In AD 590, Pope Gregory I condemned greed when he included it in his list of seven deadly sins, along with lust, gluttony, sloth, wrath, envy and pride.

Gordon Gekko, Michael Douglas’ character in the 1987 movie “Wall Street”, praised greed when he said:
“Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge, has marked the upward surge of mankind and greed, mark my words, will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the U.S.A.”

So, with whom do you agree, the pope or the movie character?

Would you agree that one is greedy if they buy simply for the sake of owning rather than based on need?

Is it greedy to acquire as much as possible as long as no one is harmed or deprived in the process? Is it possible to acquire excessively without harming someone else?

Can greed by cured? If so, how? Think in terms of greed having deep psychological roots.

To what extent was greed responsible for the real estate/banking crisis and recession of 2008?

How does greed interfere with relationships? Is it addictive?

Would you agree that greed only becomes problematical when someone else is involved?

Look around you. What do you possess that you don’t need? How would you feel if you were deprived of it?

The question is: “What is the question?” What we mean is that the questions for our discussion on Sunday, September 4 at 8 AM SLT will be up to you, the participant. You may ask a philosophically related question for anyone to answer, or you may direct your question to anyone present, including Plato Greybeard.

If you wish, you may moderate the discussion following your question, or you may turn it back to Plato Greybeard to do so.

Please prepare your question in advance. Plato Greybeard will do a quick survey at the beginning of the session to see how many questions we will need to cover.

Due to the nature of this experiment, we will ask the local chat be used only to address the specific question on the floor at the time.

Norman Cousins said, "A human being fashions his consequences as surely as he fashions his goods or his dwelling. Nothing he says, thinks or does is without consequences." Let's look at how consequences are frequently managed, be they intended or unintended.

Consequences and forgiveness. Take a situation where one person harms another, either by accident or deliberately, and the victim decides to forgive the perpetrator. Does that change the consequences for either one? Can the victim pretend that nothing has happened and go about life as it was before? If forgiven, should the perpetrator escape the consequences that would otherwise follow?

Consequences and freedom of choice. If one elects to exercise freedom of choice, thereby harming himself, should there be any consequences? If one has freely chosen to act in a way that harms another, should the consequences be more severe than if the act had been committed by accident or involuntarily?

Consequences and making decisions. Think of an instance where someone attempts to shift consequences away from himself by blaming others. "It's not my fault that the check to the electric company bounced. You didn't record the debit card payments you made the last time you went shopping."

Consequences and responsibility. How do we attempt to escape responsibility for the consequences of our actions? Ignore them? Blame others? Make amends? Accept the consequences, learn from the experience and move on?

Consequences and freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is such a valuable right that there seems to be few consequences for those who abuse the privilege. Whether in private conversation or in the mass media, appealing to emotions and outright lying many times accomplishes the speaker's objective without penalty. How can those who subvert the noble purpose of freedom of speech be held accountable?

What is this thing I call my "self"? This question has been a major subject of interest since humanity first began philosophizing. It continues to intrigue us because, while there are many different ways of answering the question, the "self" is still a mystery.

Philosophically, one might consider that, at the core, one's "self" is the individual's "soul,” or "spirit" or "the essence of life itself." If we embrace this definition, we must pursue the meaning of the key words just used. This philosophical approach is not entirely satisfactory since it raises more questions than it provides answers.

The sociological approach means that the individual's "self" would be defined by how he/she is seen by others. If others see me as "a good person“, “a bad person” or any other descriptive term, then that is who I must be. Countering this concept is the belief that, "what other people think of me is none of my business.”

Psychologically, we are free to define our "self" any way we choose. We can see ourselves as primarily a parent, spouse, child, entrepreneur or bank robber. It is important to realize that when we define ourselves by such terms, our behaviors are going to be consistent with our self-perception. This would mean that we can change our "self" simply by looking at ourselves differently.

Physiologically, we might consider the "self" as that part of the physical body that holds the individual's consciousness. This, too, is unsatisfactory because it would imply that one who is unconscious due to injury, or even sleep, would lose their self-hood. This definition is also faulty because it fails to distinguish the "self" from the brain. It seems that the "self" is contained in the body, but is far more than the body itself.

Many have asked, Where does the "self" come from? Why does it exist? What happens to it after death? Think about these questions for a moment. Is it important to find an answer in order to live a well-lived life?

Consciousness, Subconsciousness and Unconsciousness: Implications for Living
                                           
Consciousness equals awareness.

But it's not that simple, is it? Since we are conscious creatures, we are able to be aware not only of the world outside ourselves but also something of what goes on inside us. Brain function is, for some, the most interesting challenge of all. Consciousness allows us to appreciate beauty, experience pleasure and suffering, communicate and enjoy the products of our thinking and reasoning. Consciousness is associated with the prefrontal cortex of the brain.

Unless we consciously choose what to think about, our subconscious mind directs most of our thoughts, feelings and behaviors. Throughout life, we learn from experience and the meaning of each experience is stored in our subconscious mind as a basic belief. Subsequently, every new experience is filtered through our unique set of basic beliefs and our physical and emotional responses are determined by them. Because subconscious basic beliefs trigger emotions, and emotions are associated with the limbic system, we can metaphorically associate the subconscious mind to that area of the brain.

Basic beliefs are in the subconscious because, while we are not consciously aware of them at any given moment, it is possible to bring them into consciousness. Some basic beliefs are easier to access than others. While you might easily recall your mother's maiden name, it may be more difficult to express precisely why you have an aversion to someone with a different skin color. Or why you don't.

Now we come to the unconscious mind. This is located in the reptilian brain, the area where the spinal cord connects with the brain itself. This region has the responsibility for regulating bodily functions such as respiration, heart rate, temperature and other activities vital to life. We refer to it as "unconscious" because, although it is an extremely active area, no amount of effort can bring its functions up to consciousness. Although we can consciously affect any measurable function, we cannot be aware of its mechanisms.

It is postulated that this area also holds what may be referred to as "inbornintentions.” These are innate goals that are common to every human. At our core, we seek to respect human dignity, freedom of choice, sense of accomplishment and love. What complicates life, and perhaps makes it even more interesting, is that we sometimes fall away from moving toward these inbornintentions because we have acquired basic beliefs that are contrary to them and because of anxiety.

The inbornintentions are thought to be in the reptilian brain because they too are a vital part of us. If they did not exist, we would not be human.

What, you might ask, has this to do with philosophy? Well, philosophers throughout the ages have struggled with the question of how to live well. Philosophize for a moment as to what life would be like for an individual who consistently makes choices in the direction of the four inbornintentions, unencumbered by contrary basic beliefs or by anxiety.

Decisions, decisions, decisions! So many decisions, so little time. We are constantly bombarded with the need to make decisions, to make choices and to selection between alternatives. This constant pressure can lead to a strong desire to chuck it all and make no decisions at all. That's when it is vacation time.

But since this responsibility will remain throughout life, how best should we approach the problem? The two main choices are to use either the thinking/cognitive or the emotional approach. Some research has shown that slightly more than half the male population in America uses thinking while a somewhat larger percentage of females decide questions emotionally. It is unknown whether this gender preference is genetically based or has been learned through experience.

These two approaches to decision-making can lead to some interesting dynamics in personal relationships. If one partner uses facts, details, and logic while the other has an emotional appeal toward one choice or the other, they are going to need good communication skills to resolve their potential differences.

Although one may have a an inherent (or learned) style preference, when it comes down to an individual decision where there is an emotional component already present, emotion is going to win out over logic every time. This may be self-evident when you look back over the emotional decisions that you made that you later regretted when the emotion subsided. Learning to control this tendency would be an important skill to develop.

To be sure, there will be occasions when faulty logic leads to regrettable choices and it is equally true that strictly emotional decisions can work out wonderfully well.

Balance is a great concept when considering decision-making. It probably would not be best to be a coldhearted automaton who makes decisions without emotion. But it would be equally self-defeating to discard rationality entirely.