I hope I can squeeze some philosophy under the wire of Natural Remedies today by excusing it as Natural Alternative MENTAL, or even SPIRITUAL Health! Can I get away with it? Might people who are interested in the subject of Natural Cures for Common Ailments buy that ending the war between good and evil that rages within most human beings qualifies as a Natural or Alternative cure for a common ailment? Hmmm, Let's try it and see!
Most of us are taught that things like anger, hatred, violence, dishonesty, terrorism, racism, homophobia et. al. are bad and we should avoid them in favor of things like Love, kindness, helpfulness, leadership, generosity et. al. I disagree that we should be pushing certain traits of our personalities away from us as if they are not part of us or not loved or respected.
Most of us are trained to think of good and evil like "Geraldine" the Flip Wilson Character from the 70s. She was hysterically funny, but kind of deep too! Her thing was "The Devil Made Me Do It". But reality dictates that a person cannot materialize, something that does not exist in them to begin with. I think this "Devil Made Me Do It" perception is a grave mistake that ALL religions make and it causes tremendous internal conflict in the hearts of well meaning people.
"Goodness is OF us and evil is OF someone else" is just not supported by reality. In reality, MOST of the wars that go on inside us are caused by this mis-perception. Exactly who is this evil puppet master that is able to materialize thoughts and actions from outside us that do not otherwise exist? SHOW ME some evidence that such an entity exists!
Human beings contain both good and evil simultaneously, and express both at different times as a natural response to what is being experienced. But it does NOT come from somewhere else. It is in us already. My evidence is this: Something that does not exist in us cannot be stimulated to materialize. Therefore, if anger, hatred, violence etc. can be stimulated in us, it must first exist in us.
Since anger and hatred etc., are common to all people in all cultures, it IS part of the WHOLE human being. Why, then should we not develop a philosophy that loves and honors ALL of what is natural in us in a useful way, rather than trying to push selected traits away as if they are not part of who we are in reality?
This comes from a personal epiphany of accepting that I'm a NASTY OLD CUSS in the minds and hearts of a few people in the world and there is nothing wrong with their perception of me. In their experience of reality I am exactly what they imagine I am. They are responding naturally to the only thing I've shown them of myself.
There is, equally, nothing wrong with my perception for getting angry or feeling hatred towards someone who acted in a manner that was an affront to MY reality. I am justified in expressing my honest response to what I experience. Once I fully accepted that I'm kind of a BAD guy too, my life grew a sense of balance and peace that I didn't imagine could exist for me. (I'm a recovering Catholic Alter boy if that helps you understand where I WAS!)
In me there is good and evil and to compartmentalize my whole self into pieces and accept some of them and reject others seems counterproductive to me. It tends to create a war within me that could never end because within me I contain both in reality. If I do not make peace between them, by my love and respect for both, the war continues and no one wins!
I see myself as a good and friendly and even helpful person. I love and respect that part of myself. Sure, that's an easy one. Anyone can do that! Yet, there are times when I'm just a holy terror. I Also love, and sometimes I'm even PROUD of the Evil in me. The evil part of me is like a warrior against unfair treatment of myself and, more often a GROUP of people, even if I'm not associated with them personally.
That is the axe that the evil Gregory swings with relish and a side of fries! AND, I'll do it again without losing a MINUTE of sleep over it, just watch me! I can't STAND for unfair treatment of ANYONE including myself and I will GO OFF about it in a New York Minute! Such treatment is an affront to my reality and I have justification to express my response to it.
I encourage personal development of a philosophy that integrates the reality that we are both good and evil into a useful expression of both that creates a minimum amount of damage without encouraging that we separate ourselves from parts of who we actually are as a WHOLE human being.
These personality traits that we are trained to avoid, have their constructive uses that are every bit as legitimate and, yes, honorable as those traits we judge to be desirable. It just seems more intellectually honest to me to love and accept that we're not ALL good, nor are we ALL evil. We exist in a duality and, like it or not, we're a part of that duality.
Religions teach that without GOD there is no reason to do good works and societies would descend into a dog eat dog, survival of the fittest kind of thing. First off, OOPS! Too Late, that ship has already sailed! Let's move on! ;-) I disagree with that view. There are Natural Laws at work that CAN be proven, that are not dependent on the presence of God or religion.
Not that I would ever suggest that ANYONE follow the example set by George H W Bush (the senior president Bush) but he did prove the existence of Karmic Law. He used to play this game, when in public, where he would count the number of people he could elicit a smile from by smiling at THEM.
It seems like a silly game, but it proves Karmic Law. If you do good, the likelihood is that you will encourage good behavior that creates a world that is GOODER than it would be if you did NOT do good. Doing good, therefore, has rewards that have nothing to do with heaven or hell.
Conversely, Charles Manson decided to do evil and thereby created an evil world to live in and created distress for DA Bugliosi and Squeeky Fromm and those other girls as well as innocent bystanders that watched the drama unfold not even to mention the people that were murdered.
That world does not respect or love him in a meaningful way, as a direct result of the actions he undertook. This is additional proof of the existence of Karmic Law. Had Charles Manson NOT done these terrible things, he very well might be busy being loved and respected right now. Karmic Law holds that what you send into the world around you, returns to you in kind.
There is an altruistic and at the same time, selfish reason to do good works and both are built into the act of doing good. It creates a kinder, more gentle world for YOU to live in (selfish), and it creates a kinder, more gentle world for any individual your good work impacts (altruistic). Even further, it is most often observed by others not directly impacted, but is witnessed none-the-less. It then becomes an example of good behavior for them.
My argument here is that, contrary to any religious pronouncements, Karmic Law is a legitimate motivation to do good works that has nothing to do with the existence or absence of God AND it can be PROVEN! Whereas God, Heaven or Hell being the sole reason for doing good works and that bad things will happen without them cannot!
To wrap this up I'd like to encourage ANYONE reading this article to begin to recognize, honor and love, the evil AS WELL as the good in you and think of ways that both can be channeled into a philosophy that honors you as a WHOLE person and actualizes that those parts of you that you consider to be evil have their appropriate uses as well! Do that, and the war within you can, at some point, end!
How did I do? Gregory
Kantian ethics, or "It's Your Duty," as Wilkens states, is centered on one's duty for the good of the cause and utilizing reason as a means to an end. I liked the example of the courtroom in Wilkens text, where he talks about a juror who has to make the choice to vote "not-guilty" in a trial, because there is not enough evidence to support the verdict. Kantian ethics supports looking at "the best choice" instead of one's own choice or personal opinion as the highest tally mark.
Wilken's goes on to state that many people who are into Kantian ethics make a comparison that it is similar to Christianity. Although this is true to some extent, here's how it differs: Kantian ethics do not have to, nor do they support, belief in God. The just of this theory is based upon If I make a correct choice, I am good. Where the theory gets kind of crazy though, happens when you take out God. Good choices cannot be the reason for living, and what about, as the author states, those choices like: "do I lie when a murderer comes in the room and asks where my brother is?" Of course, in my head, I'm thinking-"Don't tell him the truth, make up a story or something!" Pure Kantian ethics may state: "tell the truth at any cost." That, in the murderer scenario, would result in death and disaster.
Wilkens states that: "the concepts of duty, moral law, reason, justice, and the dignity of all people play central roles" in Kantian ethics. His concept of choosing "good" over a quick decision or one that is self-centered is awesome. However, he bases his entire theory on reason alone. I remember scripture stating: "Lean not on your own understanding, but Trust in the Lord with all your heart." (Proverbs 3:5-6) This would contradict Kantian theory big time. Choosing to lean on God would not be leaning on the intellect, which Kant would probably say is not logical.
Divine command theory is based upon the "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" notion. Wilkens points out that this is not enough when defending your faith, and/or justifying your point of view to nonbelievers. Most importantly too, he poses questions like: "What does a couple do when they want to determine the gender of their baby, is there a scripture for that? The answer of course to the divine theorists, would be a resounding: Yes there is!" and then they would quote it and believe it without doubting. Wilkens says that just quoting the verse is not enough- it must be backed up by human reason and logic.
I agree with Wilkens and I disagree. Yes, it would be important to explain and justify one's faith, especially to someone who is not saved, without a doubt. However, if you look at the Catholic Church, for example, you might see an example of a faith that has put too much "reason" in their doctrines. For example, a simple heartfelt prayer, to a devout Catholic, may not be as faithful as the recited prayers that are re-stated every week during mass. Also, you don't see too many altar calls in the Catholic Church, yet we are not to judge. I'm simply looking at the many traditions. same-said prayers, and the few in the priesthood, who sometimes justify gambling, drinking, and some immorality.
To a Devine theorist, scripture is a means to an end. I agree with that thought all the way. I believe that scripture is black and white, but I also believe that if you meditate upon scripture(by meditate I mean really think about it)-you may find more meaning within it. What does the Bible say about scripture though? It says that it is not open for man's interpretation, and in II Timothy it says "not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit-says the Lord. Therefore, I believe that a Christian who listens to the spirit of God within them would be a Devine theorist and someone who is after God's heart. I am a Devine theorist. I believe if it is written in scripture, it is to be followed, and it will never steer you in the wrong direction. Will there be unanswered questions in life? Yes!
Personally though, I believe if you search the scriptures well, you will find a verse that matches the need. And...I don't believe that my reason needs to come into play at all times. I stand on the Word of God as it is written. I am a Divine theorist and I am not ashamed to stand on the Scriptures for Forever.
Both Gregory Franklyn & Don Alexander are contributors for EditorialToday. The above articles have been edited for relevancy and timeliness. All write-ups, reviews, tips and guides published by EditorialToday.com and its partners or affiliates are for informational purposes only. They should not be used for any legal or any other type of advice. We do not endorse any author, contributor, writer or article posted by our team.
Gregory Franklyn has sinced written about articles on various topics from Alternative Medicine, Family and Alternative Medicine. for more information about Natural Alternative Cures for Common Ailments please visit http://www.gonatures.com. Gregory Franklyn's top article generates over 4400 views. to your Favourites.
Don Alexander has sinced written about articles on various topics from Teachers, Parenting and Education. Online business owner Don Alexander, , is also a published writer with two online missions: Sharing his writing and also. Don Alexander's top article generates over 18100 views. to your Favourites.