Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Who do you want to see as the Democratic nominee for the TX U.S. Senate seat? [View all]pat_k
(13,027 posts)29. Of course not.
I'm with Schopenhauer.
The following is from his The Basis of Morality
Page 214
Boundless compassion for all living beings is the surest and most certain guarantee of pure moral conduct, and needs no casuistry. Whoever is filled with it will assuredly injure no one, do harm to no one, encroach on no man's rights; he will rather have regard for every one, forgive every one, help every one as far as he can, and all his actions will bear the stamp of justice and loving-kindness.
And this, on the "radical difference of mental habit between the good character and the bad" really struck me.
Page 277
The preponderance of either mode of viewing life not only determines single acts; it shapes a man's whole nature and temperament. Hence the radical difference of mental habit between the good character and the bad.
The latter feels everywhere that a thick wall of partition hedges him off from all others. For him the world is an absolute non-ego, and his relation to it an essentially hostile one; consequently, the key-note of his disposition is hatred, suspicion, envy, and pleasure in seeing distress.
The good character, on the other hand, lives in an external world homogeneous with his own being; the rest of mankind is not in his eyes a non-ego; he thinks of it rather as "myself once more." He therefore stands on an essentially amicable footing with every one: he is conscious of being, in his inmost nature, akin to the whole human race, takes direct interest in their weal and woe, and confidently assumes in their case the same interest in him. This is the source of his deep inward peace, and of that happy, calm, contented manner, which goes out on those around him, and is as the "presence of a good diffused."
Whereas the bad character in time of trouble has no trust in the help of his fellow-creatures. If he invokes aid, he does so without confidence: obtained, he feels no real gratitude for it; because he can hardly discern therein anything but the effect of others' folly. For he is simply incapable of recognising his own self in some one else; and this, even after it has furnished the most incontestible signs of existence in that other person: on which fact the repulsive nature of all unthankfulness in reality depends. The moral isolation, which thus naturally and inevitably encompasses the bad man, is often the cause of his becoming the victim of despair.
The good man, on the contrary, will appeal to his neighbours for assistance, with an assurance equal to the consciousness he has of being ready himself to help them. As I have said: to the one type, humanity is a non-ego; to the other, "myself once more." The magnanimous character, who forgives his enemy, and returns good for evil, rises to the sublime, and receives the highest meed of praise; because he recognises his real self even there where it is most conspicuously disowned.
The latter feels everywhere that a thick wall of partition hedges him off from all others. For him the world is an absolute non-ego, and his relation to it an essentially hostile one; consequently, the key-note of his disposition is hatred, suspicion, envy, and pleasure in seeing distress.
The good character, on the other hand, lives in an external world homogeneous with his own being; the rest of mankind is not in his eyes a non-ego; he thinks of it rather as "myself once more." He therefore stands on an essentially amicable footing with every one: he is conscious of being, in his inmost nature, akin to the whole human race, takes direct interest in their weal and woe, and confidently assumes in their case the same interest in him. This is the source of his deep inward peace, and of that happy, calm, contented manner, which goes out on those around him, and is as the "presence of a good diffused."
Whereas the bad character in time of trouble has no trust in the help of his fellow-creatures. If he invokes aid, he does so without confidence: obtained, he feels no real gratitude for it; because he can hardly discern therein anything but the effect of others' folly. For he is simply incapable of recognising his own self in some one else; and this, even after it has furnished the most incontestible signs of existence in that other person: on which fact the repulsive nature of all unthankfulness in reality depends. The moral isolation, which thus naturally and inevitably encompasses the bad man, is often the cause of his becoming the victim of despair.
The good man, on the contrary, will appeal to his neighbours for assistance, with an assurance equal to the consciousness he has of being ready himself to help them. As I have said: to the one type, humanity is a non-ego; to the other, "myself once more." The magnanimous character, who forgives his enemy, and returns good for evil, rises to the sublime, and receives the highest meed of praise; because he recognises his real self even there where it is most conspicuously disowned.
As I read the following bit, DT's "suckers and losers" echoed in my head:
"he feels no real gratitude for it; because he can hardly discern therein anything but the effect of others' folly. "
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
67 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Who do you want to see as the Democratic nominee for the TX U.S. Senate seat? [View all]
pat_k
Dec 11
OP
His Religion is Based Upon Compassionate Morality -very Rare in Public forum these days
Stallion
Dec 11
#22
I guess Compassionate Morality Was a Good Description since He Used both Words in First Sentence
Stallion
Dec 12
#66
I've never really been comfortable with religion in politics - I like to keep politics as rational and fact based as
Midwestern Democrat
Dec 11
#32
Talrico. We're losing Crockett from the House & she can't, IMHO, win a statewide general in hyper racist/misogynistic TX
Celerity
Dec 11
#2
Yes, I love her too and would rather her as one of the 2 US Senators from TX, but I work off actual chances, not wishes.
Celerity
Dec 11
#5
My thoughts as well. That we lose an important voice in the House really sucks but..
hlthe2b
Dec 11
#6
I highly recommend taking 20 minutes to listen to his incredible sermon against Christian Nationalism (2023)
pat_k
Dec 11
#10
Or Elissa Slotkin, or Amy Klobuchar, or Tina Smith, or Tammy Baldwin, or Gretchen Whitmer
DFW
Dec 12
#33
I think Jasmine Crockett has a good chance to boost black voter turnout in Texas!
Jack Valentino
Dec 11
#16
Exactly, people of color are 61 percent of the population in Texas. If any Democrat has a chance,
Emile
Dec 12
#39
Hispanics HAVE 'been conservative', but they ARE NOW falling EXTREMELY anti-Trump,
Jack Valentino
Dec 12
#57
We need to stop clinging to outdated theories about "moderate candidates" and mythical Republican "crossover voters."
Emile
Dec 12
#35
Do you have any data for this mythical Republican "crossover voters for moderate Dems in Texas?
Emile
Dec 12
#49
"Life in Lubbock, Texas, taught me two things: One is that God loves you and you're going to burn in hell.
Ping Tung
Dec 12
#38
I voted no preference because I don't know enough about either to know which I'd prefer
EdmondDantes_
Dec 12
#51