Is Shaolin-Do for real?

[Judge Pen]

Give me a hypothetical and I will show you why I am right. Keep in mind the key word here is "purely".

You can't prove or disprove a hypothetical without making assumption which may or may not be true. Religion or spirituality is a subjective experience, so people outside of that experience cannot prove or discount that experience. The person may be delusional or enlightened. That is between them and their god.

[Judge Pen]

And if you wanna get real deep, we don't know ANYTHING for sure. You can't even prove you exist. But come on, let's not even go there, for the sake of maintaining some structure to our thinking.

Wow, this whole world, this thread, even you, KC and Frank are nothing more than my own fabrication. ****, I wish I had a better imagination.

[Syn7]

That is between them and their god.

Now that was an assumption.


A hypothetical IS an assumption. So.... yeah

I was trying to give you a lil room to work. But ok. Give me a real one then.

I know you're a lawyer, but you must be familiar with the concept of a thought experiment.

[Syn7]

Wow, this whole world, this thread, even you, KC and Frank are nothing more than my own fabrication. ****, I wish I had a better imagination.

I bet you do...

[Kellen Bassette]

And if you wanna get real deep, we don't know ANYTHING for sure. You can't even prove you exist. But come on, let's not even go there, for the sake of maintaining some structure to our thinking.

Like the matrix, lol...I don't particularly care to go that far either...but I can't give an example, from anyone but myself, (which I don't think fits the bill), as I have no way of knowing anyone else's motives.

My point is, it's not possible to know why everyone did anything...it's just absurd to assume all thinking fits the same basic profiles or that everyone reacts from the same base motives. The human condition is too vast and variable.

My objection isn't your idea, it's the definitive wording...which by the way is a huge problem I have with contemporary science. If it's "reasonable to believe", "most likely", "Evidence suggests," "the research indicates", ect. then fine...but when it's presented as fact, something that can't, by definition, be proven, or more than an opinion, (however reasonable or educated)...than it contradicts the very principles of science: test, observe, measure....

Sorry about the tangent and taking a long way around, but you get what I'm saying...I have no doubt you could demonstrate personal gain in what most people would see as selflessness, but to say it has never occurred, "period" I don't think that's likely and certainly not provable...

[Syn7]

Well, fact is merely consensus. Truth is something else altogether.

I know what you mean. I may not be able to always narrow down an exact motivation, but I can all but guarantee there is self in the process. By nature of where the act originates. If self does anything, it is motivated by self, for whatever reason. The reason isn't even relevant for the purposes of this discussion. It's not really that deep when you think about it.

But you are right. What I identify as red may appear as yellow in your mind despite the "fact" that we agree that what we are looking at is called red.

Most people who argue with me on this do so because of the negative association with the word "selfish". Like the word inconsiderate. It means what it means, anything else is on whoever makes the extra interpretation. I once called my ex inconsiderate. She was so mad. So I asked her if she had considered it? Obviously it just made the argument worse, but only cause I was right. So she blew a fuse and stormed off like the emotional wreck that she was.

I say what I mean, and I mean what I say. I can't be held me accountable for other peoples assumptions.

On occasion I do not express myself as well as I could, or should. But I'll always clear it up when it becomes apparent that it's necessary.


"PERIOD" was my opinion. The rest is based on observation. I can't prove it definitively, but I can do a better job at producing examples on my end than anyone can from the other end. That much you must concede.

[EarthDragon]

Let's say I was doing an an experiment. I have hypothesis A, now it's time to prove it or disprove it. I do tests, but all the sudden my tests blow my hypothesis out of the water. I find undeniable proof that I was wrong about the details of my hypothesis. Now the smart thing to do would be to look at the evidence and scrutinize my data to see why my hypothesis didn't hold up and whether the whole concept is weak, or just some of it.

Now, let's say that instead of being objective I decide to stick to my hypothesis and just push it ahead just beyond what I can verify. Anyone here call that success? Now how smart is that?

great post. however your question about who has been humbled by God. is in answereable, yet to all, everyone has an answer.

depends in your undestanding of God and humblness, there is no such thing as reality only ones percetion of events. I may not percive humblenss then how could you ask if anything could or ever has humbled me.

[Judge Pen]

Now that was an assumption.


A hypothetical IS an assumption. So.... yeah

I was trying to give you a lil room to work. But ok. Give me a real one then.

I know you're a lawyer, but you must be familiar with the concept of a thought experiment.

I'm familiar with the concept, but I don't see the point when it comes to religion.

[Empty_Cup]

Acts are neutral occurrences and only have morality attached to them by humans.

[Shaolin Wookie]

You may be right, but unless you are in the mind of those purporting to do these "selfless" acts, you can't know for certain. Just because you can't conceive it in your own mind doesn't make it so.

You guys are arguing questions settled 100 years ago in microeconomics. All human actions are aimed at a state that an individual prefers over the state that would likely prevail if that individual refrained from interfering with the course of events. And since value is subjective (see marginal utility theory), all values are calculated rationally by individuals. Now, some people act because they feel that others will benefit from their labors. This will only prove true if others value the goods and services produced by others. If the do-Gooder fails to make a profit (psychic or otherwise), then he or she vastly overestimated his or her utility to other people as an agent of happiness.

Value is subjective, and actions are selfish (but not necessarily narcissistic) by Definition.

Now, if what I just said is a mere hypothesis that must be confirmed by lab tests, might you try to disprove it? Would you not require aiming at an explanation of actions that you prefer-either on evidentiary grounds or ideological-over the theory that all action is driven by individual desires? You prove the theory--and hence the theory is a priori true. Human action is a special case in philosophical debates.

[Shaolin Wookie]

The Austrians are the strongest on this position.

Take the idea of collective knowledge (consensus) and collective action. Collective knowledge, such as what accrues in textbooks, is individually known and subject to refutation--if it is not axiomatic in the way that mathematics and human action are. Some people argue that reality is a fiction. This is funny. An argument that denies reality requires language, time, space (as prerequisites for speech unfolding sequentially in a comprehensible manner), an audience (and hence another being in the spatial-temporal frame), value-driven behavior ( convincing others that reality is false), and the presupposition that the original premise could be true (and hence that all things are not false.

Anyways...so some of you we're saying that nothing could be proven? You guys need some Aristotle, Kant, or Mises, and fast!

[Shaolin Wookie]

Selfless acts are overrated. Imagine mother Theresa is giving food to a group of indigent Africans, but these Africans believe that she is performing witchcraft on Africans to turn them into ZOmbies. They're not being irrational -- that are doing what they see is in their best interests. They're wrong, empirically, since food can't turn you into a zombie, but there might in fact be some witchcraft in Theresa's motives. She claims to do good works for a guy with only one half of a DNA strand, born of a virgin, who gave his disciples his own flesh for a last meal, and who then rose from the dead--a walker. Those who keep his flesh-eating covenant are promised eternal life after death---pure zombie-ism. Theresa sees all acts done for this Zombie savior ( as the Africans see him) as selfless, because she does not profit immediately. However, she may or may not be doing those deeds for treasures stored up in heaven, or simply to reduce misery and starvation. The Africans have cause for concern if they do not have the tools to determine whether her food donations can cause Zombie-ism.
In any case, Mother Theresa does not act selflessly, as long as she sees the outcome of her deeds as better than refraining from doing them.

Now, we all know that capitalism (private ownership of the means of production, rather than govt(public ownership) is stronger than 100000000 mother Theresas. Furthermore, unlike public programs like obamacare, you don't have to pay for anyone else's share of goods and services. Community and collective action is a kind way of saying that you're going to force some people to do things that they would not do if they were free to abstain from action. If collective action is completely voluntary, then it's a corporation. If its coercive and violent, then it's a state. As long as actions do not violate other people's natural right to act for their own happiness ( hence murder and theft are excluded from these rights), then we know where freedom lies----competing corporations in a free market.

Now, lets overthrow the government, shall we?

[kwaichang]

I have found that Left brain , proove it to me types who dont like the idea of a God , will not admit their is one, . Anyway as far as saying one who does for someone w/o thought of self I will give you 2 examples,
1. My dad was a Marine his group was at Guadalcanal, most were killed there was a gentle man who did a heroic deed like the old movie thing of grabbing a grenade and covering it with his body, he saved many lives, he got no reward in this life, but the next life doesnt matter because none acknowledge God. Sure he got a medal or should I say his family did but it didnt bemnefit him at all.
2. Dr White of Austin Texas, a Neuro Surgeon, he checked on my son 2x per day for a full week , ordered 2 MRI's and other tests, to check for possible brain damage, then gave my son a pair of little blue shoes, when he was Dc'd. We were informed everyday by him that our son was going to be fine, and he is. When we asked for a bill he said dont worry about it , when we looked for a hospital bill of the MRI's there was none, we had to hunt him down to thank him , he was embarrased to be thanked, HE NEVER RECEIVED A DIME, well if this isnt selfless nothing is, if you dont think it is wait till your kid is born and he/she has to be in the Neonatal ICU. You will feel different then, Oh and btw Dr white sends a birthday card to my son every year on his birthday. KC

[wenshu]

all values are calculated rationally by individuals.

You are insane.

[Shaolin Wookie]

Imagine a state of affairs--a free market--in which only voluntary actions occur (and where all coercive acts are punished only if proven or if the plaintiff takes responsibility for recouping costs if the defendant is later proven innocent). It's hard to imagine such a state of affairs when we keep moving away from it---but then, no, it's not.

Many atheists charge religion with having been the most violent and bloody organization in human history. Many theists counter that Soviet Russia--an atheistic communistic society--was just as bad. Both are correct, and both have misidentified the problem.

Religion in America today is rather peaceful. There are some closet nutjobs who blow up buildings, but they're in the minority. Churches exist independent of the state in a completely tax-free sector. They are free market corporations that rely only on voluntary contributions (a market pricing mechanism) for spiritual services. In this economic manner, they're no different than a chirporactic center or a kosher food store. How is it that religion, violent and bloody as it has always been, is now so peaceful---and even successful? Hmmmm.....free markets, anyone?

Take religion out of the hands of the state---with its goonsquads, massive armories, and its "selfless" public servants---and religion becomes peaceful. Put it in the hands of those same agents, and you have the Middle East as it is today.

Why was communism so violent and bloody? It was a faulty theory. If everyone HAS to become a communist, then many people are going to be forced to join and have their belongings stolen by a government agency. It was the theory of "selfless" action that was its downfall, since selfless action is impossible. And insofar as communism was coercive and violent and centered around a single ideology, it was a state institution.

If a bunch of hippies want to join a commune in backwoods, Wyoming, all the more happiness to them. They simply cannot prevent anyone from leaving, or else they violate natural rights (You cannot alienate your will, since your will is changeable based on your circumstances [hence that pesky marginal utility theory again]). Voluntary socialism is nearly dead as a doornail, and social democrats of the American Democrat variety are now--though they do not realize it, since many do not want communism---nevertheless socialists in fact because they keep moving towards involuntary socialism---obamacare, social security, medicare, medicaid. Communal actions that rely on force are always an attack on the free market, and hence always hamper our ability to calculate rationally in economics. They are therefore bad.

But anyways, religion is like a castrated bull without the state. So is socialism. Ally the two and you get chaos, poverty, and the worst side of human nature.

I say let's universalize the principle. No state. Free markets. If you can't get there 100^%, you at least know that "getting" there is a good idea.