Im majoring in philosophy and realy enjoy the subject.

I think it equals out in the end. Its just hard to see that because the bad parts leave a stronger impression on us.

Bad. Trust me.

well of course it is if thats how you choose to look at it

Life is what it is. Emergent is a good word, evolve is another, but no matter the word there must be action, motion, change.

Humans tend to fight change rather than embrace it. We are a species of life and no life is independent of Universal laws, nor is any life separate from any other matter. It is only perception of the physical, that allows us to comprehend the events we experience; the empirical.

So, like life, the universe is what it is; constantly in flux, emergent.

Good and bad are just designations we give in response to the degrees of our empirical experiences; having no real meaning in the natural world.

Whatever designation we apply to an event; good or bad, it makes no difference to the natural world because every event is both a cause and an effect.

Cause and effect is the power that enables the emergent qualities of universe and as long as natural law exists, there will be life; I guess that means that life is good and bad is simply mans refusal to embrace the change.

I dont think you can judge life on a good or bad outlook. I believe life is realy both or none of them. life is only the way you perseive realiy, none if it is realy good or bad, but a continueing cycle of time and built memorys and how you look at them together. people are constantly building new memorys and forgetting old ones, and sad enough people tend to forget the good times. Only threwout time you can build a positive view of your reality.

Blessing or Bane

Near China's northern borders lived a man well versed in the practices of Taoism. His horse, for no reason at all, got into the territory of the northern tribes. Everyone commiserated with him.

"Perhaps this will soon turn out to be a blessing," said his father.

After a few months, his animal came back, leading a fine horse from the north. Everyone congratulated him.

"Perhaps this will soon turn out to be a cause of misfortune," said his father.

Since he was well-off and kept good horses his son became fond of riding and eventually broke his thigh bone falling from a horse. Everyone commiserated with him.

"Perhaps this will soon turn out to be a blessing," said his father.

One year later, the northern tribes started a big invasion of the border regions. All able-bodied young men took up arms and fought against the invaders, and as a result, around the border nine out of ten men died. This man's son did not join in the fighting because he was crippled and so both the boy and his father survived.

From here: http://www.chinavista.com/experience/fable/b5fable1.html#6

one smile; can change someones outlook on life.(I have seen this first hand , as a wal-mart greeter for ten years.)

When you say life, do you mean all life? Any living system? Do you mean conscious life forms, from an individuals perspective or all of the above?

Good and bad are relative to the desired outcome of a cause.

If the effect is undesirable then the cause is bad.
If the effect is desirable then the cause is good.

If your subject is all life, ie any non-conscious living system, then good is what continues survival, enhances reproduction and that is all.

If you mean a conscious individual then survival may not be the desired out come, and thus it becomes an analysis of quality of life, which has subjective connotations.

If all of the above then you see how perception is a determining factor in something being good or bad, however in the natural world there can be good and bad, but it is only applicable to survival and reproduction and is not held by the living system (it would have to be self aware to know good and bad, but not to benefit from good things, or be harmed by bad things) , but is true of the nature of the system.

so would you consiter the human race as part of the animal kingdom<of all living things>, or are humans not involved with natural selection any more. we have no natural preditor besides ourselfs. so overall, all living things <including humans>are conscious living systems. but then you think... can a ant comprehend the reality it lives in better than we can observe our own? its your call...

-Yes humans are animals.

Evolution does not work on individuals, it works on populations.

Individuals certainly can and often do make choices that go against survival, they can desire things that do not increase survival, or reproduction. In fact many decisions reduce the viability of the organism to reproduce, or survive.

Natural selection does not care what we want or desire, so there must be a distinction between good and bad as desire based, and as naturally adding value toward the goal of survival and reproduction.

The reason this is not an easy topic to place into two distinct realms those of a non-intelligence driven natural selection based value assessment, and a intelligence based good/bad value assessment is that they are not mutually exclusive.

While Natural selection does not care about your desires, your desires can reduce your survivability.

Survivability is effected by both genetic traits, and individual choices.

Good and bad can be labels that apply to both. Survivability is the big set that natural selection and desire both fall under in this context. Desire pokes out the side however and falls under other sets as well with differing contexts. (many overlapping majesteria )

So if I where writing this paper I would try to keep my scope fairly linear (unless I wanted to write one long ass paper) and stick to one or the other as a subject. Its a function of what you mean when you say life . . .

As always Bushi, I admire your thought processes.

SouthFargo


It appear from your quote that you only conisder animals in the 'living' catagory. So I must ask you to reflect on "what is living". After you've reflected and reached a decision, tell me;

What is your definition of what is living, and what are the properties of that which is living that separates it from all other matter?
Many questions can extent from this point, but let's start with that.

Second - why would you think that man has no natural preditors? If a man chooses to live a solitary, nomadic life, building only temporary lean to shelters, would that man not be prey to any number of natures army?

Regarding natural selection, have you considered the causes behind natural selection. If an ant population is successful in achieving the desired outcome (as Bushi has noted) what need would there be for anything other than current ant genetics? In other words if it works why change it? Natural selection is natures way of adding protective measures to assure the desired outcome.

If we are so strong and prowerful with no natural predators, why have we evolved so drastically? On the flip side, what do you thing would be the cause of any varying trait selections that would change the human species?

Natural selection is an interesting topic and some of the theories are quite captivating. Proof, however, is not always so clear cut.

So are we only diven by our natural instict such as other animals, or is this somthing more that seperates us from other living things.. beside our ability to reason... or all animals based on how much memory they can have to be able to conseive the prosess of reasoning? sorry for the spelling, Im not to strong at it... and also if you want to know Im using the information I get here to use in my classes for peer review. I will leave you up dated on what they have to say about everyones comments. no body is right or wrong here, I would just like to hear what the general public has to say about these subjects for studying purposes.

I just like this quote:


"To be able to look back upon ones life in satisfaction, is to live twice."
Kahlil Gibran

Philosophy evolves. The basic questions in philosophy arise from current conditions. Before the establishment of religious hierarchies much of philosophy dealt with how we were connected to the rest of nature. When conditions began to revolve around religious hierarchies, the questions of philosophy began to change.

Monotheism is the severest attempt to separate humanity from all other nature and included the philosophical questions of “what makes us different or separates us from other life?” This also goes along with those questions of how do I know I exist, which is how Descartes makes a name for himself. The questions never really yielded an absolute answer, and how could they; when the only separation between life forms is in perception.

More recent philosophy has taken on a humanist perspective. In this way we can consider the human condition within the context of the current state of affairs while maintaining a separatist view; a view applicable to one thing, human condition as it is perceived.

Today there seems to be a resurgence of the interconnectivity of all life in accordance with the universal laws of cause and effect.

Now the philosophical questions related to humans, while still concerned with the human condition, explore the co-dependency of all life and how the human condition can be made better within the co-dependent structure.

So what separates us from all other life; only subjective perception.

I like this one.



“I asked God for strength that I might achieve. I was made weak that I might learn humbly to obey. I asked for health that I might do greater things. I was given infirmity that I might do better things. I asked for riches that I might be happy. I was given poverty that I might be wise. I asked for power that I might have the praise of men. I was given weakness that I might feel the need of God. I asked for all things that I might enjoy life. I was given life that I might enjoy all things. I got nothing that I asked for, but everything I hoped for. Almost despite myself, my unspoken prayers were answered. I am, among all men, most richly blessed.”

Kahlil Gibran.

Kahlil Gibran - He is quotable. Did you know he was considered a heretic in his own country and that his writing was banned?

Thier loss, I guess; he was a great writer.

There is a museum for him in North Lebanon.

http://leb.net/~mira/