Tragedy of man

[AyumiBee]

This book was written by Madách Imre in 1859-60.The main questions in the book are revolves around existence philosophy, history philosophy and moral questions. So I want to ask your opinions of these questions.
1.Existence philosphy
What is more powerful, material(materialism) or spirit(idealism)?

2.History philosophy
Is the history evolution or circulation or decay?

3.Moral questions
Has the morality got meaning?
Is it worthy fighting for good?

Which one is more powerful, well materials can live through time (but not all just a few) as some thoughts too. The ancient philosopy what's still living, we learn about them are more powerful for me than materials. In the book Lucifer says that the spirit can't control the material. Here Lucifer is the symbol of doubt and God is the symbol of belief.

I think history is a circulation. New ideologys come but every has got similarities. People think that they found something new and slowly empires disappear and new comes. So I think history is repeating itself always.

Morality always has got meaning though nowdays sometimes it means less and less. You can't live in this world if your never breaking the rules of morality (sadly). And fighting for good? Beautiful thing. I always try to help and sometimes I only get "That's all?" "Why do you care? Let me be alone!" "No thanks I don't want you to help." I always forget that for some people whatever I do is not enough (though they are not helping at all). Or I tried to help a blind people and he simply said that "No thanks I can do it myself"- though I saw he can't but if he wants to do that then it's his choice (he will fall down). So I'm always fogeting the human nature and I always trying to help and I'm asking my self "How could I always forgot it?" And I always see that someone did help out somebody and they ruin all of their helpers effort in one minute, they can't value it. So sometimes it's useless to fight for good.

[analogZero]

1. Buddhist hold the belief that all things of the physical world are impermanent. which is quite true. Material possessions decay and crack and fight to hold their form, but inevitably succumb to the process of change. Even the greatest statues and strongest buildings are carved down over years by the elements. While we hold on to so many material items, we tend to see past the fact that they'll be gone one day. The idea that the spirit lives on indefinite is a much more rewarding following in it's ideal.

2. I'd say it's close to a combination of evolution and circulation. like a wave moving upward on a graph. It's true that great empires and civilizations grow to dizzying heights before they crash down, only for new ones to sprout later on. But each civilization has grown in some way, slowly it's evolved and grown into something unfathomable to the generation before it. Perhaps the final stage of decay has yet to come, but there isn't as much evidence of that yet, I'd say.

3.As for morality and the pursuit of good, well, it has it's place, but it's always somewhere different these days. Morality is more a practice than anything. It's following the principles of what you've deemed wholesome and in good keeping of the world around you. It can be as simple as 'do onto others as they would do onto you', or you could be somewhere a step above attempting to be more than is expected of you. We have the potential to be greater than we are, and better people than we are. If we were all to be great people, however, living up the highest expectation of what is right, we'd only be working for others and never ourselves. Now that does sound selfish, I admit, but what are you if not for your self? you're a slave to the world perhaps? a tool for others whether they wish it or not? If you're to pass a piece of your soul onto everyone you encounter, would there be enough to go around and still keep you afloat? What good can you do if you yourself need help. We have our limitations, and while it is generous to give a portion of yourself to those around you, is it damaging to give too much? Your liberty is something very fragile with little room to bend.

[AyumiBee]

Originally Posted by analogZero

If we were all to be great people, however, living up the highest expectation of what is right, we'd only be working for others and never ourselves. Now that does sound selfish, I admit, but what are you if not for your self? you're a slave to the world perhaps? a tool for others whether they wish it or not? If you're to pass a piece of your soul onto everyone you encounter, would there be enough to go around and still keep you afloat? What good can you do if you yourself need help. We have our limitations, and while it is generous to give a portion of yourself to those around you, is it damaging to give too much? Your liberty is something very fragile with little room to bend.

Yes you got a point. But this is my personality I like to help people (but just those who earns my respect and friendship. For the others I will say yes I will help you but I won't get into the stuff seriously. Maybe I'm fool...

[analogZero]

just a thought.

edit:

Originally Posted by AyumiBee

Yes you got a point. But this is my personality I like to help people (but just those who earns my respect and friendship. For the others I will say yes I will help you but I won't get into the stuff seriously. Maybe I'm fool...

though I just realized that the movie amelie explains my point a little more clearly. Except you'd likely have to replace her cowardess with moral obligation. But still, for all the good she wants to do, when it comes to herself being happy she can't do anything.

[athrun0017]

1.Existence philosphy
I my opinion i believe materialism to be more power.. idealism is good and on its own it can change many things or set forth more possiblities for any subject in gerenal.. however i like things to be set in motion!

2.History philosophy
History always in mind repeats itself.. I would definatly have to say its circulation.. Though we haven't evolved into a sepreate species, I believe the only things that have evolved is our technology, not us as humans or history in gerenal.. most of the problems we face today is almost the same others in the past have..

3.Moral questions
Morality has meaning.. though many have their own morals they fight or protect, many may not even know it.. still thats a complicated question.
as for the other question.. well i believe its worth fighting for good, however what we believe is good, may not be for others..

[AyumiBee]

Amelie yeah I started to watch that film but maybe it was much for me. But yeah morality, she always try to help others... I think her soul was really innocent

[analogZero]

Originally Posted by AyumiBee

Amelie yeah I started to watch that film but maybe it was much for me. But yeah morality, she always try to help others... I think her soul was really innocent

it's quite the darling movie. I always think of it as the only chick flick worth watching. I'd recommend giving it another chance, not just so you can dig on my edit, but cuz it's worth the watch.

[Tovarishch]

1. What is more powerful, material(materialism) or spirit(idealism)?

2. Is the history evolution or circulation or decay?

3. Has the morality got meaning?
Is it worthy fighting for good?

1. I would say that this is a matter of perspective. Ask one person, and they say, "Material things." Ask another, and they say, "Spiritual things." This might be due in part to the way someone was raised. A man raised in the Protestant Bible Belt might answer differently from someone raised in the Himalayas, where Hinduism is common. A Chinese woman might answer differently from a woman raised in France.
For me, personally, I would like to say that in my own life, idealism or spiritualism rule, but that would only be a partial truth. I am a realist, and I can distinguish the line between "needs" and "wants," but I don't make myself uncomfortable trying to live a life "God" would want me to live. Why should I, when He isn't going out of his way to help me out?

2. I would say that history is circulation. There is a saying that I heard often, back home in Russia. Roughly translated, it says, "If you do not know what has been, then you cannot know what should be." It means that we will repeat the mistakes of the past if we do know learn about them and then learn from them. I study history, and all I see is repetition- the rises and falls of empires, the failures and successes of both individuals and countries, etc, etc. If we all knew our past, how easy would our present be, and how bright our future!

3. I believe that morality does indeed have meaning, and that it is always worth fighting for. Unfortunately, this does not seem to be the case for many people in America.
Besides, "bad" cannot exist if "good" does not. It is therefore lucky for the "bad" people that there are those who are willing to fight for morality.

I need to go, so if I think of anything else I want to say, I'll throw it in later in an edit.
-Tovarishch

[a2ng0d]

Originally Posted by Tovarishch

1. What is more powerful, material(materialism) or spirit(idealism)?

2. Is the history evolution or circulation or decay?

3. Has the morality got meaning?
Is it worthy fighting for good?

1. I would say that this is a matter of perspective. Ask one person, and they say, "Material things." Ask another, and they say, "Spiritual things." This might be due in part to the way someone was raised. A man raised in the Protestant Bible Belt might answer differently from someone raised in the Himalayas, where Hinduism is common. A Chinese woman might answer differently from a woman raised in France.
For me, personally, I would like to say that in my own life, idealism or spiritualism rule, but that would only be a partial truth. I am a realist, and I can distinguish the line between "needs" and "wants," but I don't make myself uncomfortable trying to live a life "God" would want me to live. Why should I, when He isn't going out of his way to help me out?

2. I would say that history is circulation. There is a saying that I heard often, back home in Russia. Roughly translated, it says, "If you do not know what has been, then you cannot know what should be." It means that we will repeat the mistakes of the past if we do know learn about them and then learn from them. I study history, and all I see is repetition- the rises and falls of empires, the failures and successes of both individuals and countries, etc, etc. If we all knew our past, how easy would our present be, and how bright our future!

3. I believe that morality does indeed have meaning, and that it is always worth fighting for. Unfortunately, this does not seem to be the case for many people in America.
Besides, "bad" cannot exist if "good" does not. It is therefore lucky for the "bad" people that there are those who are willing to fight for morality.

I need to go, so if I think of anything else I want to say, I'll throw it in later in an edit.
-Tovarishch

I agree with your 2 and 3, but the last sentence of 1 tells me you need to read a little more on God. That is, if we are still speaking of the same God.

[analogZero]

You know, tovarishch, on reading through your post for #2 I got to thinking about that saying. Much like the one others may be familiar with "if we forget the past, we're doomed to repeat it", I got to thinking that it holds some connection to Leerock's thread on original thought. It seems odd that we repeat the events of the past, that we build great empires all the while knowing that all others before have fallen. Perhaps we're fueled by unoriginal thoughts, as leerock so adamantly argued. Perhaps we as a collective people have no other idea than to work from the same blueprint, and try to improve it. To make the house more sturdy so that next time it will be able to weather the storms thrown at it. As a result it would seem futile for us to pursue the same directive time and time again, and yet we do. It's much like the families who live in areas prone to natural disaster, that to an outsider you see it as ridiculous that they would continue to live under repetitively destructive conditions, yet to those who live those lives there's something there that binds them to their decision to rebuild. So would it be that our hold on tradition is what causes the cycle to perpetuate itself, or is there simply no other way? Likely we're victim to what we know, servants to the world that we were born to and built around us our whole lives and as a result we know only what we experience. That we can't see a way forward other than by knowing what the path looked like behind us. It could be that when we come to an unexpected fork in the road, it's expected that things will divide much like an empire as it fractures and crumbles.