CReaTeD bY TaZmaNiaN KinGS!
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Two New Forged Swords
besides admiring the sword, compare the clarity of both pic. Da clarity of U700 is amazing. Both are not zoomed pictures. taken with zoom 0%.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Ethical Egoism
Ethical egoism is a doctrine that it is one and one’s own duty to act for ourself. It is a normative theory about how humans should behave. Ethical egoism supports selfishness; however it does not mean that we should not help others. In fact, if our interest contradicts with others and by helping others we will obtain a long term advantage then ethical egoism states that we should do so. In Introduction to philosophy, Louis (2004) wrote, “It may very well be that in many instance your interest coincides with the interest of others, so that in helping yourself will be aiding others indirectly. Ethical Egoism does not forbid such actions.” Ethical Egoism endorses we should always and only act base on our own interest for the long run. Whether it will benefit other parties is not important, but most importantly we protect our own interest. Many parties refute that Ethical Egoism cannot be tolerated as it promotes one to be selfish, without the slight consideration for the welfare of others. Supporters of Ethical Egoism put forward three main points in favor of this doctrine.
One, we are familiar with our own needs and suited well to pursue what we need. The need of one may not be the need of the other. We are not build to pursue and provide the need of others. If we insist, we might be doing more harm than good.
Two, looking our for others is not an act welcome by all. People may feel we are intruding their privacy and demand that we mind our own business.
Three, by carrying out “charity” on someone, we are exclaiming that they are unable to fend for themselves robbing them of their self-dignity and respect. Furthermore, providing aid may cause recipients to be dependent and over-reliant.
The arguments are however subjected to many weak points, over turning the odds. Yes, we are not well-suited to other peoples needs, but we are clear of the simple basic needs of every human, example: food, shelter, and medical needs. These are the basic needs we could provide to the poor and needy. We could provide them food and teach them how to plant and cultivate their own. However if they are lazy and refuse to do so, we cannot continue to help them. There are people in the Third World countries struggling to acquire clean and uncontaminated water. It would be the least we could do to provide them the technology to drill a well and build piping frameworks to villages far from water sources. Occasionally, they are some determined individuals who are highly-motivated to work their own salvation. It is true that we would be intruding their privacy by helping them. However, doing charity does not mean that we force people in such cases to accept our generosity. In fact, people with high self-determination need no help. The determination in their hearts alone is a wealth and never ending generating force to success. It would be wise to move on to other individuals who would profit more from our charity.
James, the author of The elements of Moral Philosophy, suggest three approach if one believes in this doctrine.
(a) We ought to do whatever will promote the best interest of everyone alike.
(b) The interest of everyone will best be promoted if each of us adopts the policy of pursuing our own interest exclusively.
(c) Therefore, each of us should adopt the policy of pursuing our own interest exclusively.
James(2004), believe that if we accept this approach then it will seem that we are not ethical egoist at all, even thou we may still end up acting like an egoist. However it is the ultimate principle that we are doing so because it is what we think is best for everyone and we are not doing what we think is best for ourself.
A different reasoning would be obtained by using another approach. Ethical egoism can be viewed as a revisionist moral philosophy, and be approached by common sense morality. Viewing it less radically, let us assume that in order for others to be obligated to us we have to be obligated to them. Take killing or any form of harm to others for example, if we harm others it contributes a higher possibility for the victim to do the same onto us. Therefore, it would be to our own interest to not harm others for it would not give others a reason to harm us. Similarly, if we make promises to others we should keep them, for by doing our duty to others, others will be oblige to do their duty of keeping promises to us the same. Thomas Hobbes, suggest that this view leads nothing less to the Golden Rule: “we should not do unto others if we do not want others to do unto us” vice versa, “we should do unto others if we want others to do unto us the same”. Regretfully, this particular reasoning cannot validate and conclude Ethical Egoism as an acceptable theory, for it is only applicable in these confined cases.
Kurt Baier, in his book The Moral Point of View (1958), argues that Ethical Egoism cannot be right for it cannot provide solutions for cases where conflict of interest occurs. Baier argues with his example:
Let K and L be candidates running for presidency, and it would only
be to either ones interest to be elected. It would then be in the interest
of K if L would be elected. It would be also in the interest of L if K
would be elected. If K would resort to liquidating L to protect his interest,
and L knowing that K is attempting to liquidate him would protect his interest
too by foiling K’s plan. It would be wrong for both K and L to not do their
duty by stopping each other.
It is ridiculous to apply the conception of Ethical Egoism in this case, for an adequate morality must provide solutions to cases where conflict of interest happens. However, if we heed the Ethical egoism doctrine it would be a race to eradicate either party, and it would be in other words a race of surviving the run for presidency.
Another example that discards Ethical Egoism is not acceptable as suggested by Baier :
If L prevents K from liquidating him, his act is both wrong and not wrong,
Wrong, because he is preventing K from doing his duty. Right, because he
is acting in terms of defending his own interest and duty.
So is it right or wrong? Is Ethical egoism acceptable or unacceptable? It cannot be acceptable if it is self-contradictory, for no theory can be self-contradictory. It would not be logical if an act would be both wrong and right at the same time, for it will cause us to be unable to decide a right decision.
The final argument refuting the Ethical Egoism doctrine is its arbitrary nature. To understand its relation, let’s take racism as an example. Racism is an arbitrary morality value. It involves dividing people into two groups according to race; base on humans’ interest in one race more than other race. The obvious result would be a better treatment for one race and the discrimination of the other. Anti-Semitism works the same way, and so do nationalism. On what circumstances should we treat others differently? The general principle is namely: We can justify treating people differently only if we can show that there is factual difference between them that is relevant to justifying the difference in treatment. In the past, white people would say that black people are stupid, lack in ambition, and lowly educated. So they resort to treating them differently and discriminate against them. But is there really significance difference between black people and the white people? Excluding the skin color, culture, and features, there are really no difference between black people and white people. We cannot justify a different treatment on the base that they are lowly educated, stupid or low in ambition. If we treat them differently because so, we are taking advantage of their weakness; we are taking advantage of them because they are not educated; we are taking advantage of them because of their inability to fight back. We can only treat a person differently if they are spastic. Even so we should treat them with kindness by helping them in their daily lives. Leading a blind man across the road is one of the examples that we can treat people differently, for if we treat him as a normal person the blind man will find it very difficult to cross the road by himself. Ethical Egoism is a moral theory of the same kind. It divides people into two groups, oneself in a group, and others in the other. According to the doctrine, we should act in our own interest. Other parties’ interest comes in the second position and only in cases where we too obtain interest for the long run by acting in their interest. But are we different than the others? Are we different from the others till it is justified and only fair for us to treat them differently? Are we more important in the world? Are we so important till the extent where our interest should be the only priority? Do we have super-human abilities that cause us to be special and our interest subjected to be first? Are other humans’ lower- intelligence species like animals compare to ourself so their interest is not important? Unable to separate the difference and distinction between us and others, we cannot treat others differently. Therefore Ethical Egoism is an unacceptable moral theory for it is an arbitrary doctrine that favors oneself to other humankind.
One, we are familiar with our own needs and suited well to pursue what we need. The need of one may not be the need of the other. We are not build to pursue and provide the need of others. If we insist, we might be doing more harm than good.
Two, looking our for others is not an act welcome by all. People may feel we are intruding their privacy and demand that we mind our own business.
Three, by carrying out “charity” on someone, we are exclaiming that they are unable to fend for themselves robbing them of their self-dignity and respect. Furthermore, providing aid may cause recipients to be dependent and over-reliant.
The arguments are however subjected to many weak points, over turning the odds. Yes, we are not well-suited to other peoples needs, but we are clear of the simple basic needs of every human, example: food, shelter, and medical needs. These are the basic needs we could provide to the poor and needy. We could provide them food and teach them how to plant and cultivate their own. However if they are lazy and refuse to do so, we cannot continue to help them. There are people in the Third World countries struggling to acquire clean and uncontaminated water. It would be the least we could do to provide them the technology to drill a well and build piping frameworks to villages far from water sources. Occasionally, they are some determined individuals who are highly-motivated to work their own salvation. It is true that we would be intruding their privacy by helping them. However, doing charity does not mean that we force people in such cases to accept our generosity. In fact, people with high self-determination need no help. The determination in their hearts alone is a wealth and never ending generating force to success. It would be wise to move on to other individuals who would profit more from our charity.
James, the author of The elements of Moral Philosophy, suggest three approach if one believes in this doctrine.
(a) We ought to do whatever will promote the best interest of everyone alike.
(b) The interest of everyone will best be promoted if each of us adopts the policy of pursuing our own interest exclusively.
(c) Therefore, each of us should adopt the policy of pursuing our own interest exclusively.
James(2004), believe that if we accept this approach then it will seem that we are not ethical egoist at all, even thou we may still end up acting like an egoist. However it is the ultimate principle that we are doing so because it is what we think is best for everyone and we are not doing what we think is best for ourself.
A different reasoning would be obtained by using another approach. Ethical egoism can be viewed as a revisionist moral philosophy, and be approached by common sense morality. Viewing it less radically, let us assume that in order for others to be obligated to us we have to be obligated to them. Take killing or any form of harm to others for example, if we harm others it contributes a higher possibility for the victim to do the same onto us. Therefore, it would be to our own interest to not harm others for it would not give others a reason to harm us. Similarly, if we make promises to others we should keep them, for by doing our duty to others, others will be oblige to do their duty of keeping promises to us the same. Thomas Hobbes, suggest that this view leads nothing less to the Golden Rule: “we should not do unto others if we do not want others to do unto us” vice versa, “we should do unto others if we want others to do unto us the same”. Regretfully, this particular reasoning cannot validate and conclude Ethical Egoism as an acceptable theory, for it is only applicable in these confined cases.
Kurt Baier, in his book The Moral Point of View (1958), argues that Ethical Egoism cannot be right for it cannot provide solutions for cases where conflict of interest occurs. Baier argues with his example:
Let K and L be candidates running for presidency, and it would only
be to either ones interest to be elected. It would then be in the interest
of K if L would be elected. It would be also in the interest of L if K
would be elected. If K would resort to liquidating L to protect his interest,
and L knowing that K is attempting to liquidate him would protect his interest
too by foiling K’s plan. It would be wrong for both K and L to not do their
duty by stopping each other.
It is ridiculous to apply the conception of Ethical Egoism in this case, for an adequate morality must provide solutions to cases where conflict of interest happens. However, if we heed the Ethical egoism doctrine it would be a race to eradicate either party, and it would be in other words a race of surviving the run for presidency.
Another example that discards Ethical Egoism is not acceptable as suggested by Baier :
If L prevents K from liquidating him, his act is both wrong and not wrong,
Wrong, because he is preventing K from doing his duty. Right, because he
is acting in terms of defending his own interest and duty.
So is it right or wrong? Is Ethical egoism acceptable or unacceptable? It cannot be acceptable if it is self-contradictory, for no theory can be self-contradictory. It would not be logical if an act would be both wrong and right at the same time, for it will cause us to be unable to decide a right decision.
The final argument refuting the Ethical Egoism doctrine is its arbitrary nature. To understand its relation, let’s take racism as an example. Racism is an arbitrary morality value. It involves dividing people into two groups according to race; base on humans’ interest in one race more than other race. The obvious result would be a better treatment for one race and the discrimination of the other. Anti-Semitism works the same way, and so do nationalism. On what circumstances should we treat others differently? The general principle is namely: We can justify treating people differently only if we can show that there is factual difference between them that is relevant to justifying the difference in treatment. In the past, white people would say that black people are stupid, lack in ambition, and lowly educated. So they resort to treating them differently and discriminate against them. But is there really significance difference between black people and the white people? Excluding the skin color, culture, and features, there are really no difference between black people and white people. We cannot justify a different treatment on the base that they are lowly educated, stupid or low in ambition. If we treat them differently because so, we are taking advantage of their weakness; we are taking advantage of them because they are not educated; we are taking advantage of them because of their inability to fight back. We can only treat a person differently if they are spastic. Even so we should treat them with kindness by helping them in their daily lives. Leading a blind man across the road is one of the examples that we can treat people differently, for if we treat him as a normal person the blind man will find it very difficult to cross the road by himself. Ethical Egoism is a moral theory of the same kind. It divides people into two groups, oneself in a group, and others in the other. According to the doctrine, we should act in our own interest. Other parties’ interest comes in the second position and only in cases where we too obtain interest for the long run by acting in their interest. But are we different than the others? Are we different from the others till it is justified and only fair for us to treat them differently? Are we more important in the world? Are we so important till the extent where our interest should be the only priority? Do we have super-human abilities that cause us to be special and our interest subjected to be first? Are other humans’ lower- intelligence species like animals compare to ourself so their interest is not important? Unable to separate the difference and distinction between us and others, we cannot treat others differently. Therefore Ethical Egoism is an unacceptable moral theory for it is an arbitrary doctrine that favors oneself to other humankind.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
a Case StuDy:should we buy from drug addicts? (Continued)
Last week i attended my moral studies class and my teacher told us of a story.
I'll relate the story to you. She told that when she was young,around age of 5-6, she was in pasar malam one night. As she was walking, she was confronted by a skinny man with sunken cheek bones. he was dressed in tatered and filty clothes. He confronted with a basket of tisues. In her mind, it flashed into her mind that there is a beggar in front of her hoping she would buy one. As she was still young at that time, she took pity and bought one from him.When she returned home she related the incident to her mom, hoping to be praised for her good geed. However, her mom later revealed that she had bought the packet of tisue from a drug addict! Her pure act of charity turns out to be an indirectly funding his addiction! She said since that incident she never do charity if the person looks like a drug addict.
Now let us ponder for a moment, yes, even thou buying the tisue from the man is indirectly funding his drug addiction, try to view it in a more long-term and deeper point of view. If we so happen to not buy the RM2 tisue from him, and e3verybody does the same, he would be left with even less money than he had started.
Now,let us set it aside and put ourself in his position. Surely if we are in his position we would not sort to selling tissues as our first job! We would have try to apply for a job as a lorry driver or even work in a relative's company or something. For selling tissues is degrading and and a humilliating job to do. It would surely be the last we would resort to for money. Which is what this drug addict would do too. Im 70% sure he have put his heart and determination to find a respectable job and tried to end his addiction. But to end a drug addiction is not easy. Many victims of drug have return to drugs after leaving the drug rehabilation center. Furthermore, the longer the addiction, the stronger the addiction!
So what i want to pin point is, if we do not buy from him a tissue; a mear RM2 so that he can support himself, he will get desparate. When he gets desparate, what will he do? He will be forced to rob, steal, snatch!! Which is what many drug addicts do to get money for his addiction. A man driven to a dead end, suffering from constant addiction, will surely resort to committing crime for money. His suffering surely would not cause him to surrender himself to a rehab, for he fears isolation from the socity. He cannot bear to return home, to his friends and family alike, for in their eyes, he is nothing more than a burden and rubbish in the socity. Buying that packet of tissue could be the last thing we, the socity could do for him to keep a little self-integrity that he obtain money the legal way without hurting anyone.
Finally, i say if we happen to met one who sells something simillar to this drug addict case, we should buy it if its a reasonable price.
I'll relate the story to you. She told that when she was young,around age of 5-6, she was in pasar malam one night. As she was walking, she was confronted by a skinny man with sunken cheek bones. he was dressed in tatered and filty clothes. He confronted with a basket of tisues. In her mind, it flashed into her mind that there is a beggar in front of her hoping she would buy one. As she was still young at that time, she took pity and bought one from him.When she returned home she related the incident to her mom, hoping to be praised for her good geed. However, her mom later revealed that she had bought the packet of tisue from a drug addict! Her pure act of charity turns out to be an indirectly funding his addiction! She said since that incident she never do charity if the person looks like a drug addict.
Now let us ponder for a moment, yes, even thou buying the tisue from the man is indirectly funding his drug addiction, try to view it in a more long-term and deeper point of view. If we so happen to not buy the RM2 tisue from him, and e3verybody does the same, he would be left with even less money than he had started.
Now,let us set it aside and put ourself in his position. Surely if we are in his position we would not sort to selling tissues as our first job! We would have try to apply for a job as a lorry driver or even work in a relative's company or something. For selling tissues is degrading and and a humilliating job to do. It would surely be the last we would resort to for money. Which is what this drug addict would do too. Im 70% sure he have put his heart and determination to find a respectable job and tried to end his addiction. But to end a drug addiction is not easy. Many victims of drug have return to drugs after leaving the drug rehabilation center. Furthermore, the longer the addiction, the stronger the addiction!
So what i want to pin point is, if we do not buy from him a tissue; a mear RM2 so that he can support himself, he will get desparate. When he gets desparate, what will he do? He will be forced to rob, steal, snatch!! Which is what many drug addicts do to get money for his addiction. A man driven to a dead end, suffering from constant addiction, will surely resort to committing crime for money. His suffering surely would not cause him to surrender himself to a rehab, for he fears isolation from the socity. He cannot bear to return home, to his friends and family alike, for in their eyes, he is nothing more than a burden and rubbish in the socity. Buying that packet of tissue could be the last thing we, the socity could do for him to keep a little self-integrity that he obtain money the legal way without hurting anyone.
Finally, i say if we happen to met one who sells something simillar to this drug addict case, we should buy it if its a reasonable price.
Monday, October 13, 2008
cANT EmBrace eNougH of Hot AsiaNS?
if you are one Who J-U-S-T cant admire and fantasize enough of HoT GirLS of ASia.
visit http://beautifulasianwomen.blogspot.com/
there is a blogger dedicating her blog about it!
TheY are women nick named gravure idol, in other words women who pose seductively and sexily in bikini or lingerie. They work as models in Men mag in other words. However, they do not pose nude or act in pornographic shows.
The Dead desires of men openS job opportunities for them. And remember,i post this post for all to admire and embrace their beauTY,not take advantage of them.
>_< Peace!
visit http://beautifulasianwomen.blogspot.com/
there is a blogger dedicating her blog about it!
TheY are women nick named gravure idol, in other words women who pose seductively and sexily in bikini or lingerie. They work as models in Men mag in other words. However, they do not pose nude or act in pornographic shows.
The Dead desires of men openS job opportunities for them. And remember,i post this post for all to admire and embrace their beauTY,not take advantage of them.
>_< Peace!
Sunday, October 12, 2008
SW@RD FaNtaSy
the best of THE Best. named ReD Edge,its a terrifying large unique sword.its heavy weight and unmatchable sharpness of the blade to pierce armors cause it to be only able to weild by a worthy warrior. due to its sharpness and weight, its meant to smash enemies off their guard and feet ending the battle with a sharp stab of its end to the heart.
an amazing sword of deep-sea fish theme.the deep dark spot is the eyes if you realize. and the long sharp spines is the teeth.just like stargazer fish in the ocean.
original idea of GOD OF WAR 2, The Blade Of Olympus.it not a direct replica.but something simillar.
a short dagger,bird icon. the bird is design to carry simillarity to egyption bird statues.
a replica of Frostmorne in Warcraft. a deadly blade weild by LorD of Avenus. said to be a cursed blade which have a frost attack upon enemies.unfortunatly,i was not succesful in replicating its original design.
a most recent sketched blade. it has a jagged end to hook onto enemies sword and disarm the enemy. this blade is more of a blade to defend and disarm an enemy,as it is not suitable for stabbing due to the jagged end.it is also not suitable for slicing,it has a straight structure and will not deal a blow powerful enough.netherless,a sword of worth design.
Double-edge weild by Pit Lord of Warcraft.its a very large spear and considerably hard to master.
just another sword,i like the design of the handle very much. however,unfortunatly,ran out of inspiration wen i was designing the blade.which cause it to lose certain appeal with a common blade and taz word on it.
an over-explosion of idea.i originally wanted to design a blade of three different wing design on it.the highest design turn out promising but the other two wing design and the blade design is done poorly. disappointed.
this is the later version of a japanese blade.Version 2.i find japanese blade amazing difficult to sketch even thou its design is simple.the blade is not entirely straight,and due to the slight curve and my weakness in drawing two curve lines parallel distance from each other at all times.the shading to show the sharpness and metalic feel of the blade is extreamly difficult too. never sketched another jap-blade ever again.
a failed sketch to mimic the sword of Final Fantasy VII of Cloud. Disasterous.
a sea-spine theme,this dagger is coined the assasin blade. its a blade were one sneeks upon the target and slit the throat or deal a lethal stab right to the heart.not much of war combat blade.
Version 1 jap-blade. humilliating, it was too long and too straight.
a comdination of Dante,in Devil May Cry 3 and X-men icon. too simple to me.could have been better.
one of the blades in Final Fantasy VII used by Cloud. An interesting fact of life:Psychological egoism(revised edition)
Psychological originated from the Greek word psyche, meaning soul or mind of humans. On the other hand, ology means the “study of”. The word egoism is base on the Greek word ego for “I”. Hence, Psychological egoism is the study of human mind related to one-self. Psychological egoism is the name given for the theory of descriptive egoist. Psychological egoism is a descriptive theory resulting from observations from human behavior. As such, it can only be a true empirical theory if there are no exceptions. In science, a purported law only needs one disconfirming instance to disprove it. According to Victor Reppert (1989), he points out that psychological egoism is a descriptive theory and not a normative theory. Victor (1989) explained that it’s a theory of what we humans ‘actually’ do, and not a theory of what we ‘should’ do. Further more, Victor (1989) claims that there are two psychological egoism theories. One, strong psychological egoism is the view that humans indeed act base on selfishness to benefit one-self even thou humans disguise their motivation with reference of duty and in the name of helping others. Second, weak psychological egoism is the view that humans often, but not always, act out of selfishness for one-self. In The Leviathan, by Hobbes (1660), it put forward that “No man giveth but with intention of good to himself; because gift is voluntary; and of all voluntary acts the object to every man is his own pleasure." Hobbes (1660) asserts that human always, in one way or another, act wholly according to human nature being self-centered and self-motivated. However, opponents argue that psychological egoism renders ethics useless. If human always and only act selfishly for one’s own welfare, there is no purpose of the existence of ethics, since being selfish is a natural human nature. Critics often argue that an act of altruism for example, giving a poor stranger some money, or, a soldier’s act of throwing himself on a grenade to save his platoon is not necessary an act of selfishness. However, it is refuted that altruistic behavior is indeed not an act of selfishness but altruistic behavior arouse the desire of self-satisfaction. The natural acquirement of self-satisfaction is regarded as a by-product of altruistic behavior. A parent making several sacrifices for his/her children, in return, the achievement obtain by the children arose the parent’s sense of proud and honor. In other words, parents obtain a natural self-satisfaction base on the excellent achievement of their children. This parental act is committed without any conscious and intention of selfishness, but regardless is unable to quadrant off that the act is not self-motivated in order to obtain self-satisfaction of one’s own interest. Moreover, we cannot categorize the satisfaction of buying a new car, the satisfaction of marriage or even the satisfaction of having mountains of money as the same satisfaction we obtain from altruistic behavior. Thus, it is not an act of selfishness. However, it still supports the theory of psychological egoism that humans do naturally act base on self-interest. This idea is supported by James (1941), “The good feelings are a by-product; they are not what we are really after. Thus, having those feelings is not a mark of selfishness.” In a similar situation of Mother Teresa’s case, the nun who spent her life working among the poor in Calcutta is often cited as a perfect example of unselfishness. But of course, Mother Teresa believes in being hand-somely rewarded in her afterlife in heaven. It would explain her self-sacrificing behavior throughout her life. At this point, psychological egoism’s validity turns on examining and analyzing moral motivation, the desire of a more meaningful and significant life, desire of public recognition, feeling of personal satisfaction and the believe of heavenly reward. However, since motivation of such is fully private and only personally mind-accessible and inaccessible to others, the theory shifts from a theoretical description of human nature to an assumption about the inner workings of human nature as whole, therefore it becomes a “closed theory”. A closed theory is a theory that rejects competing theories on its own terms and is non-verifiable and non-falsifiable. Gregory Kavka (1986) pg 64-80 calls the act of altruistic behavior as “predominant egoism:” we act unselfishly only rarely and then typically where the sacrifice is small and the welfare to others is large or where those benefiting are friends, family, or favorite causes. It is also categorized into two cases: Charity and pity. Firstly, charity is the most general term that is used to describe the “act of concern” for others around us. Secondly, pity is the feeling of sympathy to those that are in need, reminded by our self that in the future we may share the same misfortune, and in their position, we too hope that someone will help us.
Almost everyone will act against their short-term self-interest in order to obtain a greater long-term self interest. Students will stay up all night to get a term paper done even though the short-term effects are disadvantageous of example, loss of sleep, lack of attention in class, and disadvantageous effects on health. This is a very solid example of the psychological egoism theory. Even thou one may have acted selflessly, but one is still doing so in order to obtain a long-term self-interest. Confusion arises between the difference of selfishness and self-interest. When one visits a doctor due to poor health reason, it is an act of self-interest. It would be silly to accuse the person being selfish! Selfish is in the case where the interest of others are ignored, when it should not be ignored. Another example is when one takes a considerable amount of food for her/himself it would be of self-interest, but it would be selfish if one hordes mountains of food when others have not had their fair share.
Several voices pointed out one main error of the psychological egoism theory. As the theory is in other words, a hypothesis in an experiment, and is considered irrefutable by many intelligent people of the moral philosophy field, it is reassuming the role of controlling assumption: Once a hypothesis is accepted, everything can be interpreted to support it. The hypothesis of psychological egoism is faulty because it is untestable. Take the hypothesis that all swans are white for example. So, one can go around the world looking for a swan blue of red in colour to prove the hypothesis wrong. We can imagine how it will be if swans are blue and red in colour, although we cannot prove it true, because there is no swan in blue or red. In this case, we can strongly conclude that swans are white in colour. The theory is faulty because of this error, if we cannot imagine what an unselfish and non self-interest act would be like, we cannot investigate and try to prove it wrong. It is therefore an empty theory. It can only be concluded that humans naturally obey the theory of psychological egoism. Obeying it as the Law of Psychological egoism.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
what if...........we know when we will DIE?
i would say intresting.....of course it has its pro's and con's thou....the intresting thing is if we know when we are going to pass to the next world,we would be very appriciative of everything and everyone around us...we would be very honoured the thankful they have existed in our life and played a role in our lives. In other words, we would learn to treasure those whom have show endless care and love in our journey of life. That would be very enriching and fulfilling in life indeed.
however, opposingly, one may fall from grace and despair deeply if one have know their time of death. They maybe unable to accept the fact, and enrage their anger on others. They may whine its meaningless to continue living, meaningless to eat and enjoy,meaningless to live.
silly indeed,
a) all life will end, time is the only difference. one's earthly body will have to return to earth sooner or later.
b)"leaving" earth means we have fulfill our purpose , and we are enlightned. Death is the end of all suffering and hunger brought by our earthly body.
c)its because we know when is our death,we should make every moment count,every second cherrished. Not the opposite.
it may be unbeliveable,but even i doubt to aquire the knowledge of my own time of death. but i do not worry about death itself. I worry leaving this world without accomplishing my purpose,without making a better change to the world. I am willing to return to God anytime without hesitation. Which i belive he will recall my soul , when im ready and accomplished a purpose.
however, opposingly, one may fall from grace and despair deeply if one have know their time of death. They maybe unable to accept the fact, and enrage their anger on others. They may whine its meaningless to continue living, meaningless to eat and enjoy,meaningless to live.
silly indeed,
a) all life will end, time is the only difference. one's earthly body will have to return to earth sooner or later.
b)"leaving" earth means we have fulfill our purpose , and we are enlightned. Death is the end of all suffering and hunger brought by our earthly body.
c)its because we know when is our death,we should make every moment count,every second cherrished. Not the opposite.
it may be unbeliveable,but even i doubt to aquire the knowledge of my own time of death. but i do not worry about death itself. I worry leaving this world without accomplishing my purpose,without making a better change to the world. I am willing to return to God anytime without hesitation. Which i belive he will recall my soul , when im ready and accomplished a purpose.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
SeASoNs oF Love
love came like spring , blossom red , sprouting greenery , beauty which can only be captured in pictures to last thru the century.
summer heat , flarring scorching lovely sun , spikes my senses of every emotion , taned with lovely sunshine.
summer was short , everything slowed down , creeping at its own relaxing pace , pieces of love fall of one by one , gently with the flow of time and breeze , with the flow of the wind , preparing to slumber for the long winter.
winter cold , chill thru my bones , emotions turn icy cold , crystalize heart , flamming spirit of heat , dug in earth and soil , i find comfort and warmth , time will past , and i belive , summer will come again.....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
