Is morality objective or subjective?

[FlashDangerpants]

What on Earth is an inner receiver?

I don't know what it is, but it's very profound, I'm told.

Is it some kind of programmable inner self, in addition to the outer self? So Walker is two people and IC is also two people?

It's the special inner-self they unlock and then lock up again at pray-away-the-gay camps. Walker thinks that guy can be told to pretend you don't have depression either.

[Iwannaplato]

Sure, some do...and especially if this life is all there is, and so they are not able to imagine any value beyond the immediate.

You haven't noticed theists get angry at God? We seem to live on different planets.

And now, the Wokies do the same: they strive to convince everybody that they're "oppressed," and that the horizon of their hopes is set at death, so they have to fight furiously for a "justice" that, by their own worldview, they can't even believe is possible.

You haven't noticed how victimized and enraged many of the people who dislike wokism are also? There's tremendous rage on that side also. Are you critical of their rage also?

As for Gary's right to be "raging," as you term it,

I did call it raging. I didn't write about his right to rage. I was interested in your sense that it wasn't justified to be angry at God, since that was your verb or one of its related word forms.

I wonder what value you think it would have for him? Even if Gary was a victim of a horrible childhood, followed by a crippling disease, say...what good does raging do for Gary? He shakes his fist at God, and then he dies...and has nothing. Or else, if I'm right, he finds out he was wrong all along, and that he spent all that God had given him on the useless project of raging against a God he didn't even believe in.

I'm not going on the tangent (yet) of my beliefs about the good of rage. I brought up that we might not know what the roots of his bitterness are and yet you felt able to judge whether his anger was justified. You offered criteria that led to your judgment, so it seemed like while he didn't pass others who were, black, say...and so on through the list, might be justified. Otherwise why mention specific criteria, if, in the end, they don't matter?

Is there a reason you didn't answer any of the questions I asked?

I felt I had. I rather liked my tack on it.

You certainly responded. But I can't see an answer to...

You've decided that Gary has no justification for anger at God. Are there other people who do?

I don't see an answer to that questions.

Who are they?

Nor this one.

What are the criteria?

Nor this one, though it seems from your judgment of Gary's not having justification that if he had other traits he might be justified. But I didn't want to assume. And I don't think it's been answered.

Do children who are sex trafficked, for example?

And I don't see an answer to this question.

But if you have every freedom to pose a question, then have I not the right to answer it in the way I find most apt?

Have I said you don't have the freedom to answer in your own way? If you don't want to answer the questions I asked, you are obviously free to not answer them and express ideas on related topics as you have so far. You could even ignore me. The freedom we have to express and not express is very broad here. Since you are now asking me questions, should I take this to mean you think I am not free to say you didn't answer my questions and to ask why? Of course not.

[Harbal]

And in return I will do my best to never earn your gratitude.

Well, at least you do entertain me.

[Immanuel Can]

You haven't noticed how victimized and enraged many of the people who dislike wokism are also? There's tremendous rage on that side also. Are you critical of their rage also?

I don't see any rage from them, actually. Nobody's shooting up Woke schools, or suing Woke businesses, or suppressing Wokism in any public forum, even. So you're going to have to show me that's true.

I wonder what value you think it would have for him? Even if Gary was a victim of a horrible childhood, followed by a crippling disease, say...what good does raging do for Gary? He shakes his fist at God, and then he dies...and has nothing. Or else, if I'm right, he finds out he was wrong all along, and that he spent all that God had given him on the useless project of raging against a God he didn't even believe in.

I'm not going on the tangent (yet) of my beliefs about the good of rage.

I think you should. That's an interesting idea.

I can't see an answer to...
You've decided that Gary has no justification for anger at God. Are there other people who do?

I don't think so. I don't know what good rage does anybody. It often goes along with the adjective "impotent." But even when the rager has power to do something about his rage, the results are rarely enriching for him.

Do children who are sex trafficked, for example? I don't see an answer to this question.

I'm very sympathetic to their plight, as are many Christians. Did you see the movie "The Sound of Freedom"? You should. Child trafficking is horrendous stuff. And somebody who had experienced it would have every right to be angry with the perps, and to call upon God to perform justice upon them...which He most certainly will. Fair enough.

But I don't know that "rage" is going to do them any good. I would think a focused emotion would be much more serviceable, in such a situation. Maybe a desire to see justice done? Maybe a drive to deliver others who were being similarly exploited? Maybe a resolve to establish their own normal, healthy family, and protect their own children? Maybe courage to overcome an awful trauma like that, and to establish a loving relationship with a healthy person? Maybe a fierce determination to parlay their own trauma into helpful public awareness that would result in legal reform and better prevention? Hooray for all that!

All those would be positive, useful emotions, a great way of channeling a traumatic, awful experience into making the world and themselves better...just like I'm encouraging Gary to do.

But rage? I can't see what it gets them.

[Iwannaplato]

I can't see an answer to...
You've decided that Gary has no justification for anger at God. Are there other people who do?

I don't think so. I don't know what good rage does anybody. It often goes along with the adjective "impotent." But even when the rager has power to do something about his rage, the results are rarely enriching for him.

Great, thank you for answering. So, my take is that it's misleading to tell Gary or at least seem to, that the reason his anger isn't justified is because of the categories you seem him in. I would guess you can see how this would make it seems like others in different categories would or could be justified. It seems fair to say you think that no one really has justification for anger at God.

Do children who are sex trafficked, for example? I don't see an answer to this question.

I'm very sympathetic to their plight, as are many Christians. Did you see the movie "The Sound of Freedom"? You should. Child trafficking is horrendous stuff. And somebody who had experienced it would have every right to be angry with the perps, and to call upon God to perform justice upon them...which He most certainly will. Fair enough.

I believe you have sympathy for them, great. It sounds like you would not consider their anger at God, should they feel that, to be justified.

But I don't know that "rage" is going to do them any good. I would think a focused emotion would be much more serviceable, in such a situation. Maybe a desire to see justice done?

I think these are probably not the best ideas to aim at people who have been sex trafficked. When violated we often experience rage. Of course habits of all kinds - denying anger included - can be a problem.

Maybe a drive to deliver others who were being similarly exploited? Maybe a resolve to establish their own normal, healthy family, and protect their own children? Maybe courage to overcome an awful trauma like that, and to establish a loving relationship with a healthy person? Maybe a fierce determination to parlay their own trauma into helpful public awareness that would result in legal reform and better prevention? Hooray for all that!

Of course none of these things are mutually exclusive with anger at perpetrators or even God. We can have a lot of different emotions and moods and attitudes over time and even at the same time. There are also processes we go through, stages in emotion.

All those would be positive, useful emotions, a great way of channeling a traumatic, awful experience into making the world and themselves better...just like I'm encouraging Gary to do.

You did encourage him and he didn't take it well. I'm not sure that your posts after he rejected what you were saying were particularly compassionate.

But rage? I can't see what it gets them.

Perhaps that's not the way to frame the issue. Perhaps it's more like it's human and understandible and is part of a normal range of emotions in certain situations and can be seen as a part of a progression, hopefully to a life that feels good (again, if it is again).

Though many people who have tended to appease or react with fear to abusive patterns benefit from rage as part of their range of emotions. Or to put that a different way it can be quite healthy to stop suppressing anger. If you don't feel that's for you, hey, no skin off my nose.

[Immanuel Can]

It sounds like you would not consider their anger at God, should they feel that, to be justified.

Why would it be? God gave them every good thing they have. It was men/women who did them evil.

Of course habits of all kinds - denying anger included - can be a problem.

Well, there's a therapeutic value in even acknowledging a useless feeling like rage, because it enables one to name it, realize it, judge it, and then redirect it to something positive. That's what I'm telling Gary to do: to stop raging and get busy making something of himself. It's his only positive move, no matter what justification he feels he has.

All those would be positive, useful emotions, a great way of channeling a traumatic, awful experience into making the world and themselves better...just like I'm encouraging Gary to do.

You did encourage him and he didn't take it well. I'm not sure that your posts after he rejected what you were saying were particularly compassionate.

Well, that totally depends on what you think compassion consists in. If you suppose it means only having some sort of mushy feeling and speaking sympathetically, then sure. But if you think compassion is best expressed as exhorting somebody to seek their own best interests, and advising them to stop wallowing in useless self-pity and get busy doing something more productive of good in their lives, then that's what compassion is.

I prefer the compassion that jumps up and helps, not the kind that merely "feels along with" somebody else. And if that seems to abrupt, then maybe abruptness is what is needed. Gary's seeking the soppy, unhelpful kind of empathy -- pity, really -- and it's doing him absolutely no good at all. Anybody who encourages him to persist like that is surely not genuinely compassionate, no matter how "feely" they may get.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Given your declared position, it may be a wise move to believe in a God where you can pray to and seek help [& hopes] for any problem that humans cannot resolve for you.
This will at least shift the problem from your mind to avoid looping and making any mental problem worse.
Since the Abrahamic Gods are full of baggage, panentheism may be a good option for you.

Me changing my interpretation of the divine is not going to make the world different than it is. The world is what it is. And it's not going to change history either.

Obviously you cannot change the external world, but you can change what you are or will be [internal reality] by changing your beliefs.
What is critical here is 'changing your state [internal reality] for the better' not to change external reality.

It is often stated, "you are what you believe."

• The greatest revolution in our generation is the discovery that human beings, by changing the inner attitudes of their minds, can change the outer aspects of their lives.
  William James

Recent research has shown that you are what you believe.
This way of looking at how we evolve as individuals is quite compelling theoretically.

As a young psychiatrist, I was classically trained in traditional methods of psychotherapy. The often asked “emblematic” therapeutic question to the patient was, “How do you feel about that?” It didn’t occur to me until many years into the process that feelings and emotions were actually different things, related but very different. Emotions are states of being, while feelings are your individual, very personal expressions of these emotions. Still it didn’t occur to me to ask why feelings ran the gamut, from neutral to highly charged, from one person to the next.
.....
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... ou-believe

When you keep brooding about your current state, it will only reinforce the negativities thus compounding and making things worse.

[Atla]

I don't know what it is, but it's very profound, I'm told.

Is it some kind of programmable inner self, in addition to the outer self? So Walker is two people and IC is also two people?

It's the special inner-self they unlock and then lock up again at pray-away-the-gay camps. Walker thinks that guy can be told to pretend you don't have depression either.

And then there's God too I suppose, so that's two others to talk to. At least they're never really alone I guess.

[Dontaskme]

And in return I will do my best to never earn your gratitude.

Well, at least you do entertain me.

Yes Harbal, you are very good at what you do. You certainly are the PRO who put's the FUN in profundity.

[Gary Childress]

It sounds like you would not consider their anger at God, should they feel that, to be justified.

Why would it be? God gave them every good thing they have. It was men/women who did them evil.

Of course habits of all kinds - denying anger included - can be a problem.

Well, there's a therapeutic value in even acknowledging a useless feeling like rage, because it enables one to name it, realize it, judge it, and then redirect it to something positive. That's what I'm telling Gary to do: to stop raging and get busy making something of himself. It's his only positive move, no matter what justification he feels he has.

All those would be positive, useful emotions, a great way of channeling a traumatic, awful experience into making the world and themselves better...just like I'm encouraging Gary to do.

You did encourage him and he didn't take it well. I'm not sure that your posts after he rejected what you were saying were particularly compassionate.

Well, that totally depends on what you think compassion consists in. If you suppose it means only having some sort of mushy feeling and speaking sympathetically, then sure. But if you think compassion is best expressed as exhorting somebody to seek their own best interests, and advising them to stop wallowing in useless self-pity and get busy doing something more productive of good in their lives, then that's what compassion is.

I prefer the compassion that jumps up and helps, not the kind that merely "feels along with" somebody else. And if that seems to abrupt, then maybe abruptness is what is needed. Gary's seeking the soppy, unhelpful kind of empathy -- pity, really -- and it's doing him absolutely no good at all. Anybody who encourages him to persist like that is surely not genuinely compassionate, no matter how "feely" they may get.

We'll just agree to disagree, then. You can't "coach" mental illness out of someone. Not even the great philosopher Tony Robbins can do that. A few months from now, after all the fake positivity, I could very well be back in a psychiatric ward for another stay. I've tried positivity, it doesn't work.

As far as religion goes I'm agnostic overall. I suppose there could be a God, but it's not a particularly good God. Maybe an indifferent one at best. however, when it comes to the Abrahamic religions I'm pretty sure they go off on the wrong foot. If Yhwh is "God", then who wants to live in his world anyway. God should be seeking our forgiveness. I suspect he won't do it. When you're God, you can pretty much do what you want, except get me to worship him.

[Harbal]

Well, at least you do entertain me.

Yes Harbal, you are very good at what you do. You certainly are the PRO who put's the FUN in profundity.

I think people mainly admire me for my philosophy.

[Dontaskme]

Yes Harbal, you are very good at what you do. You certainly are the PRO who put's the FUN in profundity.

I think people mainly admire me for my philosophy.

Indeed, your (our) philosophy is mindblowingly profound.

[Iwannaplato]

Why would it be? God gave them every good thing they have. It was men/women who did them evil.

God, presumably put some children in the wombs where they would be with abusers when born. Yes, the abusers did the abuse in this situation, but presumably God put them in that apartment with the pedophile or violent alcholic, etc. Others are born with horrific diseases. Others have their village destroyed by a flood and they survive paralyzed. Etc.

Of course habits of all kinds - denying anger included - can be a problem.

Well, there's a therapeutic value in even acknowledging a useless feeling like rage, because it enables one to name it, realize it, judge it, and then redirect it to something positive.

It seems to me rage and anger can be quite useful. They mobilize the energy in the body to stop putting up with abuse: interpersonal, societal, whatever. In the moment it may help to get a rapist off your body. In other moments a raised angry voice may be necessary to get someone's attention, that what they are doing is a violation. In my world all the reasoning in the world does not get some people to take things seriously.

And I have been on the receiving end of anger and been grateful. Grateful that they could show me how they felt. Grateful that they didn't just put up with a poor pattern on my part, or just keep calmly informing me when this did not reach me.

But I am not trying to convince you. If you want to not have anger and rage, not express it, regardless of the situation, I have no interest in trying to change you. But when I see the judgment aimed more generally, at us, at humans in general, then I will throw in my two cents.

That's what I'm telling Gary to do: to stop raging and get busy making something of himself. It's his only positive move, no matter what justification he feels he has.

I don't know enough about his situation to make such a judgment.

Well, that totally depends on what you think compassion consists in. If you suppose it means only having some sort of mushy feeling and speaking sympathetically, then sure. But if you think compassion is best expressed as exhorting somebody to seek their own best interests, and advising them to stop wallowing in useless self-pity and get busy doing something more productive of good in their lives, then that's what compassion is.

I can't see the use in telling GC that he isn't justified in feeling those feelings he expresses because he is white and so on. Or telling others that he's attached to his negative attitude IN FRONT of him. I didn't say anything about being mushy. I'm the one who thinks that anger has its place in fact. I don't know him, but if I were his friend or family member perhaps on some occasion I might express anger at the way he treats himself, an anger coming from...you're mistreating someone I care about: you.

I have no idea if that reaction is appropriate in his situation. aGain, I don't know him, just making it clear that I don't confuse compassion with mushy feelings.

I prefer the compassion that jumps up and helps, not the kind that merely "feels along with" somebody else.

Well, again. You tried to help and he did not accept that. But as I said it was the posts after that I consider not compassionate. They were not jumping up and helping.

And if that seems to abrupt, then maybe abruptness is what is needed. Gary's seeking the soppy, unhelpful kind of empathy -- pity, really -- and it's doing him absolutely no good at all.

Is he? You could be right, I haven't read the posts you are reacting to. Perhaps he's just expressing himself. Or perhaps he doesn't know what he needs/wants, but might when it comes.

Anybody who encourages him to persist like that is surely not genuinely compassionate, no matter how "feely" they may get.

I hope you notice the assumption you made when I said those posts weren't compassionate. You assumed I meant you should only say nice things or be feely whatever that is.

[Immanuel Can]

I prefer the compassion that jumps up and helps, not the kind that merely "feels along with" somebody else. And if that seems to abrupt, then maybe abruptness is what is needed. Gary's seeking the soppy, unhelpful kind of empathy -- pity, really -- and it's doing him absolutely no good at all. Anybody who encourages him to persist like that is surely not genuinely compassionate, no matter how "feely" they may get.

You can't "coach" mental illness out of someone.

I didn't say you could. But whatever your affliction, bitterness gets you nowhere, and using what you've got gets you to a better state.

I've tried positivity, it doesn't work.

Right. But how's the negativity working for you?

I'm not talking about Tony Robbins stuff, Gary. That's just as useless as you say. I'm talking about what you're doing right now, and that it's making you as miserable as you're telling us. Try a different strategy. Try being grateful for once, instead of bitter. Try speaking with God instead of spitting at Him. Try taking stock of all you have, and asking yourself how to make use of it, instead of waiting around complaining that nobody else sweeps in and fixes your situation for you.

God should be seeking our forgiveness. I suspect he won't do it. When you're God, you can pretty much do what you want, except get me to worship him.

Well, you've tried INsulting God, Gary...how's that working out for you? Maybe I can suggest you try CONsulting Him instead. You're going to get a different result, I'm certain. Right now, what have you got to lose? Will your spit-at-God-and-die philosophy make your life better? Will it make you a happier, kinder person? And will it change your lot? I'm thinking it will give you more of exactly what you're experiencing -- and you don't seem to like that very much.

So what have you got to lose?

[Immanuel Can]

Why would it be? God gave them every good thing they have. It was men/women who did them evil.

God, presumably put some children in the wombs where they would be with abusers when born.

Child trafficking isn't usually done by the family, but that's possible. However, this is what free will is: it means that people have the choice to do good, or they have the choice to do evil. And evil doesn't "play fair": it takes victims. It does cruel and horrible things. That's one of the features that reminds us constantly that it IS evil.

Child abuse is not charged to God's account, but to man's. What God gave the child is life. What man gave him/her is evil.

It's amazing how people want to pretend that all the good they do is their own, but all the evil is God's fault. But that's not how it works. We've been given life and freedom; and if we use them to abuse others, then from God, judgment comes against us, and justice to them.

Of course habits of all kinds - denying anger included - can be a problem.

Well, there's a therapeutic value in even acknowledging a useless feeling like rage, because it enables one to name it, realize it, judge it, and then redirect it to something positive.

It seems to me rage and anger can be quite useful. They mobilize the energy in the body to stop putting up with abuse: interpersonal, societal, whatever. In the moment it may help to get a rapist off your body. In other moments a raised angry voice may be necessary to get someone's attention, that what they are doing is a violation. In my world all the reasoning in the world does not get some people to take things seriously.

That's just anger, and anger can be warranted. One should be angry when one sees evil, for example; but one should also act, if one can. Another thing about anger is that it's also usually temporary and focused. But rage, I would say, is not that: it's a more abiding state of mind. It's a disposition toward the world, really: and that's what you see in Gary -- not focused anger for a moment, and with a positive action, but bitterness, venom, unhappiness, resentment, and world-hatred.

It's not working for him. But we so often find ourselves drawn to lazy evil, rather than to the hard work of making better choices and making our lives better. That's when rage comes in to power our inertia, our circling of the drain, our cycle of hatred and ingratitude. And there's no getting out of that by way of more rage.

That's what I'm telling Gary to do: to stop raging and get busy making something of himself. It's his only positive move, no matter what justification he feels he has.

I don't know enough about his situation to make such a judgment.

You don't need to. You can see that what he's doing is not working for him. It doesn't take much common sense to realize he should try something very different, if he wants a different result.

...if I were his friend or family member perhaps on some occasion I might express anger at the way he treats himself, an anger coming from...you're mistreating someone I care about: you.

Well and good. But that's only negative advice, meaning, "Stop doing what you're doing," but not "start doing X." Gary needs a better alternative. So what would you suggest he should start doing instead?

I prefer the compassion that jumps up and helps, not the kind that merely "feels along with" somebody else.

Well, again. You tried to help and he did not accept that. But as I said it was the posts after that I consider not compassionate. They were not jumping up and helping.

I disagree. I'm not accusing you of indulging his illness or failing to be compassionate. I'm pointing out that compassion -- genuine compassion -- is goal-driven, not merely feeling-produced. If one is truly compassionate, one may have to challenge, contradict, confront, intervene, or even arrest a foolish and self-destructive course of action: it may be abrupt, oppositional, blunt or even rudeand shocking, if that's what it takes to wake up the person who's on a self-destructive course. And the kind of "compassion" that stops short of confronting is often no more than a soppy sentimentality without any mercy in it at all.

So let us both opt for the compassion that is not afraid to say what needs to be said, right?

And if that seems to abrupt, then maybe abruptness is what is needed. Gary's seeking the soppy, unhelpful kind of empathy -- pity, really -- and it's doing him absolutely no good at all.

Is he? You could be right, I haven't read the posts you are reacting to.

Well, then, you don't have the whole picture. I've been talking with Gary a long while...not just now, but for years, here. He keeps doing the same things...raging, seeking pity, hating anybody who challenges him, whining when he can't get his way, complaining his life is awful...but never changing it.

It isn't mercy to indulge that. It's mercy to challenge him to change his life. In particular, it's important advice to remind him that hating God is not going to make his life better. He may not appreciate that, at the moment: but it's still the best advice he's going to find.

Mercy doesn't reinforce what's wanted; it adds what's needed.