User Tag List

First 41213141516 Last

Results 131 to 140 of 154

  1. #131
    Senior Member Alienclock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    infp
    Posts
    118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    I'd argue that all of these things were selfishly inspired.
    And if you got rid of the ego what would happen. Hive mind?
    Do you have any idea of what the purpose of an ego is?

  2. #132
    @.~*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 Alienclock View Post
    The thing about good and evil is that it is entirely subjective. Its completely illogical. It just serves to harden our hearts and close our minds. Its nonsense, to me anyway. It serves as justification for the self righteous!
    I'd probably be willing to invest more in what you were saying if you actually bothered to qualify your statements.

    Using words like "entirely" and "completely" and other such things comes across as sloppy and careless and undermines (at least, for me) the validity of the points you're trying to make.

    for example

    Quote Originally Posted by Alienclock View Post
    I think the very existence of the idea of evil/good means that someone is going to have to get the short end of the stick, some poor schlep is going to have to be considered evil. As long as we consider evil existing there is always going to be a witch to burn at the stake, and something that we are going to feel justified in destroying or otherwise treating horribly...
    Why is this necessarily the case? Can't an action ever be deemed as more constructive or more destructive, regardless of the people who were involved? Good people sometimes do harmful things, and bad people do beneficial things... and the labels "good and bad" when applied to people as character traits are basically just the culmination of their actions over a long period of time anyway. So everything is based on the act, not who has done it.

    Thus, any judgment is also a judgment of the act, not the person who did it.

    We can condemn certain actions as harmful, can't we, and other actions as nurturing, without having to create a scapegoat or an enemy? Shouldn't that be feasible? And isn't it exactly what happens in a *cohesive* community?
    "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

  3. #133
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alienclock View Post
    And if you got rid of the ego what would happen. Hive mind?
    Do you have any idea of what the purpose of an ego is?

    Exactly. Salvation comes when the intellect takes primacy over the ego. You know how you'd say that you definitely would die right this moment if this brought paradise to Earth. But your ego may prevent you from doing this.


    The ego does not have a purpose other than just blind existing.

  4. #134
    Senior Member Alienclock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    infp
    Posts
    118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    I'd probably be willing to invest more in what you were saying if you actually bothered to qualify your statements.

    Using words like "entirely" and "completely" and other such things comes across as sloppy and careless and undermines (at least, for me) the validity of the points you're trying to make.
    ok
    shrugs...
    You want me to qualify what exactly?
    Maybe you could ask a specific question?

    I would ask you what did you particularly find hard or to follow?

  5. #135
    @.~*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 Alienclock View Post
    ok shrugs...
    You want me to qualify what exactly?
    Maybe you could ask a specific question?
    I would ask you what did you particularly find hard or to follow?
    Uh, read the rest of the post, for an example.

    (to be honest, it all felt haphazard to me.)
    "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. #136
    Senior Member Alienclock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    infp
    Posts
    118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Why is this necessarily the case? Can't an action ever be deemed as more constructive or more destructive, regardless of the people who were involved? Good people sometimes do harmful things, and bad people do beneficial things... and the labels "good and bad" when applied to people as character traits are basically just the culmination of their actions over a long period of time anyway. So everything is based on the act, not who has done it.

    Thus, any judgment is also a judgment of the act, not the person who did it.

    We can condemn certain actions as harmful, can't we, and other actions as nurturing, without having to create a scapegoat or an enemy? Shouldn't that be feasible? And isn't it exactly what happens in a *cohesive* community?
    I think that using ones subjective idea of evil vs good to judge another's behavior does not further understanding.

    Ideas like good and evil, are not used to further understanding, but are instead judgments. These judgments may be towards the act, but how do you separate an act from an individual? "People" are penalized for their acts... And their physical body ends up in jail, their person is in jail.

    We can condemn certain actions as harmful. We could determine what is harmful for our community, and can hold each other to those standards. But each standard would be different for each community, and each community is bound to have different standards. Now accross the community lines, calling these acts good or evil,(across communities) creates ill will, as one party would have to be the good and the other evil. Understanding stops when you call something evil. (because it means you have already determined something about the person, community, culture, ie intent.)

    Calling them evil, would imply that they intend only harm, and would keep us from understanding them, and implies our inherent superiority. I think that evil has to have a scapegoat because it implies that something is intentionally wrong.

  7. #137
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    I was considering something very basic, like genetically part of the human species (ability to interbreed, etc.). You know: Physically human and genetically human. I'm not sure how "evolved anyone is" has anything to do with how they should be treated in terms of better inferior or superior to someone else.
    I can accept that definition. Now why draw the line there? As I said in another one of my posts, what makes specisim the right line, but not religion? Culture? Race? What is it that makes that line unique to all the other lines that we draw?

    So technically, if you have a choice of whether to save a human life versus a parrot's life (for example -- suppose a tenement is burning or something), there is really no distinction between either potential victim, nor difference in what is chosen (as long as, in fact, you do try to save something... although I guess even that is not a given either, is it?
    No, I'm saying that the very attempt to define good and evil requires us to draw arbitrary lines. It is a requirement for any philosophy that follow this methodology to eventually invoke 'high order'. Christianity does it - clear line separating God's chosen... to separates us from animals. Contrast this with Sila from Buddhism for a practical example of the difference in viewpoints (from what authority does the sanctity of life come from?)

    By far and large, the mindset that you talk about here is the "spherical" view of morality. It is dominant in western - namely monotheism - values. And it isn't just a philosophical question; there is a reason why monotheism is prone to drawing spheres around itself, against other religions, cultures and so forth. It's endemic to monotheism, despite any overlying beliefs in peace and love.

    If you asking how I deal with it – I don’t. I subscribe to an absolute moral code that involves making the right decision at the moment it is presented to me. I do not believe in a universal standard, or the right moral choice (taken at the moment the choice is offered). I would save the person because the balance of life leans in his favor since I'm the actor and am human.

    Except for the fact that the trait of empathizing and identifying with another is built into many human beings by nature, so in a sense it's like a productive beneficial biological imperative... so doesn't that make it "good"?
    If you step back from the morality of empathizing, the statement that 'beneficial biological imperative' makes everything natural good. Bacteria is a requirement for human life. Disease can be viewed as a natural biosphere imperative. So is death. Ego. Ethno centric behavior. Lust. Violence (against nature, if not against man). Greed. All variations on humans, nature and environmental pressures. These things just are... Everything is systemic. Human perception of what they are is a moral judgment made to support other moral judgments - it ends up being circular reasoning, or something similar... ie: "It's good because it exists."; Mob "It's good because most of us think/act like it's good"; Authority "It's good because x says so".

    It doesn't change that it requires us to draw a subjective line since the basis for preference of the line is subjective.

    Perhaps "good" can be expanded to include one's identifiable, empathizable species? Or should it be broader than even that?
    I empathize with my furry dog, since for some reason humans strongly prefer furry pets. A few thousand miles away, they kill the same animal and eat it. They have ‘suppressed’ empathy for animals because it isn't common in their culture. It's trained, just as empathy for subsets of man are trained... slavery? Nationalism? Happens all the time – and is happening all over the world. Empathy is a word that safe secure people use. Tribalism is what we call it when we are fractured. Empathy there is a survival instinct and limited to the clan.

    Well, yes. But if there is no such thing as absolute good somewhere, then I suppose we'll just have to live (and die) with that, right? Or are you actually suggesting there IS some more universal standard of good that should operate in encouraging a stronger species to treat a weaker one with respect/benevolence?
    There are three main ways to resolve this;

    1) Treat others according to their own demonstrated moral code;
    2) Redefine the concept of good and bad to define the gap between intentions and actions (utilitarian viewpoint assumed);
    3) Define good in a non-spherical way (do not draw lines at all)

    Each has a different set of issues, yes.

    Although, getting back to REAL LIFE and not addressing universal aspects of good and evil, as far as my actual behavior goes in real life, are there things that we can agree are generally good (or motivations that are generally good) or not? Regardless of where a philosophical discussion might go, when the rubber meets the road, we all seem to agree on SOME rules of good and evil and see certain interactions with each other as positive-directed versus other interactions that are always destructive.
    These are foundational issues, which I tried to highlight above. The very concept of drawing lines implies a vastly different approach to morality, with very different tangible issues. It is not the universal standard in the world.

    Actually, I'm quite sure you relished every moment of it.
    *shrug* I follow my nature, but it doesn't mean I don't have empathy for those that I may impose upon on my way through life!

  8. #138
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    Dearest NFs?

    How do you go about convincing yourselves that it is not really there?
    Love.

    I'm afraid it's a permanent condition, though. No possibility for general improvement after some age.

    I think NFs have experienced more love than others within their families. And this is somehow set in stone. Every person tends to imagine the world and the other people as a magnified version of their own family.

    I know love is possible. It's within every part of me, that's how I've come here. I fail to understand completely WHY other people insist on making their own lives even more miserable by making the lives of others miserable too. It's a lose-lose situation. I don't understand how it brings satisfaction to harm someone deliberately, or to take revenge. It never does. It makes things even worse for both sides.

    I don't think that 'evil' (as we call it) is there - in the newborn. All problems come from bad matching and misunderstanding. I call this 'cognitive dissonance' in a group sense - it's what MBTI eventually illustrates. We are all crazy in our own way, but messing the wrong types together messes them up even more and they become hostile towards each other. That's all about failing to see what the other one sees or has seen. We used to hide it behind dogma or knowledge. But even knowledge is not enough, it's still subjective. Everyone needs to accept their own cognitive imperfection and then all parts can function as one organism.

    In the human body many systems are incompatible and can harm each other in direct contact - that's why they are divided and separated with tubes, skin etc. It's the same in society. Internet brings everyone together and it's like massive infection within the body - everyone goes crazier and crazier. But that's unnecessary. No body part is 'evil'. No human being is essentially evil. I trust nature to fix this problem eventually, we'll work it out somehow.

  9. #139
    morose bourgeoisie
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    3,859

    Default

    Don't read anything by Cormac McCarthy...

  10. #140
    Enigma Nadir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    MBTI
    INxJ
    Enneagram
    4
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    544

    Default

    What's radical evil?

    I feel like giving a superficial example. If I happened to consume someone, would that be radically evil, seeing as I've pretty much erased that someone from existence and turned him/her into heat? Nope. You can disapprove all you want, but who's to say that some happy-go-luckily cannibalistic African tribe wouldn't approve in return, seeing that by consuming another human being, I've fulfilled a critical need that is necessary for my survival and propogation?

    Now I wouldn't consume anyone, but sure enough, if I did, you won't be able to convince me of my deed being evil all by yourself. Let me do that myself. Judgments of good and evil are leashes for our ever-rationalizing minds. There's a reason why our chains of thought don't go along the lines of 3, sentence, comma, giraffe, Kiril Dzajkovski, yeah. It's glue, but please, keep your own glue to yourself.
    Not really.

Similar Threads

  1. Essence of Human nature
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 01-16-2013, 11:10 PM
  2. 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
  3. Is there such a thing as Human Nature?
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 01-06-2010, 12:07 AM
  4. Replies: 19
    Last Post: 12-09-2009, 01:18 PM
  5. Radical Revolutionaries in Elementary Education
    By Charmed Justice in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-06-2009, 12:24 AM

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