spinoza has some good insight on this topic
all of his philosophies are awsome but being the NF that i am i specifically love his view of good/evil.I am familiar with him. We had to study him in philosophy.
all of his philosophies are awsome but being the NF that i am i specifically love his view of good/evil.
well he basically states that it is relative from a human standpoint and that everyone may have different views but none are right or wrong.I conquered the concept of good and evil a while ago. I decided to be that gray area in between.
What is your interpretation of his text on good/evil?
well he basically states that it is relative from a human standpoint and that everyone may have different views but none are right or wrong.
from broader perspective he basically states that good = things that are good for humans in the long run and bad = things that are bad for humans in the long run
he then states that there really isn't any good or bad because it is all going to happen anyway blah blah blah... ill kill it if i even try
course wikipedia would do a much better job at stating this.
its cool. skim over it if you ever have the time.Didn't feel like reading through big complex words and sentences late at night. Plus I like to hear others input on information that is quite controversial.
There is an objective reality... however its nature is irrelevent to us. That's what I've been trying to say all this time. Objective reality... whatever it might be is not useful to us in any way. Why not focus our energy on the subjective where it can be of use?
So we delude ourselves into thinking that perception is reality..
This is a very good point. Scientific theories often strive to be as general as possible. The claims of a theory are made so that they carry as little dependence on a particular point of view as possible. This is why physics concerns itself so much with the invariance of the laws of physics under transformations of reference frames, for example. If someone claims that they are exempt from a factual statement or its consequences because of their point of view, then they are unaware that those factual statements are formulated to be preserved across points of view. In any case, they must offer evidence (rather than bald assertions of metaphysical solipsism), to suggest that a claim has not captured some grain of truth.This is true.
And science is based on many, many perceptions of reality. And all these perceptions are analysed statistically.
Then other independent scientists seek to replicate the perceptions and analysis them, and then validate or falsify them.
What becomes very apparent in all this is that one perception does does not give a good picture of reality.
The important thing is to reality-test our perceptions.
It is somewhat trivially true to say that each of us has only our own subjective experience of the world to go on, never anything more. But we are perfectly capable of generalizing experiences which seem to share certain commonalities, and then putting these general claims to experiment to see if we have made a correct generalization or not. The very essence of explanation and cognition is, indeed, generalization. We may observe other people engaged in their process of inquiry and, if they arrive at the same conclusions, then it is very difficult to advance the claim that each of us has some private reality or truth which others do not have.
If someone claims that they are exempt from a factual statement or its consequences because of their point of view, then they are unaware that those factual statements are formulated to be preserved across points of view.
In any case, they must offer evidence... to suggest that a claim has not captured some grain of truth.
Oh, I see. You were using the movie Devil's Advocate as an example rather than saying that the argument was being done pro bono. Sorry about the confusion. I think examining the implications of any brain in a vat scenario will do just as well. I'll write something about that later this week.
The biases of cognition are not arbitrary.