Life After People (History Channel)

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Acedia is still a the actual root evil and no one (even given the "que sera" from 70Chip), is argueing for it or, IMO, exhibiting its symptoms. In leveling your various assertions of sinful behavior and/or, mental illness, you continue to assert that your emotional reaction is the only legitimate way for a human to consider and deal with the hypothetical physical destruction of humanity [this is indeed my position]. However, the alternative to this ultimate sadness you seem to require is the acknowledgment that, while sad, it is beyond our control and we will not spend more than a moment thinking about it [this is an also my position though you make it seem like it's an either or proposition]. This is not acedia [check my first usage of the word apathy, this word engineer shit doesn't work on me].

Someone who approached this issue with acedia would have nothimg more to say than, "ehh so what" [and to be indifferent is to be what exactly?].

"Sloth (or acedia) is a kind of spiritual laziness (as opposed to mere physical fatigue or depression). It means not making it a priority to do what we should, or change what we should in ourselves. Some people might call it apathy [I am one of them], which means a lack of feeling." Seven Deadly Sins - Sloth/Acedia

You, in a very patronizing and emothionally elitest fashion [sometimes you just have to be, I'll work on getting it under control], confuse apathy with an introspective resolution on how to deal with the destruction of our physical being [when? where?].

When I was a child, death and events out of my control scared me. They scare me still, but, as an introspective adult, I recognize them for what they are - either inevitable or events beyond my control and for which the self protective purpose of the fear instinct is inapplicable. I feel, understand, and accept the emotion, then, with thought and care, I move beyond it.

If I and others have practised this process throughout our lives and need not be struck with deep introspection each time a variation on this theme is presented, that is not laziness but a recognition of an already solved problem for which deep thought is not required. With experience, I need not conduct intrusive surgery to determine if each cut has caused internal injury.

In fact, the assertion that it is natural to feel overwhelming sadness and that those who don't are clearly apathetic can, itself be a indication of sloth. Surrender to emotional responses is easy and requires no thought or introspection. That is a failure to make "it a priority to do what we should" and a true spiritual laziness.

All but the truly apathic will experience emotional responses, it is how we deal with them that determines our vitality. [WTF?]

See comments following quoted text.

Eloquent indeed. What isn't obvious is of course that my conversations were with two different people and how you mange to mish-and-mesh what I said in my responses. Clearly 70Chip felt that his position was superior and CRedskinsRule didn't understand my position though he respected it (I probably should have done a better job respecting his position). I love how you also dismiss me as an elitist smug sob all the while implicitly convaying your take as a more rational position.

70Chip expclititly said "Indifference is perfectly acceptable." If such a postion is not reflective of apathy I don't know what is. If he wants to clear the record he is more than welcome. And of course he went with the godlessness as the cause of my concern.

I am not sure what warented the highlighted long blob of text. Everyone here is an adult and I shouldn't be expected to explain everything as if I am talking to a child. Certain things should be abvious and need not explination, especially when it comes to the doom of us all.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by saden1

See comments following quoted text.

Eloquent indeed. What isn't obvious is of course that my conversations were with two different people and how you mange to mish-and-mesh what I said in my responses. Clearly 70Chip felt that his position was superior and CRedskinsRule didn't understand my position though he respected it (I probably should have done a better job respecting his position). I love how you also dismiss me as an elitist smug sob all the while implicitly convaying your take as a more rational position.

70Chip expclititly said "Indifference is perfectly acceptable." If such a postion is not reflective of apathy I don't know what is. If he wants to clear the record he is more than welcome. And of course he went with the godlessness as the cause of my concern.

I am not sure what warented the highlighted long blob of text. Everyone here is an adult and I shouldn't be expected to explain everything as if I am talking to a child. Certain things should be abvious and need not explination, especially when it comes to the doom of us all.

Originally Posted by saden1

Kudos to CRedskins for at least feeling sad. Are my post not clear enough as to my position from the get go?

Acedia used to be a deadly sin until it was merged into sloth. You know what's really sad? Christians advancing apathy as a virtue.

I believe that this post started the "mish mash".

Do you really deny that you are an "elitist smug snob"??? ;-)

[Trample the Elderly]

Yeah, this thread took one toke over the line.

I think the people who created that show are playing to the people who hate being alive, the environmentalist. That's just what I think. Some people will watch this show and feel good that the "Bitch" so-called mother Earth is renewing herself and those pesky humans are gone.

Human being are the most dominant species on this planet apart from insects and micro-organisms. We've endured a lot of shit. It would take a lot to take us out. Who's to say we're the only humans in this galaxy or the universe anyway?

I don't worry about the world ending. It's ended many times already and been reborn. So f**k it! The movie knowing dealt with this same topic and it had a very good ending. That bitch Earth got fried and humans still survived.

Oh, that show said that soon after humans were gone there would be no trace of us being here. Time fears the Pyramids. So suck eggs environmentalists!

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

Yeah, this thread took one toke over the line.

I think the people who created that show are playing to the people who hate being alive, the environmentalist. That's just what I think. Some people will watch this show and feel good that the "Bitch" so-called mother Earth is renewing herself and those pesky humans are gone.

Human being are the most dominant species on this planet apart from insects and micro-organisms. We've endured a lot of shit. It would take a lot to take us out. Who's to say we're the only humans in this galaxy or the universe anyway?

I don't worry about the world ending. It's ended many times already and been reborn. So f**k it! The movie knowing dealt with this same topic and it had a very good ending. That bitch Earth got fried and humans still survived.

Oh, that show said that soon after humans were gone there would be no trace of us being here. Time fears the Pyramids. So suck eggs environmentalists!

Sounds like you have a serious issue with "mother earth". You need to keep in mind, if Earth does expel us from it's surface, it's because we abused it.

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by jsarno

Sounds like you have a serious issue with "mother earth". You need to keep in mind, if Earth does expel us from it's surface, it's because we abused it.

Sure.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

Sure.

Ok. Why the laughing?

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by jsarno

Ok. Why the laughing?

I was thinking about all of those people in Pompeii covered in volcanic ash. They didn't have SUVs.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

Eloquent indeed. What isn't obvious is of course that my conversations were with two different people and how you mange to mish-and-mesh what I said in my responses. Clearly 70Chip felt that his position was superior and CRedskinsRule didn't understand my position though he respected it (I probably should have done a better job respecting his position). I love how you also dismiss me as an elitist smug sob all the while implicitly convaying your take as a more rational position.

As CRedskins stated, the mish mash began when you rebutted both his and 70's with what I believed to be the same argument. As I was typing it, I thought that you're argument with CRed was his lack of sadness while your argument with 70 was his seeming thoughtless indifference.

And let's be clear: IMO, all of us have different emotional triggers (go look at "movies that made me cry thread"). This one for you. Fine. It is not for me, or Credskins, or 70Chip. This does not make me apathetic, slothful, or mentally ill. It makes me different. I fully accept and understand how this concept could be saddening to some, including you.

You, however, expressly refuse to accept that other people may not feel the way you do and that their failure to mimic your emotional responses is slothful or a sign of mental illness. THAT's why you're patronizing, that's why you're being an emotional elitest.

Originally Posted by saden1

70Chip expclititly said "Indifference is perfectly acceptable." If such a postion is not reflective of apathy I don't know what is. If he wants to clear the record he is more than welcome. And of course he went with the godlessness as the cause of my concern..

He earlier indicated that he reached his position of indifference to this hypothetical through an understanding of his believe in the transient nature of the physical universe, the comfort he receives from believe in the eternal nature of the earth's and, in fact, the universe's, spiritual existence. An understanding which you pooh pooh'd earlier by calling it a "magical-place-believer".

Implicit in all of our discussions involving religion is your constant presumption that those who believe other than you do as to the existence of God are fools; that are only reason for doing so is fear of hell or a need to feed our denial of reality through the creation of the false comfort of heaven. It is tiresome. I am intelligent man who has arrived at my conclusion through periods of deep introspection and mediation and thoughtful consideration of my interaction with my fellow man. I think my arguments on this topic would have warranted some respect from you in this regard.

I understand your position, I disagree with it but I still respect that it is an understanding received through intelligent consideration of many factors and I respect you for taking the time to think it through. It is rare that I feel this respect reciprocated.

Originally Posted by saden1

I am not sure what warented the highlighted long blob of text. Everyone here is an adult and I shouldn't be expected to explain everything as if I am talking to a child. Certain things should be abvious and need not explination, especially when it comes to the doom of us all.

The highligted text was my attempt to explain why these hypotheticals do not evoke a emotional response. I've felt the emotion, I understand its basis, I've seen the hypothetical and recognized it as something that I've felt/considered before and it no longer tugs at my heartstrings.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

As indicated above, this statement demonstrates, to me, a complete disregard for the different emotional make-up between people and is incredibly intolerant.

Originally Posted by saden1

No, in fact, I do not find them mutually exclusive. Rather, I find them one in the range of human responses. It appeared to me, however, that you consider that those who approach it from the second part of this are mentally ill/apathetic unless they also accept your initial emotional reaction.

Originally Posted by saden1

The subtle difference I was suggesting is that a truly apathetic person in the traditional "sinfull" sense of accidea would feel nothing and conduct no further thought on the matter ever. Neither 70chip or CRedskins fell into this category. Each had arrived at their conclusion by consideration of the nature of the question being asked and gave a basis for why they now chose to be indifferent.

Originally Posted by saden1

Again, this goes back to your ultimate dismissal of religious thought. Those who approach these types of hypotheticals from a spiritual/faith based line of thought are dismissed as non-thought. Both 70Chip and CRedskins explained thier positions, it seems to me that you dismissed them both as "make believe place" believers.

Originally Posted by saden1

An individiual who feels nothing is apathetic. A person who feels something and does nothing more is apathetic. Life, as humans, requires more than mere "feeling" it requires introspection and action. "The unexamined life is not worth living". Regardless of my introspection and self-examination, however, you dismiss my thoughts and feelings as apathetic or signs of mental illness. I find that offensive.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

As indicated above, this statement demonstrates, to me, a complete disregard for the different emotional make-up between people and is incredibly intolerant.



No, in fact, I do not find them mutually exclusive. Rather, I find them one in the range of human responses. It appeared to me, however, that you consider that those who approach it from the second part of this are mentally ill/apathetic unless they also accept your initial emotional reaction.



The subtle difference I was suggesting is that a truly apathetic person in the traditional "sinfull" sense of accidea would feel nothing and conduct no further thought on the matter ever. Neither 70chip or CRedskins fell into this category. Each had arrived at their conclusion by consideration of the nature of the question being asked and gave a basis for why they now chose to be indifferent.



Again, this goes back to your ultimate dismissal of religious thought. Those who approach these types of hypotheticals from a spiritual/faith based line of thought are dismissed as non-thought. Both 70Chip and CRedskins explained thier positions, it seems to me that you dismissed them both as "make believe place" believers.



An individiual who feels nothing is apathetic. A person who feels something and does nothing more is apathetic. Life, as humans, requires more than mere "feeling" it requires introspection and action. "The unexamined life is not worth living". Regardless of my introspection and self-examination, however, you dismiss my thoughts and feelings as apathetic or signs of mental illness. I find that offensive.

Regardless of how you rationalize indifference I wholeheartedly believe indifferent people to be handicapped. If you find my position irrational the feeling is mutual. Simply put some positions are better than others and in this case you believe yours to be better and I find mine to be better. I do tend to dismiss religious thought (an Oxymoron?) early and often because I find them offensive especially when it intimates "indifference is perfectly acceptable."

I really don't see the mish-mesh on my part but whatever. I'm not going to argue over something you're alluding to that I'm not cognizant of.

In my point of view I find both 70Chip and CRedskins apathetic, in yours they are not. That's perfectly fine though I suspect you find your definition of what apathy is palatable.

It takes two against one to be dismissive:

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Saden, if you don't believe in heaven, then this shouldn't be scary anyways, since the whole point of it is 1000's of years AFTER people. Chances are 100% you won't be here to see it, hence, not scary.
And if you do believe in a new heaven and a new earth, then most of this is just modern day blah blah blah anyways.

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I was not talking of dwelling on it, you never said you did that. I think to be scared of something you have zero control, and has no chance of occurring without foreshadowing and notice, makes no sense. If we get wiped out in the blink of an eye, your fear gained you nothing. If we have notice, than your fear will at least work towards trying to find a way to survive.

Originally Posted by 70Chip

I say we all have a toast to the end of mankind and the closing of the age. Once we're gone, it'll be like we weren't even here at all.

Originally Posted by 70Chip

Indifference is perfectly acceptable. This delusion of yours that you can somehow control the fate of the universe is rooted in your alienation from God. The abolition of physical man or physical nature is only tragic in a universe that has mankind at the very center. You're heirarchy is all out of kilter so you worry too much about things that are not your responsibility and over which you ultimately have no control anyway.

[70Chip]

Don't you people ever do any work at your jobs. I'll check this space on a Saturday and zilcho. But on a Thursday its like a graduate seminar in philosophy, metaphysics, and religion.

A few points:

Matty: God only reveals himself to people he really likes. Maybe you could try a new haircut or maybe get your teeth capped. God likes people with a little flair. That's why t.v. preachers are the way they are.

SmootSmack: It's not that you don't believe enough, it's that life has been too easy and pleasurable for you. You are too attached to the material. Sell everything you have, give it to the poor, and cast yourself down from a great height (say, the Cabin John Bridge ) . If you survive, you won't care what happens to the universe anymore.

The rest of you: God wants you to sell everything YOU own and send it to me. In exchange he has personally promised me he will relieve all your cares, ease every burden, and give you the courage to talk to girls for the first time in your lives.

Oh, and the Que Sera thing was not a statement of my views but rather a reference to an episode of the Simpsons in which Ned Flanders is turned out of his own bomb shelter by the rest of the town (and goes willingly).

Ned: "Shouldn't you all be getting in your shelterinis about now?"

Moe: "We haven't got shelterinis. We want in yours."

It's a New Testament version of the flood story in which the un-faithful take over the ark and set Noah adrift. And he meekly accepts his fate. Wicked smart those Simpsons writers.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

Matty: God only reveals himself to people he really likes. Maybe you could try a new haircut or maybe get your teeth capped. God likes people with a little flair. That's why t.v. preachers are the way they are.

Kinda how aliens only reveal themselves to trailer trash I guess.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Kinda how aliens only reveal themselves to trailer trash I guess.

hehe.

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Kinda how aliens only reveal themselves to trailer trash I guess.

Didn't Jimmy Carter see a UFO?

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

Didn't Jimmy Carter see a UFO?

Yeah but he didn't see an alien. There's a subtle difference.