|
|
Post by beth on Mar 20, 2011 19:58:38 GMT -5
Guilt is a cognitive or an emotional experience that occurs when a person realizes or believes—accurately or not—that he or she has violated a moral standard, and bears significant responsibility for that violation. It is closely related to the concept of remorse.
(wiki)
Guilt is that part of the human conscience that brings us up short and convicts us for actions and thoughts. Guilt is an inherent human trait that should be seen as a gift, however, most of us do not see it as such and rather than deal with guilt, we naturally attempt to squelch it. However, guilt is that nagging voice with in us all that is like water upon a stone and is meant to bring us to a realization that there is a standard and we have fallen short, but whose standard is it? (Life Challenges)
So what do you think? Does guilt as we know it and deal with it, affect human behavior to the same degree as positive emotions and training?
Does guilt come from the "shalt not" of religion (God's gonna get you) or is there a guilt-gene that works to keep us in line with perceived stadards of culture and society?
Does it hold a G U I L T place in our lives ....... or have we shrunk it down to g u i l t?
|
|
|
|
Post by peterf on Mar 20, 2011 23:33:37 GMT -5
Guilt is a cognitive or an emotional experience that occurs when a person realizes or believes—accurately or not—that he or she has violated a moral standard, and bears significant responsibility for that violation. It is closely related to the concept of remorse. ( wiki) Guilt is that part of the human conscience that brings us up short and convicts us for actions and thoughts. Guilt is an inherent human trait that should be seen as a gift, however, most of us do not see it as such and rather than deal with guilt, we naturally attempt to squelch it. However, guilt is that nagging voice with in us all that is like water upon a stone and is meant to bring us to a realization that there is a standard and we have fallen short, but whose standard is it? ( Life Challenges) So what do you think? Does guilt as we know it and deal with it, affect human behavior to the same degree as positive emotions and training? Does guilt come from the "shalt not" of religion (God's gonna get you) or is there a guilt-gene that works to keep us in line with perceived stadards of culture and society? Does it hold a G U I L T place in our lives ....... or have we shrunk it down to g u i l t? The evolution of some form of conscience or sense of responsibility was essential for the earliest human falilly groups or clans to survive. As usual taking an evolutionary psychology approach is productive. Early humans could not survive except as members of a group large enough to provide protection and hunting success. Knowing what is acceptable behaviour within the group is essential if the group is to function. So the developement of a 'conscious gene' - in practise a number of genes working together - allowed greater cohesion. What people actually feel guilty about is, imo, almost entirely determined by the mores of the group. Our remote ancestors presumably felt no guilt about eating human flesh, for example, but people in modern societies - life boats, ai rcrashes - who have resorted to cannibalism reportedly do. Religions have been and, regrettably, still are important means of developing and installing particular mores within particular groups. |
|
|
|
Post by beth on Mar 21, 2011 12:36:18 GMT -5
I think yours is a pretty good analysis, peter. Civilization was built on a human value system and Guilt was/is a good regulator.
I also think a it got a big bounce via the Christian religion.
The tossed about pagan creed (Gardnerian wicca, I think) "an it harm none, do as thou wilt", is similar but less overwhelming. Most thought of guilt suggests a whole additional ball of wax that might include - if it offends someone, if it embarrasses someone, if it does not live up to "someone"'s expectations ... etc.. I think each of us has a threshold for such things ... dictated by (as you mention) societal norms and mores, influences through-out life, experiences, as well as negative baggage and personal attitude.
Some of us feel guilty if we choose plastic over paper bags at the market, while others of us can own and profit from stock in companies with shady reputations and not turn a hair. Depending on our personal code of conduct and our need to be led, guilt can be a pain in the tush or a crutch to lean on.
|
|
Erasmus
Moderatorz 
Deep Thought Mod
"We do not take prisoners - we liberate them" - http://www.aeonbytegnosticradio.com
Posts: 2,489
|
Post by Erasmus on Mar 21, 2011 14:27:24 GMT -5
I used to know a non-Wiccan witch site with an interesting argument on the pointlessness of that Gardnerian injunction. She's gone now. It really makes sense only as an injunction against setting out to cause deliberate harm. Otherwise, you don't necessarily know what side-effects there might be, so what harm they might cause, and there can be situations where it is necessary to cause harm in the course of averting greater harm.
I think there's two kinds of guilt (at the least). One stems from the empathy of having hurt or disappointed somebody you care about - or even feel sympathetic for. That seems to me on the whole, the more admirable and desirable thing, though it can allow the domination by martrydom of stereotype Jewish, Italian, Hindi smother-mothers.
The other seems to be heading towards that empathy as an ideal improving on tabu. First there are things that may not be done (or more subtly, things of such profound value that they are not to be done casually) but they are usually fairly arbitrary, or appear to be so. Jewish-Muslim dietary rules are of that sort. There's no real explanation of what happens if you do defy them and there are reasonable grounds of food hygiene at the time to explain their introduction by someone Skilled at Pharoah's court - which was probably very skilled indeed, far more so than the rabble who wouldn't understand anything beyond "God forbids it".
At some stage, which was happening before and around Christianity, tabu ceases to be enough and something with a more rational coherent basis needs to replace it. That is the beginning of recognizing a common humanity where internal conscience starts to replace an external 'contract' where it's possible to pay transgression against divine law off with a sacrifice - so basically the rich can literally afford not to have a conscience.
I don't really feel this second. I feel the "Don't do it if you wouldn't like it" rule, though I suppose that could always be used to argue that if I'm willing to take the risks in a gang war then so should anybody else, Viking style.
|
|
|
|
Post by beth on Mar 21, 2011 16:19:09 GMT -5
Quoting Erasmus:
That is the beginning of recognizing a common humanity where internal conscience starts to replace an external 'contract' where it's possible to pay transgression against divine law off with a sacrifice - so basically the rich can literally afford not to have a conscience.
... or confession and penance in the religious sense, which only costs the price of a candle or rosary recitation time or some such.
I once asked a Catholic friend if he approached confession each week with real, honest guilt for (for example) over-indulging on Saturday night, was genuinely sorry and, then, felt the emotions lifted away after completing his penance. He said, "Oh certainly, absolutely and sincerely"!!
Then, I asked him, if that was so, why did he turn around and do the same thing over again the next weekend. He said it was simply because he wanted to and, since he was not carrying the guilt, he could!
Not sure I understand that, even now. If *I* had celebrating to do and awoke the next morning with a major headache, I might be remorseful simply because I didn't want the headache, but not to the point of needing absolution.
I don't think I'd have been a very good Catholic.
|
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Mar 22, 2011 12:04:52 GMT -5
"the evolutionary psychology approach is productive." No, its a load of baloney and supposition. E.g. "In the distant past, a no-holds-barred desire to win would have been an adaptive advantage for many men, allowing them to get more girls, have more kids, and pass on their competitive genes..." The basic claim is that human behaviour stems from psychological mechanisms that are the products of natural selection during the neolithic age. How about the adaptive explanations of old sexist hobbyhorses - men like young women with perky breasts and can't stop themselves from philandering because these urges aided ancestral reproduction. If anyone should be feeling guilty its the people who peddle the quack pseudo science of evolutionary psychology. Now where's my Tarot deck  |
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Mar 22, 2011 12:16:12 GMT -5
We we were kids used to play football in the street. One day I cracked off a Bobby Charlton thunderbolt and it went straight through Angela Anderson's front window. I couldn't be seen for dust. I felt pretty guilty about not owning up to it and of course, paying for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by peterf on Mar 22, 2011 13:24:18 GMT -5
"the evolutionary psychology approach is productive." No, its a load of baloney and supposition. E.g. "In the distant past, a no-holds-barred desire to win would have been an adaptive advantage for many men, allowing them to get more girls, have more kids, and pass on their competitive genes..." The basic claim is that human behaviour stems from psychological mechanisms that are the products of natural selection during the neolithic age. How about the adaptive explanations of old sexist hobbyhorses - men like young women with perky breasts and can't stop themselves from philandering because these urges aided ancestral reproduction. If anyone should be feeling guilty its the people who peddle the quack pseudo science of evolutionary psychology. Now where's my Tarot deck We all evolved Fret, even you. Our brains evolved, along with all our other organs. And they evolved dring the hundreds of thousands of years when we were hunter gatherers. So our instincts, our thought patterns, our personalites can be better understood if we relate to how they functioned in the most primitive societies. But perhaps you are a creationist. (Look underneath your Bible - maybe your Tarot pack is there). |
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Mar 22, 2011 16:15:38 GMT -5
"the evolutionary psychology approach is productive." No, its a load of baloney and supposition. E.g. "In the distant past, a no-holds-barred desire to win would have been an adaptive advantage for many men, allowing them to get more girls, have more kids, and pass on their competitive genes..." The basic claim is that human behaviour stems from psychological mechanisms that are the products of natural selection during the neolithic age. How about the adaptive explanations of old sexist hobbyhorses - men like young women with perky breasts and can't stop themselves from philandering because these urges aided ancestral reproduction. If anyone should be feeling guilty its the people who peddle the quack pseudo science of evolutionary psychology. Now where's my Tarot deck We all evolved Fret, even you. Our brains evolved, along with all our other organs. And they evolved dring the hundreds of thousands of years when we were hunter gatherers. So our instincts, our thought patterns, our personalites can be better understood if we relate to how they functioned in the most primitive societies. But perhaps you are a creationist. (Look underneath your Bible - maybe your Tarot pack is there). No kidding Peter, is that a fact. Wow, so we evolved. Actually, its a lot longer than hundreds of thousands of years, roughly 2 million. But let's not runaway with the idea that only Homo sapiens has emotions and social stratagems. Just as humans are far from alone when it comes to promiscuity and homosexuality. The fact is that EP is purely speculative and concentrates on the neolithic as the root and that is pure boolox. It goes way back. The fossil record does not tell us how animals - including us - behaved or what pressures selected certain behaviours. We can only surmise. Me? I'm an atheist, the Tarot deck was a joke, but I didn't realise you'd had a humour by-pass. My mistake. |
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 22, 2011 17:02:51 GMT -5
Quoting Erasmus: That is the beginning of recognizing a common humanity where internal conscience starts to replace an external 'contract' where it's possible to pay transgression against divine law off with a sacrifice - so basically the rich can literally afford not to have a conscience. ... or confession and penance in the religious sense, which only costs the price of a candle or rosary recitation time or some such. I once asked a Catholic friend if he approached confession each week with real, honest guilt for (for example) over-indulging on Saturday night, was genuinely sorry and, then, felt the emotions lifted away after completing his penance. He said, "Oh certainly, absolutely and sincerely"!! Then, I asked him, if that was so, why did he turn around and do the same thing over again the next weekend. He said it was simply because he wanted to and, since he was not carrying the guilt, he could! Not sure I understand that, even now. If *I* had celebrating to do and awoke the next morning with a major headache, I might be remorseful simply because I didn't want the headache, but not to the point of needing absolution. I don't think I'd have been a very good Catholic. that is the point though. no one can forgive you, god nor anyone else, for anything unless you are sorry for having done it. being sorry means not doing it again. if you ask forgiveness for something that you intend to do again, you certainly don't deserve any, and won't get it |
|
Erasmus
Moderatorz
Deep Thought Mod
"We do not take prisoners - we liberate them" - http://www.aeonbytegnosticradio.com
Posts: 2,489
|
Post by Erasmus on Mar 22, 2011 17:42:17 GMT -5
Point being, that evolutionary psychologists fail to make, that we did evolve. Therefore, while there may be vestigial instinctive drives, acting on them as if without a conscious or empathic mind denies that evolution. The social structure of apes assumed to be closest to us, and of most of our history is a tribal harem under one powerful male. That certainly reflects in all our social organizations but male democratic traditions go back into prehistory, and equally there is no sign of the ape female democratic confirmation of the Leader by all accepting him to mate with. Bonobos may be slightly different but they appear to be anomalous and we are even more anomalous and, necessarily in the same ways.
Social evolution is more Lamarckian than Darwinian, since developments pass on to successors, which makes it much faster. Darwinian sexual selection also works towards an overall Lamarckian evolution by passing desired visible characteristics on while rejecting undesirable ones, even if they can lurk recessively. It becomes even more Lamarckian (and possibly unpredictable) once conscious choice takes precedence over instinctive.
In any case, why does Darwin have to be the last word on evolution? Every other science has come a long way since his day and it's about time that evolutionists stopped automatic declaration of creationist heresy whenever the identification of Darwinism with Evolution is questioned. Of his two mechanisms, sexual selection by far over-rules random mutation, and it's unlikely that they are the only mechanisms at work.
It is an old argument relating to whether people are naturally good, bad or indifferent. The Right tends to view people as natural devils, the Left as natural angels. The first philosophical (distinct from religious) opinions come from the Legalist rivals to Confucius that the natural human state is destructive individualist aggression unless forced to socialize by law. Overall social harmony outweighs the individual, whose personal desires will always tend to destabilize society. It's not difficult to see that their influence hasn't left China!
|
|
|
|
Post by beth on Mar 22, 2011 20:10:40 GMT -5
However it started and where ever it comes from, I'm more interested in whether guilt does us more good than harm or vice versa.
I have a personality that compartmentalizes ... not unusual, but I've found it does make a difference in how I handle the baggage of life ... especially the big things. With smaller concerns, I can work up a good guilt about leaving the house without feeding the cat, but with major gaffs, such as, perhaps, not being as thoughtful as I might with a co-worker, I'll put that in a little compartment to think about another time.
Do any of you do that? I think it probably helps keep things in perspective.
|
|
|
|
Post by peterf on Mar 23, 2011 4:20:02 GMT -5
We all evolved Fret, even you. Our brains evolved, along with all our other organs. And they evolved dring the hundreds of thousands of years when we were hunter gatherers. So our instincts, our thought patterns, our personalites can be better understood if we relate to how they functioned in the most primitive societies. But perhaps you are a creationist. (Look underneath your Bible - maybe your Tarot pack is there). No kidding Peter, is that a fact. Wow, so we evolved. Actually, its a lot longer than hundreds of thousands of years, roughly 2 million. But let's not runaway with the idea that only Homo sapiens has emotions and social stratagems. Just as humans are far from alone when it comes to promiscuity and homosexuality. The fact is that EP is purely speculative and concentrates on the neolithic as the root and that is pure boolox. It goes way back. The fossil record does not tell us how animals - including us - behaved or what pressures selected certain behaviours. We can only surmise. Me? I'm an atheist, the Tarot deck was a joke, but I didn't realise you'd had a humour by-pass. My mistake. Fret. I know, I knew you are an atheist. The bible reference was a joke. I would judge it a better one than your Tarot deck quipette. What can I say other than 'gotcha'? Of course our evolution extends back - 3 billion years if you like. And of course not only humans have emotions. Ask me or any other dog owner. Having regard to human evolution over the last few hundred thousand years, by all means longer if you wish, provides important clues as to why our minds work as they do and why we behave as we do. (Your post suggests that the evolution of a reliably functioning sense of humour is still work in progress.) |
|
|
|
Post by peterf on Mar 23, 2011 5:12:57 GMT -5
However it started and where ever it comes from, I'm more interested in whether guilt does us more good than harm or vice versa. I have a personality that compartmentalizes ... not unusual, but I've found it does make a difference in how I handle the baggage of life ... especially the big things. With smaller concerns, I can work up a good guilt about leaving the house without feeding the cat, but with major gaffs, such as, perhaps, not being as thoughtful as I might with a co-worker, I'll put that in a little compartment to think about another time. Do any of you do that? I think it probably helps keep things in perspective. Good points. I think guilt avoidance plays a big part in feeling good about oneself. I don't steal things. I'm proud not to be a thief - maybe that's a bit silly, but there you are. To this extent I think there is something in the 'low self esteem' theories as to why people behave badly. Those who have a high opinion of their own worth behave better. Makes sense. |
|
|
|
Post by beth on Mar 23, 2011 10:17:44 GMT -5
My biggest encounter with guilt comes from an ingrained need to be "fair" and I have no idea whether this was a learned concept or something I liked the sound of and adopted along the way.
Over the past 3 or 4 years, I've been working on being "fair" to myself. I'm still a ways from embracing that wholeheartedly, but am determined to get there.
Both are extremes of course, but give me selfishness over self-sacrifice, any old day AND, if possible, sans the guilt trip.
|
|
Omega
