La Voie, La Verite et La Vie. What this means is The Voice, The Truth and the Life.These are the last words of a man who has experienced one of the horrible concentration camps just after WWII. After Churchill died, Britain scrambled to find a new leader. During that time, many gangs tried to take power. When I read this, I felt very emotinal because I am Catholic, and these were words spoken by Christ, in this: "Je suis la Voie, la Vérité et la Vie, nul ne vient au Père que par moi" This means nothing goes to Father expect by me(Jesus).
But what does La Voie, La Verite et La Vie really mean?
Let's start with La Voie. Voie means voice, and I think Jesus means the voice of God, who is suposedly our creator. Maybe he's trying to say the voice that commands us.
Next part: La Verite. Verite means Truth, so it means "The Truth". I've always heard the saying 'The truth will set you free", but does it have anything to do with this? I think it does. Put 'The Voice and The Truth" together and you get "The Voice of Truth". This also means God. What the Catholic Church belives is that when you die, you are forgiven of your sins. I think the saying "The truth will set you free" could be referring to "The Voice of Truth", which could be put together to make "The Voice of Truth sets you free."
Last part: La Vie: Vie means life. I'm thinking about "The Voice of Truth(God) will make your life." I wonder if that's true.
Are we in command of our own lives? I think so. By this, I mean I believe in Extensialism, that we are commanded by ourselves. Our experiences shape our descions. Sometimes, other people try to influence us, but when you make a descion, it is your descion. It's not the person telling you what to do who's making it for you. You have the right not to listen to them. Anybody can tells us what to do, but nobody can force us to do anything. We live our lives based on ourselves, not other people.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Thursday, May 19, 2011
To Girdlegard or Bust! (Morality vs. Roots)
My all time favorite fantasy novel The Dwarves takes place in a magical realm where Elves, Men, Orcs, Magi, and Dwarves live. It mainly talks about Tungdil, a dwarf raised by humans, who tries to convince the other dwarves to wage war against the powerful orcs, while most are for a campaign against the elves, who have killed many of their kin.
This book really got me thinking about ethics. If a group of people killed your father, and Al Capone's gang is trying to is trying to take over the world, and you and the other man each have a group of 50 followers, while Capone has 100, would you fight the man who killed your father or the people who are trying to take over the world?
I would join together to fight Capone. Sometimes, you have to forget the past to see common sense.
Why do our roots overpower our common sense?
I think because we have such a strong feeling that we feel we have a greater duty to our family that to ethics. We feel we need to avenge rather than stop for a moment and think properly.
This is what Tundgil's oppenent in becoming King of Dwarves feels. He believes that elves killed his father and brother, so he feels he need to get revenge.
From time to time, we get lost-in our own worlds. We get so het up in our own ideas and in our minds that we forget that there are factors besides ourselves in situations. By that, I mean we have such pride in ourselves and have so much hate for a certain thing or gruop of people that you just? go into a bloodlust or rage, and lose your common sense. Today, this happens quite commonly. One example is the Libyans fighting to get rid of Gadafi. Gadafi's supporters have killed many of their family just for who they were and what they believed. The Libyans feel they need to kill Gadafi to avenge their lost family and friends.
But do we really have to kill to avenge deaths?
I really don't think so. Once somebody has died, you can't bring them back, no matter what you do, not even the things they had really wished you to have done. To kill people just to avenge is not very ethical. You're basically taking away a life of another person who's death you think will make your parents glad to be your parents (which will not). I wouldn't tell my son or daughter to go out and end somebody's life just because it might make me happy. It wouldn't. To know my child is a killer is one of the worst things you can know about your child.
We need to forget the roots to be moral with common sense, and not try to do anything that our parents would be against just to avenge their deaths. It hurts everybody, not just the person getting killed, but the killer, his family, the killed one's family, friends, it just makes the world a sadder place for a few more people.
And let us be damned if we were created to make the world a worse place than it already was.
This book really got me thinking about ethics. If a group of people killed your father, and Al Capone's gang is trying to is trying to take over the world, and you and the other man each have a group of 50 followers, while Capone has 100, would you fight the man who killed your father or the people who are trying to take over the world?
I would join together to fight Capone. Sometimes, you have to forget the past to see common sense.
Why do our roots overpower our common sense?
I think because we have such a strong feeling that we feel we have a greater duty to our family that to ethics. We feel we need to avenge rather than stop for a moment and think properly.
This is what Tundgil's oppenent in becoming King of Dwarves feels. He believes that elves killed his father and brother, so he feels he need to get revenge.
From time to time, we get lost-in our own worlds. We get so het up in our own ideas and in our minds that we forget that there are factors besides ourselves in situations. By that, I mean we have such pride in ourselves and have so much hate for a certain thing or gruop of people that you just? go into a bloodlust or rage, and lose your common sense. Today, this happens quite commonly. One example is the Libyans fighting to get rid of Gadafi. Gadafi's supporters have killed many of their family just for who they were and what they believed. The Libyans feel they need to kill Gadafi to avenge their lost family and friends.
But do we really have to kill to avenge deaths?
I really don't think so. Once somebody has died, you can't bring them back, no matter what you do, not even the things they had really wished you to have done. To kill people just to avenge is not very ethical. You're basically taking away a life of another person who's death you think will make your parents glad to be your parents (which will not). I wouldn't tell my son or daughter to go out and end somebody's life just because it might make me happy. It wouldn't. To know my child is a killer is one of the worst things you can know about your child.
We need to forget the roots to be moral with common sense, and not try to do anything that our parents would be against just to avenge their deaths. It hurts everybody, not just the person getting killed, but the killer, his family, the killed one's family, friends, it just makes the world a sadder place for a few more people.
And let us be damned if we were created to make the world a worse place than it already was.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
V for Vendetta: La Voie, La Verite et La Vie
La Voie, La Verite et La Vie. These are the last words of a man who has experienced on of the horrible Nazi concentration camps. What this means is The Voice, The Truth and the Life. When I read this, I felt very emotinal because I am Catholic, and these were words spoken by Christ, in this: "Je suis la Voie, la Vérité et la Vie, nul ne vient au Père que par moi" This means nothing goes to Father expect by me(Jesus).
But what does La Voie, La Verite et La Vie really mean?
Let's start with La Voie. Voie means voice, and I think Jesus means the voice of God, who is suposedly our creator. Maybe he's trying to say the voice that commands us.
Next part: La Verite. Verite means Truth, so it means "The Truth". I've always heard the saying 'The truth will set you free", but does it have anything to do with this? I think it does. Put 'The Voice and The Truth" together and you get "The Voice of Truth". This also means God. What the Catholic Church belives is that when you die, you are forgiven of your sins. I think the saying "The truth will set you free" could be referring to "The Voice of Truth", which could be put together to make "The Voice of Truth sets you free."
Last part: La Vie: Vie means life.I've often heard "There's only one correct path in life." I sort of disagree with that, because it was written in te late 1700's, and the world has changed a lot since then. I'm thinking about "The Voice of Truth(God) will make your life." I wonder if that's true.
Are we in command of our own lives?
If not, who or what is?
But what does La Voie, La Verite et La Vie really mean?
Let's start with La Voie. Voie means voice, and I think Jesus means the voice of God, who is suposedly our creator. Maybe he's trying to say the voice that commands us.
Next part: La Verite. Verite means Truth, so it means "The Truth". I've always heard the saying 'The truth will set you free", but does it have anything to do with this? I think it does. Put 'The Voice and The Truth" together and you get "The Voice of Truth". This also means God. What the Catholic Church belives is that when you die, you are forgiven of your sins. I think the saying "The truth will set you free" could be referring to "The Voice of Truth", which could be put together to make "The Voice of Truth sets you free."
Last part: La Vie: Vie means life.I've often heard "There's only one correct path in life." I sort of disagree with that, because it was written in te late 1700's, and the world has changed a lot since then. I'm thinking about "The Voice of Truth(God) will make your life." I wonder if that's true.
Are we in command of our own lives?
If not, who or what is?
Thursday, May 5, 2011
The Killer Angels
The Killer Angels, by Michael Shaara, tells the dramatic and bloody story of the Battle of Gettysburg.
In one passage, Colonel Chamberlain of the 20th Maine, is forced to make a moving speech to persuade some mutineers to join him. They are all from MAine. He is told by the officers that he is authorized to shoot them if they do not obey. Chamberlain thinks about this for a moment, then tells his brother, his aide "To kill men from Maine would be harming my state. I sall not take arms against any man from my beloved state."
I can understand him. He is proud to be of Maine, and has a good sense of moral ethics. I can put myself completley in his place. Many other people have faced the exact same situation.
Chamberlain's love for his state is much stronger than his devotion for the army. He knows he will never be able to return to his state if he shoots his own men.
The question is: What can you do in a situation like this?
Is it better to just shoot them, knowing that they will never listen to you, ormake an effort to have them support you?
Chamberlain made a speech to get them to join him, but what would happen if he shot them? If I shot New Yorkers just for being mutineers, I would never be able to come back to New York without breaking down.
Do we have a right to kill certain people? Are their lives worth more than others?
I don't think so. A stronger man is not worth more than a weaker's one. A richer's is not more than a poor's.
Please leave your thoughts on these questions in the comment section below!
In one passage, Colonel Chamberlain of the 20th Maine, is forced to make a moving speech to persuade some mutineers to join him. They are all from MAine. He is told by the officers that he is authorized to shoot them if they do not obey. Chamberlain thinks about this for a moment, then tells his brother, his aide "To kill men from Maine would be harming my state. I sall not take arms against any man from my beloved state."
I can understand him. He is proud to be of Maine, and has a good sense of moral ethics. I can put myself completley in his place. Many other people have faced the exact same situation.
Chamberlain's love for his state is much stronger than his devotion for the army. He knows he will never be able to return to his state if he shoots his own men.
The question is: What can you do in a situation like this?
Is it better to just shoot them, knowing that they will never listen to you, ormake an effort to have them support you?
Chamberlain made a speech to get them to join him, but what would happen if he shot them? If I shot New Yorkers just for being mutineers, I would never be able to come back to New York without breaking down.
Do we have a right to kill certain people? Are their lives worth more than others?
I don't think so. A stronger man is not worth more than a weaker's one. A richer's is not more than a poor's.
Please leave your thoughts on these questions in the comment section below!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)