Declination of Human Civilization

Aegis · Post by **Aegis** » Mon Mar 25, 2002 2:38 pm

After waking up at six in the morning, and having goteen about a four hour sleep, then consuming multiple cups of coffee, chocolate bars, chips and pop, I found alingering thought in my mind.

Out of the diverse minds and thoguhts of the people here, how many believe that within the last century, we as a people have instigated the true declination of the human civilization? What I mean by this, is that when I look at the world, all I really see is the pursuit of personal wealth and betterment, global domination (in one sort or another) and te complete discrimation of middle east nations and even minorities in certain democratic countries. Is it just me, or does anyone else see this? PErsonally, that sort of thing makes me sick, and I feel it is leading to the inevitable downfall of our species.

Thoughts, opinions, flames and cudos all welcome.

Bloodstalker · Post by **Bloodstalker** » Mon Mar 25, 2002 2:44 pm

I think that the current state of things has a lot of bad sides, but the way I look at it, none of this is really new. Since ancient times, people have feared or hated those they percieved as different, nations have tried to impose their will on other nations, and there have been countless "empires" that have subjegated their neighbors for no better reasons than that they felt it was their right or that conquest would make life better for those who were conquored.

As far as discrimination of minorities is concered, I cannot speak for any other country as I heve no experience in their situations, But if you look at the state of minorities in the U.S. now as opposed to say 200 years ago, things are a lot better now. That is not to say that they are perfect or can't be improved however.

Just my 2 cents worth

Aegis · Post by **Aegis** » Mon Mar 25, 2002 2:52 pm

Yes, that makes sense, BS, but you also have to consider during that time, that was the way of life. The only think neighbouring nations recognized were borders. They didn't care much for the land, or the people in them, they merely wished to expand. These days we "know better". We claim to be enlightened, and better then those times. The way I see it though, we aren't. We have just changed the methods in which we implement those forms of destruction, subjegation and discrimination. We replaced conventional weapons with finaces. In some ways, that makes us worse now, then we were 1000 years ago. At least during those times, people could defend against invasion. Now adays, other coutnries can't even defend themselves.

Also, it's not just on a national level. Governments even do this to it's own citizens. We look at those who are poorer, or not as well off as the rest of us, and we deem them unfit for living. In most countries, a Welfare system isn't even in place, and the ones where it is isn't enough to help people live. Those that are well off don't step down to help them out, hell we barely even acknowledge them. Can we really be deemed "civilized" because of issues like these.

We live in a world where charity doesn't exist, even if we claim it too. We don't give to other countires that may be needy, nor do we gve to our own countires.

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Mon Mar 25, 2002 4:37 pm

Originally posted by Aegis
We live in a world where charity doesn't exist, even if we claim it too. We don't give to other countires that may be needy, nor do we gve to our own countires.

I disagree. Charity does exist. It is perhaps twisted by misconception or other sorts of corrupting influences, but it does exist.

One such example is the missionary field. While it is true that there are missionaries who have other agendas in what they're doing and thus sometimes end up causing more trouble than they should, it is also true that there are missionaries who are doing everything they can to help the "less fortunate," even when these so-called "less fortunate" don't convert.

I am also not limiting that to Christianity. From what I have learned in my World Religions class, the Dalai(sp?) Lama would be a good example here.

der Moench · Post by **der Moench** » Mon Mar 25, 2002 4:55 pm

Dude, Aegis - what brings this on? Such a bleak view of the world is not right in one so young as you.

Look, if you feel the world is taking a nose-dive, do something about it. Choose a field of study where you feel you can be of help to people. Go in the Peace Corps, or whatever. Even if you, personally, make no change in the course of human civilization, you must at all times declare what you believe as truth, and work towards what you believe to be honorable and just. Then, at the very least, you will sleep well at night, and die with a clean conscience.

Anyway, as to the specifics: I really think you are missing the truth when you blame the decline of civilization on corporations and, I guess, capitalism. I hate politics with a passion (maybe Lazarus and mediev could argue this for you?), but I know one thing: I really like living in a nation where I can buy a computer and talk with people all over the world. Yeah, I give to charities when the right one comes along, but can any of us here (who spend our disposable income on computers and computer games of all things!) really claim we care so very much about the hungry in third world nations? If we did, maybe we wouldn't be at this site? I don't want to get flamed for this remark. But like I say: do what you feel to be right, and you will never feel guilty. If you want to give away every extra penny you have, great. If you want to save up for IWD II, well, then you have made that choice.

BTW: another way of getting your views across and trying to effect a change in the world is called ---- communication, aka Comm. Try it!

AbysmalNature · Post by **AbysmalNature** » Mon Mar 25, 2002 4:57 pm

The thing I think is really the problem in our society is the declination of differences, instead of having diversity with equality, people must have sameness with equality, people now have more in common but not because they have accepted differences but because our consumer culture is making everybody into one little group. Everything must be assigned to one little category, if you are in one group then everybody is happy, if not you simply do not fit. Nobody is truly equal, but in our differences and how those differences fit into other people's differences is what makes true equality not sameness.

I feel that this is wonderfully illustrated in the tacky buildings which are being put up everwhere these days, where is the diversity in thought as represented by architecture, every building, home and office building looks just like any other building, what our civiliization is building is not diversity but a army of drones. People are becoming not more diverse but less, becoming more the same and that is what is causing the decline of human civilization, because we are losing our ability to think outside the box, and are consigning ourselves to the box.

How many people believe in true equality, which is a acceptance of our mutual differences, not the belief that we are all the same.

Does anybody feel that we are nothing but consumer cows munching away at the products fostered by corps, I feel that way, creativity is truly being stifled day by day, differences are being stifled, that is the true danger for human civilization.

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Mon Mar 25, 2002 5:13 pm

Originally posted by AbysmalNature
The thing I think is really the problem in our society is the declination of differences, instead of having diversity with equality, people must have sameness with equality, people now have more in common but not because they have accepted differences but because our consumer culture is making everybody into one little group. Everything must be assigned to one little category, if you are in one group then everybody is happy, if not you simply do not fit. Nobody is truly equal, but in our differences and how those differences fit into other people's differences is what makes true equality not sameness.

I feel that this is wonderfully illustrated in the tacky buildings which are being put up everwhere these days, where is the diversity in thought as represented by architecture, every building, home and office building looks just like any other building, what our civiliization is building is not diversity but a army of drones. People are becoming not more diverse but less, becoming more the same and that is what is causing the decline of human civilization, because we are losing our ability to think outside the box, and are consigning ourselves to the box.

How many people believe in true equality, which is a acceptance of our mutual differences, not the belief that we are all the same.

Does anybody feel that we are nothing but consumer cows munching away at the products fostered by corps, I feel that way, creativity is truly being stifled day by day, differences are being stifled, that is the true danger for human civilization.

Sadly, what you say is true.

That is one reason why I will often purposely try to not conform.

Aegis · Post by **Aegis** » Mon Mar 25, 2002 5:13 pm

Perhaps saying no charity was the wrong thing. That should be changed to no moral charity. People claim to be chairtable, but really, how can they morally give to charity, without giving up everything they own, and living equal with those people (after giving)? Even if we decide to give $5 here, and $20 there, we are not doing anything charitable. All we are doing is giving something so we don't feel guilty about it. We may give some money, so that a small child in Afirca can have a meal a day, but if we can afford more, why don't we give more? We only give as much as we deem we can afford, yet many people who bring home 6 figure pay checks do nothing! They give small amounts of their over all net product, just so they don't feel immoral. The truth is, no one can truly consider themselves moral if they don't give all they possibly can, instead all they are willing to.

Also, why is it we only give to charity's we think are worthwhile? If it's a charity, doesn't it mean it's for something important? Who are we to determine what deserves money, and what doesn't? Why is it we are unwilling to do bits of labour so others can have a good life? It is problems like these that plague our society, and make it the wreck that it is. We are not "enlightend", nor are we really intelligent. We were as smart as we say we are, would we not all see this problem, instead of a handful?

I know whats going to be said. Someone, along the way will say "You can say all that, but our doing anything about it?" I can honestly say yes. The way I help up in charitable fashions is by community service, and donating to every charity I see. I admit I don't give all I can, but that is because I have sadly fallen into the same frame of mind everyone else has. I need money to be comfortable in life. But, as long as I, or any other people think that way, there will always be those that are suffering, and starving. All of this boils down to my feeling towards life, and it is a very cynical one. I believe that people in general suck. Individuals are great, because they can think for themselves, and they can recognize issues like these. It all begins when a group of people form with an idea. That is when it becomes difficult to sway them into doing the "right" and "moral" thing.

Also, my next statement may be a bit harsh, but it goes along with my current arguement. The Catholic Chruch. It is the wealthiest orgainization in the world. Though it does do plenty if "charity" it doesn't do enough. It does enough to make it seem morale, but like I've said, if they still have plenty left over, why can't they do more? It can, but won't because it is an instituion, unlike when it was originally founded. And like all institutions, it is driven by the need to amass wealth and power. Now, this isn't stating that the religion is bad or wrong, or immorale. I am saying that it doesn't completly practice what it preaches.

It won't be until we as a people see these things, and no longer have wealth as a driving that we will be able to fix them. It is these reasons why I feel our civilization is in decline, and it is these reason why I am cynical, and a pessimest.

AbysmalNature · Post by **AbysmalNature** » Mon Mar 25, 2002 5:24 pm

Myself I do not have wealth as the driving force in my life, I mean I don't even own the computer I am typing on, it is a school computer, to me the true measure of man's worth is by the deeds one makes, the improvement of the general commonweal, to just live life, rather then just piling larger and larger amounts of money. Money to me is just secondary to a goal I would choose to have, not the primary goal in itself. If I had a million dollars, I would think, wow maybe I can really do something to change something, to better the world we all live in, to break the mold, to truly make the world worth living in, to be proud that when I die, i will have truly done something to be pleased about. It is why I am into the environment, but not only it, because I in short want to save the world, Mission save the world, perhaps more people should think about that rather then a shortsighted goal of just having more wealth, where is the triumph in human spirit there, where is the accomplisment, what will you say when you finally reach that darkness, the end of your life what will you say about what you have accomplished, how important is bunch of paper(which only real use would be for toilet paper) when you finally end your life, who will remember you and how will they remember you.To much philosophy, go to start drinking, apparently some brain cells still left functioning.

Lazarus · Post by **Lazarus** » Mon Mar 25, 2002 5:26 pm

Goodness!

@der Moench: I have no desire to make this into a political debate.

@Aegis: Such an interesting view! So cynical! (As you yourself admit.) Take a deeper look: do you realize, that by your standard of morality, we NEED needy people? Your belief (correct me if I am wrong) is that it would be just and moral to live as a monk (not you, der Moench) and give away all of our worldly possessions to the poor? Is that right? Well, if to be a "good" person requires that we act in a moral manner, and if to be moral means to give to the poor, we would NEED poor people in order to be good!! Wow! I mean, even if you succeed in your quest to rid the world of hunger and poverty, now you are in the unfortunate position of no longer being able to act in a moral manner!!

Strange, isn't it?

And, if that is not odd enough, you would also be put in the position of allowing rich people to be more moral than poor people - after all, the rich have more to give away, rught?

No, I think you should examine your philosophical grounding. It is NOT necessary that we "give" to be "moral." Morality is about honesty and integrity. Not about how much we can help other people.

I admire your desire to save the human race. If I were you, I would become a little more comfortable with the fact that you cannot do so, but that you can only do what you think is right. (der Moench put it rather well, above.)

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Mon Mar 25, 2002 5:27 pm

Originally posted by Aegis
Perhaps saying no charity was the wrong thing. That should be changed to no moral charity. People claim to be chairtable, but really, how can they morally give to charity, without giving up everything they own, and living equal with those people (after giving)? Even if we decide to give $5 here, and $20 there, we are not doing anything charitable. All we are doing is giving something so we don't feel guilty about it. We may give some money, so that a small child in Afirca can have a meal a day, but if we can afford more, why don't we give more? We only give as much as we deem we can afford, yet many people who bring home 6 figure pay checks do nothing! They give small amounts of their over all net product, just so they don't feel immoral. The truth is, no one can truly consider themselves moral if they don't give all they possibly can, instead all they are willing to.

Also, why is it we only give to charity's we think are worthwhile? If it's a charity, doesn't it mean it's for something important? Who are we to determine what deserves money, and what doesn't? Why is it we are unwilling to do bits of labour so others can have a good life? It is problems like these that plague our society, and make it the wreck that it is. We are not "enlightend", nor are we really intelligent. We were as smart as we say we are, would we not all see this problem, instead of a handful?

I know whats going to be said. Someone, along the way will say "You can say all that, but our doing anything about it?" I can honestly say yes. The way I help up in charitable fashions is by community service, and donating to every charity I see. I admit I don't give all I can, but that is because I have sadly fallen into the same frame of mind everyone else has. I need money to be comfortable in life. But, as long as I, or any other people think that way, there will always be those that are suffering, and starving. All of this boils down to my feeling towards life, and it is a very cynical one. I believe that people in general suck. Individuals are great, because they can think for themselves, and they can recognize issues like these. It all begins when a group of people form with an idea. That is when it becomes difficult to sway them into doing the "right" and "moral" thing.

Also, my next statement may be a bit harsh, but it goes along with my current arguement. The Catholic Chruch. It is the wealthiest orgainization in the world. Though it does do plenty if "charity" it doesn't do enough. It does enough to make it seem morale, but like I've said, if they still have plenty left over, why can't they do more? It can, but won't because it is an instituion, unlike when it was originally founded. And like all institutions, it is driven by the need to amass wealth and power. Now, this isn't stating that the religion is bad or wrong, or immorale. I am saying that it doesn't completly practice what it preaches.

It won't be until we as a people see these things, and no longer have wealth as a driving that we will be able to fix them. It is these reasons why I feel our civilization is in decline, and it is these reason why I am cynical, and a pessimest.

I agree with you on this. This reminds me of, in the Bible, an old lady who gave approximately 2 pennies, which was all she had while others were giving fairly large amounts of money(at least, in comparison) yet those amounts were only small portions of what they could afford to give. While the amount given by the old lady was very small in total, she gave more than she could afford as opposed to those who gave just because it made'em look good.

Too many people do that nowadays, especiallly those who have a lot of money. Some don't even give any money at all.

You are right about individuals. The Dalai Lama is an individual, and according to my World Religions professor, uses the money he was given when he won the Nobel Prize to help Tibetan Refugees(if my details are a little off, realize I'm typing this information from memory). He very easily could've fallen into the same "trap" that the Catholic Church fell into and kept the money solely for himself.

Aegis · Post by **Aegis** » Mon Mar 25, 2002 5:54 pm

Re: Goodness!

Originally posted by Lazarus
@der Moench: I have no desire to make this into a political debate.

@Aegis: Such an interesting view! So cynical! (As you yourself admit.) Take a deeper look: do you realize, that by your standard of morality, we NEED needy people? Your belief (correct me if I am wrong) is that it would be just and moral to live as a monk (not you, der Moench) and give away all of our worldly possessions to the poor? Is that right? Well, if to be a "good" person requires that we act in a moral manner, and if to be moral means to give to the poor, we would NEED poor people in order to be good!! Wow! I mean, even if you succeed in your quest to rid the world of hunger and poverty, now you are in the unfortunate position of no longer being able to act in a moral manner!! Strange, isn't it?

And, if that is not odd enough, you would also be put in the position of allowing rich people to be more moral than poor people - after all, the rich have more to give away, rught?

No, I think you should examine your philosophical grounding. It is NOT necessary that we "give" to be "moral." Morality is about honesty and integrity. Not about how much we can help other people.

I admire your desire to save the human race. If I were you, I would become a little more comfortable with the fact that you cannot do so, but that you can only do what you think is right. (der Moench put it rather well, above.)

Thats not quite what I am saying, but your getting the idea. What I'm getting at is that people cannot morally give to a chairty, without giving all they possibly can afford, and still live. One can still live a moral, good life without the needy around, but as we both know, that will never be the case. There will always be someone who is needy. We cannot give to some charity, and think we've done something good, because we could give more.

Say I made $100 000 a year. My living expense are maybe $20 000 (Food, clothing, providing for family and such), then $20 000 for taxes. That leaves $60 000 left over, all of which is extra money, that I really don't need. I then donate say $10 000 over the course of the year. I still have $50 000 left. Now, I could've afforded much more, and possibly fed more starving children, or brought more homeless people off the street. Instead, I opted for the personal wealth, and the furthering of my own life. Now, how can that be morale? Simply put, it's not. Our world is made up of people that are like that. We want to have our luxries, we want to be morale, we want. Rarely is there someone who gives, instead of wants. Many claim to be charitable, but do little to nothing to actually deserve that description.

I do agree that morality is about honesty, and integrity, but are we really holding true to those things if we don't give all we can? We give some, then say we cannot afford anything more, but that is often never the case. We claim to be charitable, and support certain charities, but then we skimp out when it comes to actually doing what we claim to be, by either coming up with an excuse, or not giving all that we can afford.

Lazarus · Post by **Lazarus** » Mon Mar 25, 2002 6:15 pm

@Aegis: you make $100,000 a year and only pay $20,000 in taxes!? I want to live in your country!

Seriously, though: I think you are in error to tie morality directly to charity (as I said). Please don't misunderstand: if you want to give away all of your money, great! I'm poor - I'll take some!

But don't you see that this morality of yours oppresses and depresses you by it's very nature? You are sitting there feeling guilty because you cannot lift every single impoverished person out of their situation!

Aegis, you cannot base your worth (morality) on such a task as living selflessly - it can only lead to your own destruction.

mediev · Post by **mediev** » Mon Mar 25, 2002 7:55 pm

There are continual references in a few posts to the idea that the current state of affairs is somehow humanity's fault as a whole, when, in reality, it is quite the opposite. By using terminology that places working people, that is, the overwhelming majority of the population, in positions of blame for American policies, for example, only continues to spread the myth that America, or any other capitalist nation, is not dominated completely by the wealthiest elites. Much of the gains of humanity can be seen in the struggle against this ruling class, and the ruling classes globally. To group humanity under the banner of the actions of this class (and the system that creates this class) is a great mistake.

As for charity and welfare, the objective is to create a society that eliminates the past neccessity for these institutions, not to rely on them. Giving your surplus wages to a charity does little to smash the system that creates poverty.

can any of us here (who spend our disposable income on computers and computer games of all things!) really claim we care so very much about the hungry in third world nations?

International class solidarity transcends local material and political conditions; while these relations vary from place to place, the struggle against the universal class enemy does not.

Obsidian · Post by **Obsidian** » Mon Mar 25, 2002 9:19 pm

Been reading much Marx Mediev??

As for Aegis, and the rest of the world, do your best! Screw society. My career of choice would be a Ranger. I'm a bit of a naturalist, and my personal morals are not guided by the rest of societies.
I believe however, all civilizations are destined to fall, only to rise again better than they were. This is not to say that there will not be dark ages in between. In the meantime however, I'm a lifeguard, teach first aid, and volunteer my skills as a medic to anyone who needs them, and I'm trying to get into med school. Why? Because I'm good at it, and I can help. That is my skill. Every person I help, is a bonus to the world. No one is inconsequential. No one is too small to help. Monitarily, my family is realitively well off, 6 figures. We donate about $12,000 a year to the lung associatin and the Salvation army. I myself, working off my own salary, small as it is, paid $100 to the salvation army. In the grand scheme of things, not much, but every little bit helps.

Aegis · Post by **Aegis** » Mon Mar 25, 2002 10:32 pm

Originally posted by Obsidian
Been reading much Marx Mediev??

As for Aegis, and the rest of the world, do your best! Screw society. My career of choice would be a Ranger. I'm a bit of a naturalist, and my personal morals are not guided by the rest of societies.
I believe however, all civilizations are destined to fall, only to rise again better than they were. This is not to say that there will not be dark ages in between. In the meantime however, I'm a lifeguard, teach first aid, and volunteer my skills as a medic to anyone who needs them, and I'm trying to get into med school. Why? Because I'm good at it, and I can help. That is my skill. Every person I help, is a bonus to the world. No one is inconsequential. No one is too small to help. Monitarily, my family is realitively well off, 6 figures. We donate about $12,000 a year to the lung associatin and the Salvation army. I myself, working off my own salary, small as it is, paid $100 to the salvation army. In the grand scheme of things, not much, but every little bit helps.

Yes, but are you really doing that to help people? Or do you think on some deep subconscious level, you see a skill you have, and wish to expoilt it for all the money you can?

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Mon Mar 25, 2002 11:17 pm

@Obsidian: well said, hope you get into med school!

@Aegis: I actually agree with all of what you are saying. Still, I'm not cynical but believe we can all make the world better by wanting to strive for it and keep informed about what we can do. The world has become a much smaller place thanks to technology, the means of communication we have today means we can keep informed about the world outside our immediate environment in a way people couldn't do before, and that most people still don't can. We have enough wealth to feed all the 6 billion people on this planet, the problem is how the wealth is distributed. The unfairness of this makes this world a horrible place. The human species is a being who can choose how we live, still a majority of us choose not to do all we can to change the world into a better place.

Charity is only one way to try to change things. Simply giving money to charity is something we can all do, but giving money alone is not enough - money will save a starving child for a while, but the aim of charity must be to make a long term change, so the starving child can eventually feed himself. In the developing world, you have both immediate needs and long term needs. Some charity organisations work by trying to change things both short and long term, and that's IMO the organisation we should support, by giving money, by working for them and by spreading information about them to others.

Say I made $100 000 a year. My living expense are maybe $20 000 (Food, clothing, providing for family and such), then $20 000 for taxes. That leaves $60 000 left over, all of which is extra money, that I really don't need. I then donate say $10 000 over the course of the year. I still have $50 000 left. Now, I could've afforded much more, and possibly fed more starving children, or brought more homeless people off the street. Instead, I opted for the personal wealth, and the furthering of my own life. Now, how can that be morale? Simply put, it's not. Our world is made up of people that are like that. We want to have our luxries, we want to be morale, we want. Rarely is there someone who gives, instead of wants. Many claim to be charitable, but do little to nothing to actually deserve that description.

Apart from poverty, there are also many other unfair things that makes people suffer. Money rules the world, sure, but still everything can't be bought for money. There are many good medicines around, but there is still no cure for many world-wide diseases such as AIDS. Many people in the developing world die from diseases that could either have been cured, or better still IMO, could have been avioded totally if basic infrastructure and hygience facilities were built. Lots of deadly diseases spread by infected water. So IMO giving away all your money is just one of many choices you have, and I truly believe that it's more worth to give your time and knowledge than money only.
There are many options. You can give away some money and work less for payment, instead you can spent time working as a volonteer for aid organisations you believe in. (Check them first - there's a lot of bad aid organisations around.)
Another options is to get an education in an area that is needed in developing countries, and go there. My uncle for instance is an engineer, and in the 70's, he was in Africa building roads and water facilities in poor areas. A colleague of mine who's a physician, he went to Africa to work in catastroph areas for Doctors without borders and he participated not only in treating patients but also by building local health centers and sharing his knowledge so the local people could take over. Or you could go into research and work for cures and treatment of major diseases, and thereby also influence drug companies to make medicines cheaper and more available. Just to name a few possibilites, I can think of many more. As Obsidian writes, we are all good at something, and we should try to find out what that is and share it as much as we can.

Aegis, just like me and most people on this board, you belong to the small percentage of the world's population who was priviliged to be born healthy in a rich country. This we can't help - it was not our choice so we shouldn't feel guilty and bad about it. Instead, we should use this privilege and take the opportunity to do what we can for the other 90% who weren't as lucky as we.

Gruntboy · Post by **Gruntboy** » Tue Mar 26, 2002 3:44 am

Marxism is such unworkable rubbish.

Aegis, buddy. Try not to worry about it too much. I have enough problems avoiding crashing airliners and exploding buildings without having to think about civilization. I'd just like to hunker down in a nice farm somewhere with a kick-A home entertainment system, some dogs and a partner and a flame-thrower in case someone tried to take any of it from me.

Maybe we deserve to blow each other to hell. Does it matter? Communists don't believe in God so what difference does it make to them?!

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Tue Mar 26, 2002 5:23 am

yes...society is doomed. However, you and I have no right to be miserable about it, we are contributing to it. Everyone is born with selfishness in them, it is absolute, universal and completely neccesary to evolution. Everyone is selfish, nobody thinks about other people as much as they think about themselves. Nobody really does anything for other people's pleasure, it is against every single one of nature's millenia old rules. It is completely unnatural to do things for other people's pleasure, and I don't think anyone has ever doen it yet. I might even argue that one cannot be human without being selfish.

So where does that leave morality? That comes in because actually, the only way to gain absolute and fundamental satisfaction comes from helping others. When one devotes one's life to other people, one doesn't do it for them, one does it for the incredible (spiritual) pleasure one recieves oneself for doing it.

Aegis · Post by **Aegis** » Tue Mar 26, 2002 9:50 am

I'm not going to reply to all these points at the moment (As I'm at school, and doging a book nazi), but I will later tonight. I'm just curious as to why everyone, though, is thinking I was making a statement. I was just trying to spark a new point of discussion.