Yes, very clear Chris and I agree with you on all points. The concept of Good and Evil are useful for teaching children what's right and wrong but do not exist in the corporeal world. I remember some discussions 10 or 15 years ago about the importance of a newborn 'bonding' with a parent. It was said if this didn't happen in the first few weeks of birth; problems were likely. Environment is the overwhelming influence on personality, intelligence and mental health. Assuming brain damage isn't involved. In my opinion.
dj On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 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 >>> > of society, ONLY because better society provides better personal >>> > quality of life, it all starts to make sense. We see how we still are >>> > on the same biological evolutionary track, how sociological >>> > progression has occurred, and how the long conversations over >>> > seemingly minor twitches of semantics somehow seek to mystify >>> > something as natural as grass growing, and chicks hatching in spring. >>> >>> > Organisms all act in a fairly similar fashion. We do not spend much >>> > time thinking about whether a lion is evil when it brings down a young >>> > gazelle, and tears it limb from limb. Yet the same act in a human is >>> > "beastly!" >>> >>> > Of course it is. We're beasts. Some of us are better adjusted than >>> > others. This is not the influence of outside radio waves of dark >>> > malice. This is straight up old school Maslovian progression, with all >>> > the standard textbook pathologies, and we understand it a million >>> > times better than we did a hundred years ago. >>> >>> > Debate the definition of evil if you like, but the fact is, there's a >>> > pill for that. >>> >>> > On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 12:33 PM, 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." >>> >>> > > 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). >>> >>> > > 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 >>> >>> ... >>> >>> 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
