I disagree. Entertaining a thought is not even in the same ballpark as acting on it. Me thinking about going down to the fridge to get a beer is not the same as me going down to the fridge to get a beer. For one, the beer stays in the fridge. For another, I do not stuff the extra calories in my face. For the third, I do not get drunk.
By your process of thinking, anybody who fleetingly thinks of, say, committing murder, is a killer. By precedent. If a woman thinks of cheating on her husband, she's not being faithful. Then by that very same logic, if a man thinks of killing his wife, he's a killer.
While I will admit that entertaining negative thoughts for any considerable length of time can lead to weakness, and in turn, to one's acting out on those thoughts, I am still vehemently against any philosophy that thinking about something is inherently negative in and of itself.
Because if you're afraid of thinking the thought of killing someone even for a second, just in case you might kill someone; you have bigger problems than where your mind wanders. In fact I dare say that for some people (not all, since we're not all alike in this species) entertaining the thought of doing another person harm can be quite healthy. Granted, not for any extended period of time.
Allow me to explain: When you think of harming another human being, what should first and foremost be coming to your mind (besides grisly details, har-har...) should be an emotional empathic response telling you exactly how wrong that negative thought is. And empathy towards others is one of those things that needs to be upkept and trained. Not unlike a muscle. As long as that empathic response makes you feel like crap for thinking negative thoughts - that's a sign of good mental health. Besides, repressing negative thoughts for fear of acting on them will only cause them to build up. It is better to vent one's frustration in small ways, like entertaining a thought for a few seconds. Then empathy kicks in, and you realize that you could never harm someone you love.
And stray thoughts are nothing like stray bullets. Thoughts and thought processes are much more complex than that.
Again, though, entertaining a thought is not the same as acting on it. It is just that - entertaining it. And this perceived lack of distinction between these two things is exactly why I'm so outspoken about the subject. People need to see that they shouldn't be afraid to think. And that they should trust their own empathy to guide them. Otherwise, what you have is a population of very scared people. And scared people are no good to anyone but oppressors.
All that aside, there are only two states - either the person is faithful and stays true to his/her spouse, or the person is unfaithful and cheats on them. Their thoughts are irrelevant because they only matter to the person who has them. Thoughts are private, and no business of anyone else. Ever. No exceptions. A person who, whether fleetingly thinks or seriously entertains the thought of cheating on their spouse, but makes the conscious decision to not act on those thoughts are exactly as faithful as the person who doesn't even consider it. Because no action has occured. And only action matters. As soon as you start lending weight to what a person has thought of and dismissed, you're ascribing importance to a trivial, academical non-existant thought process. Dangerously close to anthropomorphism, connotation and assumption. And like I've said before, these things make poor bedfellows.
TL;DR - Thinking thoughts are not actions, just because the act of thinking sometimes require a mental effort. Also empathy is good and should be nurtured.
-Fred
By your process of thinking, anybody who fleetingly thinks of, say, committing murder, is a killer. By precedent. If a woman thinks of cheating on her husband, she's not being faithful. Then by that very same logic, if a man thinks of killing his wife, he's a killer.
While I will admit that entertaining negative thoughts for any considerable length of time can lead to weakness, and in turn, to one's acting out on those thoughts, I am still vehemently against any philosophy that thinking about something is inherently negative in and of itself.
Because if you're afraid of thinking the thought of killing someone even for a second, just in case you might kill someone; you have bigger problems than where your mind wanders. In fact I dare say that for some people (not all, since we're not all alike in this species) entertaining the thought of doing another person harm can be quite healthy. Granted, not for any extended period of time.
Allow me to explain: When you think of harming another human being, what should first and foremost be coming to your mind (besides grisly details, har-har...) should be an emotional empathic response telling you exactly how wrong that negative thought is. And empathy towards others is one of those things that needs to be upkept and trained. Not unlike a muscle. As long as that empathic response makes you feel like crap for thinking negative thoughts - that's a sign of good mental health. Besides, repressing negative thoughts for fear of acting on them will only cause them to build up. It is better to vent one's frustration in small ways, like entertaining a thought for a few seconds. Then empathy kicks in, and you realize that you could never harm someone you love.
And stray thoughts are nothing like stray bullets. Thoughts and thought processes are much more complex than that.
Again, though, entertaining a thought is not the same as acting on it. It is just that - entertaining it. And this perceived lack of distinction between these two things is exactly why I'm so outspoken about the subject. People need to see that they shouldn't be afraid to think. And that they should trust their own empathy to guide them. Otherwise, what you have is a population of very scared people. And scared people are no good to anyone but oppressors.
All that aside, there are only two states - either the person is faithful and stays true to his/her spouse, or the person is unfaithful and cheats on them. Their thoughts are irrelevant because they only matter to the person who has them. Thoughts are private, and no business of anyone else. Ever. No exceptions. A person who, whether fleetingly thinks or seriously entertains the thought of cheating on their spouse, but makes the conscious decision to not act on those thoughts are exactly as faithful as the person who doesn't even consider it. Because no action has occured. And only action matters. As soon as you start lending weight to what a person has thought of and dismissed, you're ascribing importance to a trivial, academical non-existant thought process. Dangerously close to anthropomorphism, connotation and assumption. And like I've said before, these things make poor bedfellows.
TL;DR - Thinking thoughts are not actions, just because the act of thinking sometimes require a mental effort. Also empathy is good and should be nurtured.
-Fred
Pirates, vampires, zombies, ninjas, ghouls, aliens, goblins, monsters, robots, sorcerers, undead, werewolves, demons, mutated dinosaur-cyborgs and those pesky phone salesmen! The shotgun is a one-size-fits-all solution!
I just want to chime in here for a second....
Just because a person thinks of hurting someone, does not make them a killer in any way shape or form. They are not more of a killer than someone who doesn't entertain the thought. I am sorry, but unless someone is Jesus Christ or Buddah, I find it very hard to believe a person has never, ever had the thought of hurting someone, pop into their head.
Either that, or they have never had the luxury of being around extremely difficult and frustrating people. As Fred said, an empathetic response should kick in..... if it doesn't and the person is reveling in the thought of it and enjoying it..... well.... they are clearly a sociopath.
It is the people who do not have an outlet for their anger, that eventually snap.
Just because a person thinks of hurting someone, does not make them a killer in any way shape or form. They are not more of a killer than someone who doesn't entertain the thought. I am sorry, but unless someone is Jesus Christ or Buddah, I find it very hard to believe a person has never, ever had the thought of hurting someone, pop into their head.
Either that, or they have never had the luxury of being around extremely difficult and frustrating people. As Fred said, an empathetic response should kick in..... if it doesn't and the person is reveling in the thought of it and enjoying it..... well.... they are clearly a sociopath.
It is the people who do not have an outlet for their anger, that eventually snap.
Matt
It is precisely the kind of attitude towards thoughts xhonzi has I wish to combat in the world. I am aware I cannot change his/hers thoughts on the subject, at least not without writing an extensive book on the subject, but I do so lament when people lend weight to a person's discarded thoughts.
Allow me to explain something about the human condition. We are ALL potential killers. We are ALL potentially unfaithful. And a lot more things besides. It's human nature. But we can avoid carrying out negative actions because we have a built-in failsafe that tells ut it would be wrong. Granted, for some people, rage, lust, or some other extreme emotion can make us disregard our empathic responses and act in a harmful way to others, whether that is directly (murder) or indirectly (unfaithfulness).
A person who entertains the thought of going in to work with a shotgun because he's had a bad day, is no more a killer than a person who did not have a bad day. The potential remains the same. The person who did not have a bad day can in fact snap just as easy ten years down the line because he's been repressing bad thoughts for years until rage quietly boils up, and the empathic response is no longer able to keep it in check - the rage has become unbearable, and it's postal o'clock. Still, that person is not yet a killer. Not until he has actually caused willful death of another is he a killer.
What xhonzi wants is for acting on a thought to be the same as entertaining a thought, because both require a mental choice. To do something vs to keep thinking about something. This is a fallacy; thinking about something is not equivalent to physically performing an action similar to what one's mental process describes in one's thoughts.
Like I said previously, this is a distinction I wish to make clear to people - that these are two very separate things, and that one of them is mostly harmless. Thoughts are healthy, even negative ones (as long as it provokes the necessary empathic response trigger) and should never, ever be equated with having taken action. It sets poor precedents.
There are a myriad of other factors to these things, of course, predispositions from genetics, intelligence, upbringing, social skills and milieu, to name a few, and this is an extremely complex issue, but I feel this is the core of it. Other people's discarded thoughts have no weight on the real world. It is their actions which have impact.
As such, yes. It is binary. And there are no shades of gray in between.
-Fred
Allow me to explain something about the human condition. We are ALL potential killers. We are ALL potentially unfaithful. And a lot more things besides. It's human nature. But we can avoid carrying out negative actions because we have a built-in failsafe that tells ut it would be wrong. Granted, for some people, rage, lust, or some other extreme emotion can make us disregard our empathic responses and act in a harmful way to others, whether that is directly (murder) or indirectly (unfaithfulness).
A person who entertains the thought of going in to work with a shotgun because he's had a bad day, is no more a killer than a person who did not have a bad day. The potential remains the same. The person who did not have a bad day can in fact snap just as easy ten years down the line because he's been repressing bad thoughts for years until rage quietly boils up, and the empathic response is no longer able to keep it in check - the rage has become unbearable, and it's postal o'clock. Still, that person is not yet a killer. Not until he has actually caused willful death of another is he a killer.
What xhonzi wants is for acting on a thought to be the same as entertaining a thought, because both require a mental choice. To do something vs to keep thinking about something. This is a fallacy; thinking about something is not equivalent to physically performing an action similar to what one's mental process describes in one's thoughts.
Like I said previously, this is a distinction I wish to make clear to people - that these are two very separate things, and that one of them is mostly harmless. Thoughts are healthy, even negative ones (as long as it provokes the necessary empathic response trigger) and should never, ever be equated with having taken action. It sets poor precedents.
There are a myriad of other factors to these things, of course, predispositions from genetics, intelligence, upbringing, social skills and milieu, to name a few, and this is an extremely complex issue, but I feel this is the core of it. Other people's discarded thoughts have no weight on the real world. It is their actions which have impact.
As such, yes. It is binary. And there are no shades of gray in between.
-Fred
Pirates, vampires, zombies, ninjas, ghouls, aliens, goblins, monsters, robots, sorcerers, undead, werewolves, demons, mutated dinosaur-cyborgs and those pesky phone salesmen! The shotgun is a one-size-fits-all solution!
I have no problem with non-absolutes, on the contrary. They just do not apply to the situation described above.
And the name of the thread notwithstanding, it is not a philosophical issue when it comes down to either having done something or not - as such, it is indeed binary. There is nothing in between performing an action and not performing an action. You either do, or you do not.
You seem to want to place people's thoughts in between do and don't as degrees of something. According to you, a person who thinks about unfaithfulness is more unfaithful than a person who does not, but less unfaithful than a person who commits willful adultery. This is sophistry at it's worst!
I am trying to make the point that thinking about unfaithfulness has, in practical terms, absolutely nothing to do with unfaithfulness at all. Either one commits adultery, or one does not. Thinking about it, and then discarding those thoughts, are not relevant to the unfaithfulness in question. They are relevant to whether or not the person is in a happy place, or in a relationship that affects them in a positive way or not, certainly. But a person who thinks about being unfaithful, and then decides against it (for whatever reason) is not unfaithful. To any degree.
In fact, as such, I would say it is rather you who seem to have a problem grasping the application of binaries in a practical setting, as well as confusing hypothetical and philosophical. I have yet to delve into the realm of philosophy in this thread. Yes, I agree, there are many things in this world that are not binary. There are many shades of gray in many areas of life. But not when it comes to actions. All actions are binary.
But I can tell we will not reach an accord. Let us instead agree to disagree on the subject, and let the matter rest.
-Fred
And the name of the thread notwithstanding, it is not a philosophical issue when it comes down to either having done something or not - as such, it is indeed binary. There is nothing in between performing an action and not performing an action. You either do, or you do not.
You seem to want to place people's thoughts in between do and don't as degrees of something. According to you, a person who thinks about unfaithfulness is more unfaithful than a person who does not, but less unfaithful than a person who commits willful adultery. This is sophistry at it's worst!
I am trying to make the point that thinking about unfaithfulness has, in practical terms, absolutely nothing to do with unfaithfulness at all. Either one commits adultery, or one does not. Thinking about it, and then discarding those thoughts, are not relevant to the unfaithfulness in question. They are relevant to whether or not the person is in a happy place, or in a relationship that affects them in a positive way or not, certainly. But a person who thinks about being unfaithful, and then decides against it (for whatever reason) is not unfaithful. To any degree.
In fact, as such, I would say it is rather you who seem to have a problem grasping the application of binaries in a practical setting, as well as confusing hypothetical and philosophical. I have yet to delve into the realm of philosophy in this thread. Yes, I agree, there are many things in this world that are not binary. There are many shades of gray in many areas of life. But not when it comes to actions. All actions are binary.
But I can tell we will not reach an accord. Let us instead agree to disagree on the subject, and let the matter rest.
-Fred
Pirates, vampires, zombies, ninjas, ghouls, aliens, goblins, monsters, robots, sorcerers, undead, werewolves, demons, mutated dinosaur-cyborgs and those pesky phone salesmen! The shotgun is a one-size-fits-all solution!