How to treat others [Archive]

R_P_A_S

22nd October 2008, 05:41

so basically according to most of you, the situation does not matter, or the basis of the "treatment" For example... I'm at the market, in line trying to pay for some groceries. and the cashier is a bit rude, the proper way to act towards her is to be just as rude? or as one of you said "twice as rude?" I say FUCK THAT! Because you have no idea what the girl has had to put up with during her wage slave shift. Maybe other costumers were rude prior to you? Maybe the boss has been on her ass? Maybe she's being underpaid? She's just reacting. and for you to not have that in consideration... well what kind of leftist are you?

Decolonize The Left

22nd October 2008, 07:28

"Treat others as you wish to be treated yourself"

Failed moral philosophy - this leads to the group who adopts this philosophy to slavery.

"Treat others as they treat you"

Failed moral philosophy - this leads to complete and utter chaos, and most likely the destruction of our species.

Which one do you prefer and why?

Neither - it is impossible to establish such a universal moral code. The only person who succeeded was Kant with the categorical imperative, and even that moral code had problems.

- August

Lynx

22nd October 2008, 07:46

The Karma thing makes more sense - think of it as "an investment" :)

Decolonize The Left

22nd October 2008, 08:20

The Karma thing makes more sense - think of it as "an investment" :)

Karma makes little sense... this has been discussed here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/karma-t92271/index.html).

- August

Annie K.

22nd October 2008, 15:58

Yes, both are moral statements disconnected with the immediate exigences of human relations. There is more than one and unique "proper way", wich means that "the proper way" does not exist.

I try to treat others in the way that will grant me what i want (the world, now), or avoid me to get what i don't want (bonds, mainly). No justice, no laws.

DesertShark

22nd October 2008, 16:16

"Treat others as you wish to be treated yourself"

or

"Treat others as they treat you"

Which one do you prefer and why?

The first one may involve turning the other cheek.

The second one may, for instance, involve acts of revenge.
I was raised to treat people how I want to be treated. It has yet to do me wrong when I interact with others. I think it applies more to people you do not know yet, but it works in all senses. If you're an asshole to someone, usually they're an asshole back. I guess that most people operate under both, so why not treat someone kindly until they give you a reason not to?

1st is crap and makes no sense at all. One does not make relations with the unknown, which is what it implies.

And if you know someone and they don't give a shit about you...ehh you arnt going to treat them nicely.
Can you explain your claim that it 'makes relations with the unknown'? I think that they both make sense. When you first meet someone (as in there has been no previous interaction at all) are you pleasant towards them? If you say that it depends on how they treat you, why not take the initiative and be kind first? In my mind it seems counterproductive to just be an asshole to someone right off; not that I'm trying to befriend the world, I just don't see how it's beneficial to either party to be shitty prior to having a valid reason.

Failed moral philosophy - this leads to the group who adopts this philosophy to slavery.
Can you explain your statement "this leads to the group who adopts this philosophy to slavery"?

Failed moral philosophy - this leads to complete and utter chaos, and most likely the destruction of our species.
Only if people are destructive to begin with. If people were kind to begin with, then the problem would not arise. I think most people operate on a balance between the two.

Neither - it is impossible to establish such a universal moral code. The only person who succeeded was Kant with the categorical imperative, and even that moral code had problems.

- August
Perhaps, but you still have to interact with other people. While I think there's no need for a "universal moral code," individuals do and should create their own rules for interactions.

-DesertShark

Ratatosk

22nd October 2008, 16:26

"Treat others as you wish to be treated yourself" is just vacuous. What does it actually mean? Everyone wants to be treated differently.

Hit The North

22nd October 2008, 17:55

"Treat others as you wish to be treated yourself" is just vacuous. What does it actually mean? Everyone wants to be treated differently.

You mean some people want to be treated well and given respect, while others want to be treated badly and be abused?

This opens up another option: that we should treat people as they wish to be treated.

I attempt to treat people how I would want to be treated: with dignity, respect, good humour and equality. If they turn out to be arseholes, I disengage from them.

Lynx

22nd October 2008, 17:57

Karma makes little sense... this has been discussed here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/karma-t92271/index.html).

- August
Yes, that was the thread. Karma makes sense and it is not mystical. As an investment, its chances of reaping a positive (if not immediate) return are good.

freakazoid

22nd October 2008, 19:45

I choose the first one. I would want to be treated kindly so I will try to treat others kindly. AND, if I am being a jerk I would want someone to punch me, so if someone is being a jerk I will punch them. :D

Decolonize The Left

22nd October 2008, 20:17

Can you explain your statement "this leads to the group who adopts this philosophy to slavery"?

Sure. If group A adopts this moral code, and group B doesn't, group A gets enslaved by group B because they treat group A as they wish to be treated (kindly), and group A treats them so as to gain power.

Only if people are destructive to begin with. If people were kind to begin with, then the problem would not arise. I think most people operate on a balance between the two.

Not everyone is kind all of the time. If we adopt this moral code and person A hits person B, person B hits person A, person C steps in to hit person A as they know person B, and soon everyone is fighting.

Perhaps, but you still have to interact with other people. While I think there's no need for a "universal moral code," individuals do and should create their own rules for interactions.

-DesertShark

Correct. But these two moral codes were not created by each individual - they are set rules to be legislated onto peoples. As such they are universal generalizations and logically fallible.

- August

Decolonize The Left

22nd October 2008, 20:18

Yes, that was the thread. Karma makes sense and it is not mystical. As an investment, its chances of reaping a positive (if not immediate) return are good.

How is karma not mystical?

And what does your last claim mean? "An investment?" "Immediate positive return?" Since when was life a bank account?

- August

Ratatosk

22nd October 2008, 21:20

You mean some people want to be treated well and given respect, while others want to be treated badly and be abused?

This opens up another option: that we should treat people as they wish to be treated.

I attempt to treat people how I would want to be treated: with dignity, respect, good humour and equality. If they turn out to be arseholes, I disengage from them.No, I mean: either people all want to be treated well and given respect, in which case the rule should be "treat people well and respect them", or they don't, in which case the rule is wrong.

The vague implicit restriction on what counts as "how people want to be treated" is what makes the principle useless and confusing.

Lynx

23rd October 2008, 01:50

How is karma not mystical?
In the other thread you wrote:

"What goes around comes around" is a simplified version of Karma, much like 'the Golden Rule' is a simplified version of Kant's categorical imperative.

Basically, karma has merit only in the following way: everything that you do has effects on everything else. Hence what you do will inevitably affect your environment in such a way that you will later engage in the effects of your actions.

Ex: I walk into a coffee shop with a surly look on my face, make a quick remark to the person behind the counter that they need to make and bring me a latte, I pay and don't give them a tip. They make me a crappy latte.

I regards to this example, a religious person would say that your spirit was equalizing its karma by you receiving a bad latte. A less religious person would say "what goes around comes around."

A materialist would say that my actions, including my disrespecting the worker, led to the worker being upset with me and retaliating by making a bad drink. No need for karma, no need for mystical things.
I believe this. A non-mystified interpretation of Karma. I still need the word though.

And what does your last claim mean? "An investment?" "Immediate positive return?" Since when was life a bank account?

- August
Since the dawn of life. Matter and energy are gained, lost and recycled. The recent bubble burst has led to calls for 'investment', it is in this tradition that I use the word. Belief in karma need not be restricted to altruistic people, I believe you can view it in terms of short and longer term 'gains'.

Lynx

23rd October 2008, 03:22

A link to another concept I just remembered:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay_it_forward

Decolonize The Left

23rd October 2008, 07:41

I believe this. A non-mystified interpretation of Karma. I still need the word though.

No, no you don't need the word at all.

Since the dawn of life. Matter and energy are gained, lost and recycled.

Incorrect - the total amount of energy in the universe is constant.

The recent bubble burst has led to calls for 'investment', it is in this tradition that I use the word. Belief in karma need not be restricted to altruistic people, I believe you can view it in terms of short and longer term 'gains'.

What "recent bubble burst?"

- August

AnthArmo

23rd October 2008, 11:02

I try to treat one in a way that is complimentary to the way they are treating me.

Obviously treating someone as you would like to be treated is inflexible, what if someone Tried to kill you? You wouldn't act politely to them, and trying to kill them back is irrational. It would make more sense if you tried to defend yourself, or if you ran away!

Another example is if someone with a Dominatrix attitude were to approach me, then I would treat him somewhat submissively in return. Its the same if I had a Submissive friend, I would try to take a bit of charge to complement him.

Bilan

23rd October 2008, 11:06

I usually adhere to the first one, and try to be nice to everyone.
But I lose my patience. And someone people I just have a permanent grudge developed where even if I want too, they've annoyed me enough that I just can't, or if I can, it'll be limited, and probably revert to the previous not-nice treatment because of something happening.

Lynx

24th October 2008, 02:26

No, no you don't need the word at all.
Karma is a good word, I'm open to a better one. "Heuristic reciprocity" anyone?

Incorrect - the total amount of energy in the universe is constant.
I'm speaking of life being like a bank account. Life forms gain and lose energy and so energy is exchanged. It does remain constant, although the tendency is towards increased entropy. In the observable universe there exists nucleosynthesis, would that affect the energy to matter ratio?

What "recent bubble burst?"
The credit bubble burst.

Dharma

25th October 2008, 06:02

Ideally, I would treat others how I wish to be treated. In return I would expect the same. As we all know it does not always work out that way.

Volderbeek

25th October 2008, 07:31

I prefer the theory of treating others however you damn well feel like. It's freedom baby! Who's going to force you to treat others differently? The state, your own religious convictions - I thought we wanted to abolish such things.

Besides, if your mind is free from attachments, there is no danger in such an attitude.

Decolonize The Left

25th October 2008, 08:03

Karma is a good word, I'm open to a better one. "Heuristic reciprocity" anyone?

But if you wish to speak of a 'non-mystical karma,' you are not speaking of karma at all anymore. The notion that what you do in life affects others and will shape their opinions/attitudes/behavior towards you doesn't need a term to qualify it beyond 'human interaction.'

I'm speaking of life being like a bank account. Life forms gain and lose energy and so energy is exchanged.

Bank accounts are owned and managed - "life energy" is not...

- August

Volderbeek

25th October 2008, 08:07

Karma is all about reincarnation people. It has nothing to do with your current lifespan.

Rosa Provokateur

27th October 2008, 02:53

Treat them as you'd want to be treated. Nuff said.

Lynx

27th October 2008, 04:43

But if you wish to speak of a 'non-mystical karma,' you are not speaking of karma at all anymore. The notion that what you do in life affects others and will shape their opinions/attitudes/behavior towards you doesn't need a term to qualify it beyond 'human interaction.'
If I describe my belief to someone, I'm certain the word karma will be used. I'm free to redefine/simplify the meaning of the term, aren't I?

Bank accounts are owned and managed - "life energy" is not...
Life energy is appropriated and managed - consciously or not :closedeyes:

Decolonize The Left

27th October 2008, 04:57

If I describe my belief to someone, I'm certain the word karma will be used. I'm free to redefine/simplify the meaning of the term, aren't I?

Sure. My point is not that you aren't free to do one thing or another, rather that your freedom can be used in any number of ways and that continuing to use the term 'karma' encourages nonsensical beliefs in mystical, unjustified, things.

Life energy is appropriated and managed - consciously or not :closedeyes:

Says.... Lynx on revleft.com..... any justification for this? Nope. Any evidence? Nope.

- August

Lynx

27th October 2008, 06:15

Sure. My point is not that you aren't free to do one thing or another, rather that your freedom can be used in any number of ways and that continuing to use the term 'karma' encourages nonsensical beliefs in mystical, unjustified, things.
I would not be able to avoid using the term. As soon as I'd described my belief, they'd recognize it as karma. I could say 'not karma as originally defined', but what the hell...

Says.... Lynx on revleft.com..... any justification for this? Nope. Any evidence? Nope.
I eat food and my body digests and stores it. My brain directs the functioning of both autonomous and voluntary systems. How about you?

Oneironaut

29th October 2008, 01:09

Sure. If group A adopts this moral code, and group B doesn't, group A gets enslaved by group B because they treat group A as they wish to be treated (kindly), and group A treats them so as to gain power.

I am having trouble following your logic here. You're saying that group B (who doesn't adopt a universal moral of treat others like you would like to be treated) enslaves group A and group B treats group A as they wish (kindly)? I think you meant to say group A enslaves group B but I'm not exactly sure...

IMO it is practical to treat others they way you would like to be treated since you can logically assume that they are going to have more or less the same sentiments being we are all humans. I don't think it should ever be made universal though: that would lead to constant abuse on the person who is treating everyone like she would like to be treated. I tend to treat people the way I like to be treated up until they stop treating me the way I want to be treated. It is at that point when I'll either bring the issue up if it is a personal relationship that i don't want to lose or i'll just ditch the person entirely. I think in healthy intimate relationships people treat one another accordingly to how the other wants to be treated (this involves a lot of work and clarification).

In other words, it depends on the level of relationship. If it is a shallow relationship where the individual hasn't wronged me or anyone that I care about then I am typically polite and cordial to them as I would expect from them. Intimate relationships are different: treat the other as they want to be treated and expect that they will treat you how you want to be treated.

If someone wrongs me sufficiently on the other hand, I simply choose to lose contact with them. Starting shit (fascists, racists, and bigots I always start shit with) over the majority of arguments with people does relatively little and you come off just as immature than the other.

Decolonize The Left

31st October 2008, 00:51

I eat food and my body digests and stores it. My brain directs the functioning of both autonomous and voluntary systems. How about you?

This is your body functioning. This says nothing about "life energy" (whatever that means) being "managed and appropriated" (as though it has a will).

- August

Decolonize The Left

31st October 2008, 00:57

I am having trouble following your logic here. You're saying that group B (who doesn't adopt a universal moral of treat others like you would like to be treated) enslaves group A and group B treats group A as they wish (kindly)? I think you meant to say group A enslaves group B but I'm not exactly sure...

You are correct - it was a typo on my behalf. Thanks for noting.

Basically, if one group adopts a universal moral principle to treat others as they wish to be treated (kindly, with compassion, etc...), then they are weak when compared to other groups who do not follow this universal moral principle. They will be enslaved, killed, conquered, etc... because they refuse to acknowledge the reality that not everyone treats others as they wish to be treated.

In other words, universal moral principles only function as absolutes. But human beings are not absolutes, they are complex, diverse, constantly becoming...

IMO it is practical to treat others they way you would like to be treated since you can logically assume that they are going to have more or less the same sentiments being we are all humans. I don't think it should ever be made universal though: that would lead to constant abuse on the person who is treating everyone like she would like to be treated. I tend to treat people the way I like to be treated up until they stop treating me the way I want to be treated. It is at that point when I'll either bring the issue up if it is a personal relationship that i don't want to lose or i'll just ditch the person entirely. I think in healthy intimate relationships people treat one another accordingly to how the other wants to be treated (this involves a lot of work and clarification).

But what you have elaborated here is not a universal moral principle, rather, a lose guideline by which to relate to others. This is fine so long as it is pragmatically acceptable for your life.

- August

Lynx

31st October 2008, 03:31

This is your body functioning. This says nothing about "life energy" (whatever that means) being "managed and appropriated" (as though it has a will).
You introduced the concept of life energy. I would define it as consisting of energy, behavior, thought and idea. (Life forms without a CNS would only make use of energy and have limited behavior)

Energy has to be appropriated and managed in order for a life form to survive. Whether this is done by design (autonomic process) or through choice (voluntary process) is inconsequential.

Panda Tse Tung

31st October 2008, 12:45

sometimes the first, mostly the second.
(A fist for an eye makes the other person blind)

Glenn Beck

31st October 2008, 18:43

graaaaaagh

1st November 2008, 05:58

It's impossible to say which to go with for every situation. As a default, the first, however I would operate by the second principle if acting in the defense of a sentient life-form.

Decolonize The Left

1st November 2008, 23:11

You introduced the concept of life energy. I would define it as consisting of energy, behavior, thought and idea. (Life forms without a CNS would only make use of energy and have limited behavior)

I introduced it because you were butchering the notions of matter and energy as understood by physics - namely, by attributing a will to energy. But now we see what you mean by this 'energy' which is 'managed and appropriated.'

Let's get some things straight:
- Energy is a property/quality of matter.
- Behavior refers to the actions of a thing in relationship to its evironment.
- Thought and idea are synonymous terms. All thoughts are ideas, and vice-versa.

You are attempting to construct a system and thrust it onto nature - to declare 'the way things are.'

Energy has to be appropriated and managed in order for a life form to survive. Whether this is done by design (autonomic process) or through choice (voluntary process) is inconsequential.

It is highly consequential! If the process is autonomic, it cannot be called "appropriation and management." Both these terms imply a subject, imply a will...

Furthermore, human beings don't appropriate and manage "energy" in the strict sense. We only seem to do so with an ill-defined, mystical, form of 'energy' which cannot be adequately explained...

- August

Lynx

2nd November 2008, 02:04

I introduced it because you were butchering the notions of matter and energy as understood by physics - namely, by attributing a will to energy. But now we see what you mean by this 'energy' which is 'managed and appropriated.'

Let's get some things straight:
- Energy is a property/quality of matter.
Perhaps we can be more specific - do life forms use chemical energy?

- Behavior refers to the actions of a thing in relationship to its environment.
- Thought and idea are synonymous terms. All thoughts are ideas, and vice-versa.
Thoughts can be considered active while ideas are passive. A book can contain ideas but cannot have thoughts.

You are attempting to construct a system and thrust it onto nature - to declare 'the way things are.'
Maybe. I am making it up as I go along.

It is highly consequential! If the process is autonomic, it cannot be called "appropriation and management." Both these terms imply a subject, imply a will...
An engine 'appropriates' measured amounts of fuel and air and 'manages' them precisely to create mechanical output. Autonomic systems do not require 'will', they are simply designs.

Furthermore, human beings don't appropriate and manage "energy" in the strict sense. We only seem to do so with an ill-defined, mystical, form of 'energy' which cannot be adequately explained...

- August
We can make some choice as to the food we eat, the amount of work we do and which situations we place ourselves in. We can choose to practice meditation, deep breathing or other techniques. We can make a habit of being an optimist or automatically embrace negative thinking. If we are not in control of our own lives, surely we are able to grab the steering wheel now and then and give it a twirl...?

Decolonize The Left

5th November 2008, 00:36

Perhaps we can be more specific - do life forms use chemical energy?

Life forms are composed of atoms, and atoms have the property of chemical energy...

Thoughts can be considered active while ideas are passive. A book can contain ideas but cannot have thoughts.

Point taken.

Maybe. I am making it up as I go along.

Ok, but this is slightly problematic. I'm all for discussion and figuring things out, but we need to be clear that I'm trying to hash out the problems in your "making it up as you go along." This can get tiring if you're not going anywhere...

An engine 'appropriates' measured amounts of fuel and air and 'manages' them precisely to create mechanical output. Autonomic systems do not require 'will', they are simply designs.

Appropriate means "to take exclusive possession of." This implies a subject who takes possession. The ocean cannot 'take possession of my boat,' because the ocean doesn't possess anything - it just is.

You are correct that autonomic systems do not require "will," and hence they don't "appropriate" and "manage" things.

We can make some choice as to the food we eat, the amount of work we do and which situations we place ourselves in. We can choose to practice meditation, deep breathing or other techniques. We can make a habit of being an optimist or automatically embrace negative thinking. If we are not in control of our own lives, surely we are able to grab the steering wheel now and then and give it a twirl...?

I agree. But this has nothing to do with 'energy' what-so-ever (other than the physical definition of energy which I've already explained as a property of matter).

- August

Lynx

5th November 2008, 01:29

Life forms are composed of atoms, and atoms have the property of chemical energy...
How do life forms, such as humans, remain alive? Our bodies are warm-blooded, and it tries to maintain the same temperature. How do we process food and oxygen to generate heat energy and movement?

Ok, but this is slightly problematic. I'm all for discussion and figuring things out, but we need to be clear that I'm trying to hash out the problems in your "making it up as you go along." This can get tiring if you're not going anywhere...
Hopefully where I'm (or we're) going will be non-mystical.

Appropriate means "to take exclusive possession of." This implies a subject who takes possession. The ocean cannot 'take possession of my boat,' because the ocean doesn't possess anything - it just is.

You are correct that autonomic systems do not require "will," and hence they don't "appropriate" and "manage" things.
In describing their function, I'm tempted to use such words. Was it wrong for mechanical engineers to call a speed regulating device a governor?

I agree. But this has nothing to do with 'energy' what-so-ever (other than the physical definition of energy which I've already explained as a property of matter).

- August
It would relate to our physical and emotional well-being, or lack thereof.

Decolonize The Left

7th November 2008, 08:05

How do life forms, such as humans, remain alive? Our bodies are warm-blooded, and it tries to maintain the same temperature. How do we process food and oxygen to generate heat energy and movement?

We process food through the digestive system, a process which is extremely complex. But basically we break down complex carbohydrates, proteins, and fats, into Glucose (sugar) which is then used by our cells to produce ATP (chemical energy) which allows these cells to function.

Oxygen is absorbed through the alveoli in our lungs. It passes into our bloodstream where is it carried to our heart, and subsequently redirected throughout our body. This oxygen is then used for cellular respiration, etc...

I'm not a biology teacher, if you want an in-depth explanation of these processes, I suggest you consult a knowledgeable person or explore your local library or the internet.

Hopefully where I'm (or we're) going will be non-mystical.

Indeed - at least we share this hope.

In describing their function, I'm tempted to use such words. Was it wrong for mechanical engineers to call a speed regulating device a governor?

I have no problem using words to characterize processes. What I do have a problem with is using these characterizations to derive some sort of belief in an abstract, undefined, mystical, thing which we then apply onto nature as the 'way things are.'

- August

Lynx

7th November 2008, 15:47

We process food through the digestive system, a process which is extremely complex. But basically we break down complex carbohydrates, proteins, and fats, into Glucose (sugar) which is then used by our cells to produce ATP (chemical energy) which allows these cells to function.

Oxygen is absorbed through the alveoli in our lungs. It passes into our bloodstream where is it carried to our heart, and subsequently redirected throughout our body. This oxygen is then used for cellular respiration, etc...

I'm not a biology teacher, if you want an in-depth explanation of these processes, I suggest you consult a knowledgeable person or explore your local library or the internet.
In general though, we could say the body utilizes chemical energy as fuel for producing both heat and movement (kinetic energy). We could say the body is a [complex, mostly organic, self-regulating] heat engine.