I just rode home on my bike from university, and as it was quite the long ride, I got thinking; about my past, about now, and particularly why the heck I was doing whatever I was doing. What was I doing with my life? (By this, I already forgot whatever I was doing right then, so I wonder how I ever got home without getting run over by a car [buses are on strike, thank Isha]).

Let's start at the beginning, shall we?

I barely have memories of those years, but at some point in time my parents divorced. Sounds terrible, but the alternative was a living hell that had already survived years past it's time. It was not going well with me, however. As the parent I was allocated to was not stress-resistant, and now suddenly was on her own, without anything more than a high-school diploma, barely any working experience and two young kids. A stable situation this does not make (!). None of us remained unaffected, and I'd bet my head that all three of us have had thoughts of ending it all. That's where my story starts.
When I could finally leave that place when I was twelve, I started living with my remaining parent, who at least knew how a household was supposed to be run. The same year I went to highschool. Here, you go to high school after 8 years of basic school, and it lasts 4, 5 or 6 years, depending on your level, 6 years being the highest level.
When I started, I was glad I never killed myself. At least I managed basic school. I did not know what I was capable of. Imagine being a butterfly who does not know he can fly. He'll wonder what these huge flaps he drags around are, and is miserable because he wants to fly like the bees.
Cheesy metaphors aside, I got there thinking: "If I manage to reach the middle level, at least my life won't be entirely worthless, and I won't regret not killing myself".
Then, after a year, I went to the highest level. I was shocked. I was dumb & stupid wasn't I? I was worthless, how could I get schooled at the highest level? I thought the same as before. Maybe I wouldn't be able to do this. maybe I'd drop a level in coming years, whenever that would be. But I did highschool, worked my rear-end off every now and then, and surprisingly, I managed to get a diploma for the highest highschool level within 6 years! I knew several people who could not do this, no matter how hard they tried.
Then came the bummer. All I ever aspired was not killing myself before the end of highschool. Now there were universities who wanted me as a student. W.T.F!
Now I'm here, a student, living on my own, 200 km away from home, and I probably will earn my propedeuse within the first year.

Why did I go to university?
It may sound kinda crazy, but I never killed myself because I was afraid I would end a life that was too valuable. A life that has such an impact on history that it would disrupt history itself to end it prematurely.
Now I feel I must make that true. When you preserve a life that may influence history a lot, make sure it will.
Now I never really thought about how I will accomplish that, as, well, I never really thought about what should happen beyond highschool, but slowly it should come to me, and I will take any chance to write history.

A life that could have been wasted but wasn't deserves an honorable mention in the historybooks.

And yes, I think I need a psychiatrist, don't worry about that, university has free consults.

Frecus
The glade wanderer
Madwarrior

Frecus;

I can't begin to say how much I appreciate your post. It takes a lot to just open up on an international forum like this and admit to something like that; we have almost 200 members, you know.

Your absolutely right. With just a moments thought you can consider all of the possibilities that you would loose if you just gave up right now. Once you've achieved this perspective the potential inside becomes clear. The willingness and the resolve can spread like the pedals of a flower in the sunlight of understanding that you are alive and capable of good things.

How's that for cheesy metaphors. Well, that was a simile, but you get the point.

If you don't mind, I can relate to you pretty well.

My mother died when I was 13, at the end of a long battle with cancer. My father took to referring to himself as her shadow and lost all sense of joy in his life. Our house was in disrepair and my oldest brother turned to drinking. I carried into High School a most profound case of depression, failing miserably. It took three trips to summer school and some rather generous teachers to get me out.

Not that I wasn't capable, I tested off the charts on aptitude and IQ assessments. My reading comprehension and analysis skills are excellent. I failed in school because I simply didn't care.

8 years after graduation and I'm studying Anthropology in College (Only second year and working on a transfer to the University of Pittsburgh) I have a wife and a beautiful daughter. I have a Doctorate in my future (as well as a killer new Dark Elf Army ) and all because I simply chose one day to except the gifts that I have and not dwell on the misfortune I have been forced to endure.

I'm happy for you Frecus. Hard times are but the contrast of success. You can stand in the shadow of your obstacles or feel the sunshine on the other side.

"The readiness is all"
Hamlet

A psychiatrist? Nah, sounds like you need a quiet place and a notebook. Though, an objective ear couldn't hurt either, I suppose.

I'm glad you discovered the sanctity of life...at least your own..and the promise of a future. Just keep true to yourself and this race that you have begun to run. Change History.

My teacher in philosphy said that our purpose is to change history. To make a diffrence. It doesn't matter what you do as long as something changes because of you.

In the end there is no good or evil - only decisions and consequences, and we have to choose the best decisions to get the best consequences, for us and those whom we love.

I have decided to read philosophy in university because I think that I can do something for mankind (I know it sounds foolish, but I too want to make a diffrence, make this place better).

I think that I will after a few years look back to my decisions and ideals and, well, have a good laugh, but it doesn't matter. I have to choose a path, and this in no worse than any other. Okay I wont make much money but who cares? There are more important things in life, one of them being life it self.

Good luck to you and your decisions Frecus, motivaitor of the glade!

Frecus,

Thanks so much for sharing your experiences. I think a LOT of people have soul-searching moments in High School, although most are not in as difficult of circumstances as you were. It is so difficult to have perspective on things as a teenager, when everything seems so momentous and we haven't yet developed the coping skills that serve us so well as adults.

If only one person reads your post and makes a decision to keep on keeping on, you will have done an immense service.



I hate to pick on your post here, Eglardion, but I really disagree with this. Many people have changed history in a way that brought misery and suffering to millions of people. (See Hitler, Stalin, Mugabe, current Burmese ruling junta).



It seems empirically proven to me that good and evil exist. See above for evil. But for good, how about Mother Teresa or any of the other many people who sacrifice their own comfort and selfish interests for the well-being of others?



Again, I have to disagree. If I have a decision to save my family at the cost of thousands or millions of others, that's a very difficult question, isn't it?



And hopefully a difference for good, rather than evil!

I don't mind Mach. However I will return the favor and try to explain my view more clearly.

I know that "just making a diffrence" can have bad consequences, and from someones point of view they will be bad most likely. I too think that people like Hitler have done things that brought misery and death to so many people, and the things that they have done are not meant to be done in life.

What are the consequences of their actions? Thousands died. But hopefully many people will see this as a warning, and I know that many will. Everybody knows the consequences of rasism and terror in the western world, and I think that we have to "thank" people like Hitler and avoid the same fate. Don't pick or take as a sig that... I don't mean that we should have a praise-hitler-day, but try to see the positive. If more people will survive because of 2n world war and the cold war in future I think that they served a greater cause.



It can also be said that they are altruists/hedonists who get pleasure of helping others more than of anything else. Good and evil are opinions, and as such they exsist, but still they are nothing but opinions IMO. So I say that IMO Hitlers deeds were evil, and I say it because I'm a human. It still doesn't mean that such a thing as evil exsits.



I didn't say that you should sacrafice your family for your country, or for just other people. I at least wouldn't do a thing for my country (I'm not very patriotic . That doesn't mean that I don't love my homeland, it just means that I'm not prepeard to die for it since I don't think that it's worth my or any others life).

By that I meant that when you decide to do something in your life it's good to think about what's best for you and those around you, so I think that Hitler failed in his life because he harmed so many people, even though he made a huge diffrence.

You have to look at the consequences.

I promise that if I mannage to make a diffrence that someone outside my friends will notice it will be for the thing that you and I would call good.

I'm not going to act. I will think and try to resolve what this world is about, and I know I will not learn the truth, but I have to try.

@ Frecus

I have friends that have much in common with background and I can tell that they have not done nearly as well as you. One didn't even finish middle school, (which you msut do in Finland) the other one waded through high school, but she hasn't done anything since that (and its been 2 years).

Well done anything is quite wrong, they both (sisters) are adicted to drugs. The other one has 2 cats and a dog. She doesn't take the dog out and the cats can starv for days. Her apartment smells awful. I hate that she neglects her pets.

The biggest problem is that they have no sence of purpose, which you have. Unless someone can tear them from drugs they will remain the same for the rest of their lives. I hate to admit that I can't do it. I have tried, but it doesn't work.

It is indeed a pity that some can't make the choice of living to their full potential. Or maybe it isn't, for if everybody lived to his or her full potential, none of us would be noticable (ie, I think everybody has about the same potential).

Machiara, I DO agree with that history teacher. Evil is in the eye of the beholder. Some say evil is unequal treatment. You give your oldest son more pocket money, 'just because he's older'. That could look evil from the younger son's perspective.
War, a much larger scaled process, is also only good to the winning side. But war only has one winner, and that's the guy selling weapons. He loves war.

The things I want to become when I finish university do not include being ethical. The things I want to become are actually highly egotistical, and require resources many would like spent on the poor, homeless and hungry.
On the otherhand, science isn't by far as wasteful as massed commercial advertising, and a lot of the crap produced for TV.

To be brutally honest, if, in 80 years my name is written in the historybooks, I wouldn't really care if I was the first human on mars or the man who created an artificial pandemic killing millions.

Frecus
The glade wanderer
Madwarrior

@ Machiara: Dang it, I was already composing my response and you jump in and say it better than I could. Dang it.

@Frecus: Dude, I really hope that you are not serious about some of your statements. "Evil" is not just a "point of view". There is such a thing as Good and Evil. Using the over-used example, Hitler may have achieved his "purpose in life" by "affecting history", but that doesn't mean his actions were not evil. Just because from his point of view he was doing what he thought was a good thing in ridding the world of what he and his followers believed to be the sources of all misery (non-Aryan's, defectives, Jews, Homosexuals, Poles, etc) does not make their actions towards breeding the Übermensch to be "good" by any stretch of the imagination.

What you and your professor describe is "Ethical Egoism", a type of Consequentialism where the outcomes for the individual are seen to matter more than any other result. "The Ends justify the Means" in other words. Outcome for individual (Hitler changes history) is more important than the consequences (Millions of people are killed). "BzzzzzT!!!! Wrong answer but thank you for playing...."



What you are looking for is notoriety, then? Fame and public opinion? Madonna, Paris Hilton, and Amy Winehouse all have that - they are famous for being famous. OJ Simpson, Charles Manson, Ghengis Khan, Sadam Hussein, Mao Tse Tung - all are notorious for the incredibly evil consequences of their "trying to achieve their purpose". (Do you honestly propose that Adolph Hilter's purpose was to serve as a warning about how killing off millions of innocents might be a "Bad Thing"? That OJ's Purpose was to become a famous athlete and actor so he could chop his ex-wife and an innocent bystander into bloody pieces? That's trivializing the victims deaths to the point of being insulting). Following that line of thinking, there should be no laws, and no punishments for any action, since it could be argued that the Murderer/ Arsonist/ Philanderer/ Thief/ Enron Executive was just fulfilling his purpose in life, and that from his viewpoint what he did wasn't really all that bad.

I appreciate your candor, and applaud the courage it took to post your initial post on a public forum, but I can't disagree more with your viewpoint and aspirations.

Have a nice day

Padraig

Umm.. How else can I put it... Evil could be a matter of opinion. The kid in my previous example can choose to be jealous of his older sibling, or he can agree with the parent and not see the act as evil.

Would a person like Hitler consider himself evil? Probably. Would he hate himself for what he did? Most likely.

Woul I, as a person consider killing millions as an act of evil? Yeah I would. Would I hate myself for doing that? Umm... No. For reasons stated above.

Sounds harsh, eh? I'd be more evil than Hitler! Luckily for any potential victims, there's laws in this world. It's way easier to do good (from the place I'm in now) than evil! It's easier for me to finish university and discover how to replace organs and limbs through stem-cell research (which is the most probable place I'll end up).

So, while I wouldn't care for killing mllions, I wouldn't care for your re-grown liver beyond you praising me into heaven for a cure to your (previously) terminal illness either.

Egotistical? Hell yeah! Evil? As it's currently going, no.


Next question: How do you consider the value of your own lives? I measure it by the impact on history. What's your measure?

Frecus
The glade wanderer
Madwarrior

Evil is not a matter of opinion. Whether someone wants to acknowledge the fact of it's existance is a seperate issue, but does not affect whether it exists or not.

Saying Evil is a matter of opinion is like saying that "Night is darker than day" or "Elephants are Larger than Mice" is simply a matter of opinion. You can try to argue until you're out of breath that Night is not darker than day, or that the Sun does not rise in the east and set in the west, but "Dark", Light" and the sun will continue on their merry way regardless of what you decide your opinion of them is.

The only variable here is whether a person who commits an evil act is aware of it being evil, is cognizent of it's being evil, and cares about the consequences of his/her acts. Hitler commited acts that by any measure would be considered Evil by civilized people, but apparently slept well at night afterwards.

How do *I* measure the value of my life? I measure it by the affect I have on the people around me, how I've (hopefully) been a blessing to them in some way. When I die, I'd rather not have people singing and dancing/ spitting on my grave because "The SOB is finally gone!" Close to your "Impact on History" I suppose, but differant from how you are using it I think. What good would it be to discover the cure for cancer if you kept it under a bucket and never cured anyone? You would have a great impact on history (assuming anyone found out about your lack of action) but no purpose.

If you cured my incurable disease, I would be eternally grateful, but would I care if you shrugged it off and just worried that the check cleared the bank? Probably not. I'd still be grateful, how you respond or recieve it is up to you. You're free to be a miserable uncaring SOB if you want to be, I suppose.

Have a nice day.

I actually wrote a pretty lengthy thesis paper on this for my first year Philosophy course. Padraig's already summed up the main points of my argument but I'll put them here again in my own words.

Basically, there are some behaviours that societies universally consider good, and some that they universally consider bad. Without getting too technical, this can basically be summarized as follows:

• Any action that purposely benefits society is good
• Any action that purposely harms society is bad

This is just strict definition of good and bad as it relates to morality. These basic moral standards apply to everyone of every generation across the entire globe. What you seem to be arguing (correct me if I'm wrong) is that this isn't true, that there are no moral absolutes.The term for this is relativism (or, more specifically, truth relativism), and the vast majority of scholars reject it as a valid philosophy.

Hitler killed millions of innocent people, and I'm sure in his own mind he thought he was doing something that would ultimately benefit society. That's how he was able to sleep at night. Nobody in their right mind, however, would say that what he did wasn't evil, and that's where the confusion comes in. The rightness or wrongness of certain actions (such as rape, genocide, murder, etc) isn't a matter of opinion, belief, or value system. These are things that we can define as right or wrong because they're a part of our biological nature as humans. If we accept that there is no absolute moral right or wrong, then there would be no need for a justice system. Murderers and child molesters would get off scot free as long as they don't recognize what they're doing as irrational.

This in itself should be enough of an argument against your position, should it not?

Examples like Hilter and Mother Teresa are very convenient subjects for "proving" the existence of true good verses true evil. But in reality, these people only represent the ultimate extremes of what is, essentially, endless variety.

Sure, Hitler odered the deaths of millions of people in what he believed would be a cleansing of the European culture; a purging of impurity. Obviously this was the hieght, possibly the very top, of crimes against humanity - although the situation in Darfur is quickly gaining in degree.

But at the turn of the 9th century, Charlemagne ordered the execution of thousands of Saxons, Vikings and Lombards for refusing to convert to Christianity. At Verdun in particular he oversaw the massed execution of 1200+ people, dragged to the river one by one and given a choice, Baptism or death. Those that accepted Baptism did so in the Blood of their own people.

But today, the countries of Europe are Christian countries. There is certainly a powerful progressive movement in the EU, but fundementally, they are Christian. Most people would believe that this is a good thing. Not a personal attack on you Padraig, but from context I'd gather you rank proudly among them. The entire Identity of Europe today is owed to Charlemagne for "cleansing" the land of Pagan Barbarians who would not accept the Roman, Christian God.

Hitler would name Charlemagne very specifically as a hero and inspiration for what he did. So would Napoleon.

In 1492, the entire indigenous population of the Americas was equal to that of Europe. But after 200 years of Christian occupation, That population was reduced to a fraction, having endured war, treachery and the introduction of disease. But as an American, I find it difficult to regret this. Acknowledge it? Sure. Regret it? Not really.

The problem with a debate like this is that the proponents of "True good/True evil" assume the higher moral ground. That when someone argues the subjective nature of Good vs. Evil, it comes across as cynical. The sheer amount of "bad" in the world makes it difficult to argue for balance. It just sounds more like you're saying there's no such thing as true good, because true Evil is so obvious and prevalent.

Good and Evil are subjective, a simple review of history will prove this, because the values of one culture are just that, the values of one culture. Are there universal morals? Sure. Right now, there are no cultures on record actively practicing cannibalism. At the same time, all cultures everywhere have established marriage rituals in place for governing family and raising of children. But as each culture evolves, the particular conditions of their environment act to shape these values against the canvas of cultural subjectivity. But when two cultures interact or oppose each other, the significance of good and evil are hoplessly obscured as both sides do what is right for themselves.

It can certainly be said that we are moving towards something better, but this is really just balance. The values of every culture are coagulating into one, but this can only be possible if each culture can bring itself to forgoe some portion of its values in acceptance of the others; like sexuality. There are sexual practices going on in the world that the supposed moral find offensive, but these judgments are being used to deny the rights of the accused. Homosexuality is persecuted in most moral environments with almost no consideration for basic nature of the people involved.

Good vs. Evil is inconsequential, all that matters is the proper balance of culture.

Moral is not a matter of taste (like which sort of icecream I like most). I agree with you Padrig 100% here, but still there are different moral codes in diffrent cultures and social groups.

How could there be "true" moral absolutes if the moral code changes in time and space? And if it doesn't change but we have never understood it, how could we come to understand it?

This is why people have opinions of moral. My friend tried to encourage me to do a tax fraud (which involved no risks) but I said that I would rather pay the 500 € tax than "steal". What happend? We had opinons nothing else nothing more.

It seems that the moral code is a big opinion mostly shared by everyone. That is why there are no true absolutes, because the absolutes would have to come from some place. I don't belive in good and evil in it self, though I acknowlage that there is good and bad consequences. If good and evil exsisted it should be good or evil for something. In a democratic + liberalistic world without a god (IMO the western world) this is impossible since everybody are on the same level. The only thing that could be considerd as evil in this world woud be imbalance, and even that can be argued.

Though I live in Europe I'm not very christian (I'm christian only by culture, so I'm not religious).
I have no reason to belive in life after life (or death), so I can't belive in revards that wait beyond this life.

My sum up is:

Good and evil exists only in a relativistic way since they are always relative (good to whom, evil to whom).

I want to highlight that I'm not a relativist, more often I look black/white at the world.

The image can be blurry, but when you get close enough you'll see that in the end everything is black and white. -----> my cheesy metaphor




- Yes I know that between black and white there is no room for two The scale might be wide, but there is no need to be blind cause between black and white, there is no room for two

I leave all of the grey behind I see clear, I know hat I'll find you claim that you are innocent but tell me who isn't You think that you're going to be saved There's no such thing as a saint.

In Flames

Album: Reroute to Remain

We all know that history is written by the winners. But that does not mean that history proves that good and evil are subjective. If Hitler had been successful, his actions would still be considered evil by the rest of the world. Even many Germans at the time thought him evil and opposed what he was doing. I doubt they would change their tune if the victor had been Germany and it allies.

On the other hand, Charlemagne is not considered good because he won, but because many of his heinous acts are not mentioned. If his many acts were brought to light, public opinion of him would change. Living in the US, I benefit from the conquests of Europe and the Americas, but that does not mean that I uphold those conquerors as paragons of virtue. I DO regret it.

These men did horrible acts "supposedly" under the banner of Christianity. But the fact of the matter is, they did what they did for gold and glory, god was a secondary, if not tertiary, consideration used primarily for propaganda to appease the masses. This is no more a reflection of true Christianity than the terrorists crashing planes into the Twin Towers being a reflection upon true Islam.

Religion has been the cause of much evil in the world. Does that make religion evil? No, because its practitioners are still held accountable for perverting the teachings of these religions. What Charlemagne did was evil; history does not change this, it simply covers it up so as not to offend our traditionally Christian sensibilities.

I would also argue that the European nations are not christocentric (I think I just made that word up. Maybe not.), at least not anymore. Christendom has been in a rapid decline for some time now. This is the case, even in America, though it is not yet as pronounced. As this decline continues, does this mean that good and evil will change positions, that what is considered good will then be considered evil, and vice versa? In some cases, yes, such as homosexuality. But for the most part, no. Evil acts will still be considered evil and non-christocentric governments will continue to legislate accordingly.

Can you elucidate upon this statement, I'm not sure what you mean: "Good vs. Evil is inconsequential, all that matters is the proper balance of culture."

Europe is and will remain for a long time "chritsocentric" (I don't know if it is a word, but it suits the situation well). Even though people don't consider them selves religious they are still affected by it. Europe is pierced by christianity and I don't think that this is a bad thing. It is our culture, and to some people it is also a religion.

I am not an atheist because I don't deny that the christian god doesn't exsist. The idea of a god isn't in my head, or I don't need a god to clarify this world for me. I prefer a rational way.

I know that my fatelessness (as someone might call it) is powerless and that faith even in something that doesn't exsist is stronger than one in nothing. The thing is that I don't see the need for faith. I believe in my self above all and in those people who are around me. If I can't belive in that then I no longer need to be saved.