Audie
Veteran Member
Yep.
After God invented the jellyfish, ammonite, blatherskyte
the possum and the bedbug and had plenty practice
creating brainless things, he invented socialists.
Why???
Same reason he created bedbugs.
-
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!
Is knowledge good or bad thing ?
- Thread starter chinu
- Start date
After God invented the jellyfish, ammonite, blatherskyte
the possum and the bedbug and had plenty practice
creating brainless things, he invented socialists.
Why???
Same reason he created bedbugs.
And conservatives were modelled on jellyfish
No. Your question was about whether knowledge is a good or bad thing. That which makes a person lead a more meaningful life is always a good thing.I agree that having knowledge is better than not having. But, my question is NOT about what is better and less-better. Question is about happy and unhappy.
chinu
chinu
There are numerous remedies in today's world -- if this is the part of our knowledge then,
Still there are many other remedies that we humans haven't discovered yet -- this is also the part of our knowledge.
Its NOT the knowledge that makes us happy. Its just the remedy that makes us happy.
For example; the general consumer of a remedy takes the same benefit from that remedy which is taken by a doctor/scientist who brought that remedy into the KNOWLEDGE of we humanbeings after a life long research.
chinu
chinu
If we go to any mental-hospital and try to suggest any patient there to lead a meaningful life. What would be his/her answer ?
Just think..
In reality, they already assume in themselves that they are leading meaningful life. And they are happy.
AppieB
Active Member
Can you honestly respond to the examples and questions that are being given? This is your thread. Everytime someone comes up with examples and objections you either avoid answer them or give an obscure counter example as if that would be a rebuttal agains the point they were making. Try to present and argument and show good reasoning.
Knowledge leads to remedy, which leads to happiness.
knowledge > remedy > happiness
So knowledge leads to happiness (knowledge > happiness)
Thank you for proving everybody's point.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
I agree that having knowledge is better than not having. But, my question is NOT about what is better and less-better. Question is about happy and unhappy.
Yeah, but then you have to explain what happy is and if it can vary in some sense for humans or if happy is universal, absolute and objective.
Knwoledge as to know with self-reflection how you individually are happy might not be the exactly the same for other humans.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Can you rephrase that for the bold one?
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, yes. But the knowledge of happiness is not always universal for all humans in all cases and not always the same for what happiness is.
AppieB
Active Member
I didn't say "knowledge of happiness"
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Then you have to explain the actual cause and effect for knowledge > remedy > happiness. I might learn something.
AppieB
Active Member
I doubt it.Then you have to explain the actual cause and effect for knowledge > remedy > happiness. I might learn something.
You are veering off the subject. You asked whether knowledge is good or bad, and then proposed an example that tried to demonstrate that in that specific case knowing would be bad. I refuted your argument by showing that No, in your example too it would be good for the person to know than to not know, because he could reset his priorities to live more meaningfully given the limited time he has if he were told. Nowhere in your example was there any proposition that the person was mentally ill.
Do you accept the refutation? Are now stating some other new example to support your argument with the psychiatric hospital case? A severely mentally ill person will have highly impaired ability to process any sort of information and convert it to knowledge. So he is incapable of knowing in the first place. So how is such a case relevant to your argument?
I don't know is this best example, but first that came to my mind is, you can know that blocking air flow to lungs can lead to death. Now, you can use that knowledge to choke someone, or to save someones life by removing something that blocks air to move.
Soandso
ᛋᛏᚨᚾᛞ ᛋᚢᚱᛖ
The problem, though, is that this applies to all things in life. For instance, I never knew the value of credit until later on when a friend informed me since no one ever taught that to me growing up - I had to educate myself and learn the best ways to earn credit. Had I the knowledge sooner, I would be in better standing now than what I currently find myself in
As for happiness, ignorance is bliss for sure. That said, ignorance can lead to a more complacent life. Imagine if I had not learned the value of credit at all, and to this day didn't have any or very little/bad credit. Sure would be difficult to rent a place without help or buy any large purchases which would cost me 18% or more in interest
While I wouldn't be thinking about that necessarily, and would be happy enough with what I had, I might feel unsatisfied with my limitations in life and just assume that it was normal that I had to go to payday loan places just to make ends meet
So ─ if you know X is going to have an untimely death, should you be honest with X and say, "You're going to die before your time"?
I'd say that depends on
(a) your relationship to X ─ you may know X, or you may simply know of X, and in the latter case I'd say you'd need a good reason before you butted in ─ of course if you know of X because you're doing medical surveys or the like, that would be a clear example of a good reason ─ and
(b) your judgment of X's ability to handle the news, with the starting presumption that the answer is yes, X can handle the news.
syo
Well-Known Member
People with deadly disease shouldn't spent their time working and paying money. They should enjoy.