--- Begin Message ---
Lack of exhibition does not substantiate the claim. Evil does not
imply that a newborn should immediately do a 360 headspin, hiss and
spit blood out at you. This in no way indicates that evil does not
exist within a person or that it may manifest at a later date and
time, especially if there is intent, such as may be the case with
little Tim Kretschmer and Thomas Sullivan Jr (link).
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/01/11/nyregion/boy-kills-mother-and-himself.html?sec=health
There are numerous other examples of course and whether or not they
are attributed to evil is speculation without any means of
establishing factual evidence.
The argument of evil, or the evil argument, remains problematic in
that we can only deduce from a set premise only to reach a fallible
conclusion. We cannot prove or disprove the existence of evil but
only present assertions laden with ambiguity and perplexities and
there are no uniform opinions on the matter other than those of
segmented groups within society that deem evil existence as a
necessity to their function. Maybe we can simply eradicate evil
entirely by ruling out its existence through euphemistic tactic and
rid ourselves of it for good and the world can live in peace, and find
closure, of course. lol :-)
On Mar 21, 7:04 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote:
> Because they exhibit zero evidence of such. They exhibit only evidence
> that they are hungry, tired, or uncomfortable, and when the
> appropriate stimulus is applied, they become peaceful. Have you ever
> seen behaviour from an infant that you consider to be truly mean
> spirited that could not be more accurately attributed to another more
> common infantile behaviour?
>
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > 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
>
> ...
>
> 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
--- End Message ---
