In order to propound a theory we have to first comprehend the subject ...
viz. when talking about the good ways of ending ... life, hence, dying ... we have to first understand Life !
Now since the meanings of Life, vary, from person to person, place to place and time to time ... so do the meanings of its inevitable ending, namely, Death...
But since the meanings of Life and Death also vary, from Belief to Belief ... thinkers often find themselves comparing, what at times can be huge variables ... viz. Buddhism's eternal "Cycle" of being, until the soul is absorbed in the Ultimate reality ... the Kantian philosophy, that soul is a thinking substance, the world as the totality of all phenomena and God, as the absolute perfect being ... or the latest ... yours, that "someone out there is watching ... so better keep your books in order or IRS will nab you" ... etc.
Hence, the big question ... If things be as they are, then how are we to understand the meanings of Life and thus, by default ... understand its Beginnings and End ... namely, the phenomenon of Birth and Death ... and thus, the good or the bad manner of Living and Dying ... Since we have no controls over our Birth, or Re-Birth !
In my reckoning, we should understand Life within the "Purpose of our Being" ... since there are no other Logical or Metalogical explanations of "Being" ... In, that "everything" in the Universe ... Exists ... within a well pre-defined Purpose's Limitations and subject to the same laws of Birth and Death ...
But in the applied ... during Being ... Humans are the sole exception in this vast universe who can and do exercise certain freedoms, within Life ... and therefore, if we follow the Ordained ... The Destined Manner of ending Life ... should be no problem
Death, would no more remain an Unknown value, hence nothing to fear and at any time or place, a far better thing, than being shot in the head being treated as the easiest, thus, quickest way, of exiting Life !
I, by the Grace of God, have an open mind vis a vis, learning, the good things in life; I have been and continue to remain fair in all my dealings ... But, I have a mind that closes all its windows when it smells the rat ...
I saw the clip and felt there was no need to see or hear the rest of your philosophy ...
For your presentation begins in an most "uncharitable" of manners; deploying, familiar icons, a drunken-driver, a car, a back-alley, a lonely two years old child, the road kill, and finally, the cold-blooded passerbys, to establish, the premise of the "current worth" of a human life ... vis a vis Charity !
But why, only China, don't you see it on the streets of Harlem, or the East end, London ?
To make a long story short, I disagree with the idea of a philosopher, dealing in Charity, Morality and Ethics, being an uninformed person ... or is it, that you "don't want to see" whats actually happening, on the streets of the world, inhabited by lesser humans.
Can't you see human abuse in famine struck Mali, Somalia, Chad, Sudan and Ethiopia; Cocaine Driven Columbia, the kids of Iraq, Gaza, Syria, Palestine, Afghanistan and Pakistan; on the streets, of Benghazi, Kashmir and Mayanmar's Horangayas districts ... you shrug off, as "collateral damage" in a War on Terror !
Anyway, be that as it may, the fact remains ...
That "everything" in the Universe, existing in any Form or State, philosophy defines as "Existence" ... has to strictly adhere to a "Charitable Regimen" of Existence, where Humans, are the only exception to a Rule that governs the rest of Creation.
Because, humans, are the only ones, Granted a free Will and all the needed Abilities [and appendages] to do, as they please in Being.
But, the Charitable Lord Hath not left us alone, so to help us live correctly, He Hath Granted us the Right Way, of Life, Tabooed in the civilized Western society.
This Way of Life, is called "Sharia", meaning, the Ordained , Way of Being for, the Human. Whereas, from a Quark to the Super giants in the Universe; so also, everything inhabiting and/or existent betwixt these two extremes, cannot, does not, budge a micron from The Ordained Regimen, Ordained for its kind.
I do not see us disagreeing with what I have already stated, excepting, the Semantic difference, but since Greeks have been drawn into this discussion, allow me to add :
Socrates, was compelled by Reason, to state, what he stated about Writing as a corrupting influence vis a vis, his day's established Oral tradition.
However, his view, was not shared by his star pupil, Plato, who anyway went ahead and wrote, that today enables us to know Socrates' Spoken !
The Written, is essentially, the unspoken word ... though it may precede, or succeed, the Spoken ... so its just another manner of presening the Ideas, that were originally expressed, Orally ... Thus, the Written, is a manner of Comminication, hence, Exchange of Ideas !
I am of the view that Socrates must have meant corruption in other than the Translator's derived sense ... In, that he never meant to say ... Greek' Alphabet per say, corrupts ... what he actually meant was ... it corrupts the free-flow of ideas ... necessary for any fruitul exchange.
You may appreciate the fact, that Greek has a notoriously protracted manner, hence, a lethargic means, of communuicating, the large volume, of orally expressed ideas ... and the fact, that Socrates was no Methuselah ... he was in a hurry to say all he had to say before the cup ...
The Common denominator in all fruitful exchanges betwixt individuals, is "recognition" ... The Acceptance, of one, as a distinct individual, a definite member of any Society ... anonymity in such cases signals of the loss of an individuals identity ...
Collective wisdom or not ... any move that denies the Individual its Right to be Human ... is Centralization of Ideas in a data bank that may remain at the exclusive disposal of a few insanely ambitious individuals.
I know, such being true for Singers, Painters, Models etc., hence generally, the performers ... their need for appreciation, as they deal with the subtle things of life ...
where appreciation means, that their intended message has been sucessfully conveyed !
But can we really say that such also applies to everyone else, indulging in any kind of physical or mental activity ?
TEDCred score: +3.40 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A comment on Talk: Judy MacDonald Johnston: Prepare for a good end of life
In order to propound a theory we have to first comprehend the subject ...
viz. when talking about the good ways of ending ... life, hence, dying ... we have to first understand Life !
Now since the meanings of Life, vary, from person to person, place to place and time to time ... so do the meanings of its inevitable ending, namely, Death...
But since the meanings of Life and Death also vary, from Belief to Belief ... thinkers often find themselves comparing, what at times can be huge variables ... viz. Buddhism's eternal "Cycle" of being, until the soul is absorbed in the Ultimate reality ... the Kantian philosophy, that soul is a thinking substance, the world as the totality of all phenomena and God, as the absolute perfect being ... or the latest ... yours, that "someone out there is watching ... so better keep your books in order or IRS will nab you" ... etc.
Hence, the big question ... If things be as they are, then how are we to understand the meanings of Life and thus, by default ... understand its Beginnings and End ... namely, the phenomenon of Birth and Death ... and thus, the good or the bad manner of Living and Dying ... Since we have no controls over our Birth, or Re-Birth !
In my reckoning, we should understand Life within the "Purpose of our Being" ... since there are no other Logical or Metalogical explanations of "Being" ... In, that "everything" in the Universe ... Exists ... within a well pre-defined Purpose's Limitations and subject to the same laws of Birth and Death ...
But in the applied ... during Being ... Humans are the sole exception in this vast universe who can and do exercise certain freedoms, within Life ... and therefore, if we follow the Ordained ... The Destined Manner of ending Life ... should be no problem
Death, would no more remain an Unknown value, hence nothing to fear and at any time or place, a far better thing, than being shot in the head being treated as the easiest, thus, quickest way, of exiting Life !
A comment on Talk: Catarina Mota: Play with smart materials
The smart thing to do in my reckoning, is to "understand" that we are to learn ... What all of us know, intrinsically ...
A reply on Talk: Peter Singer: The why and how of effective altruism
I, by the Grace of God, have an open mind vis a vis, learning, the good things in life; I have been and continue to remain fair in all my dealings ... But, I have a mind that closes all its windows when it smells the rat ...
A reply on Talk: Peter Singer: The why and how of effective altruism
Nor do I have the space to report the details of Tax evasions euphemistically called donations to Charities !
A comment on Talk: Peter Singer: The why and how of effective altruism
I saw the clip and felt there was no need to see or hear the rest of your philosophy ...
For your presentation begins in an most "uncharitable" of manners; deploying, familiar icons, a drunken-driver, a car, a back-alley, a lonely two years old child, the road kill, and finally, the cold-blooded passerbys, to establish, the premise of the "current worth" of a human life ... vis a vis Charity !
But why, only China, don't you see it on the streets of Harlem, or the East end, London ?
To make a long story short, I disagree with the idea of a philosopher, dealing in Charity, Morality and Ethics, being an uninformed person ... or is it, that you "don't want to see" whats actually happening, on the streets of the world, inhabited by lesser humans.
Can't you see human abuse in famine struck Mali, Somalia, Chad, Sudan and Ethiopia; Cocaine Driven Columbia, the kids of Iraq, Gaza, Syria, Palestine, Afghanistan and Pakistan; on the streets, of Benghazi, Kashmir and Mayanmar's Horangayas districts ... you shrug off, as "collateral damage" in a War on Terror !
Anyway, be that as it may, the fact remains ...
That "everything" in the Universe, existing in any Form or State, philosophy defines as "Existence" ... has to strictly adhere to a "Charitable Regimen" of Existence, where Humans, are the only exception to a Rule that governs the rest of Creation.
Because, humans, are the only ones, Granted a free Will and all the needed Abilities [and appendages] to do, as they please in Being.
But, the Charitable Lord Hath not left us alone, so to help us live correctly, He Hath Granted us the Right Way, of Life, Tabooed in the civilized Western society.
This Way of Life, is called "Sharia", meaning, the Ordained , Way of Being for, the Human. Whereas, from a Quark to the Super giants in the Universe; so also, everything inhabiting and/or existent betwixt these two extremes, cannot, does not, budge a micron from The Ordained Regimen, Ordained for its kind.
A comment on Talk: Sergey Brin: Why Google Glass?
I do not see us disagreeing with what I have already stated, excepting, the Semantic difference, but since Greeks have been drawn into this discussion, allow me to add :
Socrates, was compelled by Reason, to state, what he stated about Writing as a corrupting influence vis a vis, his day's established Oral tradition.
However, his view, was not shared by his star pupil, Plato, who anyway went ahead and wrote, that today enables us to know Socrates' Spoken !
The Written, is essentially, the unspoken word ... though it may precede, or succeed, the Spoken ... so its just another manner of presening the Ideas, that were originally expressed, Orally ... Thus, the Written, is a manner of Comminication, hence, Exchange of Ideas !
I am of the view that Socrates must have meant corruption in other than the Translator's derived sense ... In, that he never meant to say ... Greek' Alphabet per say, corrupts ... what he actually meant was ... it corrupts the free-flow of ideas ... necessary for any fruitul exchange.
You may appreciate the fact, that Greek has a notoriously protracted manner, hence, a lethargic means, of communuicating, the large volume, of orally expressed ideas ... and the fact, that Socrates was no Methuselah ... he was in a hurry to say all he had to say before the cup ...
The Common denominator in all fruitful exchanges betwixt individuals, is "recognition" ... The Acceptance, of one, as a distinct individual, a definite member of any Society ... anonymity in such cases signals of the loss of an individuals identity ...
Collective wisdom or not ... any move that denies the Individual its Right to be Human ... is Centralization of Ideas in a data bank that may remain at the exclusive disposal of a few insanely ambitious individuals.
A reply on Talk: Sergey Brin: Why Google Glass?
A comment on Talk: Dan Ariely: What makes us feel good about our work?
I know, such being true for Singers, Painters, Models etc., hence generally, the performers ... their need for appreciation, as they deal with the subtle things of life ...
where appreciation means, that their intended message has been sucessfully conveyed !
But can we really say that such also applies to everyone else, indulging in any kind of physical or mental activity ?
A comment on Talk: Sergey Brin: Why Google Glass?
A comment on Talk: Maria Bezaitis: The surprising need for strangeness
Replace the term Software with Psychology ... and ... you find what Multinationals have now been doing for quie a while ...