On 18 Mar, 16:33, Michael Berkovits <[email protected]> wrote:
> True, cold could exist only if hot exists. "Hot" and "cold" are
> cognitive constructs referring to the subjective response we all feel
> with respect to being in the presence of molecules whose average
> kinetic energy is higher or lower than a baseline number we feel as
> mild.
>
> What transcends humanity is the fact that molecules have kinetic
> energies. What does not transcend humanity (arguably) is "hot" and
> "cold." You can make arguments for "hot" and "cold" on the basis of
> other organisms that arguably feel. But "good" and "evil" are way too
> abstract, and those I think purely depend on human definition.
>
> re: Archy's post: In what sense do we contain evil and need a cure?
> From whose perspective? There's a reason some philosophers posited
> that humans are fundamentally good, and others posited humans are
> fundamentally bad. It's a definitional matter. (Unless, say, you
> believe in God and define good as "that of which God approves").
>
> Needless to say, I agree with Pat 100%. Sure, I'm a normal human
> being so on a visceral / colloquial level, I "feel" and "know" Mr.
> Fritzl is "evil." But we're not having a colloquial discussion right
> now. If I were talking to a friend I might say something like "Dude,
> that Austrian guy is so frickin eeevil." But we're having high-
> minded debate right now, and that won't cut it.
>
> Pat's key point, from my perspective, is: "Now, even I tend to coldly
> lump Mr. Fritzl into the category of
> evil, but I do so knowing that my declaration doesn't make it so."
>
Yup, and I KNOW that I, in true Rumsfeldian splendour, have no idea
of the unknowns (especially those that may take generations of
descendants to make evident) that might mitigate the fractional amount
of the 'whole truth of the situation' that we DO know. My declaration
of my perceptions is just that; whilst it MAY be a true revelation of
my perceptions, those perceptions are BOUND to be limited by the
amount of facts that I can gather regarding any situation and,
therefore, are, most likely, NOT a fair, equitable reflection of the
entirety of any given situation. We can't help but be limited by our
temporal scope; that's a no-fault situation.
> I join ornamental in asking someone to expand on why it is so obvious
> that good and evil precede and transcend humanity.
>
> I also posit this further view: Where does viewing things as "good and
> evil" help us, as opposed to the reductionist view that hey, people
> have visceral reactions borne out of a combination of brain structure,
> personal experience, and cultural absorption (part of experience, of
> course, but I'm breaking it out because it's important), and most
> people happen to have the same positive or negative visceral reactions
> to a wide array of things (e.g., everyone reacts viscerally negatively
> to the idea of killing a helpless baby).
>
Unless you tell them that it was, hypothetically, Hitler (or some
other generally despised historical figure). Then people queue up for
the job out of righteous indignation. ;-) Good and evil only exist
because we tend to put events into a context, which is, necessarily,
limited by our tenure on this planet. Put an event into its COMPLETE
context and you'll see just how 'required' every step was. It's like
the anti-teleology view in that, one simply CAN'T deduce, from the
middle of the story, whether or not there is an intended end.
> On Mar 17, 7:34 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Evil exists if and only if good exists. Both good and evil exist if
> > and only if a morality exists.<<MB
>
> > Does Cold exist only if Hot exists?
>
> > Cold and Hot exist only because we exist?
>
> > Good and Evil transcend that of humanity, that of human morality.
>
> > Good and Evil existed long before the presence of humanity and
> > humanity's sense of morality.
>
> > On Mar 17, 7:33 pm, Michael Berkovits <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Evil exists if and only if good exists.
>
> > > Whether or not a morality exists depends purely on what one means by a
> > > "morality." It's a definitional question, no? Clearly, people have
> > > moral intuitions, reflected in emotional preferences between options -
> > > certain options feel "right," certain options feel "wrong."
>
> > > There are at least two possible preliminary definitions of evil.
> > > First, is it having an incorrect or backwards moral map, such that
> > > actions that the large majority of people view as "wrong" are instead
> > > viewed as right? Second, is it the ability or tendency to act
> > > contrary to one's moral map - i.e., to choose and actually carry out
> > > options that "feel" wrong?
>
> > > I would suggest that this discussion is best carried out by focusing
> > > in on which question is being asked. Does the question "Does evil
> > > exist" refer to the first question, or to the second, or to either?
>
> > > Secondarily - and this is something I will have less agreement on - I
> > > will suggest that the topic basically turns entirely on definitions
> > > and hence not much headway can be made in thinking about it. Are
> > > there people who consistently choose actions, a much larger percentage
> > > of the time than do ordinary people, that are viewed by the large
> > > majority of people as being wrong? Yes, of course there are such
> > > individuals. Are such actions evil? That depends entirely on whether
> > > you assign blame to them. One can feel viscerally angry with such
> > > people yet, from a purely logical standpoint, assign no "blame" to
> > > them.
>
> > > Of course, generally in society we do assign blame. My personal
> > > tendency is not to do so - I don't find it very helpful. Actions
> > > exist in the world, I have visceral reactions and judgments of those
> > > actions, but I choose not to have "rational" judgments of those
> > > actions. It doesn't feel to me like it gets me anywhere.
>
> > > On Mar 17, 4:56 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > I tend to think of evil as a virus - though I don't mean I'd go
> > > > looking for it on the bench. We can all catch it, but probably get
> > > > inoculated against it too - though here we should also remember that
> > > > simple measures would eradicate malaria and we don't bother. I find
> > > > much less evil around when people will try to assess and accept facts
> > > > and take responsibility - our machine politicians don't recognise the
> > > > damage they do with their denials and public relations claptrap. One
> > > > can think of us infected by a Bureaucron species from afar, but I find
> > > > most evil is concerned with groupthink and rationalisation. Disaster
> > > > is very close. Cracking the evil of bureaucracy requires courage, but
> > > > this in turn trumpets the existential hero, perhaps Kierkegaard or
> > > > Nietzsche ironically urging us to ever more holiness beyond the
> > > > pretences of the holy. Most of the scandals emerging in the UK at the
> > > > moment involve bureaucratic lying by the usual suspects. We really
> > > > need some form of branding so we can get on with the cull.
>
> > > > On 17 Mar, 14:53, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > I think the world had a different moral code back then. No other
> > > > > nation stepped up when the US was wiping out the Native American
> > > > > tribes. Indeed, the Canadians provided safe haven, but did not engage
> > > > > the Americans. The ancient Romans engaged in genocide, as have
> > > > > African's - we can go on and on. I think today, looking at Somalia,
> > > > > it can go on for awhile before anyone challenges it. But we are
> > > > > moving into an era where globally we ban together and work toward
> > > > > ending this kind of "evil doing." We live in a world where this
> > > > > cannot stay hidden.
>
> > > > > Is the question, what in human nature is destructive? Or cruel? Or
> > > > > murderous? Here in Detroit, the populous has been electing members of
> > > > > the Kilpatrick family to office for many years (Mayor and US
> > > > > Congress.) After the Mayor was removed from office for abuse of power
> > > > > and suspected in the later murders of two strippers his wife took a
> > > > > baseball bat to during a party at the Mayoral mansion, the feds began
> > > > > to investigate. Wow. Did it really take something like that to come
> > > > > to our attention? The feds have not yet indicted, but it is rumored
> > > > > that the investigation will reveal that the area has been long ravaged
> > > > > financially by this family in payoffs and power mongering. Why does
> > > > > it go on?
>
> > > > > I think there is a level in our individual and group development, when
> > > > > we are so entrenched in self survival, and so need to follow the
> > > > > group, that predatory leaders like this can emerge and pillage, using
> > > > > rhetoric that speaks of group unity and identity, superficially
> > > > > filling the needs of the group while confiscating the less visible
> > > > > assets. New technology is not a be all end all for us - but the wire
> > > > > tapping, text message retrieval, cell phone recording does allow
> > > > > enough transparency that these folks have a much harder time of it
> > > > > now. My guess is, that for all their "evil" ingenuity, they will need
> > > > > to find ways to lead more honestly to survive now and in the future.
> > > > > Is it evil? Is it part of human nature or development? Has it always
> > > > > been here? Will it ever go away?
>
> > > > > On Mar 17, 9:03 am, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On 17 Mrz., 00:15, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote:> Come on,
> > > > > > Francis, you are an intelligent man. What are you saying
> > > > > > > about not knowing how many witnesses of the disappearance of Jews,
> > > > > > > Communists, and mentally ill people were evil? In respect to their
> > > > > > > dumbness they were all evil, of course. Their loved ones often
> > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > have focused on other qualities in them, obviously.
>
> > > > > > Lost in translation?
> > > > > > It occurred to me, Gabby, that the word, "evil" in English is used
> > > > > > somewhat differently to its German equivalent "böse". In German the
> > > > > > word is used much more generally, e.g. "Du bist böse auf mich,"
> > > > > > transl. "You are angry with me," "Das ist eine böse Falle," transl.
> > > > > > "That's a dangerous trap,", etc. "Böse" means evil, but can also
> > > > > > mean
> > > > > > bad, angry, dangerous, unpleasant in English. The term "evil" in
> > > > > > English has, for me, more sinister connotations, but I may be just
> > > > > > confused.
>
> > > > > > > So let’s talk about how that mechanism is applied today, rather
> > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > losing ourselves in yet another pointless ego debate. The main
> > > > > > > characteristic of that mechanism is the activated denial mode.
> > > > > > > Everything that doesn’t fit in your love frame of mind of yourself
> > > > > > > will not be commented upon or thought about but will be dreamt
> > > > > > > positively at night. When speaking of “revelling in the wonderful
> > > > > > > depth of Is-ness” you seem to have been
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
