The only rules you are obliged to live by are your own. If you wish to obey the 10 commandments you don't think graven images are a good idea, fine. If you choose to obey them because you think god or the government told you to well...thats also fine, but they arn't really your own. It's like diffrence between not speeding because you agree with the speed limit, and not speeding because you are afraid of will get a ticket. If you take for granted then, that the only true rules are your own, sin is impossible. If you break a rule that you thought you had, it simply indicates that the rule no longer exists. If it did, you wouldn't break it.
Let's backtrack. Imagine the world as it were about 50,000 years ago. At this time, all peoples living were in hunter-gatherer groups possibly practicing small-scale pastoralism. They had no law. If you take what they Bible says: "each lived according to his/her conscience". However, their lack of written law was substituted by tribal order. Traditions, customs, culture, ways of life, myth, etc were all passes down from one generation to the next. People had no idea that their way of life was "right or wrong". They simply knew that what they did worked for them because that is thwe way they lived and it made them happy.
Your example of speeding I think is somewhat muddy. To understand why, I suggest reading a guy by the name of Kohlberg and his idea of ethical behavior. In short, the person who acts according to the law, does so because the order is necessary externally. That person cannot yet maintain order within self by means of regulation and knowledge of the Good. The person who already encompasses the law is above the other because the law exists within that person. The person is
ultra vires, by virtue of a new order created within that person through direct knowledge of the Good. This can be traced directly to Christian ideas. Jesus was the rebel who fulfilled the Law and allowed humanity a way out by showing that a direct personal relationship with the divine/ultimate/Good/God allows people to live only according to the ultimate arbitrator of right and wrong, or beyond right and wrong, and beyond good and evil. That's what it means to, as the mystic says, see through the "eye of the heart" (well actually, it's a consequence of this state).
You say the person would break a rule because that rule no longer makes sense and that this could not be considered a sin. See, in a relativistic world like the one you espouse, the idea of sin no longer has meaning. You cannot follow with your logic because the two ideas are exclusive. From the perspective of a rational reality, one with an ultimate, your proposal does apply but ONLY to those with direct access and knowledge of the Good, through
sophia (wisdom) and by faith in
logos. But to those, as the eastern traditions call them yogis/bodhisattvas, you are right, the standard ideas of law do not apply because they are neither above nor within it from one perspective, and from another, they are law itself in the corporeal.
If there is no sin, there is no heaven to reward, or hell to punish. If this is true, where is meaning in life? In most religions, rules, order, purpose, meaning comes from god. If you do the right thing, you are rewarded. Do the wrong thing, and you are punished. But if sin and good deeds are a lie, where does meaning come from? This train of thought tends to lead one towards nilism, except for one problem. Nothing in the world has intrinsic value, yet there clearly is value.
Well, what about the idea of hell/heaven as the consequence of knowing the Good. See, theology has twisted ideas of heaven/hell as physical entities to help us understand dogma. Dogma is hard to grasp because it is symbolic. Often, the ones who do not try need such simple motivational tools to be kept in check. In that sense, yes, the religions do control people, like any other institution. The real point is heaven/hell is that in the absense of the Beloved, the heart doth weep so making the longing unbearable. That is real hell. Heaven is just continued contact with the Good, through which/whom all things come to be and without whom/which nothing came to be.
In thinking about the meaning of life, you try to combine the philosophical with the religious. You can do that as long as you know what you are doing. And your lax reasoning tells me that you are probably rambling due to sleep deprivation. As for your idea of nihilism, you are right to recognize that if nihil est, everything is allowed. But clearly, value exists but do you consider value the same as Good? Since value CAN be good and is from our perspective. If it is, then do you think about the source or just proclaim that it is, and that we are just somehow disconnected from it?
Let's take something thats "valuable" for an example, money. Why is money valuable? Because the governemnt backs it you say, but does a government really consist of anything but people? When you come right down to it, is there really anything that is valuable for any reason other then life makes it valuable? How about power. Where does power come from? From people, from Man, from life. If someone holds you at gunpoint, why do they have power? God certainly didn't give it to him, life did; Or rather the ability to affect life made him powerful, that and your desire to protect your life.
You miss the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic value (I think). On second thought, you try to grasp the idea but never get around to saying it. However, your conclusion is that nothing has meaning outside of our own perception. That if humankind disappeared, nothing would have value. Here, I think you are trying to anthropomorphize your own position. Who says we are the ultimate creation? Who says that the thing-in-itself does not exist and the only real is the thing-for-itself or the thing-for-other?
My point is, that all things we view as concrete, stable, the word of god, these all come from life and individuals. Meaning and reason can be created anywhere. Even god is real because people make him/her/it/them real.
Again, that is a possible solution but aren't you just arguing the chicken/egg argument? Man is first so man creates God. As opposed to God is first so God creates man. Aren't you commiting the dualistic "sin"? Who says what you think or what I objected with are the only possible solutions?
I liked your comments but I think you need to think them through before they can be considered solid enough to withstand serious scrutiny.
We need a universally accepted set of rules to live by, but unfortunately people are divided by religious/cultural differences. So, on the one hand we DO have everyone making their own rules to live by, but on the other hand there are borders to separate us. Maybe one day the borders will dissolve and we can all live in peace & harmony. Realistically speaking, I doubt very much that I'll ever see that in MY lifetime. Sure would be nice though. -kd5-
You make an excellent point. We clearly can't go back to tribal days so we need to agree on a set of rules that everyone knows and can follow. The problem is when one person says that his/her book is better than others' books. Also, how can we incorporate ideas of the Good into a universal good considering that knowledge of the Good surely must be existential and so must incorporate ideas from one's contextual setting including sertain cultural ideas. Plus, the ones who can see Good, are very few because not many are willing to expand the effort needed.
I don't think requited love is such a controversial ethic to live by. The only thing Jesus preached was love for your fellow man.
Heh. Then why do I have some all these books trying to explain such a simple message?
You claim that it is not a controversial ethic to live by and in reality, I think you are right. However, this is an ethical position and since it is, having a more concrete set of steps is beneficial. Love is such a strange concept since it tries to symbolically express an emotion and a state of being. This does not help the person since it is not really philosophically sound. You do not have the standard teleological/deonological/mixed layout of a standard ethics system. Love is more of a religious/idealistic idea/ideal that we use in daily living and it COULD apply if humans all could control themselves, and were somehow better. Unfortunately, we need to do with what we have and this means, making rules that fit that standard deviation from the mean since that does make up the majority. So your proposal is a good one, but I think it is too idealistic since the past 2000 years have shown us that this alone is not enough.
Did I have any more thoughts? Hmm. I think that trying to simplify things is useful but ultimately we come to the conclusion that, as Ecclesiastes put it, all is meaningless. At the same time, this knowledge of the illusions put forth by the world allows the seeker to advance further in the journey, hopefully with a new perspective and a new awareness of being/Being (or as Hindu traditions put it,
ta tvam asi). Thanks for the discourse
Cheers !
Facebook
Twitter