Intuition !

[sudanese]

in psychology there r certain mechanisms of the ( psych ) to maintain its integrity ...

when this mechanisms fail : depression , and other psychiatric disorder

lets assume that there r means for adaptation for most aspect of the ( psych)
forgetting , adaptation , ... etc

can we assume that some disregard , forgetfulness , dullness r means of adaptation in issues of humanity , existence , and generally when thinking about other people we don't know personally

i mean SENSITIVITY , it is not possible to imagine the all the suffer and pain of others , but i think philosophers and great intellectuals do to a far extent

most philosophical doctrines have some sort of pessimism...
most great thinkers look sad ...

is it ( abnormal ) situation of the mind ... just as seeing the bad side of life at personal level to a certain extent is abnormal > depression

is the function of the ( mind / soul / reason ) is to reach the truth , or to maintain our integrity ...

is nature fair ? is life fair ?
do human progression is to restore ideal lost situation
or it is continuing building of the human Vs. nature universe
which is basically based on the unnatural ideals of ( fair , rights , etc )

what is the force which make us do so
is it our extinct , or the domination of ( abnormal ) thoughts of intellectuals and geniuses , or a rule of morality outside us , or just a relative subjective image of our era


:confused:
please participate

[Shadow]

... WOW.

That is a BOATLOAD of questions in a SEA of emotion babe ...

I think that we don't understand certain things because we're not MEANT to understand them ... concepts like time and divinity are simply too great to be fully grasped from our standpoint as humans, unless we simplify them to levels we can understand (unless of course the concepts are so simple, we simply cannot grasp them (!!)).

I think that one of the reasons philosophers are able to relate to things better in conceptual terms is because they have the power to see the bigger picture, and whilst I don't think the bigger picture is BLEAKER than the view most humans have of the world, I do think the issues that are raised by looking at things on that level ARE more poignant, and closer to home than many people realise ...

So in answer to what I perceive to be your main question, I would say that the human mind functions to do both things (and many others) - to protect what I would consider to be our spirit as it functions in the world; to act as a tool by which we are able (at least in part) to communicate with those around us; to keep us rooted in reality; and to enable us to relate to, interpret and understand, the issues (both on the home front and globally) which surround and affect us, directly and indirectly ...

!?!?! Shadow !?!?!

[sudanese]

shadowwwwwwwwwwww

So in answer to what I perceive to be your main question, I would say that the human mind functions to do both things (and many others) - to protect what I would consider to be our spirit as it functions in the world; to act as a tool by which we are able (at least in part) to communicate with those around us; to keep us rooted in reality; and to enable us to relate to, interpret and understand, the issues (both on the home front and globally) which surround and affect us, directly and indirectly ...

!?!?! Shadow !?!?!

but in many instances there is conflict between the function of protecting the spirit ( say mental health ) and reaching the truth ...

yes we r not machines , we r different , but most individuals experience this conflict when dealing with a subject which comprise ( knowledge about life and world , emotion towards others )
e.g : children who r born handicapped , innocent people killed in wars inevitably , painful diseases , gays executed in Iran ... and other unfair lives


what is the so called better world ?
is it a pure human project !

ethics : rules for implementation of that project ....

but ethics r ever changing ... they r not transcendental.. .
even what we believe is constant ( right &wrong , evil .. etc ) is just a description of what is acceptable by the majority ...

even among different moral perspectives in certain age or place .. there r common principles which r references in moral debates .. and r almost universal in certain age and place

now they r : human rights , holiness of human life , .. etc

but why years ago people didn't conclude the same principles ?
what is the changing origin of these changing principles ?
or it is just simply the easier life which made us think that way ?
is it the way leisured do think Vs . fighters for survival