Infants aren't mean spirited.<<<CJ How do you know this?
On Mar 21, 10:34 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > "Mean Spirited" typically goes hand in hand with either "spoiled", > "neglected", or "abused". > > Infants aren't mean spirited. > > On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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. <<<CJ > > > Actually she was a mean spirited little girl whose parents sent her > > off to live in a convent under the loving care of nuns who nurtured > > her into a tender loving woman, so kind and sweet she was, until that > > day came, the day that no one understands, the day that she killed her > > husband and boiled her baby.................but the scientific > > community said it was just postpartum disorder, a simple hormonal mood > > swing, not to worry. > > > On Mar 20, 11:39 pm, 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 » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
