The Primal Existential Crisis

[Veritas Aequitas]

At least the Ten Commandments are sacred to me.
And for you, isn’t respect for your parents sacred?
After all, for atheists too, respect for parents is sacred, for the time being.
After all, a scoundrel, by definition, is someone for whom nothing is sacred.
'You know, we're really re-examining one of Plato’s famous problems, in the Euthephro. Are certain acts impious because the gods say they are, or do the gods say those acts are impious because they are so to begin with? If it's the latter, then we have some concept of the sacred and the impious independently of the gods, and we can make secular sense of impiety, and some things can be sacred anymore.'

Sacred?

• Sacred = connected with God or a god or dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving veneration.

Re secular,
respect for parents is a virtue a natural evolving spontaneous impulse for the good of the [human] individual, individuals and humanity.

Not only "connected with God",
"considered too important to be changed:
His daily routine is absolutely sacred to him."

Virtue is a bonus, you can do it or you can not do it.
The sacred is something that cannot be violated. This is also relevant for atheists.

That is, respect for parents, not because you logically proved it here, on the contrary, if respect is for obtaining some benefits, then this is already morally defective.

Point is some parent can be very evil, and treat the children badly, even to the extreme of incest.
Respect for parents thus is a virtue and can vary according to circumstances.
How can a person respect a parent who raped them or are always violent?

Whereas do not be violent, harm or kill parents is morality.
These moral elements are categorical imperatives, regardless of how evil one parents may be, one cannot commit the above on one's parents.

[Self-Lightening]

"You have to imagine, as a rather good Scripps student once put it, Socrates talking to Oedipus. Tragic Oedipus. Not Agathon’s tragedy (Agathon wrote a tragedy according to Aristotle whose title was The Flower). Socrates talking to Oedipus and trying to persuade him: 'Look here, Oedipus—it wasn’t your fault. And after all, why is incest bad?' " (Neumann, seminar on Plato’s Symposium, May 2003.)

[Walker]

I have a question?

That is a great question.

I have an answer.

If you dishonor your dishonorable parents:
In that case, because you were weaned on dishonoring, it’s in your bones, you’re very good at it, and you cannot distinguish intentional dishonor, from unintentional dishonor. As a cross-cultural universal cause and effect, this does not benefit your chances for long-term survival inasmuch as future karma for you could be disproportionate rather than equitable, and dishonor has debiltating social effects, and it even affects perception of causation, forever condemning one to ignorance and suffering. The solution: intend no dishonor.

If you dishonor your honorable parents:
In that case, that is an irrevocable sin that you cannot repair, so that when you awaken to that truth, you will suffer for all the rest of your days, and nights, because you have excluded yourself from the good people, and it’s as plain as day to all those who can perceive. The solution: intend no dishonor.

If a parent is a True 'honorable parent', then no child of that parent would even want to begin to dishonor them. This is just a plain old simple fact.

Just like if a parent Truly does love a child, then that child is just not going to choose to not love them back.

Any talk about suffering for the rest of days also deflects away from what is actually True.

Those who don’t respect their abusive parents, become their abusive parents. Do you understand?

[Age]

That is a great question.

I have an answer.

If you dishonor your dishonorable parents:
In that case, because you were weaned on dishonoring, it’s in your bones, you’re very good at it, and you cannot distinguish intentional dishonor, from unintentional dishonor. As a cross-cultural universal cause and effect, this does not benefit your chances for long-term survival inasmuch as future karma for you could be disproportionate rather than equitable, and dishonor has debiltating social effects, and it even affects perception of causation, forever condemning one to ignorance and suffering. The solution: intend no dishonor.

If you dishonor your honorable parents:
In that case, that is an irrevocable sin that you cannot repair, so that when you awaken to that truth, you will suffer for all the rest of your days, and nights, because you have excluded yourself from the good people, and it’s as plain as day to all those who can perceive. The solution: intend no dishonor.

If a parent is a True 'honorable parent', then no child of that parent would even want to begin to dishonor them. This is just a plain old simple fact.

Just like if a parent Truly does love a child, then that child is just not going to choose to not love them back.

Any talk about suffering for the rest of days also deflects away from what is actually True.

Those who don’t respect their abusive parents, become their abusive parents.

Are you really and Truly suggesting that children should respect their abusive parents?

If yes, then this explains just about absolutely why you 'look at' things the way you do and also vote the way you do.

Do you understand?

Yes, and more so NOW.

[Walker]

Are you really and Truly suggesting that children should respect their abusive parents?

If your parents abuse you, they disrespect you.
A disrespected child learns to disrespect.
It gets programmed in early.
Therefore if you respect your parents, you don’t become your disrespectful parents.

Do you understand even more, Now, at this time in the history of the world when this is written?

Your confusion lies with the meaning of respect.
You think that it means a desire to emulate, don't you.
Early programming into the noggin causes choiceless emulation.

Respect that is not shown only exists subjectively.
Objectively, respect that is not shown is no different than respect that does not exist.

This leads to your daily philosophical answer that follows the question : What commands respect?

[Age]

Are you really and Truly suggesting that children should respect their abusive parents?

If your parents abuse you, they disrespect you.
A disrespected child learns to disrespect.
It gets programmed in early.
Therefore if you respect your parents, you don’t become your disrespectful parents.

So, you really, really are trying to suggest that an abused child should respect the abusive parents.

This was just how twisted and distorted so-called 'humanity' had become, back in the days when this was being written.

Some really did Truly believe that when they or other abusive adults were abusing children, then the children should respect them.

The absolute absurdity of, and backwards that, societies had become was Truly bewildering. And, as can be seen here some, instead of hiding their obviously Truly twisted and distorted views, were clearly openly brazen about trying to justify their own and others abuse of children, and worse still are trying to say that abused children 'should' being respecting them.

Do you understand even more, Now, at this time in the history of the world when this is written?

Yes, I do understand 'more', and I just expressed 'that more'.

Your confusion lies with the meaning of respect.
You think that it means a desire to emulate, don't you.

No. Why did you even begin to pre-assume such a thing.

Early programming into the noggin causes choiceless emulation.

Respect that is not shown only exists subjectively.
Objectively, respect that is not shown is no different than respect that does not exist.

This leads to your daily philosophical answer that follows the question : What commands respect?

If absolutely any thing 'commands' respect, then it most likely an absolute sign that 'that thing' is not worthy of respect, at all.

[Walker]

So, you really, really are trying to suggest that an abused child should respect the abusive parents.

To state what is, is not to say that what is, should not be.
What is, has to be as it is, because it is as it is.

This is what is.

If your parents abuse you, they disrespect you.
A disrespected child learns to disrespect.
It gets programmed in early.
Therefore if you respect your parents, you don’t become your disrespectful parents.

How in the world is a child to resist early programming?

[Walker]

If absolutely any thing 'commands' respect, then it most likely an absolute sign that 'that thing' is not worthy of respect, at all.

The commanding is done by existence, not by words, or orders, or threats.

The command is within the commanded.

[Age]

So, you really, really are trying to suggest that an abused child should respect the abusive parents.

To state what is, is not to say that what is, should not be.
What is, has to be as it is, because it is as it is.

This is what is.

If your parents abuse you, they disrespect you.
A disrespected child learns to disrespect.
It gets programmed in early.
Therefore if you respect your parents, you don’t become your disrespectful parents.

So, "walker" is still 'trying to' argue and even fight for:

you children should respect your parents, no matter how much they mistreat you and abuse you.

And, "walker" will even insist that this is good and right 'programming', for you.

So, what this really means is: "walker" really and truly is 'trying to' suggest that 'an abused child' 'should' 'respect' its 'abusive parents'.

And, I thought 'the world' could not have got much worse than it already is, in the days when this is being written.

How in the world is a child to resist early programming?

By the sounds of what you are 'now' just not 'suggesting' but are 'actually saying and claiming' here, that the best thing to do is to keep reinforcing that no matter how much an adult abuses or mistreats 'a child', 'the child' is best to be continually told, taught, and programmed to keep 'respecting' those 'adults' who 'keep abusing and mistreating them, right "walker"?

[Age]

If absolutely any thing 'commands' respect, then it most likely an absolute sign that 'that thing' is not worthy of respect, at all.

The commanding is done by existence, not by words, or orders, or threats.

The command is within the commanded.

So, are you 'now' 'trying to' say and claim that 'Existence', Itself, so-called 'commands' 'respect'?

If yes, then how and why would 'Existence', Itself', 'command' a child to respect an abusive adult?

What you are 'now' trying to say and claim here is making 'less sense' than before. Well to me anyway.

[Walker]

If absolutely any thing 'commands' respect, then it most likely an absolute sign that 'that thing' is not worthy of respect, at all.

The commanding is done by existence, not by words, or orders, or threats.

The command is within the commanded.

So, are you 'now' 'trying to' say and claim that 'Existence', Itself, so-called 'commands' 'respect'?

If yes, then how and why would 'Existence', Itself', 'command' a child to respect an abusive adult?

What you are 'now' trying to say and claim here is making 'less sense' than before. Well to me anyway.

Age, you of all people know that it's not about trying to.

- The point is that the command is within the commanded for you, for me, and for any human being, at the frozen moment in time when this is written into the history of the world, within the flowing event-stream of ever-changing reality.

- The within-command within a child, which is to respect an abusive adult, is to respect the absolute power that the adult has over the child's life, and the quality of that life. Or else suffer the consequences.

- This does not imply that the child wants to emulate the adult, however, obviously the child is not immune to the teachings via experience of relationship with the abusive adult. No defenses have been developed in a child against the predatory nature of the universe, which is why the idealistic intent of government oversight is to protect the child.

[Walker]

(continued)

In similar fashion, for an adult when the ego is smashed due to realization, and awareness is left pristine without defenses, a period of silence and withdrawal from the world is recommended for re-integration into relevance. This just naturally happens as it's necessary to adjust sensory input, such as spacial orientation.

[Janoah]

Sacred?

• Sacred = connected with God or a god or dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving veneration.

Re secular,
respect for parents is a virtue a natural evolving spontaneous impulse for the good of the [human] individual, individuals and humanity.

Not only "connected with God",
"considered too important to be changed:
His daily routine is absolutely sacred to him."

Virtue is a bonus, you can do it or you can not do it.
The sacred is something that cannot be violated. This is also relevant for atheists.

That is, respect for parents, not because you logically proved it here, on the contrary, if respect is for obtaining some benefits, then this is already morally defective.

Point is some parent can be very evil, and treat the children badly, even to the extreme of incest.
Respect for parents thus is a virtue and can vary according to circumstances.
How can a person respect a parent who raped them or are always violent?

Whereas do not be violent, harm or kill parents is morality.
These moral elements are categorical imperatives, regardless of how evil one parents may be, one cannot commit the above on one's parents.

“Honor your parents” here means a normal situation, not when the parents are murderers or rapists, just like “thou shalt not kill” also means a normal situation, and the killer should be neutralized before he kills.
And yes, this is morality, and atheists also follow this sacred duty, not because they have logically proven its benefits, but following their conscience.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Not only "connected with God",
"considered too important to be changed:
His daily routine is absolutely sacred to him."

Virtue is a bonus, you can do it or you can not do it.
The sacred is something that cannot be violated. This is also relevant for atheists.

That is, respect for parents, not because you logically proved it here, on the contrary, if respect is for obtaining some benefits, then this is already morally defective.

Point is some parent can be very evil, and treat the children badly, even to the extreme of incest.
Respect for parents thus is a virtue and can vary according to circumstances.
How can a person respect a parent who raped them or are always violent?

Whereas do not be violent, harm or kill parents is morality.
These moral elements are categorical imperatives, regardless of how evil one parents may be, one cannot commit the above on one's parents.

“Honor your parents” here means a normal situation, not when the parents are murderers or rapists, just like “thou shalt not kill” also means a normal situation, and the killer should be neutralized before he kills.
And yes, this is morality, and atheists also follow this sacred duty, not because they have logically proven its benefits, but following their conscience.

Morality, ethics, virtue can be very loose words.
Virtue is often conflated with morality and ethics.
We cannot take things for granted to assume things.
As such, we need to have precise definitions with consensus, else we will be talking pass each other, discussions, getting into action, can get messy.

I define Morality as the management of evil to enable its related good to emerge.
E.g. if 'killing of humans by humans' is managed, then there is its related good.
The point is we need to establish an exhaustive list of what acts are considered evil.
I would not include 'honor one's parents' as a moral act.

Ethics has more to do with the pragmatic and application side of morality.

Virtue: Acts, state of mind that are good for the invididual[s] and humanity which are not included in the exhaustive list of moral acts.

It is only by having more precise meaning for morality, ethics and virtue that we can have effective means for management of them and thus, progress that is positive for humanity.

Here is a list virtue:
Acceptance Assertiveness Authenticity Beauty Caring Cleanliness Commitment Compassion Confidence Consideration Contentment Cooperation Courage Creativity Detachment Determination Dignity Encouragement Enthusiasm Ethical Excellence Fairness Faith Flexibility Forgiveness Friendliness Generosity Gentleness Graciousness Gratitude Harmonious Helpfulness Honesty Honor Hope Humility Idealism Integrity Imaginative Joyfulness Justice Kindness Love Loyalty Moderation Modesty Optimistic Orderliness Passionate Patience Peace Perseverance Preparedness Purposefulness Reliability Respect Responsibility Reverence Self-discipline Service Sincerity Tact Temperate Tenacious Thankfulness Tolerance Trust Truthfulness Understanding Unity Visionary Wisdom Wonder; and others.
https://www.virtuesforlife.com/virtues-list/

As you can see the above are quite distinct from moral values, e.g.
Don't kill
Don't steal
Don't commit violence
Don't rape
Do not commit incests
Etc. which are not listed as virtue in the above.

In the case of 'ethical' as virtue mean respect and incline to practice what is moral.
I take 'honor' in the virtue list as 'honor your parents' and other honoring acts.

There is no absoluteness in words and their meaning. It is matter of use and consensus for efficiency sake.
Thus for efficiency sake, I propose 'honoring one's parent' as a virtue rather than a moral trait.

If you insist honor your parent is moral, then, to each their own.

[Age]

The commanding is done by existence, not by words, or orders, or threats.

The command is within the commanded.

So, are you 'now' 'trying to' say and claim that 'Existence', Itself, so-called 'commands' 'respect'?

If yes, then how and why would 'Existence', Itself', 'command' a child to respect an abusive adult?

What you are 'now' trying to say and claim here is making 'less sense' than before. Well to me anyway.

Age, you of all people know that it's not about trying to.

Why are you saying and claiming this here?

When one of you is saying and/or claiming some thing is true, but which cannot be justified nor backed up and supported, then, well to me anyway, you are just 'trying'. Instead of actually 'just doing'.

If you cannot justify something, but are trying to, then obviously you are just 'trying to', only.

- The point is that the command is within the commanded for you, for me, and for any human being, at the frozen moment in time when this is written into the history of the world, within the flowing event-stream of ever-changing reality.

- The within-command within a child, which is to respect an abusive adult, is to respect the absolute power that the adult has over the child's life, and the quality of that life. Or else suffer the consequences.

To me:

you cannot justify the misbehavior of abuse.

The is no so-called 'within-command', within any thing, to respect abuse nor to respect anyone who is abusing.

you here 'trying to' justify and/claim that children should respect abusive parents/adults shows and proves just how much harm and damage can be and is caused from being abused, previously and when a child.

- This does not imply that the child wants to emulate the adult, however, obviously the child is not immune to the teachings via experience of relationship with the abusive adult. No defenses have been developed in a child against the predatory nature of the universe, which is why the idealistic intent of government oversight is to protect the child.

None of this excuses or even explains in any way at all your attempts at 'trying to' back up, support, and,or justify your belief and claim that child should respect abusive adults.

If you or any adult abuses absolutely any thing at all, then you choosing to misbehave, and thus ultimately you, are not worthy of nor deserving of any respect at all.

However, if you admit you do Wrong/abuse, are absolutely Honest and OPEN about it and are seriously Wanting to, and are doing all you can, to change, for the better, then you are worthy of all the respect possible.