Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I believe that the choice is always ours because we all have free will to choose.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Greater purposes
- Thread starter ppp
- Start date
-
- Tags
- greater good happiness life purpose
No, we've consistently been talking past each other this entire conversation. It happens, and while I've been trying to resolve that miscommunication, you don't seem interested in understanding and would rather attack and argue.
It shouldn't be controversial or hard to understand that the personal happiness of multiple individuals is a greater purpose (mathematically, if nothing else) than that of a single individual. If you want to present a valid counterargument, mention the existence of sociopaths. From their perspective, nobody matters but them and their own needs and no purpose would be greater than their own personal happiness. They don't care about the personal happiness of others and lack the empathy to care about hurting others too. Fortunately, sociopathy is a rare mental health condition and most of us humans abide by what I pointed out - that individual happiness isn't the center of the universe and that the collective needs of others is greater than ourselves.
ppp
Well-Known Member
Really? You see yourself as some sort of benevolent and misunderstood communicator? Interesting. So, you must understand my position well enough to steel man it. That is to say, to present it in a way that I would agree that what you are saying accurately and fairly depicts my position. Please do so.
I decline. My response was never about you, and never about your position. That you think it was is probably why we're consistently talking past each other.
Whenever an author conveys ideas in words, differing interpretations of those words are nearly inevitable. It's part of their beauty, I think - people respond to ideas in diverse ways that can offer insight into the human condition. One person interprets one way, others interpret a different way. All of that's useful in exploring the topic at hand. I'm not expressing your interpretation, I'm expressing mine - one interpretation among many. I thought that's what you wanted to do in this thread? Explore different ideas about the purpose of life? I presented one - that the happiness of all is a greater purpose than the happiness of an individual. It's not really that complicated.
ppp
Well-Known Member
Then this was so much offal:
Communication requires an awareness of one's interlocutor. Anyone who is not mindful of the other human in the conversation is not attempting to communicate (or resolve miscommunication). They are simply monologuing.
No. Thank you.
No, it wasn't - the second paragraph provides important context about what I meant by my response not being about you. Are you going to respond to any of that? Because that's the important part of that post.
ppp
Well-Known Member
When you claim that you are trying to bridge communication to the other party of your conversation, then declare them irrelevant to the conversation, all you are looking for is an attentive, silent audience for your homily. Yes, offal.
@Joe W I'm done indulging personal snipes. It's pointless and doesn't get at the substance of anything that's been said. So again:
The second paragraph provides important context about what I meant by my response not being about you. Are you going to respond to any of that? Because that's the important part of that post.
The second paragraph provides important context about what I meant by my response not being about you. Are you going to respond to any of that? Because that's the important part of that post.
Whenever an author conveys ideas in words, differing interpretations of those words are nearly inevitable. It's part of their beauty, I think - people respond to ideas in diverse ways that can offer insight into the human condition. One person interprets one way, others interpret a different way. All of that's useful in exploring the topic at hand. I'm not expressing your interpretation, I'm expressing mine - one interpretation among many. I thought that's what you wanted to do in this thread? Explore different ideas about the purpose of life? I presented one - that the happiness of all is a greater purpose than the happiness of an individual. It's not really that complicated.
ppp
Well-Known Member
If you dismiss what I say as merely a "personal snipe" then yeah; further conversation is pointless.
It depends on what you say, really. If you instead focus on this part which actually relates to the topic of the thread:
Whenever an author conveys ideas in words, differing interpretations of those words are nearly inevitable. It's part of their beauty, I think - people respond to ideas in diverse ways that can offer insight into the human condition. One person interprets one way, others interpret a different way. All of that's useful in exploring the topic at hand. I'm not expressing your interpretation, I'm expressing mine - one interpretation among many. I thought that's what you wanted to do in this thread? Explore different ideas about the purpose of life? I presented one - that the happiness of all is a greater purpose than the happiness of an individual. It's not really that complicated.
... then something productive might come out of it. It's up to you.
ppp
Well-Known Member
You said that my position doesn't matter. So, obviously it doesn't depend on what I say. For you, my only function is to be your audience and listen raptly to your wisdom. If I don't mind my place, then I am merely "personally sniping".
No. What I said was this:
Whenever an author conveys ideas in words, differing interpretations of those words are nearly inevitable. It's part of their beauty, I think - people respond to ideas in diverse ways that can offer insight into the human condition. One person interprets one way, others interpret a different way. All of that's useful in exploring the topic at hand. I'm not expressing your interpretation, I'm expressing mine - one interpretation among many. I thought that's what you wanted to do in this thread? Explore different ideas about the purpose of life? I presented one - that the happiness of all is a greater purpose than the happiness of an individual. It's not really that complicated.
This is not saying your position doesn't matter - it's remarking that people express themselves from their own perspectives, which are very diverse and all of which offer valuable insights into the human condition. Yours, mine... everyone's. You're having trouble understanding mine, and that's really all I'm trying to resolve. As part of that you're welcome to clarify yours, just try not to mistake your perspective for mine or assume I (or anyone else in this thread) am viewing things the same way you are.
Again, this circles back to the question above - what did you want this thread to be about? Do you want folks to express different ideas from yours and explore the topic or not? I mean, you framed it as a question, so I assumed you were open to hearing many different kinds of answers and interpretations. Was this wrong? Is the perspective that the happiness of all is greater than the happiness of the individual simply not welcome here? Do you strongly feel that the individual is the center of the universe and all relevant meaning? If so, why? If not, what did you intend to convey?
