Welcome to Community of One Love

\"\"   \"\"
  COOL Menu
\"\"   \"\"


Recent Posts

 Hello people!
 Hi, what wonderful people here. My mood was better. :))
 just thought i should say hi
 Jesus Freak Movement?
 help :S
 That Infinite
 Some Considerations
 ASCENSION Q- Religion and Science Based-Research review
 Just Joined

Community of One Love Forums



Bookmark this page


Community of One Love: Users Journal

Users Journal
[ Journal Directory | Create an Account ]

Site member's automatically have the option to create their own journals and post comments.

Philisophical Thoughts....
by: Kooks
Posted on: 07-16-2008 @ 09:42 pm

I was having a thought today. Again, I am turning into quite the little philosopher. Anyway the thought was along the lines of: how far are our actions the result of our ego or is our ego the result of our actions? Surely if we define our ego by our actions then we are suggesting that our actions are predetermined and exist in a separate field to ourselves, while if we admit that our actions are ruled by our ego then we are then forced to look at the difficult nature of our inner selfish desires and motivations. Do we really believe that our actions are independent of our ego purely because to sit and admit that our ego rules all that we do would undermine our inner opinion of ourselves and reveal an uncomfortable truth to us in the sense that, as beings ruled by ego, we are not as moralistic as we consider ourselves and thus we disbelieve the existence of morals to an uncomfortable climax. If we are indeed ruled by ego, how can morals exist? If morals are independent of all human emotion, whereas ego is purely made up of human emotion, then can morals exist in a world that is thus created by the human emotions of our ego?

Also, what truth lies within the statement ‘Nothing is illegal until you get caught’. Can an action be defined unless someone other then the person performing the action witnesses it?  Does the essence of the action need to be seen before it can be defined by social values? Surely the entire point of the legal system is negligible when the view is taken that an action needs to be proved before one can be found guilty, indicates that the need for proof indicates that the legality of an action is determined only by what can be proved to having taken place. If said action cannot be proved to have occurred, is this action then still illegal? Or is legality then forced to be defined by an external presence, as the person committing the action obviously does not accept the illegality of the action in the first place?

Last updated on 07-16-2008 @ 09:42 pm

Write a Comment
Write a Comment
View More
View More
User Profile
User Profile
Send a Message
Send a Message

Journal ©

All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2006 by Coolove.org.
PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL.
PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.
Page Generation: 0.08 Seconds