Mengzi says people are good and you have to bring it out. The Legalists say people are bad and you have to keep them in line. Mozi says people are sheep and you have to retrain the sheep dogs.
I was 6 yrs old. I remember playing outside and I saw a 3 year old kid on a hill crying. He was scared to go down the hill. I came to the kid and escorted him down the hill without understanding the full concept of good and evil. Maybe Mengzi might be on to something.
Great video! Good time to dive into Mengzi's philosophy. Too often "human nature" is a term used as excuses not to engage in constructing an alternative to the human civilization as we know it.
Wow this is so well explained.... I was put with a group that was supposed to help me defend him and none of them helped... Thank you so much you gave me a clear understanding in both Mencius and Xun-zi arguments!!!
Great philosophy, well presented. Why should we say that human nature is good if humans naturally have only the capability or possibility of becoming good, and may easily become bad? For the same reason that we say that plants, such as apples, are good, even if apples naturally have only the possibility of becoming good and may easily turn out bad. Thank you Matt Walker. You are benevolent and righteous ... I dare say wise.
In conclusion: Virtues are good. People have the potential to be good or bad. Wrongly treated people become bad. Rightly treated people become good. Please tell me what I'm not seeing.
Wrongly treated people can also become better than people that were rightly treated. And rightly treat people can do great evil too. Because it’s human nature. Humans are not good. We are born natural narcissist. Watch PragerU.
But threw all of your studies and internal processing of knowledge we humans still have free will and a choice to make. Its ones choice to be good or evil. Its alot of catalysis that contribute to ones perception and choices. But i know that there is good and bad in every one you personally have to know how to balance the two the yi and yang inside off self. Your actions or choices will show the world your thoughts and heart be wise
I like the way this video goes on to show Mencius' arguement to why there are so many bad people. I remember watching 6 Flying Dragons, and one former Confucian Scholar turned corrupt politician, justifies themselves by quoting the Mencius' baby and the well line and then saying "Yet I have seen men who would throw a baby down a well themselves for self gain"
Beautifully put. Thank you. I am reading this book right now: Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature by Chet Shupe. I have to review it. Whoa, it's a difficult one to figure out in some places. So I looked up things like the philosophy of human nature and found you. So this helps. Would you know whether early human beings, like the Neanderthals, nurtured this aspect of human nature?
How can I reference this is a biblography. Could you provide a full source please! Thanks for introdcuing me to a new philosopher I can use for my disertation. Very Helpful:) Hope you find the time to reply, would love to read some more and use this theory appropriately. Keep it up.
One difference that seems worth noting is that Rousseau explicitly believed that society was the cause of human depravity. Mengzi (at least according to the video) seems to be more reserved in identifying what the causes are. They both believe in the fundamental goodness of humans though.
@@nathan98000 Society = Environment = Everything else minus your genes So they are pretty much in agreement. And probably why China is a communist society today.
Balance Too much Yin foods can cause sneezing, hahaha! Common sense, at this junction is so very useful & desirable. Up until a couple of years ago...I'd merely scanned Mengzi through I Ching (54 years I've thrown my coins) dabbling in ancient Chinese philosophy. Mengzi's teachings could very well be a path to helping the planet & its inhabitants. To my little fried mind...walking the bridge, the defining line betwixt Yin/Yang is a skill I've yearned to attain, acquire and possess. People throughout history like Mengzi, Confucius, Lao Tzu, etc; all the great minds have powerful lessons, messages to create Peace, Compassion & patterns for survival. Treasures of Antiquity. Horse sense...? Much love, seek benevolence... Peace ~♡~out, Y'all!
Couldn't you make all the same points to conclude human nature is bad? Just change virtue to vice Humans are predisposed to do bad stuff, but a lack of a bad environment stunts their cultivation of vice, and hence they become virtuous. Ergo, human nature is bad and you'd only want to see Ria(?) not die because you were raised in a not bad environment. But if you were to see a 100$ on the street, you'd be tempted to take it (or just take it) because human nature is inherently bad. That aside the theory doesn't confirm virtues are innate. You could come to the same conclusion about Ria if you were a utilitarian or a deontologist. I as the former for example could say that we have an interest to reduce suffering for ourselves and others, and our moral action comes from that rather than possession of virtue. Another problem then comes about the origination of evil. Confucianism assumes that nature is good, and humans are naturally good. The only way evil can arise is through bad social conditions. But bad social conditions only could've come from humans, so either nature sets up bad conditions, meaning that evil arises from good, or humans set up bad conditions, which again means evil arises from good. Both are a contradiction, so nature, or at the very least, human nature, can't be good.
2tehnik It’s not an absolute claim. Mengzi isn’t saying that humans are born absolutely or perfectly good. He’s saying that we have a innate propensity towards goodness. Which can be negatively impacted by the environment. Just like a tree naturally grows upwards towards sunlight but may due to various environmental factors be inhibited. Or like every biological aspect of the human body that naturally develops in such a way as to form a fully functioning organism which if affected negatively by environmental factors, would lead to potential physical or mental disorders. Mengzi attempts to prove this by showing that if one sees a baby in mortal danger, our natural biological reaction is that of distress for the baby’s safety rather than pleasure at the baby’s suffering (which would be evil.) Suppose there are people who feel such pleasure, Mengzi would argue that their natural propensity to goodness has been corrupted by negative environmental influences. Why doesn’t Mengzi think the opposite is true? Well, it’s a matter of statistics. The amount of people who would feel pleasure in such a scenario is extremely small compared to the opposite. Just like the amount of people who are physically disabled are few in number. So, in this case, the natural equals the normal.
@@Liliquan I'm not sure if that gets rid of the fundamental issue, mainly by the fact that I can't compare how humans like us would react to such a scenario compared to people in a "state of nature". In other words, it could be the case that environmental influences make us inclined to good nature instead of us being that way innately. And that evil people are such because the environment didn't effect them. Since we're all already surrounded by environemental influences, there's no way to tell what's natural and what's environmental.
@@2tehnik Easy. It is both easier and harder to turn a person bad then it is to turn a person good. Therefore we are innately good because we can corrupt a white piece of paper without much thought but can't bleach paper with ease.
When I watch wild birds feed, I see the sparrows come and eat. They don't fight amongst each other they just eat what they can and leave. The blackbirds come...usually a dominant male tries to hog the birdseed and keep all the others away, even if there is plenty for all. Mankind's behavior is that of the blackbird.
So agrees with JJ Rousseau's belief that human nature is innately good (as did the Stoics and John Locke), and as detailed in his work, "Discourse on Inequality." Akin to Mengzi and Xunzi, Hobbes made the opposite argument. Jefferson (influenced heavily by Locke) and Adams (being a Christian--"deadly sin") had similar arguments--but where Jefferson agreed with Mengzi (and had read Mengzi--it was in his library), he used it for his support of a Republican Democracy over the Autocracy Adams and Hamilton wanted (if believe in the evilness of man--then will fear your fellow humans and want a strong person to control everyone, which is common among Christians/Republicans). Little known fact, Rousseau in one of his private letters to Malesherbes details his "Enlightenment" experience (describing it in the Eastern sense--mystical).
Honestly I think that Mengzi has it quite backwards. And it doesn't help how his thought experiment wants to be self evident and has arbitrarily fixed result universal for human kind.
The Mencius is easy to find free copies of online, it’s his main work, it’s very easy to read, short, and the most fun philosophical text I have read, I recommend reading it over everything, it is my favorite book
I partially agree with Mencius, however, what is the objective definition of Good and Bad? To what standard other than the virtues which can be broken down and analyzed in great detail in their own right.
06:30 I see this sly insertion of capitalist critique, like having too much wealth instantly corrupts you. I grew up on a poor council estate, and I can tell you from my experience I've found it to be quite the opposite.
I don't think that 's what he was going for here. Remember that Mengzi was a Chinese philosopher who existed way before capitalism came into existence. It seems more like he was talking about general problems that have been prevalent throughout history that can lead to moral decay. For this particular example, how rich people can sometimes use their wealth (not all rich people, and not always, keep that in mind) to shield children from the consequences of their actions, or spoil them so they feel entitled to everything.
when i listen chinese philosophie, especially mozi, i always get triggered to star wars cause lucas just adapted the most and mixed it and make it more simple ( dont let the dark side win, go into yourself and find your good personality)
Mozi's way is pretty much Jedi when you really think about it, but I'm not sure if Lucas read about anything from Mozi, it's not a far fetch that he come up the idea from other place that just happened to be like that.
yeah, i don't claim that he got all ideas from that but there are really lots of parallels to asian material arts / philosophy. Star troopers looks like space samurai, the swordplay and the master - student relationship, the bad emperor and the outsider rebells, black and white like yin and yang etc.
2:25 I understand the point being made but what if it was a snake on the edge or a hyena. Wouldn't necessarily have the same alarm? Weirdly, in the modern world where we can watch things from a distance through a screen, if I saw even these animals in that sort of situation I would react in the same way. But in a real world situation if it was an animal like that I might not have the same instant alarmed and compassionate spontaneous reaction. Maybe i'm missing the whole point of the experiment and being too literal?
And why is it that of a person is rich or born poor they would be considered not to grow with virtue, wisdom and such? Technically they would be wise to the streets or wise to money. A poor person could teach a rich person better on living in the streets. Making them wiser then the rich, but a rich person would be able to teach a poor person how to make money making them wise. Being rich does not make you inherently evil, and being poor doesn't make you inherently bad. I grew up poor, I joined the u.s. army, never broke the law. Have no tickets, never cheated on my 1st love (my wife married for 8 years.) Never robbed, killed or hurt anyone. So how is it that I'm okay? How is it human nature? Did I not sprout?
Sure this is presentation of this theory. Then the overlapping areas of knowledge N schools of thought W their communicated terminology ect. Cidependence, reward system N preferred gained sense of self in relation to... Whatever motivates the mess of mix N match being aa result up til there. No? N The current social norms?
There is no original sin! We are not innately bad, but the opposite, we are innately good; but we have an ego that causes us to see ourselves separate, lacking and at odds with life and others; at odds with Love, so we behave badly. But we are not bad! We are mistaken, we misunderstand life. Everyone has an ego, and it is not of Love. The ego is also not evil, although it is behind all acts we would consider evil. The ego is not a thing or an entity, it's just programming to take care of number one. This programming causes us to be self-servicing, self-centered, fearful, distrusting, defensive and aggressive. The ego is a sense of self, not something real or true. A sense of self is nothing tangible, nothing that can't be fairly easily overlooked, if its lack of realness is pointed out. The ego is programming that causes us to see life, ourselves and others through a particular lense; one tainted by fear, judgment, limitation, smallness and a sense of lack. The egoic programming creates a sense of being under attack or threatened by others and by life. The ego is in fear much of the time, and therefore divorced from Love. This fear is an illusion, an imagination of something fearful in the future; not based on an actual threat in the here and now. When we're identified with this very primitive part of ourselves, we believe in the ego's fears and try to protect ourselves any way we can; usually by trying to attain more wealth, comfort, power, security, control, success, popularity and admiration; all things that make the ego safer, at least temporarily.
Please correct me if I am wrong. How are we sure that we don't learn those traits by copying others, I meant if think back to the thought experiment at the start are we sure that is we replace ourselves with a baby who hasn't experienced the external world would we be sure that she would feel compassion I mean if we really are following the crowd wouldn't it kind of lead to why we don't show as much passion to other animals. I would love someone to criticise me I no little about philosophy and would love someone to help build me knowledge thanks.
I'm guessing because they must've come from somewhere, and they couldn't have come from nothing. So human virtue is innate, but it is stunned by a bad environment.
Yeah our nature is brilliant look what we accomplished without them animals. They rightly know who the boss of this solar system is. That's us.we are known for 3 things 1. Intelligence 2. Our greed. 3. Our power.
The problem I have with philosophy is it never considered the laws of nature. If the would you live in is based of choices ( in its simplest form yes or no) the the would is in fact binary. Light and darkness, positive or negative(thoughts and magnetics) mental and physical. Forward and backwards. Space and time. Male or female. Truth and lies. 1s and 0s( just how Computers calculate) choices. Philosophy is a stuff of choices.....
It reminds of the Torah where after God created everything He said that it was good not just good but very good. And that man and women we're created in the image of God after God Himself. But once man disobeyed God sin entered the world and man now with his fallen nature has a leaning a bent and a propensity towards doing the wrong and selfish thing opposed to doing the right thing. Man is inherently good because God created him and put his law's on his heart and at the same time man is fallen and has a leaning and a bent and a propensity towards selfishness and sin.
is human nature Good?? good question... probably not. PROBABLY!!! but whats probability when there's a Quantum Mechaniical Soul with a Hole in it??!!!! (Battle cry in the background...)
Do we really have free will in today's world though? We are all slaves to the economies of our countries and we cannot really do whatever we want whenever we want
But what if that person doesn't have that reaction to RIA, but instead sees a period of time that could of been avoided if people weren't stupid. I've seen people shot and killed on my own street as it happens, but I wouldn't care. Maybe because it's a stranger? The example with a child is funny to me because in 2019 people care less for kids. I don't even care for kids. I don't like them, I don't want them. I have no feeling for them. I don't see a purpose in having kids. Unless it helps my self and my wifes way of living a better life without hindrances I.E. travel or income or social life. So how is there human nature if a small percentage does not fit in human nature mindset?
![PHILOSOPHY - Metaphysics: Ship of Theseus [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dYAoiLhOuao/mqdefault.jpg)
![PHILOSOPHY - Metaphysics: Ship of Theseus [HD]](/img/tr.png)
![PHILOSOPHY - Ancient: Xunzi on Human Nature [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/hEgLzTtQj7I/mqdefault.jpg)
Mengzi says people are good and you have to bring it out. The Legalists say people are bad and you have to keep them in line. Mozi says people are sheep and you have to retrain the sheep dogs.
I was 6 yrs old.
I remember playing outside and I saw a 3 year old kid on a hill crying. He was scared to go down the hill. I came to the kid and escorted him down the hill without understanding the full concept of good and evil. Maybe Mengzi might be on to something.
Great video! Good time to dive into Mengzi's philosophy. Too often "human nature" is a term used as excuses not to engage in constructing an alternative to the human civilization as we know it.
You know I think this is just what Chet Shupe is trying to do but I have to reach the end of his book to figure out to what extent he succeeds.
Wow this is so well explained.... I was put with a group that was supposed to help me defend him and none of them helped... Thank you so much you gave me a clear understanding in both Mencius and Xun-zi arguments!!!
Great philosophy, well presented. Why should we say that human nature is good if humans naturally have only the capability or possibility of becoming good, and may easily become bad? For the same reason that we say that plants, such as apples, are good, even if apples naturally have only the possibility of becoming good and may easily turn out bad. Thank you Matt Walker. You are benevolent and righteous ... I dare say wise.
In conclusion: Virtues are good. People have the potential to be good or bad. Wrongly treated people become bad. Rightly treated people become good.
Please tell me what I'm not seeing.
Byllgrim I think this is a fairly good understanding.
Wrongly treated people can also become better than people that were rightly treated. And rightly treat people can do great evil too. Because it’s human nature. Humans are not good. We are born natural narcissist. Watch PragerU.
I think human nature is a music of good and bad. We have a choice of which way we lean but no one is completely good or completely bad. We are a mix.
But threw all of your studies and internal processing of knowledge we humans still have free will and a choice to make. Its ones choice to be good or evil. Its alot of catalysis that contribute to ones perception and choices. But i know that there is good and bad in every one you personally have to know how to balance the two the yi and yang inside off self. Your actions or choices will show the world your thoughts and heart be wise
You have the thinking capacity of a bug
Amazing video, and so clearly explained! thanks a lot!!
I like the way this video goes on to show Mencius' arguement to why there are so many bad people. I remember watching 6 Flying Dragons, and one former Confucian Scholar turned corrupt politician, justifies themselves by quoting the Mencius' baby and the well line and then saying "Yet I have seen men who would throw a baby down a well themselves for self gain"
Humans are kind by nature, they love doing good its programmed in their bones.
You are right!
Every good act a human does is for the future benefit on ones self
I think humans are mostly good.
Beautifully put. Thank you. I am reading this book right now: Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature by Chet Shupe. I have to review it. Whoa, it's a difficult one to figure out in some places. So I looked up things like the philosophy of human nature and found you. So this helps. Would you know whether early human beings, like the Neanderthals, nurtured this aspect of human nature?
How can I reference this is a biblography. Could you provide a full source please! Thanks for introdcuing me to a new philosopher I can use for my disertation. Very Helpful:) Hope you find the time to reply, would love to read some more and use this theory appropriately. Keep it up.
So, in a sense, his views on human nature are similar to J.J. Rousseau?
One difference that seems worth noting is that Rousseau explicitly believed that society was the cause of human depravity. Mengzi (at least according to the video) seems to be more reserved in identifying what the causes are. They both believe in the fundamental goodness of humans though.
@@nathan98000 Society = Environment = Everything else minus your genes
So they are pretty much in agreement. And probably why China is a communist society today.
absolutely，no
Superb, Mr. Walker, thankyou.
Balance
Too much Yin foods can cause sneezing, hahaha!
Common sense, at this junction is so very useful & desirable.
Up until a couple of years ago...I'd merely scanned Mengzi through I Ching (54 years I've thrown my coins) dabbling in ancient Chinese philosophy.
Mengzi's teachings could very well be a path to helping the planet & its inhabitants. To my little fried mind...walking the bridge, the defining line betwixt Yin/Yang is a skill I've yearned to attain, acquire and possess. People throughout history like Mengzi, Confucius, Lao Tzu, etc; all the great minds have powerful lessons, messages to create Peace, Compassion & patterns for survival. Treasures of Antiquity. Horse sense...?
Much love, seek benevolence...
Peace ~♡~out, Y'all!
Humans are Good. Humans are not evil. Mengzi was and is right.
Couldn't you make all the same points to conclude human nature is bad? Just change virtue to vice
Humans are predisposed to do bad stuff, but a lack of a bad environment stunts their cultivation of vice, and hence they become virtuous. Ergo, human nature is bad and you'd only want to see Ria(?) not die because you were raised in a not bad environment. But if you were to see a 100$ on the street, you'd be tempted to take it (or just take it) because human nature is inherently bad.
That aside the theory doesn't confirm virtues are innate. You could come to the same conclusion about Ria if you were a utilitarian or a deontologist. I as the former for example could say that we have an interest to reduce suffering for ourselves and others, and our moral action comes from that rather than possession of virtue.
Another problem then comes about the origination of evil. Confucianism assumes that nature is good, and humans are naturally good. The only way evil can arise is through bad social conditions.
But bad social conditions only could've come from humans, so either nature sets up bad conditions, meaning that evil arises from good, or humans set up bad conditions, which again means evil arises from good. Both are a contradiction, so nature, or at the very least, human nature, can't be good.
Human nature can be good!
2tehnik
It’s not an absolute claim. Mengzi isn’t saying that humans are born absolutely or perfectly good. He’s saying that we have a innate propensity towards goodness. Which can be negatively impacted by the environment. Just like a tree naturally grows upwards towards sunlight but may due to various environmental factors be inhibited. Or like every biological aspect of the human body that naturally develops in such a way as to form a fully functioning organism which if affected negatively by environmental factors, would lead to potential physical or mental disorders.
Mengzi attempts to prove this by showing that if one sees a baby in mortal danger, our natural biological reaction is that of distress for the baby’s safety rather than pleasure at the baby’s suffering (which would be evil.) Suppose there are people who feel such pleasure, Mengzi would argue that their natural propensity to goodness has been corrupted by negative environmental influences.
Why doesn’t Mengzi think the opposite is true? Well, it’s a matter of statistics. The amount of people who would feel pleasure in such a scenario is extremely small compared to the opposite. Just like the amount of people who are physically disabled are few in number. So, in this case, the natural equals the normal.
@@Liliquan I'm not sure if that gets rid of the fundamental issue, mainly by the fact that I can't compare how humans like us would react to such a scenario compared to people in a "state of nature".
In other words, it could be the case that environmental influences make us inclined to good nature instead of us being that way innately. And that evil people are such because the environment didn't effect them.
Since we're all already surrounded by environemental influences, there's no way to tell what's natural and what's environmental.
@@2tehnik Easy. It is both easier and harder to turn a person bad then it is to turn a person good.
Therefore we are innately good because we can corrupt a white piece of paper without much thought but can't bleach paper with ease.
@@jacoblau9355 how can it be botn easier and harder? Can you explain?
Great explanation!
Very good explanation nice job
Soo amazing video host very nice.
When I watch wild birds feed, I see the sparrows come and eat. They don't fight amongst each other they just eat what they can and leave. The blackbirds come...usually a dominant male tries to hog the birdseed and keep all the others away, even if there is plenty for all. Mankind's behavior is that of the blackbird.
then why is there birdseed?
So agrees with JJ Rousseau's belief that human nature is innately good (as did the Stoics and John Locke), and as detailed in his work, "Discourse on Inequality." Akin to Mengzi and Xunzi, Hobbes made the opposite argument. Jefferson (influenced heavily by Locke) and Adams (being a Christian--"deadly sin") had similar arguments--but where Jefferson agreed with Mengzi (and had read Mengzi--it was in his library), he used it for his support of a Republican Democracy over the Autocracy Adams and Hamilton wanted (if believe in the evilness of man--then will fear your fellow humans and want a strong person to control everyone, which is common among Christians/Republicans). Little known fact, Rousseau in one of his private letters to Malesherbes details his "Enlightenment" experience (describing it in the Eastern sense--mystical).
Honestly I think that Mengzi has it quite backwards. And it doesn't help how his thought experiment wants to be self evident and has arbitrarily fixed result universal for human kind.
thank you
What are some books that I could read about Meng-zi's philosophy?
Thanks
The Mencius is easy to find free copies of online, it’s his main work, it’s very easy to read, short, and the most fun philosophical text I have read, I recommend reading it over everything, it is my favorite book
I partially agree with Mencius, however, what is the objective definition of Good and Bad? To what standard other than the virtues which can be broken down and analyzed in great detail in their own right.
06:30 I see this sly insertion of capitalist critique, like having too much wealth instantly corrupts you. I grew up on a poor council estate, and I can tell you from my experience I've found it to be quite the opposite.
I don't think that 's what he was going for here. Remember that Mengzi was a Chinese philosopher who existed way before capitalism came into existence. It seems more like he was talking about general problems that have been prevalent throughout history that can lead to moral decay. For this particular example, how rich people can sometimes use their wealth (not all rich people, and not always, keep that in mind) to shield children from the consequences of their actions, or spoil them so they feel entitled to everything.
when i listen chinese philosophie, especially mozi, i always get triggered to star wars cause lucas just adapted the most and mixed it and make it more simple ( dont let the dark side win, go into yourself and find your good personality)
Mozi's way is pretty much Jedi when you really think about it, but I'm not sure if Lucas read about anything from Mozi, it's not a far fetch that he come up the idea from other place that just happened to be like that.
yeah, i don't claim that he got all ideas from that but there are really lots of parallels to asian material arts / philosophy. Star troopers looks like space samurai, the swordplay and the master - student relationship, the bad emperor and the outsider rebells, black and white like yin and yang etc.
2:25 I understand the point being made but what if it was a snake on the edge or a hyena. Wouldn't necessarily have the same alarm?
Weirdly, in the modern world where we can watch things from a distance through a screen, if I saw even these animals in that sort of situation I would react in the same way. But in a real world situation if it was an animal like that I might not have the same instant alarmed and compassionate spontaneous reaction.
Maybe i'm missing the whole point of the experiment and being too literal?
Very well done. Thank you. 👍👍👍
And why is it that of a person is rich or born poor they would be considered not to grow with virtue, wisdom and such? Technically they would be wise to the streets or wise to money. A poor person could teach a rich person better on living in the streets. Making them wiser then the rich, but a rich person would be able to teach a poor person how to make money making them wise. Being rich does not make you inherently evil, and being poor doesn't make you inherently bad. I grew up poor, I joined the u.s. army, never broke the law. Have no tickets, never cheated on my 1st love (my wife married for 8 years.) Never robbed, killed or hurt anyone. So how is it that I'm okay? How is it human nature? Did I not sprout?
Sure this is presentation of this theory. Then the overlapping areas of knowledge N schools of thought W their communicated terminology ect. Cidependence, reward system N preferred gained sense of self in relation to... Whatever motivates the mess of mix N match being aa result up til there. No? N The current social norms?
There is no original sin! We are not innately bad, but the opposite, we are innately good; but we have an ego that causes us to see ourselves separate, lacking and at odds with life and others; at odds with Love, so we behave badly. But we are not bad! We are mistaken, we misunderstand life.
Everyone has an ego, and it is not of Love. The ego is also not evil, although it is behind all acts we would consider evil.
The ego is not a thing or an entity, it's just programming to take care of number one. This programming causes us to be self-servicing, self-centered, fearful, distrusting, defensive and aggressive.
The ego is a sense of self, not something real or true. A sense of self is nothing tangible, nothing that can't be fairly easily overlooked, if its lack of realness is pointed out.
The ego is programming that causes us to see life, ourselves and others through a particular lense; one tainted by fear, judgment, limitation, smallness and a sense of lack.
The egoic programming creates a sense of being under attack or threatened by others and by life. The ego is in fear much of the time, and therefore divorced from Love.
This fear is an illusion, an imagination of something fearful in the future; not based on an actual threat in the here and now.
When we're identified with this very primitive part of ourselves, we believe in the ego's fears and try to protect ourselves any way we can; usually by trying to attain more wealth, comfort, power, security, control, success, popularity and admiration; all things that make the ego safer, at least temporarily.
Yu Yu Hakusho,
Chapter Black Saga brought me here.
Nice Hiei pic.
Please correct me if I am wrong. How are we sure that we don't learn those traits by copying others, I meant if think back to the thought experiment at the start are we sure that is we replace ourselves with a baby who hasn't experienced the external world would we be sure that she would feel compassion I mean if we really are following the crowd wouldn't it kind of lead to why we don't show as much passion to other animals. I would love someone to criticise me I no little about philosophy and would love someone to help build me knowledge thanks.
I'm guessing because they must've come from somewhere, and they couldn't have come from nothing. So human virtue is innate, but it is stunned by a bad environment.
Yeah our nature is brilliant look what we accomplished without them animals. They rightly know who the boss of this solar system is. That's us.we are known for 3 things 1. Intelligence 2. Our greed. 3. Our power.
The problem I have with philosophy is it never considered the laws of nature. If the would you live in is based of choices ( in its simplest form yes or no) the the would is in fact binary. Light and darkness, positive or negative(thoughts and magnetics) mental and physical. Forward and backwards. Space and time. Male or female. Truth and lies. 1s and 0s( just how
Computers calculate) choices. Philosophy is a stuff of choices.....
What city was Mengzi from in China?
两千年的鬼地方
Checkout zachs brenners hudl
This guy sounds like Graeme Barrett. lol...
Nicely done 👍🙌👌
It reminds of the Torah where after God created everything He said that it was good not just good but very good. And that man and women we're created in the image of God after God Himself. But once man disobeyed God sin entered the world and man now with his fallen nature has a leaning a bent and a propensity towards doing the wrong and selfish thing opposed to doing the right thing. Man is inherently good because God created him and put his law's on his heart and at the same time man is fallen and has a leaning and a bent and a propensity towards selfishness and sin.
i think this is true for xunzi. but not all people. zhuangzi's words ring more true to me. this is too parochial in its thinking to be practicable
is human nature Good?? good question... probably not. PROBABLY!!! but whats probability when there's a Quantum Mechaniical Soul with a Hole in it??!!!! (Battle cry in the background...)
MA'AM PRESENT HAHAHA ✋
As a Christian, I personally subscribe to the notion of free will.
Do we really have free will in today's world though?
We are all slaves to the economies of our countries and we cannot really do whatever we want whenever we want
Mencius and Christ are fighting the same battle to forge our world in our most righteous image, they are my two favorite prophets
ok mengzi got it right...
とうございます」、
This dude’s lisp is too much
A confusion philosopher?
#EuropeanTranslationsOfAsianNames
But what if that person doesn't have that reaction to RIA, but instead sees a period of time that could of been avoided if people weren't stupid. I've seen people shot and killed on my own street as it happens, but I wouldn't care. Maybe because it's a stranger? The example with a child is funny to me because in 2019 people care less for kids. I don't even care for kids. I don't like them, I don't want them. I have no feeling for them. I don't see a purpose in having kids. Unless it helps my self and my wifes way of living a better life without hindrances I.E. travel or income or social life. So how is there human nature if a small percentage does not fit in human nature mindset?
you are such an expert in misinterpreting the ancients with your cumbersome and long winded speeches. Sigh. Another of the Unfavored