Posts Tagged ‘definitions’

Newer Entries »

“Good” and “Evil”

Monday, October 10th, 2005

Since those terms have been mentioned recently, let’s talk a little about them.

Naturally, people have many different definitions of “good” and “evil”. Some believe “good” is doing what a God wants, and “evil” is the opposite of that. Some think “good” is helping people, and “evil” is being selfish, caring only for yourself. To some, “good” is doing what others expect of you, obeying authority, and so on. And many people don’t even believe in those concepts themselves – they believe they are just labels applied by Man.

Thinking a bit about it, I mostly agree with the Ayn Rand / Objectivist concept: “good” is whatever promotes life – not simply survival, but life as a rational being. “Evil”, then, is whatever promotes death – not just a physical death, but death of the self, death of your soul, death of your joy to live – a kind of “living death” (and I’m not talking about zombies :) ).

Tags:
Posted in definitions | 1 Comment »

An evil god, part 2: good and evil

Wednesday, October 5th, 2005

Continuing the “evil god” theme… what defines good and evil? Are they “intrinsic” values, or are they something defined arbitrarily by some entity, such as a god, or gods?

For instance, I believe that “good” equals justice, truth, honesty, courage, integrity, protecting the innocent, and such. But I don’t think I’m in the majority.

(more…)

Tags: ,
Posted in definitions, religion | 6 Comments »

Creeds of Death

Monday, August 29th, 2005

(once again, from my wiki, though this version is shorter…)

A “Creed of Death” (CoD) is my term for any belief (including religion), philosophy or political system which leads to death instead of life.

Note that I don’t mean “death” merely in the physical sense; in other words, I am not referring to some kind of suicidal cult, or a cabal of necromancers. :) I mean a “death in life”, a living death.

(more…)

Tags: , , ,
Posted in collectivism, definitions, happiness, sadness | 4 Comments »

Ideals or fanaticism?

Thursday, August 25th, 2005

Have you ever been called a “fanatic”? (I’m assuming, of course, that you are not one…)

I have. Several times, by different people. They could never justify their affirmation: they just “felt” that I was one, because of some ideal I had (and possibly have), or because I cared a bit about something that nobody cared about.

It wasn’t something I annoyed people with. I’ve never been a “preacher” of any kind. I believe in complete honesty, yet I never went around preaching honesty or attacking people for not being 100% honest 100% of the time. I don’t pirate music, software or movies, yet most people I know do so, and I’ve never bothered them about it. If they ask my opinion, I give it, but no more.

I’ve never attacked, or told people to attack, someone for disagreeing with me. I certainly don’t intend to become a martyr and kill myself in a blaze of glory to prove some point.

But I still am labeled a “fanatic” from time to time. Why?

(more…)

Tags: , ,
Posted in definitions, fanaticism, ideals | 1 Comment »

Fanaticism

Thursday, August 25th, 2005

Another one from my wiki…

Fanaticism, or being a fanatic, can be described as being so sure about something that you refuse to ever think about it again for even a millisecond. That thing is, or becomes, the most important thing in your life, its “driving force”.

Some people confuse fanaticism with merely an intense love or belief. I believe the difference is mostly the above: a fanatic never thinks about it again, his “certainty” encompasses everything. If you love something or someone, or intensely believe in something, but can still think rationally about it, see its faults, its “chips in the armor”, then you are not a fanatic.

A fanatic is not only incapable of admitting he is wrong about something, but also incapable of admitting it is possible for him to be wrong about it.

Not all fanaticism is about religion or beliefs: it doesn’t really depend on the importance of the subject. You can be an absolute fanatic about something unimportant (like a sports club), and you can have a true belief in some philosophy, religion or creed, or intensely love something or someone, without being a fanatic about it.

Being ready to die for a belief doesn’t necessarily make you a fanatic (I believe some things are worth fighting for and even dying for), but if you’re ready to kill for it, then you certainly are one.

It’s absolutely impossible to argue with a fanatic, as he’s incapable of rational thought about it. No matter how many contradictions you reveal in his belief, no matter what proof you show him that he is wrong. If you ever get any near to provoking the slightest doubt, he will violently defend his belief, sometimes becoming murderously violent. His belief is his life; without it it wouldn’t make sense to go on.

Tags: ,
Posted in definitions, fanaticism | 3 Comments »

“Opposites attract”?

Monday, August 8th, 2005

Yesterday, in a conversation, the other “party” said something to the effect of “opposites attract”. It’s certainly a common phrase, and a lot of people believe it to be true.

But it got me thinking. Which is always dangerous. :)

I’m not going to tackle whether opposites do attract or not, but, instead, what does “opposites” mean in this context.

(more…)

Tags: , ,
Posted in definitions, love, relationships | 6 Comments »

The Confusion of Principles

Saturday, July 30th, 2005

The “Confusion of Principles” is what I call what I believe is a mistake that many people make: believing that everything about them, no matter how minor or trivial (even something like a food preference) is “a principle” which must not be “betrayed”.

People seem to have some difficulty in separating:

  • tastes or preferences;
  • opinions;
  • personality traits; and
  • genuine principles.

(more…)

Tags: ,
Posted in definitions, principles | 1 Comment »

The misconception of individualism

Tuesday, July 26th, 2005

In many blogs, sites, articles and so on, one tends to see a lot of opinions similar to the following: “oh, the relationship didn’t work out because he was too much an individualist!”. Or “people are way too individualistic these days, nobody cares about others”.

Apparently, people think of “an individualist” as “a manipulating, selfish, self-centered bastard who uses people and is incapable of caring about anyone”.

Which is quite a weird definition, because it doesn’t have anything to do with the word!

(more…)

Tags: ,
Posted in definitions, individualism | 7 Comments »

Conformists and non-conformists

Monday, July 25th, 2005

Quite a lot of people believe that in this world there are conformists, a.k.a. “mindless sheep”, the people who do things because “that’s what everyone does” – and, conversely, don’t do something because “nobody else is doing it”. People also believe that there are non-conformists, who supposedly are the opposite of the above. So far, so good.

(more…)

Tags: , ,
Posted in conformism, definitions, non-conformism | 14 Comments »

Newer Entries »