Is innocese something beautiful?

[dan020350]

I was looking at some 80's music, beautiful. ( eastern who mostly are moral people at that time)

Little kids beautiful.
perhaps religious saviors. beautiful.

but when I look at capitalism, there is no more innocense there?
What is an innocent mind that is incapable of being hurt?

[nps_marina]

What is an innocent mind that is incapable of being hurt????
That would be a child frozen in time, no?
At the first we are all innocent, but naiveté washes off eventually, no?
I'm a bi of a cynic, so perhaps not the most un-biased of posters, but even the most good-intentioned and happy-go-lucky people know that playing with fire will burn.
Then again, perhaps I didn't understand your question at all.
Perhaps it's not meant to be undesrtood in any specific way... sort of like those Rorschach inkblots.
Ok now I'm divagating.

[kathycf]

but when I look at capitalism, there is no more innocense there?
I am not sure how you are connecting innocence being beautiful with capitalism.

Merriam Webster (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/innocence) dictionary defines innocence thusly:
"Function: noun
1 a : freedom from guilt or sin through being unacquainted with evil : BLAMELESSNESS b : CHASTITY c : freedom from legal guilt of a particular crime or offense d (1) : freedom from guile or cunning : SIMPLICITY (2) : lack of worldly experience or sophistication e : lack of knowledge : IGNORANCE <written in entire innocence of the Italian language -- E. R. Bentley>
2 : one that is innocent"

Capitalism is an economic system. I would think by very definition one who is a savvy captolist would most assuredly not be innocent. One cannot acquire worldly knowledge and remain innocecent.

I suppose you can make the argument that once an innocent mind becomes hurt (as a child may experience abuse) then the quality of innocence becomes lost. An injury creates knowledge that there is evil in the world, thus destroying innocence. Without opening a whole additional can of worms, there is a portion of society that preys on innocence, seeking to destroy it.

[dan020350]

I don't trust dictionary- the dictionary has its purpose- that is to quote and to fool people who conforms into that argument system.

The innocent I was told was a word that means a mind that is incapable of being hurt- that was the ancient meaning.
But the modern meaning misinterpret as a lacking of something.

I just want to see in your own view, is innoncent something beautiful or not.

[kathycf]

I don't trust dictionary- the dictionary has its purpose- that is to quote and to fool people who conforms into that argument system.
Umm...ok. :rolleyes:
Dictionaries are a valuable resource tool for people who don't understand what words actually mean....It is very useful because it prevents one from appearing foolish when they are unable to define a word. There is no conspiracy there to fool anybody. I have no idea what you are talking about with "argument system" and it really isn't relevant anyway. I am not going to get into a debate with you about semantics. Let's drop it now, ok? :)


The innocent I was told was a word that means a mind that is incapable of being hurt- that was the ancient meaning.
But the modern meaning misinterpret as a lacking of something.

I just want to see in your own view, is innoncent something beautiful or not.
It isn't lacking something if you are seeing "lacking" as something negative. An innocent mind lacks knowledge of evil. There is nothing wrong with that, and yes, it is beautiful. I have not ever heard innocence as meaning "incapable of being hurt". How are you defining "hurt" in this context? Physical harm? Emotional harm?



but when I look at capitalism, there is no more innocense there?

Perhaps the discussion should be confined to the topic you express the most interest in. By dragging in capitalism which is a system of economics, you are muddying the waters of your discussion.

[nps_marina]

I just want to see in your own view, is innoncent something beautiful or not.

Innocence is beautiful in its not being everlasting.
Ok, don't get me wrong.
Children are beautiful, not only because of their innocence, but also because of that. But the loss of innocence comes with experience, and learning. So- if they remain innocent... they are not learning, they are not living.
So we might still love them, deeply and terribly... and I add that terribly because there's a point of sadness there.

Innocent inanimate objects are ok.

[dan020350]

Kathycf is a really an analyst. If you can be free from the known we can carry a beautiful conversation.

NPS Marina you have just said innocense is beauitful yet you said learning
have make them less innoncent. So is knowledge evil to an extent?

An innoncent mind- A person who have study well, restraint well, honor their mother and father well, like a person knows a cigarette is bad so they don't do it. That is a innoncent mind, he sustains good and restraint from evil.

Yet when people think of the word innoncent. they think of someone who is lacking experience or lacking knowledge. But do you need to tell someone that they are hungry? they have to find out for themselves right? So how can the dictionary tells you things that are right? It tells you how the world functions, they base their culture in the past. So you must have techincal knowledge as well as what is real outside of technical realm.

[Nossa]

I'm not sure what 'incapable of being hurt' means?
Nobody is incapable of being hurt, cuz this is an external thing that you can't control, 'others' hurt you, and you can't control everyone around you so that they don't hurt you. And again, what's it got to do with Innocence as a term anyways? Doesn't Innocence mean being harmless, free from immorals and such? It's def. not the 'lack' of something, it's rather having the ONE thing many people can't/don't have these days, being tolerable and actually being...well good!

[nps_marina]

NPS Marina you have just said innocense is beauitful yet you said learning have make them less innoncent. So is knowledge evil to an extent?

Yes it is, if you want to cut it out into such a crude dichotomy, or inference, or whatever. Knowledge is GOOD, but the knowledge of... how to cook a soup, say... will inevitably imply that you'll learn that warm food can burn.
You know what I mean? I'm trying to use un-offensive examples, don't get literal on soup.

What I think is, we have a problem of defintion here. What you describe as innocence...

An innoncent mind- A person who have study well, restraint well, honor their mother and father well, like a person knows a cigarette is bad so they don't do it. That is a innoncent mind, he sustains good and restraint from evil.

is not what I describe as innocence. Of such a person, I would say that he/she is a sensible, of honourable, or level-headed person... but not necessarily innocent. I think you associate the word more with a sense of 'chastity' (and I don't mean strictly sexual, but as in 'purity of the spirit'); whereas I think the word more in the sense of, yes, ignorance-

'My' innocent people are chaste through ignorance of evil- they are not perverse because they don't know that perversions exist.
'Your' innocent people are chaste even with their knowledge of evil and perversion- they choose not to follow that path, though they are fully conscious that it exists.

Okay. Your turn to rant.

[dan020350]

Bth of you observed pretty well. I may say a chaste mind is equivalent to innoncent mind. A chaste mind is incape of being hurt.

Now what gets hurt ? The image you have created yourself. The belief you hold on and the reputation you build that what gets hurt. A chaste mind have no images of oneself. He knows life and truth.

[Nossa]

I'm sorry, but I'm gonna have to disagree with you. A chaste mind, might know life and truth and all, but being hurt isn't just about the outer image, the fact that you're saying that innocent people are incapable of being hurt, you're then stripping them of feelings, emotions and even thier heart. For me the word 'hurt' has to do with the hurt of the soul and heart, not the hurt of a reputation or the self image. You can get hurt without the knowing of anybody...you can even hurt yourself by doing a certain thing, and it won't even be known to the closest people to you.
Everyone IS capable of being hurt...this goes for anyone!

[dan020350]

I'm sorry, but I'm gonna have to disagree with you. A chaste mind, might know life and truth and all....
Everyone IS capable of being hurt...this goes for anyone!

You just said a chaste mind might know life and truth and everything, then you go off saying but not sure because you having find out what is a chaste mind, that is being one. Because everyone is capable of being, they don't have a chaste mind as of yet.

[motherhubbard]

I think that by saying chaste mind you may be saying sinless. If that is the case than you may be saying that a sinless person is impervious to harm. Perhaps that is true. If God finds me blameless than what can you do to hurt me as long as I am perfect in God’s eye, right? You could ruin my name or take my life, but what have I really lost? Nothing. In that since innocence is beautiful. Then capitalism is not sinless, quiet the opposite in my opinion. Are you asking how we can go from the innocence of the music of the 80s to the ultra capitalist society we are today? The truth is we were a capitalist society in the 80s, too. There is no new sin. But not everyone is guilty of capitalism, it’s just that that is what you might see when you turn on the television.

I may be going in the wrong direction here.

[dan020350]

Chaste mind means sinless. I like that new direction.

Can one actually be sinless. That is going from sin to sinless? Peeling off each single sin?

[motherhubbard]

Well, Dan, I can only answer that from a Christian's point of view. The Bible says “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” Rom 3:23. So no one is without sin. However it says that there is redemption from sin. Christ said “…Verily I say unto you, except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven” Matthew 18:3. So one must become innocent like a child Once you are mature enough to understand one must repent of their sins and be baptized, “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.“ Ac 2:38. So when you are baptized it washes away your sin, “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ” 1pe 3:2. Then it says, “But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. “1jo 1:7-9. So when we screw up we must as for forgiveness and try to do better. Only Christ was perfect, blameless, and without sin- and they crucified him.

[dan020350]

my motherborad.

You quoted well. I guess if you keep on Sinning, you keep on confessing?
That can't be a chaste mind. That is like step one, or not taking any steps at all, as if you are quoting but no action is being done.

[motherhubbard]

I think you’re so sweet!

I suppose I do keep on praying for forgiveness and strength to be better and knowledge. I can say that the things that were once a big problem for me are not now. But I still have problems to face. Can anyone say that they are perfect? I feel like if I can do this good today, I can do a little better tomorrow. I love this journey toward betterment. I own my mistakes and have gained a lot of knowledge from them. It’s not necessarily bad to fail. So I strive for perfection, but I am only human. As far as action goes…while I do believe that I must act, I don’t believe that I can do anything to deserve heaven.

I’m interested in hearing how you attempt innocence or perfection.

[dan020350]

" Which one among you prayers can add a day to you life, you cannot, so why worry about being anxious. Let that day of problems be just a day."
Jesus

" Emotion can be the enemy, if you allow emotion to conquer you, then life over a 100 years will be a tragedy. If you can master your emotions, then one day can be a triumph" taoism

Back to the discussion of achieving perfection. No one can be perfect unless one learns. One learns when he doesn't know.

Inquiring perfection one must start from freedom, freedom from the known. then one can look, explore, and inquire.

[motherhubbard]

I have known a great many things that were just wrong. What happens when you know a lie? I once knew that I was in love and that Pluto was the ninth planet. Knowledge is a fickle thing indeed!

I know the feeling of an empty mountain and wet grass under my feet. I know how to manage a farm, dress a chicken, and live off of the land. Not too many people know that stuff. I don't know how to read a bus schedule along with an endless list of other things. I don't know how your life has influenced you or if the same experience would have the same effect on me.

No matter what you know, there will always be a lot more that you don't know.

[dan020350]

Wow, you have honestly wrote a adequate comment of all other comments I have read before in this forum.

Someone declared that knowledge was the greatest but sadly I cannot debate it, because of the authorities. I think we are coming to a conclusion that knowledge is not the greatest.

[kari]

I believe I was the one in the other post that stated knowledge was the greatest. I would still say the same thing! :) Knowledge is never ending, or at least it can be if you make the effort to keep learning, and knowledge can always help you in practically any situation. Although, the more you know- more is expected of you! So maybe for some...not the greatest! As for gaining perfection and innocence..I don't believe it is possible. No one can ever be perfect while on earth (in my opinion). You can strive to be! Innocence isn't something you gain, more the other way around. I was interested to see a bit of discussion on innocence in children. I believe young children really encompass the definition of innocence. Which in my understanding, is that children are born full of love, forgiving towards others, and just believe that everything and averyone is good (in general). Which in that sense, I don't think would hurt anyone to strive to be like. I was curious as to what others thought on society, and how that affects the innocence of children? I have thought for many years, that it is so sad nowdays...that it is so hard for children to keep their innocence anymore. So hard for kids to have that time to just have fun, play, love and enjoy life anymore. Kids are pushed through schools, forced to deal with the craziness of all the violence and aweful crimes going on right around them. Not to mention the statistics of abuse and whatnot even within the homes. I think that maybe it was a bit hard to pinpoint that idea with children, because the innocence of young children seem to be decreasing much more quickly (or so I think). A lot of crimes and awful things are now even being done by children! And the age of pregnant girls seems to be gradually going down as well. Anyways...maybe I am getting off topic!
Kari

[dan020350]

Once must have knowledge in order to function sanely in the world.
One must learn in order to get back to the source.

If these two are balance or gained nothing is impossible. Sadly, it is the leaders of the society. A good leader bring fruitfulness to the nation. A bad leader brings about fruitless to the nation.

One can change only when one seeks beyond, that there is something more.
But where and whom should I go and seek?

[billyjack]

.

One can change only when one seeks beyond, that there is something more.
But where and whom should I go and seek?

beyond? beyond what? its precisely because of our conventional ideal to grasp for the beyond that we think we need to change something about our lives, or for that matter, that we feel we can change something about our lives--as if our egos really had any say in that matter. . .

buying into the idea that something needs to be seeked or sought is continuing The Round, ( karma or samsara).

[Neo_Sephiroth]

Knowledge does bring power and responsibility...But it can also, sometimes, bring sorrow.

Innocence is beautiful.

[Geoff Shipley]

I can't deny that there is something beautiful about the innocence of youth. I think a lot of people think of innocence in the same respect that they think of a baby animal as 'cute.' maybe a sort of natural defense. For me the beautiful aspect of youth is the possibilities of whats to come, the clean slate that is a child. I think the seperation from cute, and innocent is that humans can be "unto God and know both good and evil" (that might not be right, so if anyone can correct my Milton feel free:) )

When i think of my childhood im left with an unnerving, unsetteling feeling (healthy? probably not) but for me innocence equals ignorance. People often ask me rhetorically "well you where happy then weren't you?" Indeed i was, but im also happy now, and i don't look back on the last few years as something as idle, and feckless as my childhood.

I suppose it's the same feeling i get when i think how god would have just assumed we never ate from the tree, and that our eyes would never have been opened. Adam and Eve were undoubtably happier prior to eating the fruit, but they were children(not literally. I suppose this raises the age old cliche of blissful ignorance.) We try to keep evil from our children as long as possible, (blocking risque TV channels, home schooling) i'm sure god as the heavenly father really just wanted the same. This isn't to say we should indulge children in the evils of the world, rather they will eventually come to know, and i cant help but think thats a good thing.

[dan020350]

buying into the idea that something needs to be seeked or sought is continuing The Round, ( karma or samsara).

What is going round in circles is you. You are here why, you love to go round in the merry go round, you are afraid to get off.

Others:

If innocense is beautiful , then why are you destroying it. You are destroying yourself. Good Job. :thumbs_up

[billyjack]

What is going round in circles is you. You are here why, you love to go round in the merry go round, you are afraid to get off.


on the contrary, its love of the merry go round of life that makes one not want to get off. fear would force me off of it, love keeps me on it.

and anyways, getting off the merry-go-round doesnt mean much. it'd be like saying, "get off the universe."--a totally meaningless statement.

[dan020350]

If is meaningless to argue yet we do it anyways. It makes us superrior and feel good to dominate other people.

[kiz_paws]

If is meaningless to argue yet we do it anyways. It makes us superrior and feel good to dominate other people.

I am not sure I follow this statement. People sometimes argue because they have their own agendas that they adhere to and they are defending just that.
Or they argue because they are trying to teach the other party what their belief is, but the other party is reluctant to listen.
Or people argue because they are bored and say black when someone says white, and so on.
But to argue to dominate someone else, hmmmm... kinda spooky.

To answer the original question, "Is Innocence something beautiful" -- I think that it is beautiful.

[dan020350]

Let say if the gov't is hiding secrets, surely the agent will argue and never agree to someone who is getting closer to the secret.

If innoncent is beautiful you would go after it.

[B-Mental]

some of the comments like that last one are presumptuous...not everyone is the same and beauty is in the eye of the beholder Dan

[abcpoet]

Is there anybody who has read John Grisham's 'The Innocent Man'? It is not fiction. This book will shatter you if you think a convicted man is guilty. The innocence in this book is not at all beautiful, its scarry.

[kiz_paws]

Let say if the gov't is hiding secrets, surely the agent will argue and never agree to someone who is getting closer to the secret.

Ermmm, Dan, the agent that you speak of would NOT argue. They would merely LIE. You cannot argue with a closed book. (put simply)


If innoncent is beautiful you would go after it
To whom to you ask this? I will answer for myself.... how do you know me, or my quest for innocence/simplicity? You seem to apply your own existence to all situations, and that is close-minded. But, to your benefit, all you have to go on is the words you read on your screen, and words do not make up a person. How indeed can you get to know any of us by what we type on the screen...

[dan020350]

How indeed can you get to know any of us by what we type on the screen...

When one sees the dark clouds is coming,
one say it is going to rain , and it is.
When one feels the moist air,
one say it is going to be hot, and it is.

When one picks up a book
one can imagine or be one in the author's mind
when one sage speaks of truth
one cannot communicate that to another.

You do not know how to breathe or move your limbs when you were born
yet you know how to breathe and move your limbs.

[billyjack]

If is meaningless to argue yet we do it anyways. It makes us superrior and feel good to dominate other people.

its only meaningless if you're arguing just for the sake of arguing. kind of like flopping around in the water just for the sake of it--which happens to be my favorite way to swim. if your ulterior motive is superiority and domination, then this discussion has plenty of meaning for you.

[dan020350]

Do I want to dominate and feel superrior? OR do I want to let my naysayers be superrior? I usually let my opponents be more supperior than me, unless the situation demands I ought to be more superrior then them.

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

Innocence implies a degree of ignorance; that isn't beautiful.

[Lote-Tree]

Innocence implies a degree of ignorance; that isn't beautiful.

Ignorance is Bliss... :-)

[dan020350]

Innocence implies a degree of ignorance; that isn't beautiful.


Ignorance is Bliss... :-)

Both of you are correct, but not completely correct.

Ralph you have just imply that intelligence is innoncense, and it is that intelligence is beautiful. While Lote imply innonces is ignorance that is beautiful.

Innocense= intelligence + ignorance

Therefore, one who understand innoncense is ignorant yet intelligent. He is like a sage who doesn't say anything, yet his movements says a thousand words.

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

Delusion is bliss.

[Lote-Tree]

Delusion is bliss.

There is a difference between Delusion and Ignorance.

Ignorance = the lack of knowledge or education

Delusion = the act of deluding; deception by creating illusory ideas

Delusion requires an Action...

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

Yeah, I know. Most ignorant people aren't as happy as people that delude themselves, that's all.

[dan020350]

delusion and ignorance goes together quite well. :yawnb:

[Redzeppelin]

Ignorance and innocence are not synonyms; ignorance is oblivion.

[Turk]

Everything is easier to understand with their opposite, let's look opposite of innocent; guilty or sinful. So being innocent is good. And one doesn't have to lose his innocence just because he grew up. Children are both innocent and ignorant, as much as they older they will learn new things and get rid of their ignorance, but as far as they keep themselves pure and good they will always be innocent.

[Lote-Tree]

Ignorance is ignorance.

I will have oblivion any day instead of eternal damanation...

[dan020350]

turk

Everything is easier to understand with their opposite, let's look opposite of innocent; guilty or sinful. So being innocent is good. And one doesn't have to lose his innocence just because he grew up. Children are both innocent and ignorant, as much as they older they will learn new things and get rid of their ignorance, but as far as they keep themselves pure and good they will always be innocent.

But in America they condemn many innoncent people, so being innocent is not good in a society that is not good.

Problem: What do you mean keeping themselves pure and good they will always be innocent? ( When they grow old and learn new things) that seems to me, the meaning of St. Augustine- no matter what I do to my body, my soul is still pure.

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

Ignorance is ignorance.

I will have oblivion any day instead of eternal damanation...

You're meaning to say that delusional are not Christian?

Wait a minute, since when is ignorance oblivion? Ignorance is normally accepted to be a general lack of knowledge; stupid.

What I was talking about was that ignorance of your own nature is not bliss at all, but that delusion is more blissful because answers the question of the self; they are convinced of it.


Ignorance is ignorance.

I will have oblivion any day instead of eternal damanation...

Well yeah

[kiz_paws]

But in America they condemn many innoncent people, so being innocent is not good in a society that is not good.
Not only in America are innocent condemned -- elsewhere as well. And what society is deemed good, just for the records?

[Turk]

turk


But in America they condemn many innoncent people, so being innocent is not good in a society that is not good.

Problem: What do you mean keeping themselves pure and good they will always be innocent? ( When they grow old and learn new things) that seems to me, the meaning of St. Augustine- no matter what I do to my body, my soul is still pure.

Being good is always good in everywhere, it's hard to be good, that's true. Especially in countries which has developed capitalist system, because capitalism is a system which expose worst specialities of man such as jealousy, greed, selfishness. But being good is still better, every man born as an individual and firstly responsible of himself, then society. If i understand you accurately, you mean being good and having good intentions is a reason to be a loser countries such USA. It's like that in many countries, but there's two face of losing, the one materialistic and the other one is spiritual. People may steal your money, they may hurt you, they can violate your rights. But not one can steal your soul, unless you sell it and to me, a happy man is who have peace in his soul.

Clarifying my thought i mentioned before; i don't have a claim like St. Augustin's. A man's soul can get corrupted and also world and soul are both mirror. Your actions in this world will reflect to your soul, as much as bad things you do you will turn into an evil so i can't simply say something like St. Augustin (he probably invented this to save souls of Christians, right?). I am simply telling; if a man is fair, good and honest while he's growing up he's still innocent and good.

[dan020350]

turk
are youu good? Since you say it is top prority? And what is your meaning of the Good? ( Aristole, chrisitian? )

Kiz Paws

In order to say what is a good society, we must first, important to say why is the society is not good? My answer is why is it not possible for any organization( scientific, politics...) to organize itself to feed the world, to see everyone has enought food, clothing, and shelter? No country can solve it, it is a world problem? We don't want to solve this because I am an American you are a british or a japanese. This barriers, and divisions keep on growing, and all divisions naturally brings conflict. So first be free from oneself, not an American, Hindu, communist. I am a human being ( even to be a human being)

[motherhubbard]

I agree with what you are saying here. The problem lies with just a few. I know the world is down on America. When we look at the TV we see wealth and decadence and self-centered waste. It’s hard not to believe that the whole country is like that. But then I look at my family and neighborhood. We waste nothing. We give more to charity than we spend on any other single thing (house payment, groceries, gas, utilities). We are poor, but realize how blessed we are. What I see when I look around my area is some superficial or excessive living, but for the most part I see people just trying to make it to the next payday. I know that if you have a home you are in the world’s top one percent. I’m thankful that I’ve never had to send one of my children to bed hungry (one in five American children goes to bed hungry every night). But I grow our food and that’s why we have enough. Not because we are rich and selfish. I think that there are a lot of people like me, we just aren’t glamorous enough for TV. Do you see what I mean. The general population is not able to solve the world’s problems because they are working on their own basic needs. Government fails as well as the ultra rich because they look at how much can they make instead of how much can they give. You can’t blame the whole country for that.

[dan020350]

It is nice of you motherboard to give to charity. And nice for you to have wisdom to plant vegetables for you to have enough. But not eveyone have what you have. America is competitive country. IF you don't compete you won't make it to the top, 'so if you don't do your own work why should we support you'. The liberals way of thinking. ( America is founded in liberal founding fathers' way of thought).

Problem: You teach everything you know and pass it on to who you love. But for those you do not love, you do nothing. Why?

IT is said "feed a man a fish , he will not grow hungry for a day, teach a man how to fish he will never grow hungry again." Your responsibility is to have no image of yourself ( image implying a division).

Question: How much love does America loves its people?

[motherhubbard]

It is nice of you motherboard to give to charity. And nice for you to have wisdom to plant vegetables for you to have enough. But not eveyone have what you have. America is competitive country. IF you don't compete you won't make it to the top, 'so if you don't do your own work why should we support you'. The liberals way of thinking. ( America is founded in liberal founding fathers' way of thought).

Problem: You teach everything you know and pass it on to who you love. But for those you do not love, you do nothing. Why?

IT is said "feed a man a fish , he will not grow hungry for a day, teach a man how to fish he will never grow hungry again." Your responsibility is to have no image of yourself ( image implying a division).

Question: How much love does America loves its people?


To the top of what? I for one am right where I want to be. I have what I have because I believe that there are only two ways to have enough. Get more or want less. Sure there are those who seek the "TOP" but they will never get there. There will always be someone who has more. Happiness must come from within one's self.

How much does America love its people? Good question. Look at what happened among average Americans after 9/11. There was a tremendous outpour of support. Average people took time off of work to go help. Average people gave what they could to support. The same is true in every instance, all though maybe not to that extent. There are many theories about what to do for people. The majority does something. Sadly, those who could make the biggest difference often fall short. But they are the few. We are a screwed up country in many ways. I think it is very correct that we should be more united. I think that on a smaller scale we are. Here in the country when someone has a problem the whole community pulls together to help. I think that keeping the country divided on a larger scale prevents the people from actually having any control on a larger scale. I think it serves the politicians when they divide the country.

I think it is better to ask how much do those in power love their people and is it more than they love their power over them.

[kiz_paws]

To the top of what? I for one am right where I want to be. I have what I have because I believe that there are only two ways to have enough. Get more or want less. Sure there are those who seek the "TOP" but they will never get there. There will always be someone who has more. Happiness must come from within one's self.

How much does America love its people? Good question. Look at what happened among average Americans after 9/11. There was a tremendous outpour of support. Average people took time off of work to go help. Average people gave what they could to support. The same is true in every instance, all though maybe not to that extent. There are many theories about what to do for people. The majority does something. Sadly, those who could make the biggest difference often fall short. But they are the few. We are a screwed up country in many ways. I think it is very correct that we should be more united. I think that on a smaller scale we are. Here in the country when someone has a problem the whole community pulls together to help. I think that keeping the country divided on a larger scale prevents the people from actually having any control on a larger scale. I think it serves the politicians when they divide the country.

I think it is better to ask how much do those in power love their people and is it more than they love their power over them.

Your answers are always inspiring, motherhubbard, well said.

We are very much straying from the original posed question, I think, though, but this thread is a very good one, thank you Dan for posing these thoughts. :)

[Bii]

There's been a fair debate here, on and off topic, about whether innocence is beautiful but as yet, as far as I can see, I don't think anyone has yet established an understanding of what innocence is. If you don't understand, or can't define what something is then how can you then state if it is beautiful or not?

Part of what's important, or meaningful about philosophy is coming to an understanding of the nature of things. As I see it, much of the debate on this area of the forum is slipping into a political diatribe, rather than exploring the philosophy behind the original question, which is rather missing the point.

Dan - to be quite frank I found it difficult to understand your original question; but as the debate seems to be around the nature of innocence I'll throw my hat into the ring (so to speak) on that subject.

What is innocence? Often innocence is associated with children, yet I have met many children that I would not define as innocent, and some adults that I would. Age alone, therefore, can not be the source of innocence. The question then arises, what is it that we believe makes children innocent? Children, by their very nature, lack two crucial things 1) knowledge and 2) experience. Looking at each of these I favour experience as the point which leads to an understanding of the nature of innocence, reason being:

Knowledge - lack of knowledge I would define more as ignorance or naivity. I think it is fair to say that someone can lack knowledge but still not be innocent, and I'd refer back to children as being the reason for this conclusion. There is much that children do not know. They may not know why they shouldn't hit other people but experience tells them that it is wrong, perhaps because their mother shouts when they exhibit this kind of behaviour. They may not know why they shouldn't cross the street on their own, or understand the consequences of such action, but experience tells them that they shouldn't do it - again, because of reinforcement from parents which tell them they should not do it. The point is, they may know (because they have been told) that they should or should not act in a particular way, but they may do so anyway. Would you define such a child as an 'innocent'? I doubt that many people would.

Experience - I favour experience as the definer of innocence - not necessarily the lack of it but perhaps a combination of a lack of experience, or the ability or propensity to be untainted by experience. Take the child from the above scenario and imagine that the parents did not exhibit any controls, who did not pass on the benefit of their experience to their child. Such a child would hit others, until someone hit back and injured them. Then experience would kick in and the association would be made that hitting others results in personal pain, so the action is avoided. Such a child would cross the street oblivious to the danger until such time as they are injured, or perhaps almost injured and frightened enough that experience would tell them that crossing the street on their own is dangerous. Take a slightly different scenario - imagine giving a small child a piece of paper and a crayon for the first time. They may look at it in wonder as they have no experience of this, no prior awareness to give them an indication what this is for, what it could do to them, what powers it possesses. They approach it with wonder and curiosity. Give them a candle with a naked flame and they will do the same. As an innocent they will be burned but next time, drawing on their experience, they will avoid the flame, just as adults are (largely) bored by a piece of paper and a crayon. If you could approach a piece of paper and a crayon in the same way a child does, as though you had never experienced it before, then you would, in a small part, regain the experience (no pun intended) of innocence.

As to the question of whether innocence is beautiful, I'd have to say that it is. Innocence embodies almost everything that, as adults, we feel we have lost. The ability to be thrilled by the ordinary, to see the potential in the everyday, to be naturally curious, the ability to trust, to not carry round the weight of all the disappointments, slights, missed opportunities, the boredom and apparant monotony of life. Innocence, in this way, is something to be treasured; but in our current society we are too keen to throw this away, not recognising the value of what we have lost until it is gone.

So that, in a rather large nutshell, is what I think - what do you think?.....

[Lote-Tree]

What I was talking about was that ignorance of your own nature is not bliss at all, but that delusion is more blissful because answers the question of the self; they are convinced of it.


Ignorance of nature is not bliss? How so? Children are quite happy being ignorant about the world?

[SleepyWitch]

'My' innocent people are chaste through ignorance of evil- they are not perverse because they don't know that perversions exist.
'Your' innocent people are chaste even with their knowledge of evil and perversion- they choose not to follow that path, though they are fully conscious that it exists.

Okay. Your turn to rant.

i like your definitions nsp_marina.
so let's get back to dan's original question (even though he seems to have got himself banned and is no longer around to stir up confusion): is innocence beautiful?
what about the first type of innocence, i.e. the one children are said to have.(innocence= ignorance)? is this beautiful or just cute (as someone said earlier on)?

what about the second type, when people know that evil exists/ or have even done evil themselves and chose not to 'follow that path'... Personally, I wouldn't call that beautiful... I think that kind of innocence is terrifying in a way... I'm not saying it's not desirable.. but I suppose it involves a lot of mental and emotional effort... so it's not "beautiful" as in fluffy, nice, cute etc. in my view...




Merriam Webster dictionary defines innocence thusly:
"Function: noun
1 a : freedom from guilt or sin through being unacquainted with evil : BLAMELESSNESS b : CHASTITY c : freedom from legal guilt of a particular crime or offense d (1) : freedom from guile or cunning : SIMPLICITY (2) : lack of worldly experience or sophistication e : lack of knowledge : IGNORANCE <written in entire innocence of the Italian language -- E. R. Bentley>
2 : one that is innocent"
interesting definitions, kathy...
can someone be free from guile or cunning (=innocent) and know evil at the same time (=not innocent)? e.g. if someone does something "evil" without intending it? can you do something evil by accident without there being any guile or cunning involved?
e.g. (stupid example ahead) if someone steals an apple because he's hungry, is there guile or cunning involved? their intention may be to eat, not to rob someone else of their possesion.. --> what is it that counts, the result or the intention?

[motherhubbard]

Ignorance of nature is not bliss? How so? Children are quite happy being ignorant about the world?

if children were happy being ignorant about the world they would not work so hard to learn about it. Babies grasp and handle objects to learn and of course there is the great question "WHY"

[Lote-Tree]

if children were happy being ignorant about the world they would not work so hard to learn about it.


The learning is mainly forced on to them by the parents or else kids wold be happy all day long just playing with sand?



Babies grasp and handle objects to learn and of course there is the great question "WHY"

This about developing biologically. This learning is instinctive at that stage?

[motherhubbard]

Learning is instinctive at every stage and I can promise that no parent needs to encourage a child to ask why! People of every age want to gain a better understanding of their world. If that were not true we would still be banging rocks to light fires.

[ulvmane]

My personal thought to this would have to be that "ignorance is bliss". If there is any way to describe this better it would be in Flowers for Algernon when charlie learns his "friends" were only makeing fun of him because he was mentally challenged. For those who haven't read the book he only realizes this because he became smarter through a "miracle surgery". If he hadn't of become smarter he would have still thought of them as his his friends and only of been happy.
I think we only work towards learning because human nature is "if you don't understand it, conquer it"


once again this is a personal opinon lol

[Turk]

[QUOTE=dan020350;384173]turk
are youu good? Since you say it is top prority? And what is your meaning of the Good? ( Aristole, chrisitian? )

I don't like American words such as top, best or most. :) But yeah i say being good is important. Am i good? I don't want to tell my thought about judging myself. Because it won't be so accurate. But i can say i am trying to be good.

Well, i don't care about Aristotle or St. Paul or Nietzsche... I believe every man knows from the inside what is good what is bad. And if a man tries to be good then he's at least not bad.

[motherhubbard]

Turk, that was well said, all of it. I agree with your thoughts on American words such as top, best, and most - when it is used in an I'm better than your are kind of way.

[Bii]

[QUOTE=Turk;384811I don't like American words such as top, best or most. [/QUOTE]

Sorry, just had to express my national mortification at this comment - since when did the English language become American???!!!?!?!?!?!?!?

Runs in horror as 2000 years of history are flushed down the toilet.........

[Turk]

It's just an observation friend, not to insult America. But Americans are the "top" nation (you like it didn't you? :)) in using words like "top", "best", "most". Whenever i visit American websites or TV channels i see one best or top thing. And saying this is not an insult.

[Bii]

I think you misinterpret - I am English and object to the sneak hijacking of my language. Next thing you know King Arthur will have been King of New York state!

No offence taken, or intended either; rarely is my sense of patriotism stirred (it's not 'done' you see!) but it seems, these days, there's little enough for us Brits to be proud of without having our crowning glory (you have to admit, the language is everywhere) whipped from under our feet by a nation which made it pretty clear they didn't want us around.

I remonstrate with myself for veering completely off topic - guess I just couldn't help myself with that one!

[motherhubbard]

Bii - don't get too upset. Brits have a better vocabulary and use the language with beauty and grace - I can't say the same for the hillbillies in my neck of the woods.

[Turk]

Yeah don't forget Bii. Britain was existed before America and Americans are just naughty child of mighty Britain Empire. :)

[Bii]

Bii - don't get too upset. Brits have a better vocabulary and use the language with beauty and grace - I can't say the same for the hillbillies in my neck of the woods.

That's not entirely true - there are plenty of people in UK who can only use 3 and 4 letter words, and sometimes not even those properly! Can't count the amount of people who say 'pacific' instead of 'specific'! Thanks for the words of support though - they're much appreciated.

Back to innocence. According to the Oxford English dictionary the definition of innocence is:

"1. Not guilty of a crime or offence
2. Free from moral wrong; not corrupted
3. not intended to cause offence; harmless
4. (innocent of) without experience or knowledge of"

and apparently the original of the word is the Latin for 'not harming' from 'in' = not and 'nocere' = to hurt.

[Lote-Tree]

Brits have a better vocabulary and use the language with beauty and grace -

Thanks We Have History too :-)