pretentious philosophy discussion

[silverwhisper]

that's a determination one makes without all of the relevant facts. i'd consider that not to be of the same vein.

but am i understanding you correctly in interpreting your statements to mean that evil is then solely defined by belief, or are you just kinda doing a riff on "what is evil" here? :>

ed

 

[Typo Fu Master]

I'm not exactly sure where I'm going with any of this.

I don't think evil is solely defined by belief, but also by the given definition: enjoyment derived from pain/suffering. So evil can exist, even if we're not aware of it.

 

[EJFan]

why do i mention this? to illustrate the fact that sometimes, solid definitions and yes, sometimes even assumptions, are actually valid.

ed

imagine, however, if you took those assumptions, threw them out the window, adopted a DIFFERENT set of assumptions and reexamined the issue at hand. i don't think that makes the original assumptions invalid... i just believe that it gives a more thorough analysis.

 

[Cathleen]

I have bunches of comments and questions (shock of all shocks I know). I have no particular order and perhaps coherent order, I say:

* Evil is EJ's av. Enough said.

* I believe evil exists within us. Sure there can be enormous goods that result from someone's evilness to another but the product can't be considered while addressing the original behavior eg.,evil.

If the result or consquence was the determining factor then all the abuses in the world can possibily be made valid, even seen as good or necessary. I was abused as a child. Does my success or failure have a connection to my history? For me, it sure does. While I wouldn't be the whole me, as I am today, if my experiences were altered I can see no absolution of the original offense. My existence today might also be inspite of the past behaviors.

I'm not a believer in hell and haven't come to a conclusion on the existence of a devil; in the way I consider the existence in God. But I do know that there is a place inside me where struggles between good and bad, right and wrong, etc. reside. I am in control of those internal debates. I had a moral delimia the other day. I could have succum to being hurtful to another or I could rise above it and move on.

What I realized was it was all within me -- there wasn't a real question of what I'd do. I knew I'd do the good thing, the 'right' thing. But it was my motives that created the debate. It was something in me that wanted to play out the fundamental question of will I or won't I do the best thing? If I hadn't wanted to be hurtful then there would not have been a debate at all.

I could have chosen either path. I also believe in free will and that God does not have my life planned out. (Man oh man, if He did then I've led Him down a few backalleys. I believe He knows better, and knows me better, then to try to plot out my chart.)

Evil is within me at any time.

* Also, don't we have to have a common ground as humans to determine behaviors as measurements? In terms of ethics? I think philosphy is seen in just about everything, sometimes it's the brach of logic, ethics or existence but perception matters - to the whole group - but we also have individual perceptions. I'm sure I have many perceptions that I've taken at face value - the value my society has given it.

* In the case of the Role Play rape. In and of itself, it has no societal lable of value, no evil or good tag is attached. It's play, it's agreed upon to be just that. The woman who was raped, became pregnant and kept and raised the child who later became a (insert greatness here)... there is no link in my thinking. It does not 'wipe the slate clean' for the rape. My abilities to work through and be free from the effects of abuses does not adjudicate the evils, and certainly not the person, committed against me.

I'm sure I'll be back...

 

[DLL]

ok heres my thoughts on God and the Devil....paid attention alot of thought went into this..ready....
anyone with occasional consciousness is painfully aware that there is indescribable evil, tragedy, and suffering all over the world. Any newspaper on any day is filled with tragic accounts of war, famine, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, suicide bombers, genocide, fatal household accidents, child abuse, pornography, a zillion kinds of diseases, murder, death, destruction, hate, prejudice, ad infinitum ad nauseam. And it’s not all due to sugar!
(cue twilight zone music now.....)
OK, cut to NY Sept 11th and George W. Bush talking all over the news (granted as a non-theologian walking a political tightrope,) but it was both ironic and inconceivable to me that in the wake of the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center, with him and so many other public figures (theologians included) talking about “good” and “evil,” no one I heard made the linguistic connection that if you just take an “o” out of “good” and add a “D” to “evil,” you have the answer to why the horrible event happened! What we see all around us is the manifestation of the battle raging between G-o-d and the D-e-v-i-l.



there ya go.....

 

[EJFan]

ok heres my thoughts on God and the Devil....paid attention alot of thought went into this..ready....
anyone with occasional consciousness is painfully aware that there is indescribable evil, tragedy, and suffering all over the world. Any newspaper on any day is filled with tragic accounts of war, famine, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, suicide bombers, genocide, fatal household accidents, child abuse, pornography, a zillion kinds of diseases, murder, death, destruction, hate, prejudice, ad infinitum ad nauseam. And it’s not all due to sugar!
(cue twilight zone music now.....)
OK, cut to NY Sept 11th and George W. Bush talking all over the news (granted as a non-theologian walking a political tightrope,) but it was both ironic and inconceivable to me that in the wake of the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center, with him and so many other public figures (theologians included) talking about “good” and “evil,” no one I heard made the linguistic connection that if you just take an “o” out of “good” and add a “D” to “evil,” you have the answer to why the horrible event happened! What we see all around us is the manifestation of the battle raging between G-o-d and the D-e-v-i-l.



there ya go.....

and... if you take that left over "D" and "O" you can make a whole new thing... god do evil.

eh... don't worry... it makes no sense to me either.

 

[Typo Fu Master]

I don't require a Divine Being to make me do good or bad things, but I don't think that was the point of your post, DLL. The message I got was that religion is a big reason why we have so much trouble in the world. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

People have done ill towards each other since the dawn of civilization. I think intelligence breeds evil. You don't see animals go out of their way to hurt each other for no reason, but we do it every day. I'm not saying it's the only reason, but I believe it's a big part.

 

[cloakedlover]

Cathleen: I believe evil exists within us. Sure there can be enormous goods that result from someone's evilness to another but the product can't be considered while addressing the original behavior eg.,evil.

I agree.

But here's an interesting thought....

Consider that each human being is neutral, as it were, and our life choices dictate whether we work towards something beautiful or not at all beautiful. (Which in life, I personally believe we do).

For argument's sake, snapshot back to the rape scenario of EJ's:
In their minds, both are willing participants. Therefore, is the goal something beautiful or not beautiful between the two of them, regardless if someone is watching? That third person would just be an extraneous variable in a way.

Now to a rape - this is a really sticky one here - somebody hold me up.
In the rapist's mind - he/she is receiving pleasure from the act, we think. However, typically the victim is not. In this instance, does the rapist believe she/he is perpetuating something beautiful? We know how societies assume an unwillingly victim feels.

Do we automatically assume that because both persons are not feeling something beautiful that it is evil? Does it require both participants to have a feeling that is not neutral to determine whether something is good or evil?

SilverWhisper - loved the geometry proof you brought in and this: in this instance, what constitutes the objective truth? who determines it? once so decided, can it be changed?

Isn't it the human mind that determines it through the participants, which can therefore be on display through the media (thought certainly not objective), etc....

And stay with me here - contemplate how the media has changed people's ideas of stereotypes simply through television alone. Have they indeed changed what may have previously been thought of as evil to something more neutral? (I tend to think so, in some cases).

Wish I had been here earlier for this post, I would've played y'alls devil's advocate. Sly grin.

 

[Quoll]

which brings things full circle to whether good and/or evil exists. perception is everything in life... it creates individual realities for each person. to that extent, reality is always in constant flux... unless and until one becomes omniscient. the nearer one is to omniscience, the more fixed reality becomes.

this is at the core of why categorically defining something is a hinderance. in order to be truly enlightened, i think we have to explore a greater number of sources than we allow ourselves to. for example: a bigot can't have as valid an opinion as someone who isn't bigoted because the bigot has a fixed perception and, therefore, a failed reality that's being used to define other facets of his experience.

For a prime example of this wander over to the GB and read any political thread, in my mind anyone who cannot listen, understand and appreciate ( not necessarily agree) the other persons point of view is simply negating their own position and therefore has no credibility in my world.
If you actually ignore every zealots post in those multi page threads you are left with about four posts.

I'm loving this discussion, I have so many thoughts but at the end of the day when I have the time, most of them are gone or I simply cannot put them into any logical sequence.

TFM
For an example of my question refer to just about any court case where the accuseds defence was that because of their past experiences they were not at fault for their crimes.
For me if they are mentally capable of distinguishing right from wrong in the society in which they live, then then they chose to commit their crime.
Perhaps this is another definition of evil, something that goes against the accepted values of the society in which we live, for the headhunter beheading is not evil, it's a way of life in their society.

Catch ya later people.

 

[Cathleen]

Welcome out of lurkdom Cloakedlover, glad you're sharing.

I like your questions and comments - excellent thoughts for me to ponder (I kinda sorta seem to spend a little time or more time pondering.

With regard to the rape issue (not the Role Play). Behavioral scientist have studied rape, it's origins, reasons, etc. It is a crime about power and domination. It isn't a sexual act but manifests itself that way. So given that, I don't think even the rapist can screw that into pleasure. The rapists behaviors and thoughts pre-rape are usually of insignificance, insecurity and rage. When those boil over his relief is rape. His (sorry using gender specific) relief might be ''beautiful'' to him but I think doubtful there too. As soon as his pressure was released it will begin anew probably quite quickly.

I don't see beautiful in any of that. There are people that are true exceptions, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, Joseph Kallinger (aka The Shoemaker), Gary Ridgway and of course Dahlmer).

I'm wondering why we're talking about the preceived measurement of the actions (separating the perpetrator and the victim I get). How did we get there? I think I jumped over a ton with that old black magic of assumuption.

Is there evil? Is there goodness is the natural counter question. If one exists does that automatically validate the existence of the other. So often we say, "You can't feel joy until you've felt sadness", and many other generalization that have been accepted as correct.

I love this kind of thing!

 

[eudaemonia]

Seems to me that this is not unlike the problem of reconciling free will with an omniscient god: if God knows the future of my life, then can it be said that I truly have free will?

{e enters stage right during a study break ... }

<philo geek> Compatibilism: Belief that the causal determination of human conduct is consistent with the freedom required for responsible moral agency. </philo geek>

{back to Plato's cave allegory ... }

 

[Quoll]

and... if you take that left over "D" and "O" you can make a whole new thing... god do evil.

eh... don't worry... it makes no sense to me either.

curiously if you rearrange those words you get... live dog do.

It also anagrams out to... good devil
so there

 

[midwestyankee]

{e enters stage right during a study break ... }

<philo geek> Compatibilism: Belief that the causal determination of human conduct is consistent with the freedom required for responsible moral agency. </philo geek>

{back to Plato's cave allegory ... }

Had a feeling you'd show up here eventually. When you're done dealing with the shadows on the wall of the cave, perhaps you'll return and give us a new perspective.

 

[MagicFingers]

My 2 cents

Good Lord, ed, this is a riddle wrapped in an enigma covered with a conundrum. I'll have to get back to you.

Here's a thought: If you believe in the existence of evil, do you then have to believe in the existence of the devil?

A quick thought, as I haven't read all this stuff yet.
Do you think all evil is created by the devil?
Evil exists, sure as rain and the Sun exist. What to do about it? I don't know.
My first thought is to shoot them all, but I KNOW that's not a real solution, and creates an ongoing evil of murder.

I do know that if you believe in the devil, then you must believe in God, for the devil cannot exist except for being the enemy of God.
And if you believe in God, then it's obvious that His way of living a loving life is a better way to live than the opposite, that way filled with evil.
If fact, this is true, even if you don't believe in God or the devil.

A loving, caring world is better than a greedy, evil world.

Imagine whirled peas

 

[eudaemonia]

Mind if I channel Socrates for a spell?

~!!~!!~!!~!!~!!~!!~!!~!!~!!~!!~!!~!!~!!~!!~!!~!!~!!~!!~!!~!!~!!~!!~!!~!!

I would have to argue that there is a god, but he/she/it is either notomnipotent or notbenevolent. Or both. Scary thought.

Why is this thought scary?

to me, greed is the root of most, if not all evil. I think that almost every action that involves evil was somehow rooted beforehand from greed. And I mean greed to be not only the desire for weath, but also power and pride.

Two questions:

1) Is it greed at the very root of evil or is it possible there are other precursors? I've heard it hypothesized by a psychologist at the Nuremberg trials that evil is the absence of empathy for one's fellow man. I'd posit that such lack of empathy begets pettiness, which begets miserliness, which begets greed. There are probably some intermediate ill-held beliefs in there.

2) You suggest that pride is a greedy desire. I'm uncertain about that. Isn't pride is the taking of pleasure in one's efficacy in the world. Wouldn't then pride be earned rather than coveted? It seems you may be conflating pride with conceit or arrogance?

TFM: well, we began at the problem of evil as a jumping off point, which led inexorably to a definition of evil. i find it usually does that.

Well, um, yeah. Rational inquiry is impossible unless you've first defined your terms.

to me, an action or event must be borne of conscious and deliberate will to qualify for good/evil. a natural disaster is to me morally neutral.

Quite right. Ethical action is only possible for conscious entities capable of conceptualizing and acting on intention.

perception is everything in life... it creates individual realities for each person.

How is perception by necessity everything? Where does this leave abstractions, either those predicated on postulates that we accept without question such as mathematics and geometry, or higher abstractions such as the good, the virtuous? We can't perceive abstractions, but we can't survive without them.

Also, I don't think you mean that "individual realities" actually exist. The fact that appearances vary, and in some respects are unique to every perceiver, is simply a facet of how we perceive. However, this does not alter the fact that reality exists independently of our thoughts, desires and beliefs about it.

~!!~!!~!!~!!~!!~!!~!!~!!~!!~!!~!!~!!~!!~!!~!!~!!~!!~!!~!!~!!~!!~!!~!!~!!

Okay, it's Friday night. I'm done geeking for the rest of the week. Time to chill with a level-5 Sudoko and then check out the new erotica posted here ...

 

[Typo Fu Master]

Why is this thought scary?

Because if it were true, then we would be at the mercy of an incredibly powerful entity that doesn't have our best interests in mind.

 

[eudaemonia]

Because if it were true, then we would be at the mercy of an incredibly powerful entity that doesn't have our best interests in mind.

What incredibly powerful entity is that? Are you certain that such an entity exists? And if so, how do you know that (by what means do you perceive such an entity)?

 

[Typo Fu Master]

What incredibly powerful entity is that? Are you certain that such an entity exists? And if so, how do you know that (by what means do you perceive such an entity)?

Actually, I'm agnostic. I'll believe in a great all powerful being when it stops relying on it's sheep to spread the word and comes down here in person.

My earlier statement was as close as I can come to playing devil's advocate.

 

[eudaemonia]

My earlier statement was as close as I can come to playing devil's advocate.

Ah. I grok your post now.

{Okay, really off now to goof off ... }

 

[de-valmont]

First time on the HT threads but this one took my fancy so I'm going to wade in:


As an atheist personally I tend to find the terms "good" and "evil" inherantly misleading. All too often what is evil to one pair of eyes can be viewed as good to another. Natural events to me are neither good nor evil but instead just happenings, there is no evil to me in an earthquake or hurricane.

Taking the premise (as I persoinally do) that there is no god / goddess or devil. Then the beings responsible for all human evil are us ourselves. If millions unnecessarily die as a result of a human catastrophe then it is as a result of a lack of compassion, or a lack of ability to prevent those deaths. If millions die as a result of a war, then it is due to a lack of comunication or a refusal on behalf of the body of pupulous of those countries to refuse to fight.

Individual evil is another matter: a child murderer could indeed be easily described as evil, and it is a temptation for me to use the term myself for such people. However humans are far from the only species capable of such atrocities on their own kind. When a male lion first assumes alpha role in a pride his first job is to kill every cub of the previous alpha. This is not entirely uncommon among animal species and, being animals, the urge to murder and commit other atrocities to me seems a manifestation of that primal self that we have spent millenia building civilisation to conquer.

Rather than labelling such actions as evil, or their opposites as good and thereby attributing their power to an unachievable entity. I personally prefer to label them as beneficial or detrimental, civilised and uncivilised or simply mislead. The fault when such people manage to gain power and cause untold damage (Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot etc etc.) is as much of the ability of society to forget it's role as protector of civilisation and allow these individuals to continue unchecked as it is that of the mislead individual. For individual crimes we have the law, for those against society we only have ourselves standing together as individuals to protect ourselves.

I believe this is best achieved by eschewing the habit of blaming our darker nature outside of ourselves and placing responsibility with a "devil" figure and taking final and ultimate responsibility for those actions. Likewise I believe it beneficial for those acts of immense kindness and self-sacrifice should be attributed to the human psyche rather than the influence of some omnipotent being who shone down on that person that day. To reclaim the concept of good and evil from the divine and place it in our own hearts is a noble aim, at least to my thought.

 

[Straight-8]

There was a great Monty Python skit on philosophy. It was a football (aka soccer) match between the Greeks and the Germans. The ball was placed at centre field and both sides wandered around pondering. Finally Archimedes shouted 'eureka' and the Greeks scored a goal. At that point the Germans argued that reality was just imaginary and that Zenon's paradox proved that the ball could not have actually crossed the goal line. Neiztche got red carded!

Speaking of whom: surely he demonstrates that good and evil do not exist empirically but are constructs of social organization. One of the lessons of history and philosophy is that mankind frequently idolizes or disparages anyone who ignores the social norms of behaviour.

 

[EJFan]

There was a great Monty Python skit on philosophy. It was a football (aka soccer) match between the Greeks and the Germans. The ball was placed at centre field and both sides wandered around pondering. Finally Archimedes shouted 'eureka' and the Greeks scored a goal. At that point the Germans argued that reality was just imaginary and that Zenon's paradox proved that the ball could not have actually crossed the goal line. Neiztche got red carded!

Speaking of whom: surely he demonstrates that good and evil do not exist empirically but are constructs of social organization. One of the lessons of history and philosophy is that mankind frequently idolizes or disparages anyone who ignores the social norms of behaviour.

i just saw this sketch the other day for the first time in a long while... brilliant writing, as usual.

nietzsche is one of the most fucked up of all philosophers... and i almost always agree with him. not sure what that says but we seem to be on the same plane in many respects. i think he's actually my dad.

 

[eudaemonia]

At that point the Germans argued that reality was just imaginary and that Zenon's paradox proved that the ball could not have actually crossed the goal line. Neiztche got red carded!

Damn! I should have started taping the Monty Python special that began airing last week. I would love to see this one sketch!

Str8, I think you mean Zeno (of Elea) aka Mr. NoMo o' Paradox in current parlance.

 

[EJFan]

Damn! I should have started taping the Monty Python special that began airing last week. I would love to see this one sketch!

Str8, I think you mean Zeno (of Elea) aka Mr. NoMo o' Paradox in current parlance.

that's where i saw it... they did the philosophers' song as well in that installment.

 

[Guest]