Chris, thank you for letting us know that we can all be as clear as you are !
The clarity in your post was as ' the sun,' to use a metaphor. On Mar 21, 9:39 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 7:04 PM, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > How can something be both innate, and learned?<<CJ > > > I see a problem here on the interpretive level. > > > I said clearly......... "As much as we can accept the (possibility) > > that good and > > evil are innate qualities embedded in the psyche , we (can't rule out) > > that "forces/energies" beyond our physical space can have or attempt > > influence upon our action. > > > The content is clearly not a statement of absolutes. What is > > unrecognized are the variable aspects of innateness, ie; the degree of > > the good/evil personae. Take for example a crime witness quote "I new > > he was bad but I didn't think he was capable of such a heinous act". > > OR "I know she was a bad mother but don't understand what possessed > > her to boil her baby". > > ...and I opened with a reference to Russell's Teapot. "Not ruling out" > leaves a wide swath for speculation. I recognized that you > specifically weren't making an absolute statement. I'm referring to > the concepts of good and evil, which are themselves statements of > absolute judgment. The crime witness statements you are talking about > are not some recognition of any real quality, but an example of > cognitive bias on the part of the witness. > > > > > So there is a "degree" of innate good/evil but in reiteration, we > > can't rule out the forces/energies can have or attempt influence on a > > person. > > You've moved now into a QED follow up without ever having supported > your initial statement. I see nowhere where you have demonstrated from > the hypothetical witness statements how that supports an idea of an > innate good or evil. > > He was capable of such a heinous act because he was a progressively > degenerative schizophrenic. She boiled her baby because a series of > childhood traumas and negative adult life events led her to a crystal > meth addiction which so impaired her judgement that she quite > literally lost her mind. Neither of these hypothetical examples is in > any way supportive of the concept of innate evil. > > Also as had been discussed early in the thread, the > > > interpretation of good/evil is in how it is defined. So what I'm > > trying to get at here is that a person can have qualities that are > > innate and yet be influenced by said other. Might hatred be innate > > but not murder? > > innate > Adjective > existing from birth, rather than acquired; inborn > > Where would hatred be stored in an infant? Have you seen some research > somewhere that suggests a "Hatred Gene"? > > > > > You state factually "We are taught what good and evil are, not born > > with it." <<CJ > > > That is a matter of opinion, one that I disagree with. > > Actually, no. That is a matter of the preponderance of scientific > thought in the psychological, sociological, and anthropological fields > based on clinical and field study. You are free to disagree with the > conclusions drawn, but understand that the reason I state it factually > is because it is accepted as fact. > > I look at > > > people like Dahmer who, during early childhood without parental > > knowledge, already exhibited patterns of morbid interests, defined by > > society as evil. You think he was "taught" this but I think he was > > born that way and so are many other children that display similar > > (evil) tendencies. The same goes for the "good". > > Interesting speculation, but without the facts, it's nothing more. For > the vast majority of sociopaths and psychopaths, there is a clear > pathology, typically schizophrenia of some sort, aggravated by > childhood trauma. Minus the trauma which triggers the maladjustment, > the vast majority of schizophrenics can live a fairly functional or > even high functioning life...I'd hope that mental illness isn't the > "innate evil" quality that you're referring to. > > > > > If you spend some time in a room with a large group of one year old > > children, you can easily see the good/bad, which at that age is hardly > > learned. What children "learn" is what aspects of their (innate) > > behavior is unacceptable in our/their society and which aspects are > > perceived by our/their society as good and evil. > > I wonder what "good/bad" you are referring to? Being a father of two, > and part of a large family, I've certainly had many opportunities to > witness large groups of small children at play. One year olds are a > perfect example of humans in their natural form...selfish, not > understanding of the group dynamic, eager to play and learn and fit > in, but also wanting every toy for themselves. I've never seen a one > year old child I thought was a "bad" child. I've certainly, however, > seen all of us acting as parents, teaching them what is "right and > wrong", and imprinting our social mores upon them. We subvert the > basic animal instinct that all living things are born with, the > Darwinian imperative, which is to horde resources, and procreate as > frequently as possible, and replace them with whichever social mores > reflect the social system we are born into...and thus our concept of > good and evil are born. > > > > > There was a thread not long ago, chris, in which a new member > > misinterpreted your post about how children break their toys. While > > you were intending to make another point the member took it as a > > declaration that negativity was a good thing. You do remember? > > This is typical of internet discussion dynamics. Sometimes we need to > > slow down to understand each other and clarify content. > > Indeed...in fact, you also misunderstood me in an earlier post, when I > sought to delineate fact knowledge from faith knowledge. I suggested > that in a dialectic pursuit, it was important to separate what you > know, from what you know. I'm comfortable with the fact that I will be > sometimes misunderstood in intent or tone. That's the nature of the > beast. I don't let it distract my focus from the conversation at hand. > > > > > > > Slip > > > On Mar 19, 10:44 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Nor can we rule out that Russell's Teapot is orbiting Saturn, but we don't > >> entertain serious conversation about it. What's intersting to me is that > >> you don't note the contradictory nature of your paragraph. How can > >> something be both innate, and learned? You recognize in your post that > >> concepts of good and evil are fluid, and I'm sure you've experienced > >> shifts in your moral compass even in your own lifetime. Something which > >> was truly innate would not be so infinitely flexible, no? We are taught > >> what good and evil are, not born with it, and what's more, can be > >> "un-taught" it, converted, deprogrammed, brainwashed, or have that tenuous > >> understanding shifted in countless ways. > > >> The concept of Universal Good and Evil was one even Kant kouldn't make > >> stick. ;-) It still relies on subjective interpretation, and has never > >> been shown to have manifested sans social mores. > > >> [ Attached Message ]From:Slip Disc <[email protected]>To:"\"Minds Eye\"" > >> <[email protected]>Date:Thu, 19 Mar 2009 04:18:19 -0700 > >> (PDT)Local:Thurs, Mar 19 2009 6:18 amSubject:[Mind's Eye] Re: Does evil > >> exist? > > >> and then we > >> truly start to believe that there must be some dark thing outside > >> ourselves which forces us to want to do these things which are > >> "evil". <<CJ > > >> Nothing forces us to do anything. We still have choice, awareness, > >> rationale. As much as we can accept the possibility that good and > >> evil are innate qualities embedded in the psyche , we can't rule out > >> that "forces/energies" beyond our physical space can have or attempt > >> influence upon our action. There are no fixed perspectives or > >> absolutes concerning good or evil other than those established by > >> individual or group choice, for whatever reason. They still float > >> about in the opinion pool. > > >> On Mar 18, 11:30 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > Thank *insert deity* you're here, Michael. I was hoping someone was > >> > going to point out that everyone seemed to be making the point that > >> > Good and Evil were subjective ("Without cold there would be no > >> > hot..."), and then turning right around and following that up with > >> > something that seemed to imply they were somehow objective. > > >> > The problem with fixed perspectives of moral absolutes of good and > >> > evil, such as those handed out by a purportedly objectivist view, is > >> > that they can't possibly be such, and fail in scenarios which require > >> > moral relativism. Not every situation does, and some might argue few > >> > situations truly do, but some situations certainly do, or we wouldn't > >> > be able to sit up here and play "What would you do if a madman pulled > >> > a gun and said bomb the tube or I kill your daughter?" Belief in a god > >> > given moral set is the only possible justification humans can give for > >> > moral absolutes, because it's the only explanation which over rides > >> > the common sense which suggests that sometimes, it's ok to break the > >> > rules. > > >> > We further delude ourselves with this concept that our natural human > >> > instincts to eat, and take, and fight and fuck are wrong, and then we > >> > truly start to believe that there must be some dark thing outside > >> > ourselves which forces us to want to do these things which are "evil". > >> > We are not evil ourselves. There must be something outside ourselves > >> > which is evil. QED, there must be something good, and that something > >> > good can save us. > > >> > The premise is based on a flawed assumption to begin with; that our > >> > natural hungers and desires are themselves, not a normal, healthy > >> > expression of us. That we should all be naturally, unassumingly > >> > altrustic, and that to feel any other way is a sign of negative > >> > outside influence. Once we dispel that myth, and recognize that our > >> > conscious choices to become altruistic as a method for the improvement > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
