User Tag List

First 4567 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 69

  1. #51
    darkened dreams labyrinthine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    isfp
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    8,595

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Park View Post
    Yes, it's just that people who have a predetermined negative value for an act often finds it upsetting when you state that to you, the act has a neutral value until carried out in a certain context. It is the context which decides whether the act has a positive or negative value.

    It's like they don't hear the last part but only focus on the part where you say, I'm indifferent to e.g. stealing. That statement standing alone makes you a bad character pr. default.
    I guess the irony of it is that most people do not follow their preset moral codes under all circumstances. What you describe is actually more honest in many cases. For most issues, i go back to a philosophy of balance. When someone is set into a mold in which stealing is wrong in every plausible scenario, then if and when they do face their two wrong choices, they will have difficulty recovering from the guilt and the deep fractures it causes in their world view.

    People find security in boundaries, security, and predictability. I have found those values actually masquerade for much of what is described as moral. People may say "stealing is always wrong". That implies that they will never be in a situation to challenge that. It means life is safe. They know exactly how to behave and choose, and they will never have to feel guilt unless they clearly make a wrong choice. Sometimes it has nothing to do with stealing, but everything to do with security. The types of issues you raise would shake many people's assumptions, so they will resist it. It's easier to just place your relativist ideas, and possibly you, outside their world view and understanding, rather than trying to reconcile what you might mean, and how honest reasoning could actually be behind it. Dismissal is another way of expressing predictability and security.
    Step into my metaphysical room of mirrors.
    Fear of reality creates myopic morality
    So I guess it means there is trouble until the robins come
    (from Blue Velvet)

  2. #52
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by toonia View Post
    I guess the irony of it is that most people do not follow their preset moral codes under all circumstances.
    LOL good post toonia and very true, it's not like any moral code (alternative or not) will prevent people from fucking up deliberately from time to time.

    What you describe is actually more honest in many cases. For most issues, i go back to a philosophy of balance. When someone is set into a mold in which stealing is wrong in every plausible scenario, then if and when they do face their two wrong choices, they will have difficulty recovering from the guilt and the deep fractures it causes in their world view.
    Exactly, that's my objection against placing a value on an act taken out of context. In WW2, some Danes would hide Judes and other refugees wanted by the Germans in their houses because if caught, they would be send off to concentration camp for elimination. If they hadn't been willing to lie, cheat or if nessecary kill when the Germans forces came looking for people, it would make little sense hiding the refugees in the first place.

    People find security in boundaries, security, and predictability. I have found those values actually masquerade for much of what is described as moral. People may say "stealing is always wrong". That implies that they will never be in a situation to challenge that. It means life is safe. They know exactly how to behave and choose, and they will never have to feel guilt unless they clearly make a wrong choice. Sometimes it has nothing to do with stealing, but everything to do with security.
    Yes, I think you hit the jackpot. The WW2 scenario above becomes redicurless if your starting point is "I'll hide refugees in my house but if asked directly, I wohn't lie about it". It means that eventhough you and your family will end up in concentration camp togeather with the Judes and the refugess you'r hiding, you did a good thing because when asked "you told the truth" i.e. you followed your set of rules which ascribe a positive value to honesty and as such "your hands are clean". I've experienced people struggle with scenarios a lot less extreme due to fixed perceptions of good and bad. It's like they are desperetly trying to apply a fixed set of rules in a context where doing so has little to no value.

    The types of issues you raise would shake many people's assumptions, so they will resist it. It's easier to just place your relativist ideas, and possibly you, outside their world view and understanding, rather than trying to reconcile what you might mean, and how honest reasoning could actually be behind it. Dismissal is another way of expressing predictability and security.
    Heh, I like that presentation much better than my own anti-social worries.
    Verbal IQ Test

    SubFacor IQ score = 65
    Subscale percentile = 1

    You appear to have a very limited vocabulary and lack the ability to identify the correct responses for a variety of different questions. A deficient vocabulary can hinder you in many ways; you may struggle to find the correct words when speaking, fail to understand what others are communicating to you, or come across as inarticulate to others.

  3. #53
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Park View Post
    Yes, I think you hit the jackpot. The WW2 scenario above becomes ridiculous if your starting point is "I'll hide refugees in my house but if asked directly, I won't lie about it". It means that even though you and your family will end up in concentration camp together with the Judes and the refugees you're hiding, you did a good thing because when asked "you told the truth" i.e. you followed your set of rules which ascribe a positive value to honesty and as such "your hands are clean". I've experienced people struggle with scenarios a lot less extreme due to fixed perceptions of good and bad. It's like they are desperately trying to apply a fixed set of rules in a context where doing so has little to no value.
    What is funny is that the Bible has at least one story where someone makes the same decision and is praised for it:

    Quote Originally Posted by Joshua 2
    1 Then Joshua son of Nun secretly sent two spies from Shittim. "Go, look over the land," he said, "especially Jericho." So they went and entered the house of a prostitute [a] named Rahab and stayed there.

    2 The king of Jericho was told, "Look! Some of the Israelites have come here tonight to spy out the land." 3 So the king of Jericho sent this message to Rahab: "Bring out the men who came to you and entered your house, because they have come to spy out the whole land."

    4 But the woman had taken the two men and hidden them. She said, "Yes, the men came to me, but I did not know where they had come from. 5 At dusk, when it was time to close the city gate, the men left. I don't know which way they went. Go after them quickly. You may catch up with them." 6 (But she had taken them up to the roof and hidden them under the stalks of flax she had laid out on the roof.) 7 So the men set out in pursuit of the spies on the road that leads to the fords of the Jordan, and as soon as the pursuers had gone out, the gate was shut.
    Rahab is later claimed to be a "godly woman" for her decision... essentially because she lied for the "right team." (If she had lied for the opposite side, I suppose she would have been castigated.) But it's often people quoting the Bible who refuse to lie, even when it's in service to a good cause.

    I dunno. It seems even the Biblical record sees distinctions here.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  4. #54
    Senior Member cafe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Socionics
    INFj None
    Posts
    9,827

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    What is funny is that the Bible has at least one story where someone makes the same decision and is praised for it:



    Rahab is later claimed to be a "godly woman" for her decision... essentially because she lied for the "right team." (If she had lied for the opposite side, I suppose she would have been castigated.) But it's often people quoting the Bible who refuse to lie, even when it's in service to a good cause.

    I dunno. It seems even the Biblical record sees distinctions here.
    If I remember right, in Exodus, the Hebrew midwives lied to the Egyptians when they were ordered to kill all the baby boys they delivered, too. And they were rewarded for it, I believe by God.
    “There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.”
    ~ John Rogers

  5. #55
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cafe View Post
    If I remember right, in Exodus, the Hebrew midwives lied to the Egyptians when they were ordered to kill all the baby boys they delivered, too. And they were rewarded for it, I believe by God.
    Uh huh.

    Quote Originally Posted by Exodus 1
    15 The king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, whose names were Shiphrah and Puah, 16 "When you help the Hebrew women in childbirth and observe them on the delivery stool, if it is a boy, kill him; but if it is a girl, let her live." 17 The midwives, however, feared God and did not do what the king of Egypt had told them to do; they let the boys live. 18 Then the king of Egypt summoned the midwives and asked them, "Why have you done this? Why have you let the boys live?"

    19 The midwives answered Pharaoh, "Hebrew women are not like Egyptian women; they are vigorous and give birth before the midwives arrive."

    20 So God was kind to the midwives and the people increased and became even more numerous. 21 And because the midwives feared God, he gave them families of their own.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  6. #56
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Park View Post
    Exactly, that's my objection against placing a value on an act taken out of context. In WW2, some Danes would hide Judes and other refugees wanted by the Germans in their houses because if caught, they would be send off to concentration camp for elimination. If they hadn't been willing to lie, cheat or if nessecary kill when the Germans forces came looking for people, it would make little sense hiding the refugees in the first place.
    There has to be some measure of importance in your morals though. Shielding those in need in my book comes way higher up my list of important things to try and do than being honest does... honestly

    I think the answer to this lies in the definition of 'rule'.

    Personally I always objected to rules as too constrictive and inflexible. I preferred the idea of guidelines until I realised that it was just a euphemism for rules that were poorly defined and rigidly executed. Recently however it has occurred that rules are not rules, they are only steadfast and resolute because people will fortify them to be so and expand them to fill gaps which they are not designed to cover (look at legal issues for excellent examples). People bend rules and as such the rules cannot be considered as rigid. Rules are merely those things which are set down to build upon like foundations for a house. They are not infallible, never were, just adequate for the purposes intended. This is not a problem as long as those original parameters are kept in mind, however people all too quickly forget such parameters and hence you end up with irrelevant rules.

    This same problem is the one which you have identified with peoples moral codes. They forget the parameters and hence their morals become irrelevant.
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  7. #57
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Park View Post
    I've notished that the logic systems of some types seems to differ a lot more from society norm than value systems does in generel. In specific, alternative logic systems seems to be a more common phenonomen among NTs and STPs than other types. As a result, I feared, for a period of time that I was an anti-social persona. Silly perhaps but not when you look at how easy it is to confuse an alternative logic system with anti-social/sociopathic traits. And while the acts carried out by a anti-social person and a person with an alternative logic system may look similar – there are clear distinctions. A person with an alternative logicsystem just acts in accordence with an alternative set of rules (it is still rules though) where as the anti-social person have neither a functional value system or logic system to base their actions on and as such does not have the same limitations when it comes to satisfy desires/urges or act on impulses.

    In this "Are You A Sociopath?" ladies magazine test, I ended up at 44% and were described like this: You're not a sociopath, but you're very prone to antisocial behavior. Other people's opinions matter little to you. You live your own fringe life - for better or worse.

    The test is obviously insufficient when it comes to diagnose a sociopath but the questions reflects very well society's perceptions of bad character traits. However, I'm positive that a person with an alternative logic system much more extreme than mine could reach a much much higher score and still fit the frames of a non-criminal, relatively social, relatively harmless, lovable, productive and good citizen.

    I've lined up some of the questions I replied yes to and tried to explain what lies behind my answers:

    You don't have a problem lying to get what you want.
    To me it's a matter of cost/benefit. To me, honesty can be a virtue but so can dishonesty. They are just opposites on a scale and where I place myself depends on the situation.

    You have a love/hate relationship with your parents.
    I love my parents but isn't blind to the fact that I carry around younger versions of myself who feels differently.

    It's hard for you to be loyal.
    Again, cost/benefit.

    You don't think in terms of "right" and "wrong."
    Not when it comes to human behaviour.

    It's hard for you to empathize with people's problems.
    I answered *no* to this, just wanted to comment that a well-functioning Fe is not uncommon for a sociopath Ted Bundy was a good example.

    You break people's trust
    Again, cost/benefit.

    You are very good at manipulating people and situations.
    Yes, but skill does not equal will.

    You see people as your pawns.
    Yes, and at the same time I see myself as other peoples pawn. I use and let myself be used – what's wrong with that anyway?

    In other words, I am from time to time deliberately a lier, disloyal, untrustworthy and a person who uses other people for my own benefit but I still consider myself to fit the methaphor profile of a good citizen.
    Well, as you say: So called "antisocial behaviour" falls in two entirely distinct categories.

    A good post.

    It is time to clear the issue.
    There has been a lot of misunderstanding about the subject.
    A semantic confusion only.

  8. #58
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,619

    Default

    ptGatsby said to lie is wrong- and at the same time he made it clear this unfortunate circumstance does not hinder him from lying (should the need arise).

    Apropos lying is not about the semantics of lying.

    It is about the motive alone.

    Hence ptGatsby was right when he was wrong.

  9. #59
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    There has to be some measure of importance in your morals though. Shielding those in need in my book comes way higher up my list of important things to try and do than being honest does... honestly

    I think the answer to this lies in the definition of 'rule'.

    Personally I always objected to rules as too constrictive and inflexible. I preferred the idea of guidelines until I realised that it was just a euphemism for rules that were poorly defined and rigidly executed. Recently however it has occurred that rules are not rules, they are only steadfast and resolute because people will fortify them to be so and expand them to fill gaps which they are not designed to cover (look at legal issues for excellent examples). People bend rules and as such the rules cannot be considered as rigid. Rules are merely those things which are set down to build upon like foundations for a house. They are not infallible, never were, just adequate for the purposes intended. This is not a problem as long as those original parameters are kept in mind, however people all too quickly forget such parameters and hence you end up with irrelevant rules.

    This same problem is the one which you have identified with peoples moral codes. They forget the parameters and hence their morals become irrelevant.
    Exactly.

    Well said.

  10. #60
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wildcat View Post
    Exactly.

    Well said.
    I think you've got to be the only person who ever reckons I've presented something well. We must be on the same frequency or something.
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 24
    Last Post: 08-10-2015, 09:56 AM
  2. My Metaphysical System
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 01-09-2013, 09:14 PM
  3. Greed Based Systems and Alternatives
    By nolla in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 211
    Last Post: 10-15-2008, 05:15 AM
  4. Commonly abused logical Fallacies..
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 05-27-2007, 05:54 PM
  5. World-renowned violinist versus DC rush hour
    By sundowning in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 04-28-2007, 03:09 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO