Home › bluebison70 › Posts

Posts by bluebison70

52 posts shown.

Reconciliation in Philosophy · Jan 8, 2009

steelridge58:
On the flip side, I suppose you can forgive someone without actually making peace with them.

I've come to terms with it, I guess. That restless feeling... the hatred, the urge for revenge, all those heavy, negative emotions... they aren't there anymore. I don't think I could ever find any sense of peace or reconciliation if I hadn't let go first. Inner peace just seems impossible without forgiveness. It’s the forgiveness that brings the peace. I forgave him, and now I feel at peace.

Reconciliation in Philosophy · Dec 18, 2008

Gregory Nelson said:Regarding how one should handle those who have wronged them, I find myself returning to the old adage: forgive, but never forget. Personally, I find that particular brand of vengeance—the kind that lingers—to be the most lethal and insidious sort. It’s a trap that ends up shackling not just the offender, but the victim as well. In my estimation, it is far better to simply settle the score and move on than to succumb to such a hollow, binding cycle of resentment.

I suppose we shouldn't really conflate cognitive processes, like memory, with ethical ones—you know, things like reconciliation and forgiveness. To me, trying to reconcile without forgiving doesn't quite work. And I guess forgiving without reconciling doesn't really feel right either. True peace... well, it probably requires both. You can't really have one without the other, I think.

Reconciliation in Philosophy · Dec 17, 2008

Mark Torres14 said:And there you go, leaning on that whole "merciful, humanitarian" persona and those Christian values of yours... I guess.

I guess I’m not really trying to lean on... I guess... I don't really know how to put this, but maybe just my own thing? Just something of my own, I suppose....character. My character isn't exactly... I guess you could say it’s just not built that way. Maybe I'm just being too hard on myself, though. It's hard to pin down, really. I guess I should probably start by saying... well, maybe there isn't much to say yet. Just sitting here, thinking about things, I suppose. It feels like everything is moving so fast lately, doesn't it? I might be overthinking it, though. That's just how I am, I guess. Anyway... what was I getting at? Maybe nothing specific. Just a thought floating around....but mine. And I'm pretty sure it isn't. It feels... I don't know, just incredibly cruel. Honestly, it strikes me as downright misanthropic. I guess... I just feel like I should have the right to be a Christian, you know? To actually live out those values without everyone constantly breathing down my neck or judging me for it. It feels like it should be simple, maybe, but sometimes it doesn't feel that way at all.

analogsurfer15:

If you were actually real friends, I guess... I don't know... you probably wouldn't even be bringing this up on a forum like this.

I think a friend of mine is actually on this forum.

analogsurfer15: I guess I should start by saying... well, I'm not entirely sure where to begin with this. It feels like we're circling the same drain, doesn't it? Maybe that's just me being overly cautious, but I can't help but feel like we've been here before. Regarding what steelridge58 was saying earlier... I mean, I see the point, I really do. But there's this other side to it, isn't there? A sort of shadow element that we tend to ignore when things get heated. It’s like when you’re driving through a quiet suburb in Ohio and suddenly realize how much is actually happening behind those closed doors. You don't see it, but it's there. Constant. I was reading some older texts—not that I'm an expert or anything, I just stumble upon things—and it reminded me of how much we rely on these established patterns. We crave them, I think. Even when they're flawed. It’s almost human, in a way. Or maybe it's just a flaw in our logic. I'm probably overthinking this. It's hard not to. Anyway, I suppose what I'm trying to get at is that we need to be more careful about how we interpret these shifts. If we just jump to conclusions, we might miss the nuance. And the nuance is usually where the truth hides, if it's even there to begin with. Just a thought. A very small, perhaps insignificant thought.

I mean, I don't know... maybe it isn't even about some kind of simple forgiveness. It feels like it might be something else entirely, I guess. Or perhaps it's just not that straightforward.
So, he's actually the boss at the company where you work... I guess that changes things quite a bit, doesn't it? It’s a little more complicated when there's that kind of hierarchy involved. Maybe.
Maybe his connections, or certain people he knows, or even just the circle he hangs out in... I guess that kind of thing could actually end up being pretty useful to you. It’s hard to say for sure, but who knows? Sometimes it's those little things.
I guess... I don't know. It’s a bit of an awkward thing to even say out loud, isn't it? But, if I'm being completely honest... yeah. There's something about his wife that just... well, she's quite striking. I suppose you could say I find her appealing. Maybe it's just the way she carries herself, or something else entirely. I can't quite put my finger on it. It’s a strange feeling, though. I shouldn't really be thinking about it, I suppose.
I guess... maybe it’s just how I’m wired, but there's this part of my ego that actually kind of enjoys it—you know? When people around you see you being able to forgive someone. It feels like a statement. But if I'm being honest with myself, I think I don't even really see the person I'm forgiving as a human being anymore. Not really. It's more like they just become this sort of living proof... a way to demonstrate my own capacity for grace. It sounds a bit cold when I say it out loud, I suppose.

I mean, I guess you could say this whole thing is just a textbook case of projection. Maybe. It feels that way to me, anyway.

analogsurfer15:

I see you haven't forgotten what they did to you.

I haven't forgotten, and I don't think he has either. Honestly, though, I don't see how that really serves as an argument for anything. It’s all in the past now. We just have to move forward—that's just how life works, I guess.

analogsurfer15:

It kind of reminded me of that one Nietzsche quote, I guess.

I mean, I guess... Nietzsche probably wouldn't have gone for that kind of statement in this particular context. Maybe. He might have seen it differently.

I'm not really looking for a chat here. I don't care for that overly personal tone you're using with me. If we could just stick to the facts—keep it strictly business, if you will—that would be fine. But as for any personal attacks? Yeah, I’m just not interested in that.

Reconciliation in Philosophy · Dec 16, 2008

Mark Torres14 said:Sorry, but given my line of work, I'm a bit of an "unbelieving Thomas." What you just said sounds like nothing more than empty slogans.
Can you actually get specific? How exactly did this friend screw you over, and what kind of fallout did you have to deal with because of it?
Your post is loaded with clichés. It makes me want to keep my guard up. I usually steer clear of people who pepper their everyday speech with maxims. I hope I'm wrong about you.

If anything in my writing comes across as a cliché or a maxim, I suppose that’s more about the reader's perception than my intent. I just try to stay true to myself: thinking, speaking, and acting in a way that’s consistent.

My own experience isn't really the point here. It was just meant to be an illustration of the topic we're discussing.

Reconciliation in Philosophy · Dec 16, 2008

I suppose I should mention... servantes. It’s one of those things that stays on my mind more than it probably should, I guess. Just a thought drifting through. kaže:
I’m honestly at a loss for words here. I know a ton of people, and you’re really the first person I’ve ever heard of who got burned by a friend over a loan—and then, somehow, you guys are still buddies like nothing even happened once the debt was cleared. It’s just... unusual. I mean, either you’re some kind of saint, which seems unlikely, or maybe, I don't know, there's more to the story than what you're letting on. I suspect this might not be entirely about forgiveness after all.

I wouldn't call myself a saint; I’m certainly nowhere near that level. I guess... well, maybe I have my flaws. I'm definitely far from being perfect.

It’s not just an opinion, really... it's more like a fundamental truth. We aren't all cut from the same cloth, and I suppose it’s a mistake to judge everyone else based on how we act ourselves. Some people, well, they just seem to thrive on bitterness. They find someone to resent every single day, it seems. For me, though... my whole philosophy is just to lead with love. I mean, what does money actually matter when you weigh it against a real human connection or a true friend? It doesn't, I guess. And besides, none of us are exactly perfect, are we?

Reconciliation in Philosophy · Dec 15, 2008

Mark Torres14 said:Anyway, just tell me, are you guys still friends as if nothing ever happened?

Of course we are. We’re still friends, and I don't really see why that would be any strange at all. People make mistakes, I suppose, and people forgive... they have to. Maybe the true measure of a person lies in their ability to reconcile and offer forgiveness, rather than holding onto hate or seeking revenge. Because, well, that kind of thing just breeds more resentment and more retaliation, and it just goes on like that for the rest of your life.

Peace, forgiveness, and love—those are basically the three core pillars of Christian ethics.

Reconciliation in Philosophy · Dec 14, 2008

Hemingway wrote:

I went through a situation that was pretty much identical, I guess. I managed to pull through the debt and the whole financial mess, but my friend... well, he wasn't so lucky. He was injured in the accident so badly that he’s been stuck in a wheelchair ever since. If he ever needs someone to co-sign a loan just to get some new equipment or better mobility aids, I’d gladly do it. Maybe it's the least I can do.

Reconciliation in Philosophy · Dec 11, 2008

[QUOTE=Mark Torres14;17556957]

If you know exactly who the perpetrator is, there’s just no such thing as forgiveness.

Well, I guess forgiveness is always an option. It really just comes down to timing, I suppose, and who is doing the forgiving—their character, their morals, their culture... especially when religion is involved.

The moment a victim gains the power or the opportunity to get back at the offender, they’re going to take it. That's just human nature.

Maybe that's true, in a primal way, but I don't think it's what we'd call civilized. We consider ourselves to be a civilized society, right? Or at least, we try to be.

Forgiveness is nothing more than social conformity. It's mostly preached by people who haven't actually had anything done to them.

I'm not sure why that would be considered conformity. If you follow that logic, then everything is just conformity, isn't it? And besides... is there really a single soul alive who hasn't been wronged at some point?

It’s hard enough to forgive an entire nation—though I suppose only a fool generalizes like that—let alone an individual when you know for a fact they committed a crime.

Actually, I think it might be easier to forgive a nation, because a whole country isn't responsible just because certain people within it acted wickedly. A nation is such an abstract concept, I guess. But an individual? An individual is very real. They're the specific person standing right here who took everything from me.

Forgiveness isn't a matter of logic; it's a matter of emotion. And you can't fake how you feel.

Looking at reason separately from emotions, or willpower... well, it all feels a bit theoretical to me. In practice, it all happens at once. I can't exactly flip a switch to turn off my brain and then flip another one to suddenly feel something else. It's all tangled together, I think.

[/QUOTE[/QUOTE]

Reconciliation in Philosophy · Dec 10, 2008

Reconciliation... well, it takes two people, I suppose. You can't really have it without some kind of acknowledgment of what happened—an admission of the crime, an apology, at least. Otherwise, maybe it's just not real.

Patriotism and Socialism in Philosophy · Dec 10, 2008

rodinik;17115585 said:I'm not sure how to categorize this... I mean, it doesn't feel strictly political because there's so much philosophy baked into it 🤷.QUOTE]

Patriotism... it's really just a sentiment, I guess. A complex feeling tied to one's homeland, nation, or roots. But honestly, patriotism—or whatever you want to call it—is often this vague, hazy emotion used to mask a whole lot of self-deception, lies, manipulation, and pure political pragmatism.

Take an American soldier serving in Iraq, for instance. They go over there because of "patriotism." It's almost funny, if you think about it. They’ve been fed all sorts of rhetoric, and now they're risking everything for some abstract idea of home. For a homeland located in Iraq?

"We have America!" people used to shout in those feverish moments. Sure, maybe some really do have it. But what about everyone else? Do they actually have America? (I mean, look at the retirees living in subpar housing, or the unemployed struggling through poverty, hopelessness, and total resignation).
Patriotism? It's just a fairy tale for the naive, I suppose.

socialism doesn't actually result in equality, neither in theory nor in practice. Fighting for equality is basically fighting for an illusion. Equality isn't even an idealism to me; it feels more like idiocy. I mean, in what way are we actually equal? In our knowledge, our intelligence, our looks, our social standing, our wealth, our capacity to love, or our talents? How could you ever equalize those things? Maybe, but only by destroying anyone who stands out from the crowd, until eventually, you're left with nothing but mediocrity. We are only equal in very abstract terms: if you strip away every single difference, then I guess you could say we're all equal simply because we're all human. An emperor and a pauper are both humans. That's where any real sense of equality ends.

Reconciliation in Philosophy · Dec 9, 2008

Anthony Watson24 said:Inspired by the theme of reconciliation following a genocide, I want to hear what you philosophers here think about this topic.
I’ve read that "reconciliation" is a philosophical concept falling under practical philosophy (specifically regarding reconciliation and forgiveness). I haven't been able to find much on it from a purely philosophical perspective in the library—if anyone has a good book recommendation, please let me know.

Now, consider the dilemma of reconciliation. Take the case of Rwanda: a man loses his wife and three children in a genocide, and now his former killer lives right next door. The system expects him to forgive his enemy and reach out for reconciliation. This also implies that in Rwanda, the killer won't face traditional local justice.Instead, he will be forgiven because forgiveness is considered fundamental to reconciliation in Rwanda and serves to prevent future genocides. Of course, the killer must admit to his crimes and can then be pardoned.

Under this principle, true justice isn't served since the killer isn't punished. So, does this mean that forgiveness and justice are mutually exclusive? Is it actually possible for justice and reconciliation to coexist, or does justice inherently preclude reconciliation?

It’s... I guess it's tough. It feels almost impossible to discuss these things purely on a theoretical level without looking at the specific context. I mean, how should we even define these terms—reconciliation versus forgiveness—and then try to weigh them against justice? Maybe someone could find a way to reconcile, but still find it impossible to forgive.

At its core, fundamental Christian values revolve around peace, forgiveness, and love. A Christian, ideally, would strive to embrace both peace and forgiveness, perhaps even attempting to maintain some kind of active love toward a killer. That sounds incredibly difficult, maybe even impossible for most, but I suppose it isn't strictly impossible.

But really, what do we actually know about the moral, legal, or religious consciousness of the people in Rwanda?
What if their societal foundation is built on *lex talionis*—the principle of "an eye for an eye"?
In that kind of environment, reconciliation and forgiveness might only ever happen after the scales have been balanced—after a life for a life (like when someone kills a neighbor's wife and children).

Society has a duty to punish the murderer. But the real question is whether that punishment—or any other penalty—can actually bring back a person's wife or children. I mean, why should anyone feel better just because a killer is sentenced to death (assuming the death penalty is even considered a valid form of justice)? Can the death of a killer truly serve as restitution? As some kind of moral satisfaction? Having to look at the person who killed your family every single day... that's constant trauma. I wonder, how much trauma can one person actually endure?

It's hard to believe that justice alone can be enough to satisfy someone, or that it can somehow heal a person's trauma. Then again, I guess humans are capable of enduring just about anything.

Beginning or the end... in Philosophy · Dec 9, 2008

coastalskipper92 said:end of question😁

= start of response

Beginning or the end... in Philosophy · Nov 25, 2008

Unknown User wrote:

A line can't be curved.

Just look at any letter, I guess... like an 's', or a 'c', or maybe a 'b', or an 'e', or an 'o', or a 'p', or even a 'q'... Is a sine wave just a straight line? Is a Circle just a straight line?

But then what do we do about infinity?
Is infinity actually a NEW BEGINNING?
So, is infinity really just the constant transition of the PATH from START to FINISH?

.

In your intro, you didn't really bring up infinity. Now, I suppose, you've made this sudden leap into the infinite. Well, okay. I guess infinity should technically be something without an end—like, truly endless. But if infinity actually exists, how could it possibly be a "NEW BEGINNING"? If there's no end to it, then there isn't really a beginning either. There wouldn't be any kind of path, or even the concept of a "path," really.

Regardless of any sophistry, logic dictates the egg came first.
You don't need a textbook for that, just logic.

Logic says the egg came first? I wonder... what kind of logic is that, exactly? This whole thing about the egg and the chicken feels more like a side comment on philosophy. I think some clever people probably cooked up that little joke just to belittle philosophy, while quietly claiming their own way of thinking was the absolute truth. And using that sort of "mockery" against philosophy is... well, it's just a way of philosophizing, I suppose. You can't have humanity without philosophy; it's just a matter of deciding what kind of philosophy we're talking about.

Since you're being so insistent, we might as well try some philosophical veterinary medicine: What came before the Bird or the Avian Flu...😁

First off, I'm not really insisting on anything. And second, I guess "philosophical veterinary medicine" doesn't make much sense, does it?

What came before the BEGINNING or the END?😁

This is just a sophism, and I don't think there are real answers to sophisms, as I tried to show with that other example in my first post. What kind of beginning or end are you even talking about here? Are we discussing the origin of existence? Or is this just a rephrased version of that old egg-and-chicken question?

Beginning or the end... in Philosophy · Nov 23, 2008

I suppose I should probably start by saying that I’ve been thinking about this quite a bit lately... maybe a little too much, actually. It’s funny how certain things just stick in your mind, isn't it? Anyway, regarding what crimsonjackal63 was mentioning earlier—which was a pretty interesting point, if I do say so myself—I feel like we might be overlooking the broader context here. I mean, I don't want to sound like I'm overcomplicating things, but there seems to be a nuance there that's easy to miss if you're moving too fast. I guess what I'm trying to get at is that when you look at how these systems operate in America, things aren't always as straightforward as they appear on the surface. It's a bit like trying to navigate the subway system in New York City during rush hour; you think you have a plan, then suddenly everything shifts. Maybe I'm being a bit dramatic, though. Perhaps it's just my way of looking at things. It reminds me of a conversation I had once, years ago, about something entirely different, but the core principle felt similar. Or maybe it didn't. It's hard to say for sure. But I really do believe that if we take a moment to step back, we might see a clearer picture. Just a thought, really. Nothing definitive.

crimsonjackal63 said:If we just go straight from the very beginning all the way to the end, we’ll wind up right back where we started.

But if we try to head straight from the end back to the start—well, we just end up at the end.

So, what actually came first: the chicken or the egg? Or more accurately—the Beginning or the End?

I guess... if you really think about it, nothing in this world is actually straight. It’s all just curves and jagged edges. I mean, "straightness" feels like one of those abstract concepts we just made up to make sense of things—it isn't anything concrete at all. Everything is inherently crooked.

In a broader sense... well, looking beyond just the math or geometry of things... I suppose there's this idea that a beginning inherently carries its own conclusion within it. It’s almost like the end isn't really an ending at all, but just some kind of new starting point. Everything that ever comes into existence eventually has to fade away. I guess you could say that if something has a beginning, it's bound to have an end too. It seems inevitable, really.

The whole chicken and egg debate is really just pure sophistry, I suppose. There isn't some definitive, final answer to those kinds of logical loops. It’s like... if I were to say, "I am lying," am I actually telling the truth or am I lying? If I'm lying, then I'm actually being truthful; but if I'm telling the truth, then I'm lying. It's all very circular. You probably would have covered something like that back in a high school logic textbook, maybe.

I feel like you’re being a little inconsistent here. You started out talking about geometry—you know, perpendicular lines and all that—and then moved into physics regarding motion, but somehow we ended up drifting into biology with the whole chicken and egg thing, and then logic with sophistry. It was all a bit scattered, I suppose. And since we’re already on the subject of poultry, maybe you could have just asked something about avian flu or veterinary science instead? I guess you really need to decide what you actually want to discuss.

Dealing with homosexuality in the family: How to handle it? in Psychology · Oct 4, 2008

I guess there's a certain advantage to being bisexual: you basically get to experience everything the world has to offer, and honestly, things never really get stale.

Is it better to be born knowing or to learn? in Philosophy · Sep 26, 2008

Socrates taught us that recognizing how little we actually know is where true wisdom begins.

Language and Culture: Asset or Liability? in Philosophy · Sep 26, 2008

There’s a distinction to be made, I suppose... one thing is truly acting—you know, engaging directly with people or even just with oneself—and then there's this whole other thing, the manual processing and preparation of supplies or tools. You can only really act upon a human being. Shaping a piece of granite, well, that isn't really "acting" in that sense.

Language and Culture: Asset or Liability? in Philosophy · Sep 26, 2008

I sometimes wonder... is it even possible to have culture without language, or language without culture? I mean, we usually just think about spoken or written words, but language takes so many different shapes. It’s how musicians communicate their soul, how painters and sculptors express themselves, how scientists convey data... it’s even in our everyday little gestures. Can you really strip away every single form of language from a culture and still call it a culture? I don't think so. I guess it just wouldn't be there anymore.

HELP!!! I'm spiraling. in Psychology · May 7, 2008

I honestly feel like sex is the ultimate remedy: the more you have it, the more satisfied you feel, which probably helps with nerves and keeps you from stress-eating just to cope.

Men vs. Women: Is there actually a difference in capability? in Psychology · May 7, 2008

Christian Wells6 said:It is quite frankly laughable to suggest that I belong to the "weaker sex." In all seriousness, I am undeniably the stronger one here!

Especially when you have more people on your side... though I suppose it's even more true when you're holding the high ground...