Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
In my opinion, this is not true.
I'll even explain why: there is no earned-not-earned scale, no karma, nothing else. If you saved a person from death, for example, and remained incognito, then nowhere will this “count”for you. Often conditional “evil” (because it does not exist) goes unpunished, and conditional “good” (because it also does not exist) goes unnoticed. But it was proof of the obvious, I suppose, if you are not unsubstantiated and therefore irrefutably believe that something supernatural (God, rebirth, astrology, whatever, even so you can believe in science) exists. If you believe in something that implies the juxtaposition of conditional ” evil “(from sins to resistance to progress, for example) and conditional” good ” (from virtue to contribution to the same progress), this will be extremely unobvious or even false for you. And I can't claim to win this argument in any way. Neither do you.
But back to our sheep. If there is no one or something that counts as your merit, then you can't earn anything. I am not talking about human merit that comes “from below” (in my opinion, a pensioner who has worked for at least ten years for the benefit of people deserves his pension, or a brave and wise warrior deserves to be a voivode), but about merit “from above”, so that we can talk about such a phenomenon as death and justice (again, from above). Therefore, a person can not deserve anything in principle, neither a good or bad life, nor a quick or slow death, nor heaven or hell.