| Most Recent Messages of Each Discussion |
Created by |
Re:Answer, part 1
> God is a personal business and must not intervene in legislation, that is to say laws that everybody has to abide by.
Non-religious people might come to the conclusion that disconnecting religion from other things is a neutral solution and best for all. However, religious people follow a very different paradigm. To them culture is part of religion rather than religion part of culture. This means that religion is necessarily involved with everything that people do, think, or decide. To them disconnecting religion would be just one more religious attitude, very far from being neutral, and a very insulting one for people who yearn to see their beloved value system applied on practical purposes.
It might be easier to create laws that allow more latitude for religious thinking, and in general acknowledge better the diversity of human beings.
Puti
|
Language pair: French; English
|
|
Juha-Petri T.
August 24, 2005
# Msgs: 8
Latest: August 24, 2005
|
Re:Fives senses: which one is the least important?
> Among your five senses, which one is the least important for you?
If I were forced to completely sacrifice one of them, I would have to stop weighing smell and taste against each other for a long time.
I have spent times with no smell when I have caught cold, and my sense of smell is not very sharp at other times, either. However, I would miss many of my favourite flavors, especially the fruits.
The senses divide in many subsenses and there are senses that cannot easily be contained within those five. Is the satisfying feeling of citric acid in my stomach part of taste or touch? Perhaps "touch" should include pain, temperature, and bodily balance, too? There are senses making me crave for more oxygen or making me feel sick if I eat harmful food. Perhaps I could sacrifice one of the less famous senses instead?
My top favourite sense is the sight.
Puti
|
Language pair: French; English
|
|
Juha-Petri T.
August 24, 2005
# Msgs: 1
|
Re:Mankind versus Animals!
> I could agree that a man alone on his island could become a kind of animal due to the lack of other human beings able to remind him of the boundary between the animal reign and humanity.
>
> [...]
>
> what does separate human beings from animals?
In this context probably the level and sophistication of self-control.
In sparsely inhabited countries there actually are people who live in wilderness, with very few contacts to people for years or even decades. According to what I have heard these people do not become animals, even though they may forget some parts of their cultural sophistication. (Probably not a great loss from a hermit's viewpoint.) However, this does not imply that they would lose their human attitude towards the people in general, unless their isolation is not caused by mental sickness from the very beginning.
I do not believe that the mere loneliness of the children in "Lord of The Flies" would be a sufficient cause for inhumane behavior. It may work as a catalyst, if the children bring the ingredients of inhumanity inside themselves to the island,
and due to their immaturity have no means to control its growth.
> How would you react on a remote island deprived of any modern comfort?
I have not tested myself that extremely. To me the lack of clean water, safe food, and a toilet (and Internet!) would be more of an issue than a fear of losing my humanity.
Puti
|
Language pair: French; English
|
|
Juha-Petri T.
August 24, 2005
# Msgs: 8
Latest: September 4, 2005
|
Re:Re:Chivalry(part II)
> For example, would you take a bullet
> for a stranger, or dive off a bridge,
> to save a dog?
People are not necessarily the sole
owners of their bodies and lives. For
example, a married person should think
about his (her) family before sacrificing
his life. Sometimes, depending on the
situation, the person might still
sacrifice or seriously endanger his life,
with a full confidence that his family
accepts the choice, however painful
it may be to all of them.
Puti
|
Language pair: French; English
|
|
Juha-Petri T.
June 2, 2005
# Msgs: 5
Latest: June 3, 2005
|
Re:One European language?
> Many European accounts point out that the
> cost of translating all the European laws
> into some 20 languages is growing fast,
> since skilled translator are scarce both
> for some Easter Europe languages and for
> regional ones such as catalan.
If there are more than 20 workers per
language, each of them could pick one
foreign language and study it until they
have sufficient reading (and perhaps
listening) capability in it. After that
all participant groups could read all
languages through their in-group
translators, and write in their mother
tongue. Then third-party translators would
be needed very rarely, and the read-only
capability in foreign language could be
gained much faster than full language
skills. It could even be made
a prerequisite for the job.
Puti
|
Language pair: French; English
|
|
Juha-Petri T.
May 16, 2005
# Msgs: 2
Latest: May 16, 2005
|
Re:Re:Re:One European language?
Wow. Arnaud, you have left me with nothing to say.
And that's really saying something!
:-)
Beautiful analysis. I'm eager to see how things pan out.
Mark S.
Sac, CA USA
|
Language pair: French; English
|
|
Mark S.
May 16, 2005
# Msgs: 2
Latest: May 16, 2005
|
Re:Judge actions in context, not passions
> Well, have you ever heard of the theory
> of Kant?
> For him, passions are all obnoxious for
> two main reasons. First, they entails a
> deficiency of our conciousness [...]
>
> Then, passions are disastrous for moral.
> [...]
>
> They are said a desease of conciousness
> by Kant.
Are we then responsible of having
a disease? Or are we responsible of
making ourselves mentally vulnerable?
Are the former and the latter just
two sides of the same thing?
If we are responsible, are we able
to carry our responsibility and fix the
problem?
Puti
|
Language pair: French; English
|
|
Juha-Petri T.
April 15, 2005
# Msgs: 8
Latest: April 19, 2005
|
Judge actions in context, not passions
We are not responsible for our passions any more than we are responsible for our nervous system. We feel passion because we have belly-buttons. It's a package deal.
What we are responsible for is how we choose to respond to our passions. I may feel a rage because some self-absorbed individual cut me off on the freeway, but that doesn't mean that nobody can blame me if I decide to run him off of the road, risking his life, my life, and the lives of others.
I may be overwhelmed with emotions when a see a lovely young woman walking down the street, but our civilization has long grown past the days when I can be expected to drag her by the hair into a cave.
This does not mean, however, that certain passionate reactions don't require a certain understanding, that our passions cannot serve at times as mitigating factors in judging our actions. So a violent crime I commit against someone I am trying to rob, for example, should not carry the same judgments as a violent crime I may commit against someone trying to rob me. I would expect in such a situation as the latter, to receive some kind of understanding that I was acting under surprise, shock, confusion, fear, anger, and that I did not have the opportunity to prepare myself rationally for the encounter that my assailant, with some foreknowledge of the possibility of our encounter, may have had.
Essentially, passions are natural biochemical reactions to life's experiences. They can be mild or overwhelming. I think judgments on peoples' behaviors in response to passions need to be made based on the circumstances of each individual incident. It is not possible to say that all passionate acts are okay or that all passionate acts are wrong. As my friend Puti so wisely points out, circumstances are often very important in deciding how we should respond to social problems.
Thanks Arnaud!
Mark,
Sacramento, CA USA
|
Language pair: French; English
|
|
Mark S.
April 11, 2005
# Msgs: 8
Latest: April 19, 2005
|
Re:A debate about passions.
> Are we responsible for our passions?
>
I think we are responsible of what we choose to do with our passions.
However, if somebody gives in to his passion of hunger and steals bread, the responsibility of his nearest people should be examined before his own.
Puti
|
Language pair: French; English
|
|
Juha-Petri T.
April 10, 2005
# Msgs: 8
Latest: April 19, 2005
|
Re:Do you want to share ideas about nationalism?( not propaganda!)
> do you agree Einstein's statement:
> "Nationalism is a childhood disease of
> humanity"?
>
I agree that nationalism, in its negative
sense, is a disease of humanity, and I
wonder, if mere passing of time would
cure it.
I believe that if people love their
cultural heritage, they will survive as
a culture without any nationalistic
ideologies or campaigns.
Puti
|
Language pair: French; English
|
|
Juha-Petri T.
January 20, 2005
# Msgs: 1
|
