)
06 Dec 13
Originally posted by SwissGambit"Classes" was an unfortunate term, sloppy at best.
I see we're about to hit the limit of my biology knowledge.
What do you mean by 'classes'? Would you please name the four classes?
My guess is that there is a transition from auto-reproduction to pleasure-induced when the act of conception starts to feel like 'work' instead of being automatic.
'Types within the classes' would have been much better.
To my knowledge, it's problematic describing pleasure-driven behavior for any animal unable to articulate the same, but one view has man, dolphins and a few types of primates as showing clear evidence of pleasure-driven sexual activity.
My guess is that there is a transition from auto-reproduction to pleasure-induced when the act of conception starts to feel like 'work' instead of being automatic.
I don't dismiss the idea, but it doesn't answer why such an infinitesimal part of creation includes--- nearly relies--- on pleasure for their sexual activity, whereas the overwhelming majority just does it like they're punching a clock.
06 Dec 13
Originally posted by LemonJelloThe problem was his inner consortium of affective attitudes toward the object of that fact, his fixation with his own image to the exclusion of all else.
That would be a question that may regard the truth conditions of aesthetic claims.
Regardless, let's suppose it was a fact that Narcissus was exceedingly physically beautiful. Then, no, he would not be wrong in assessing himself as such. Recognition of that fact, per se, was not Narcissus' problem. The problem was his inner consortium of affective a ...[text shortened]... and the like is bizarro as well, but that is the subject of another current thread as you know.)
According to most tells of the tale, he was so enamored of his own beauty, he couldn't do anything else but gaze upon it, died. His Achilles heel (ha!) was his own beauty coupled with his love of beautiful things, sans any grounding in, or balance from, truth.
if you don't eat, you die
(Kinda reminds of that Seinfeld episode
http://seinfeld.wikia.com/wiki/The_Checks
wherein Elaine's current squeeze is so mesmerized by a song, he stops all action whenever he hears it.)
As you stated, when the fixation is so great that all else is sacrificed, love of beauty becomes a bad. Assuming the characteristics of God, however--- and most especially that aspect which has Him creating, saving, etc.--- we don't see a navel-gazing self-destructing being; we see the God who not only rightly loves Himself, but gives of His beauty freely.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]The problem was his inner consortium of affective attitudes toward the object of that fact, his fixation with his own image to the exclusion of all else.
According to most tells of the tale, he was so enamored of his own beauty, he couldn't do anything else but gaze upon it, died. His Achilles heel (ha!) was his own beauty coupled with his ...[text shortened]... ucting being; we see the God who not only rightly loves Himself, but gives of His beauty freely.[/b]
Assuming the characteristics of God, however--- and most especially that aspect which has Him creating, saving, etc.--- we don't see a navel-gazing self-destructing being; we see the God who not only rightly loves Himself, but gives of His beauty freely.
I'm not particularly convinced. If sonship's description in the OP is correct, then God only cares to see Jesus; but Jesus is God; so God only cares to see Himelf. Sounds a lot like one who cannot break away from his own reflection in a pool of water....
06 Dec 13
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIt would help if you gave an example of some of the higher-order lifeforms that don't fornicate for pleasure. That way I can do a bit of research on where the divide begins.
"Classes" was an unfortunate term, sloppy at best.
'Types within the classes' would have been much better.
To my knowledge, it's problematic describing pleasure-driven behavior for any animal unable to articulate the same, but one view has man, dolphins and a few types of primates as showing clear evidence of pleasure-driven sexual activity.
[b]My gue ...[text shortened]... r sexual activity, whereas the overwhelming majority just does it like they're punching a clock.
06 Dec 13
Originally posted by LemonJelloThat may be a bit of an oversimplification.Assuming the characteristics of God, however--- and most especially that aspect which has Him creating, saving, etc.--- we don't see a navel-gazing self-destructing being; we see the God who not only rightly loves Himself, but gives of His beauty freely.
I'm not particularly convinced. If sonship's description in the OP is correct, then ...[text shortened]... elf. Sounds a lot like one who cannot break away from his own reflection in a pool of water....
This might not make a lot of sense to you, but the best-most-accurate way to describe love is to describe it by classifying it according to either personal love or impersonal love.
Personal love is what is employed when we 'fall in love,' and is wholly dependent upon the object. In "I love you," it is the 'you' part, and only exists as long as the 'you' is pleasing, is acceptable.
Impersonal love is the 'I' portion of "I love you."
It is what is employed when the other is implacable, unapproachable, or in any other shape or form, unlovable.
It is a professional approach to handling others which is not dependent upon the other's actions or attitudes, but is instead dependent upon the subject's integrity.
When God saves a person from certain eternal death, He is merely imparting to the believer the work done on the Cross by the Lord Jesus Christ. Instead of the person standing there based upon their own merit, they stand before God with absolute, perfect righteousness as a result of what was done on that Cross.
God has no choice but to reward absolute righteousness to that person, as they have been clothed in royal robes.