February 21, 2008
One Simple Rule?
This video is called “One Simple Rule,” which makes a lot of sense when you consider it’s universality. Where it becomes complex for me is when I start asking questions such as:
- Why do we want to be good to ourselves?
- Why don’t we want to destroy ourselves, not just in part, but completely destroy ourselves?
- Why is there still something rather than nothing?
Without a material answer some have inserted “God” (for many reasons I won’t go into here), but the questions still remain if “God” is included in the “we” and the “something”.
daydreamer 
Ken said,
August 28, 2008 at 11:00 am
I think that the workings of natural selection seem to explain the answers to the first two questions without inserting God, although I suppose one could still ask the question why things worked out the way they did, or why genes are selfish as Dawkins has expressed it.
Similarly, perhaps one could say that chance answers the third question without inserting God, although it is very hard to tell the difference between chance and the limits on our ability to understand the cosmos.
If one does insert God in the “we” I think you are right that the questions remain.
I recently read Mary Shelley’s Mortal Immortal. He sought his annihilation.
In addition, in much contemporary nature writing there is an apocalyptic theme in which humanity is annihilated and the world is better for it. There is a kind of wish in such writing for our own annihilation.
In Eastern writing, in Buddhist and Hindu texts, and in Eastern meditation there is a kind of wish for annihilation.
So, I am not sure that it is sufficient to say that we want to be good to ourselves. There seems to be more to that narrative, a paradoxical twist to the narrative, although I do know, from my own Western perspective, I do not want to destroy myself and I want good for myself.
I have also seen people wish to die to end their suffering, and take actions to cause or accelerate their death.
Jerry said,
September 3, 2008 at 7:15 am
Hey Ken,
Sorry for the late response (it seems to be developing into a habit these days). You said:
“So, I am not sure that it is sufficient to say that we want to be good to ourselves. There seems to be more to that narrative, a paradoxical twist to the narrative”
I hope I didn’t give the impression in my post that we want to be good all of the time. My intention in that first question was focused on those times (however many they are) that we want to be good to ourselves.
As far as the “narrative” you mentioned, see my post above called “History Questions”.
Thanks for dropping by. I enjoyed what you had to say. I definitely will have to read ‘Mary Shelley’s Mortal Immortal’.
Jerry