User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 77

  1. #21
    Senior Member Passacaglia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    647

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Little_Sticks View Post
    I'm not sure what you mean by necessity, but I believe there can't be good without bad. I however don't believe that includes evil. From what I can understand evil seems to be purely sadistic. Someone enjoys hurting other people, so they do it. This is different than doing 'bad' things because usually the intent of someone causing harm is for some reason, some form of defense, or belief, rather than strictly enjoyment. I'd say intent is everything, if we're talking about evil.
    What do you make of all the pain and suffering that comes about because of those reasons? The mercenary who kills for money, the politician who sells out his constituents for a big fat 'donation,' the zealot who tortures in the name of God, etc.? Very little of the world's misery, pain, or death comes from people who are just plain sadistic; most of the time, horrible people (and even not horrible people) have their reasons for hurting others. Which makes your definition of evil rather narrow, so I'm curious whether this is how you really see things.

  2. #22
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,628

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard View Post
    But there really isn't anything to agree or disagree with. It's a factual statement. If the issue at hand is defining what things mean and how they apply, then it is an issue of semantics, as that is what the word literally refers to. It's not the ENTIRETY of it, but's a major part of it, along with pretty much every single philosophical debate there is.
    I dont believe it is a matter of semantics and I dont believe that you would either if you had read more about it.

    You do seem pretty convinced of the correctness of your views and seem pretty content with that which is fine. If you feel differently in time there's plenty of material out there for you to consider.

  3. #23
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,628

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sunyata View Post
    Except the entire second half of the post.
    I think his posts betray a great deal concern about agreement/disagreement, although more so a concern not to be found out as mistaken.

    It is a curious thing to participate in a thread but to assert that it is all meaningless anyway and this is indeed an unchallengeable fact in an axiomatic manner, which is it, all a matter of words, without meaning or a point, or are there instead facts which can not be proven otherwise?

    There's so much emotional investment and conflict I wouldnt know where to begin with a discussion.

  4. #24
    Senior Member Passacaglia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    647

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard View Post
    And no, I do not care to define what good and evil is. You all can do that shit . In my mind I know what it is, and that's good enough.
    I've taken my own stab at defining evil, but yeah, I think for many people it comes down to "I know it when I see it."

    It just so happens that I saw a recording of one of those fundy Islamic beheadings this morning, and despite being a moral relativist in many ways, let me say that that shit is Evil with a capital E.

    Ugh.
    Likes Hard, BadOctopus liked this post

  5. #25
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,993

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by serenesam View Post
    If evil is a necessity (for the purpose of growth and development), where is the freewill in individuals choosing to be evil, sadistic, sociopathic, or psychopathic?

    This is of course assuming that there is no such thing as an outside Creator.
    Evil is natural. Or what we call 'evil' is part of nature, part of the order of things. While free-will is a necessary concept for morality, its concept is nothing more than the result of the continuous congruence of decisions with behaviors. Let's say I decide to raise my arm as an example of free-will in action, and then do so. There is no empirical evidence that free-will was the cause of the action, there is only the belief in free-will born from observing congruencies.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  6. #26
    I could do things Hard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Enneagram
    1w2 sp/so
    Socionics
    EIE Fe
    Posts
    7,977

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sunyata View Post
    Except the entire second half of the post.
    Oh that's fair, since that is me just expressing my personal feeling and disdain for participating in philosophy. I was under the assumption he was disagreeing with what I said on semantics, and based on the replies that appears to be the case.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I think his posts betray a great deal concern about agreement/disagreement, although more so a concern not to be found out as mistaken.

    It is a curious thing to participate in a thread but to assert that it is all meaningless anyway and this is indeed an unchallengeable fact in an axiomatic manner, which is it, all a matter of words, without meaning or a point, or are there instead facts which can not be proven otherwise?

    There's so much emotional investment and conflict I wouldnt know where to begin with a discussion.
    I participated because I wanted to. One does not need any reason beyond that so long as the statements are not vindictive to another person or against forum rules. My personal opinion on how I feel about philosophy is not a fact, and I would never push such a thing. I was meerly expressing how I view it. I understand the use of it, but much of the time outside of academic fields that's how it appears to me. What I stated is a fact is the semantics that are required for it.

    If you wish to psychoanalyze me though, keep it to yourself as I do not want to hear it from you, and it will not be appreciated.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I dont believe it is a matter of semantics and I dont believe that you would either if you had read more about it.

    You do seem pretty convinced of the correctness of your views and seem pretty content with that which is fine. If you feel differently in time there's plenty of material out there for you to consider.
    I just told you that it is. I pointed out what the definition of semantics is, and that it is a core of logic and philosophy. You can disagree, but to do so is objectively wrong since disagreeing with a fact makes something wrong. If you want to continue to feel that way go right ahead, but it's incorrect and I am not going to participate discussing that matter any further as it's quite clear you're not going to yield.
    MBTI: ExxJ tetramer
    Functions: Fe > Te > Ni > Se > Si > Ti > Fi > Ne
    Enneagram: 1w2 - 3w4 - 6w5 (The Taskmaster) | sp/so
    Socionics: β-E dimer | -
    Big 5: slOaI
    Temperament: Choleric/Melancholic
    Alignment: Lawful Neutral
    External Perception: Nohari and Johari


  7. #27
    Senior Member Little_Sticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,370

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Passacaglia View Post
    What do you make of all the pain and suffering that comes about because of those reasons? The mercenary who kills for money, the politician who sells out his constituents for a big fat 'donation,' the zealot who tortures in the name of God, etc.? Very little of the world's misery, pain, or death comes from people who are just plain sadistic; most of the time, horrible people (and even not horrible people) have their reasons for hurting others. Which makes your definition of evil rather narrow, so I'm curious whether this is how you really see things.
    Yes, it is how I use the word evil. Evil is a strong word. What those people do I'd say is immoral, but wouldn't personally classify it under evil because their intent isn't exactly evil - they aren't aiming to hurt, but do so because it's required for other aims. Maybe this just seems like playing semantics, but I judge people character-wise based on their intentions and not necessarily what they do. I suppose if someone judges someone's character instead on what they do and not the intent, then evil can be many things. But at least for me, I love based on someone's intent, and sadism is something I don't seem able to love in any context.
    Likes Passacaglia liked this post

  8. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by serenesam View Post
    If evil is a necessity (for the purpose of growth and development), where is the freewill in individuals choosing to be evil, sadistic, sociopathic, or psychopathic?

    This is of course assuming that there is no such thing as an outside Creator.
    Help me understand. Where did you hear evil is necessary for growth and development?

  9. #29
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,529

    Default

    The purpose of evil is power, as power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    So a totally powerful God is evil.

    And totalitarianism is absolute power and is evil.

    So a totally powerful God with a totalitarian ideology is doubly evil.

    Threatening to destroy the world with nuclear weapons is evil.

    At a personal level identifying with a false self and denying the true self is evil. Identifying with a false self is a way of having power over ourselves, and it corrupts us and our friends, and is evil.

  10. #30
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,556

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard View Post
    I come from the standpoint that good and evil are defined by humanity since we decided what counts as each. Even if we are gone, our definition could still apply, and it could still be defined within those parameters.
    If this is the case, then evil is necessary because good is set up as its opposite. It needs to oppose something. The definitions make a dichotomous pair. Denying the existence of evil in such as system would require denying the existence of good as well, and point to some other yardstick with which to measure actions and intentions.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

Similar Threads

  1. Is Dark Metal the root of evil in the axis of Fi ?
    By entropie in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 01-27-2010, 07:51 AM
  2. The purpose of pain?
    By Martoon in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 08-03-2009, 09:47 PM
  3. Replies: 45
    Last Post: 06-17-2009, 08:07 AM
  4. What is the purpose of Law?
    By The_Liquid_Laser in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 08-03-2008, 10:51 PM
  5. What is the purpose of Science Fiction?
    By The Ü™ in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 03-04-2008, 06:53 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