COMMENTS:
Yes, they can be clearly and objectively defined. Any sentient being has it's own agenda and morality, and anything that would harm that would be considered 'evil' or 'wrong'. Even more objectively, if someone deliberately harms someone else, and yet recieves no benefit, that would be considered evil.
There are no moral absolutes. Concepts of right and wrong are totally subjective. penis - I would argue that everyone receives some sort of personal benefit from deliberately harming someone else (the "hedonistic imperative"). Even a sociopath who murders indiscriminately is satisfying a curiosity. What if one of Osama Bin Laden's cohorts stabs him in a drunken rage - is that evil? And who can say HOW someone might benefit from violence. Terms like "Good" and "Evil" put the world in a narrow, black-and-white perspective, which circumvents an objective, rational thought process.
A better question: Does the subjective nature of good and evil make it nonexistent?
Woohooo, I'm so happy someone actually commented my poll! Go me! Lemme answer some of your comments : Penis - I'm asking here about the metaphysical "good" and "evil". Don't you consider it might be an anthropomorphism created by humankind to understand a heterogeneous nature? After all, nature is neutral and amoral, it's just chemistry and physics, exchanges of matter and energy. You say it is "evil" to harm another person. Don't you think there might be some circumstances to it? If you kill someone without even realizing, is that evil? If you harm someone because you have some sort of psychological problem, is that evil? Did anyone read Camus? Was the Stranger "evil"? And can you really do something without getting personal benefit? Whether it is to satisfy your ego, or your curiosity, like Applerod here said, don't we always act responding to the "hedonistic imperative"? / Togglerod - Not only judean. The notions of "good" and "evil" are almost always related to religions, not only judaism. But yeah, I see your point, man. / Applerod - What a smart guy you are. Can I have your autograph? / Jannine - If you admit they're subjective, you admit they exist for some people, but they're not absolute. I'm quite dumb, I don't get the question. / Anonymous - How can you tell Jannine is "evil"? Ain't that subjective? Or is she "evil" because she considers "good" and "evil" are subjective? ---------------- Oh, and thank you so much to all of you for commenting this ballot. You people rock. Keep it comin'!
by Smat on Thu Jan 29, 04 6:20pm
[+]
What I meant is, since they are subjective concepts created in a person's head, I'm not inclined to call them *reality* per se. But that bepends on your definition of reality - whether it's what is actually there with or without the human brain in the picture, or whether you expand reality to include some things that reside in the psyche...
In nature there is only creation and destruction. Neither one is "good" or "bad"; both are just *there*. In fact, if you consider destruction evil, then that makes *everything* in the universe evil, due to the law of entropy.
An answer already! I can't believe I'm so popular, Imma keep posting ballots! Ok, in answer to your comments, Jannine, let me tell you a short story. My sister once misdialed a phone number, and received a message that said : "we are sorry to inform the number you dialed does not exist". So she asked : "how can it not exist, since I dialed it?" I believe that, since we're saying here "good" and "evil" are subjective notions, they exist in some people's mind. And in case they existed independently of the human psyche, they would be objective. I hope this made any sense, since I'm pretty tired right now, but if it doesn't or you feel you have something to add, please go ahead, I'll answer it tomorrow. Oh, and I almost forgot! To your last comment, I agree, that's why I asked penis those questions. I love maieutics, don't you?
by Smat on Thu Jan 29, 04 8:07pm
[+]
It's just that I'm disinclined to call subjective reality "reality" at all.
So did the number exist....? I'm still thinking about that one...
Did the number exist? Well, if it didn't exist, she wouldn't have been able to dial it, neh? Dude, this is getting really complicated... Let's see. "Subjective reality" would be what Kant called the "phenomenon", while objective reality would be the "noumenon". By definition the noumenon (the "real" reality, the reality that exists with independence of the existence of something else) can't be subjective, and therefore we could say that "subjective reality" ain't the "real" reality.
Gee, I'm not sure I understand what I just said.
But then again, about the number : does it exist? Well, if it didn't she couldn't have dialed it, neh? I guess it HAS to exist, since her mind (in this case her clumsy fingers) discovered it. But let's not get confused. If I ask now : "Do green evil goats exist and are trying to kill me?", don't answer that they do because otherwise I couldn't have thought of it. The number exists because mathematics are the fruit of reason, green evil goats are not.
Oh man, does any of these make any sense? Well, if it doesn't feel to say something like : "Dude, what the hell are you talking about??" or whatever.
Oh, and to Henry Makow : I don't agree with the idea of conscience being the voice of God, since, well, I'm an atheist, but please don't think I'm saying we shouldn't have any morals and go ahead and kill people because, after all, "good" and "evil" are subjective. The thing is that, since they seem to be subjective (and if you have any comment to convince us they are not, please be my guest) we shouldn't be so narrow-minded and see things only in black and white, like Applerod said. Then again, I understand that the notions of "wrong" and "right" are necessary to maintain order in society. Otherwise I could just kill Berlusconi tomorrow and we would be here again wondering if it was right or wrong. I can see the picture, Biggus_Dickus would say that it is stupid to kill anyone, no matter who that one is, and I would have to agree with him. Only I would have to post my comments from jail.
Thank you for commenting my ballot. And if you feel you have anything else to say, please go ahead, you'll make me very happy.
by Smat on Fri Jan 30, 04 11:14am
[+]
Well here it is for you. Good and Evil do not exist in nature. We are not driven to kill our own kind because our neural construct prevents us from doing it. Those who are capable of murder are genetically and neurally flawed and not "normal" humans. There are many (most) animals who also lack ability to purposely kill their own kind. Are we to think that these animals are "moral"? No, they are natural. Animals do not have the capacity to form moral judgements. Therefore, human nature without morality would go on existing, much as usual, because of our natural drives which keep order even in a state of anarchy. It did for a very long time. It is a common myth that everyone would kill each other if anarchy erupted. A myth. And, Dr. Makow, this is a philosophical discussion, not a theological one. Gods and satans are irrelevant here.
I shouldn't have inserted that "most" in there. I don't know the numbers. But I know there are many.
Or the murders are performed in fits of rage
Is there good or evil? Yes. Man was created with the ability to choose between selfish and moral actions. If I act selfishly I am acting literaly like an animal, but sense I am human I have the ability to choose to do good or evil and MY selfishness hurts others (and ultimately myself). There is a certain amount of selfishness necessary for survival but we have been given an internal signal that tells us when we are acting too selfishly. Just because some choose to ignore it doesn't mean they don't have it. Any time I act I affect the world and the people in it. As a man I try to use my human powers (speech, movement, thought, writing, etc.) for good by being aware of the possibility that I could hurt someone (or do some other evil) by my actions. For instance: Even without deliberate action I could accidentaly kill someone driving my car; so being a responsible driver is in effect a moral decision. Nobody but me can be responsible for my actions behind the wheel, can they? Thus, even if the whole world says that murder is OK that still does not make it right for me to engage in. If Janine's theory of humans without order being just fine was correct then why worry about preventing big companies from dumping toxic waste into the water? Won't they eventualy stop on their own? Once you recognize what immense power we have with technology it becomes obvious that we are living in a perilous world and we could destroy ourselves and everything around us if there aren't laws to prevent one person from hurting another. Jannine: If you don't believe in reality then where do you exist? I once had a discussion with someone who, in all seriousness, told me I couldn't prove I exist. I went up to him and flicked him on his nose real hard and asked if he could still question my existence. That was the end of that debate.
Wooohooo, I got new comments!
Let's get started then. Jannine : Yeah, I agree, nature is amoral, since it is natural (oh, dude, it sounds so stupid to say that nature is natural, but yeah). Now, would society be an awful chaos without morality? See, I have a problem with your theory here, because there will always be "anormal" individuals, as you call them. Now, just between you and me, I kinda tend to agree with you on that "normal" and "abnormal" deal, but since I don't like to think of myself as the result of a series of chemical reactions, I'll just go on denying it. But hey, you said : "human nature without morality would go on existing, much as usual, because of our natural drives which keep order even in a state of anarchy". Now, see, I happen to have a problem with that. "Our natural drives which keeep order even in a state of anarchy", wouldn't that be a natural tendency to moralisation? To put limits to our natural conduct by the norms of "right" and "wrong"? Remember what that guy Voltaire used to say to Rousseau : it is foolish to pretend that morality is the fruit of society, since society is the fruit of men natural instincts. That's not the exact quotation, but you know what I mean. What a great guy, Voltaire. Anyways, please tell me what you think.
Lazy_N_Crazy : Ok, I take it you agree with Jannine, here? See, I think morality is necessary for the mantainance of a statu quo. Don't you?
Webjedi : Now, let's clear a few things out, cuz you lost me (see, english ain't my mother tongue, and, as a bonus track, I'm dumb, so yeah). Ok, I agree with that definition of "good" and "evil". Good would be the supremacy of "us" above "me", and "evil" would be the supremacy of "me" above "us". Another thing, I agree with the problems of anarchy, BUT (yeah, there's always a but) I believe that anarchy is an ideal that can be reached once humankind is more evolved. Oh, and I know some people find Descartes pretty messed up in the head, but you have to admit the man had a point. It's not a matter of believing or not in reality, it's a matter of having some sckeptiscism about it. If you don't, and never did, I guess you're just not analyzing your existence. I do seriously doubt about this reality. And you could come and beat the crap out of me, I still would. I don't wanna sound like the creepy philosophy teacher we all had someday, but you seriously should read Descartes. And it doesn't mean you don't live as intensely as you faithful believers of this reality do. I personally think it works the other way round.
Razeroth : Wouldn't that mean they are subjective concepts, since they depend on what "we" want to have absent or present?
Ok, guys, you made me a very happy person, but now I'm greedy. Give me more comments, more and more! I need more! Please!
by Smat on Sun Feb 01, 04 7:03pm
[+]
I was not the one that made the statements about "reality being questionable. In fact, I don't think anyone made them. I said I don't consider *subjective* reality to be actually real. If you don't know what subjective means, kindly look it up. Webjedi: there are species of animals that act unselfishly and sacrifice themselves for the good of their group. Am I to think that these animals are moral? They fit with our idea of morality, but are they really possessed of morality? I would not think so... what do you guys think?
I think unselfishness, to a *point*, is characteristic of our humanity. Then again, as Smat said, so are moral judgements...
Ok, ok, now this is a whole different subject, I think I'm starting a new ballot...
But let me answer your comments first. Jannine : those animals would be moral only if they had some sort of moral. They would be moral if they had the notion of "right" and "wrong" and chose to do right instead of doing wrong. We can't really know if animals have morality or not... but it is an interesting subject. After all, why do we always believe we're so different from animals?
Guest_a932a : I have to agree with you about the motivations of apparently "unselfish" actions, but, as I shall explain in the next paragraph, I don't agree with the reasons you give for the teacher's case.
Anonymous : Why don't you register? I mean, I never know what Anonymous person I'm talking to! Oh, well, I just think you should register, man, you sound seriously cool. Anyways, that's not what I'm here to say. About the teacher: I understand it seems stupid, but since the teacher had a sense of moral, the selfish motivation was the simple satisfaction of doing the right thing. But hey! If you have anything to add, I made a new ballot (yeah, how cool from me, huh?): the number is 16579.
Ok, everyone, I hope my crazy rants made any sense at all tonight. And, once again, please tell me what you think, and you'll make me happy.
by Smat on Mon Feb 02, 04 9:30pm
[+]
i think self-sacrifice is instinctive. Do you really mean to tell me that that teacher had time to step back and think "Hmm, how can I benefit from saving these kids?" as a crazed maniac was running at them? No way, man! It's a pure protective instinct. When someone's in immediate trouble, you don't think, you just DO. Sadly I think some people lack that instinct; their fear takes over them. I lack a fear instinct. I have never been afraid in the face of danger. I'm a doer. I do what has to be done, save whomever has to be saved (lol) and put myself in the line of fire without thinking twice. It's not a conscious decision, it's an instinct. Yet I do not believe that good and evil are real or that self-sacrifice is a moral action. It is natural. That's my take on things.
"I do not believe that good and evil are real".
Hey everybody murder and rape and stealing and lying don't really exist because "Janinne" doesn't believe in them. So I guess we won't be needing laws or cops or religion or government because now everybody will be nice to each other all the time since Janinne has abolished those things in her mind. You are like a hiding child who does not realize her feet sticking out from behind the couch can be seen.
Is forcing a mother to watch her eldest child kill and eat parts of her other children evil? This happens in the Congo according to U.N. reports (and of course they do nothing to stop it). I think it would be pretty hard to defend as either good or neutral. And since it really happens it is real. Therefore evil acts make evil a reality and the motivations for evil actions are also real otherwise the evil action would not take place.
A better question would be is there good in the world? Yes, but we have to be vigilant in understanding evil in order to prevent it and counteract it, dont we?
As far a subjective reality goes let me break it down for you in a way that hits home, since selfish motivations are all you seem to believe in:
All humans have brains and all brains deteriorate. At some point in time a particular neuron, lets name it #56732 in your cerebral cortex will cease to function. You will go crazy and not recognize your loved ones and shit and piss all over yourself probably for years before you die. Then your brain will stop working altogether and you will die. Can you predict when this will occur? No. Can you predict the circumstances by which this will occur? No. It is dependent on your interactions with the physical world - those that have occurred and those that have yet to occur. Does that mean that #56732 will continue to function forever simply because you do not believe, or do not have enough information on it? No. You will stop functioning one day and your disbelief in death won't keep you alive. So there is at least one absolute truth for you in the Universe: death. Future generations may achieve immortality but you will not. Thus you can rest assured that your opinion does not matter on that issue.
You've already stated you are "uncomfortable" with the idea of religion yet you "lack a fear instinct". I think you are deathly afraid of religion. You are probably afraid of not being in control and of being told you are ugly - or at least you will be someday. How about being burned by fire? If you have no fear instinct why don't you post your address and telephone number on this site to see if some of these crazy fucks can do their best to scare you? I would find it hard to believe you have never almost been in a traffic accident or fallen from a height or slipped and fell or been physically unfortunate in some way and felt no fear for your safety.
This is no reason to seek religion, but if God doesn't exist and we both die we share the same fate: oblivion. If He does exist and I follow His law and you do not and we both die you suffer for eternity and I do not. Hence, it makes a lot of sense to try to find the truth by any means at your disposal doesn't it? Why don't you pray to God and ask Him to show you the truth if you are not afraid?
In terms of animals they are programmed by instinct, much the same way a child wholeheartedly believes what their parent told them even though they see evidence directly contrary. At a certain point all humans become adults and reach a new level of awareness that animals are not capable of. At this point we have the power to do good or evil. This point is different for every human since we are each unique.
If we go with (yet another fucked up philosophy of Janinne's) and say that self-sacrifice is natural we will quickly see that most people do not have that "natural instinct". So I guess the elimination of all the people without that instinct are detrimental to the world and should be eliminated? Since you are sitting in front of your computer reading this you are not out helping orphans and therefore you must not have that instinct - unless you think browsing the Web is the best you can do for man. I find it interesting she continues to try to divide all people into good vs. bad even though she says she doesn't believe in either, don't you?
Deciding why to do something is a complex process and does not come instinctively. Reactions are based on many things and some people display self-destructive behavior that goes contrary to instinct due to their own fucked up reasoning. Overriding instinct is easy to do with training - you can do it with dogs and you can do it with humans. If you throw a punch at me I will block it dependent on all the variables that were taught to me through years of martial arts. I still have to analyze the information but the info has been "chunked" and is now digestible in a matter of milliseconds. Chunking is a very useful technique and when done properly can result in amazing skills. Most patterns can be chunked and therefore it is only a matter of motor skill to make a person more proficient than an animal at any task. We adapt by chewing up information, they adapt by experimentation which is why we always win.
As far a Descartes is concerned he did not factor in all three types of knowledge: 1) the knowledge you know 2) the knowledge you know you don't know (the exact number of neurons in your brain), and 3) the knowledge you don't know you don't know (the source of all the atoms in your body - which stars expelled the atoms that you are made of? You can't possibly know that since they are now gone.). Descartes wanted everything to be discrete and provable but we don't have all the information in the Universe so we cannot prove everything in the Universe. That does not mean that things we are not aware of - things we CANNOT be aware of do not exist: (What does the entire Universe look like from a distance? Obviously we cannot view something we are trapped inside of. What will be the name of the 10 Billionth human? Will he even be born? How many stars have there been and will be? They are created and destroyed and reformed so the number is almost infinite? What is at the "bottom" of a black hole? If Descartes had been aware of singularities he would not have said "I think therefore I am."
As for Jannine, since you refuse to listen to logic and want to believe all of life is subjective then I don't believe in you or anything you believe so as long as I exist all of your beliefs are irrelevant.
Every act has a selfish motive behind it as Guest_a932a and Smat say. It may seem sick and repulsive to you, Applepie, but they do have a good point.
But going back to the main idea of the ballot, are good and evil really objective? Have you ever heard of the Ik? They are a nomadic people of Uganda. They are an interesting tribe I guess you could say. In their way of life, you are raised by your parents only until you are three. After that they kick the child out and they are forced to live in the streets. There are no schools or any other community institution so the children will never again experiece the family we know of. The child usually joins a group of children around their age who are abandoned. The weak members of the group die or are killed off leaving only the strongest surviving. After they reach the age of twelve or thirteen, they split off and are completely independent. In this society they hunt only for themselves as sharing is taught to be bad and unproductive. Beatings are quite common as a way of stealing others food as it is taught as a good thing. There was even an incodent where an old blind man was beaten and left to die alone by his own grandson because he was seen as useless. In this society, greed and violence are taught to be good and sharing and kindness are taught to be bad, which is pretty much opposite of how we view the world.
So you see, what we see as good or bad is only in our mind. Evil acts or good acts have no defining characteristics unless we associate them within our own brain to what we have been taught.
Hmm...webjedi, it will take a lot more than the loss of just one neuron to do all that to you
Hey, I got new comments! I'm so popular, I can't believe this morning I was thinking about killing myself... Oh well. Here goes my super uber long comment.
Let me see what we got here... Jannine : I understand what you say about instincts. But see, the problem is my brain is pretty much messed up, and my neurones play cricket with the few ideas I have inside my skull, so now I have a whole lot of questions for you. Now, first let me tell you, no, no way, I wasn't thinking the teacher would step back anbd think "hey, what would be the right thing to do?" I believe it IS some kind of spontaneous answer. My philosophy teacher (and dude, did I hate her) once said : "have you realized how most of the time you speak without actually thinking?" Now, that's stupid (stupid, stupid, stupid teacher!) because if you didn't somehow think, what you would say would make no sense. although it's true, you don't stop to think what you're about to say before talking, because if you did, damn we would have long conversations. Yet you have to admit there's some kind of process behind the talking. You don't go and say "blaaaah treeopod skeeeeeellus", you say something rational that answers to your thinking. So technically, you DO think before you talk. But it's really, really fast.
And now let me ask you something I have been asking myself the whole day long : suppose there is a guy called Sam that was born and raised believing that every person with a big nose is evil, evil, evil, EVIL and MUST die for the good of all of us. So this guy Sam has a pretty normal life since he never met a person with a big nose. And then one day, he's playing with his loaded gun in some public park (how responsible from him!), and all of the sudden, a big nosed person appears. He immediatly reacts by killing the big nosed person. Now, do you agree with this? Or do you think he would NOT kill the big nosed person?
I'm not saying here that hate has replaced morals, and discrimination towards people with big noses is wrong, because it ain't my point right now. What I'm saying is he had different morals. And so his instincts where different from those that you have. Why? Because you and Sam don't have the same morals. So this is my question : do morals affect what you call here "instincts", or is this all another dellisuional pointless theory that should be banned forever from this website? Please tell me what you think. I personally don't know what to think. My brain is hanging upside down.
by Smat on Tue Feb 03, 04 6:49pm
[+]
Ok, this thing keep frozing over and over again everytime I try to post a long comment, and tonite's comment is SUPER UBER long!
I'll talk to LCD and I'll get back to the rest of you people as soon as I can, ok?
by Smat on Tue Feb 03, 04 6:56pm
[+]
Smat, I will proceed to read your comments after I tell WebJedi something.
Webjedi, you are a left-brained individual. Left-brains can never be objective. I do not believe you are cut out for this poll.
Additionally, it's not "fear" that keeps me away from religion. It's reasoning.
No, Hitler had evil objectives and there can be no question about it being evil. Japan had evil objectives in China, and without question the objectives were proves to be evil.
It depends on what you define as evil or good. Which is dependent on your morals and the level of value you place on others.
Being unselfish is not uncharateristic of the species. Not at all.
It actually takes a person't individual accountability off of themselves when you excuse lack of good within yourself as a part of being human.
You can be unselfish, you can be unconditional, just like you can be a scientist, or an astronaut or firefighter.
Its all dependent on the standards you set for yourself.
Where the area becomes gray is when you have to balance your sense of right and wrong with the reality that we live in, but the most basic characteristics of good and evil are very black and white.
Its quite simple actually. You have an obligation to those in your immediate surroundings, those that you actually cross paths with from day to day, it doesn't actually get complicated until you have to start trying to find the right within a larger body.
Only two comments? Damn, I ain't as popular as I thought I was... *tear, tear* Oh, well...
ApplePie : How very zen... I have to admit I always, always loved oriental philosophy... Please post a comment if you have something to say, this ballot ain't over.
Pedopriest : Huh?
Hey, to all the others, where are you gone? Come on, I was having a blast here! Will someone please say something controversial? Please, please post a comment! Pretty please? Pretty please with a cherry on top?
by Smat on Wed Feb 04, 04 4:37pm
[+]
Smat: I'm not pissed at you, I am pissed at Jannine. She is an amoral (unethical, has no human decency, hwatever you want to call it) person. She should be tolerated only because all humanoids deserve a place to call their brain, but IMHO she is closer to animal than human.
As I said, Descarte would never have beleived what he believed if he had known there were absolute constants, such as "c" - the speed of light - in the Universe. Light exists at only a certain frequency and speed and is independent of medium YET it is affected by gravity so we know it "exists" in our plane. It does not matter where you are or how fast you are travelling, light is a constant. Constants are ripe in our Universe and Descarte did not know that, otherwise he never would have suggested that existence can't be proven.
You could be a brain in a fish bowl or be some other being, but you exist in SOME form otherwise you would not be able to ask questions. THAT is Descarte talking.
Light exists at a constant velocity. No matter where you view it from or how fast you are going or who you are or what you had for breakfast it has the same properties. A constant does not exist if two different observers going different speeds overtake the light at two different speeds - that would be subjective to each of them. Light is not subjective. Light is light to all cratures in the Universe.
The FEAR of death is not what I'm talking about. It is the CONSTANT of death.You are stuck in the Universe until death. Death is another constant you will one day encounter. Tell Descarte to argue death away.
Jannine: "Webjedi, you are a left-brained individual. Left-brains can never be objective. I do not believe you are cut out for this poll." Does that mean I should stop winning awards for my artwork? I am an accomplished artist and many people enjoy my work and music. I also do computer consulting and programming.
Jannine says I'm not 'cut out' for this poll. OH NO!! I got 'cut out' by Jannine. How unusual for her to divide people into left and right brain categories huh? Categorize, simplify, dismiss, categorize, simplify, dismiss, categorize, simplify, dismiss, categorize, simplify, dismiss, categorize, simplify, dismiss, categorize, simplify, dismiss, categorize, simplify, dismiss, categorize, simplify, dismiss, categorize, simplify, dismiss, categorize, simplify, dismiss, categorize, simplify, dismiss, categorize, simplify, dismiss, categorize, simplify, dismiss.
Sorry, cerebral cortex malfunction.
Webjedi, if you were so right-brained, you would realize that you're judging me by completely arbitrary standards, now wouldn't you?
^ ^
0 0
U
X
Smat,
It's just a face, can't you tell? And IMHO means "in my honest opinion" or "in my humble opinion"
Hardy har you fucking idiot. Don't come on a perfectly good poll to spew crap. Your breath stinks.... you should stop talking shit.
Guest_656ca : Thanks for the info. But hey, in the case c was a constant, do you think this universe would be somehow ensured?
Jannine : I'm telling you, I'm 20 and I'm already old... Was the X the mouth or the arms?
Anonymous : er... no comments.
KarenFitz33 : Dude, I had completely forgotten about you! I'm so sorry... I basically agree with what you say, but mind to explain that "It actually takes a person't individual accountability off of themselves when you excuse lack of good within yourself as a part of being human" part? Oh, and by "objective" I mean it as in objective/subjective, not as "goal".
So that's it? Don't you people have doubts, confussion, indignation, randomness, something to say about Jannine, hate or love towards Hilary Duff? No more comments? *tear, tear* Don't you love me anymore? Please leave a comment...
by Smat on Thu Feb 05, 04 6:58pm
[+]
A pure, unmitigated insight into the virtue of your own soul - compounded exponentially by the potentially overwhelming, accompanying emotions. Yet, if you attempt, in some way, to fulfill that potential; it touches you in a way that, perhaps, most people would prefer not to be touched.
The concept of a higher power was created by humans to help dispel the natural anxiety that comes from not "knowing" the answers to creation, and existence. With regards to this, many people are not comfortable living in a continuous state in which they don't know what to believe. With spirituality, God, or, more specifically, a "divine plan", a tremendous void in people's lives is filled, because they have identified their place in regards to everything. Personally, I am comfortable not knowing what to believe. My void is tempered by exploring questions, not seeking answers. The best I've come up with so far is: "There is something going on here that I can't explain." And, somehow, my intuition tells me that there are many, many gods (or forms of God) that are very real. If you truly believe in such a thing, then it does exist. But that doesn't mean that what you believe exists for other people, and they are simply unaware of it.
P.S. Is it ethical to "labor" under the misapprehension that you are enlightened?
Smat, are you still there??
Don't worry Applerod, I'm BACK!! And I have QUESTIONS!
OK, ok, so you support that Descartes' conclusion to the cogito, the whole self-inspection thingy (oh, and don't think I'm being disrespectful to Rene, he's my buddy). See, I have a problem with what you said, because I'm not sure of what a soul is. Now, wouldn't that be a really nice ballot? Yeah, maybe I'll post it. Any day. As soon as I stop being afraid of people thinking I'm a moron. But anyways : what is a soul?
About the existence of a supreme being, I agree with you and that cool fellow called Nietzche. I also explore questions. And yeah, my conclusions ain't much better than yours. It's "I exist, and therefore I'm somewhere.". That's ALL I can say for sure. There is something I don't understand. Mostly everything.
But you say your intuition tells you there are many forms of god. Now that's cool. I mean, you're a polytheist in a world like this, that has to be something. But what are these "gods" you talk about? Are they metaphorical gods or real gods with a will and powers?
And as for the PS : Damn, I wanted to say that myself! I shouldn't have left. Anyways, nice comment. Hopefully won't be the last one, neh? Come on, post another comment! You'll make a very happy person.
ApplePie : I have to ask you exactly the same question Applerod asked you. Is it ethical to "labor" under the misapprehension that you are enlightened? What is your answer? Please post any comments you have.
And to all of you out there *finger points at a lot of inexistent people* have you any comments about this poll? Dont' you have anything to say? Not even "I hate Hilary Duff"? Come on, say something! Please!
by Smat on Sun Feb 08, 04 7:44pm
[+]
Ok, I just typed a comprehensive response... which of course disappeared when my computer encounter a "strange error". I'll try to reiterate my points when I make more time.
Hey hey hey, you apple guys! How ya'll doing? Nice to see you still post comments on my ballots, keep it coming!
Apple_Pie : -_-;; ...I don't know what to say. You believe in god, I don't. You're not gonna convince me just by telling me it feels so great, so I really don't think there's a point going on with this conversation. I can't believe in something just to feel good. I believe what I believe because it's what seems reasonable to me. Religion is based in faith, and atheism, in reason. We can't therefore argue about it, because, as this cool dude Saint Augustine once said, "Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances, ... and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, which people see as ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn."
I think I quoted that already somewhere, but I just have to love St. Augustine. I don't believe you can explain faith. You believe something, I don't. Sad but true, that's it.
Applerod : No problem, man, I'll keep waiting. Nice to see you didn't forget about me.
Ok, guys, see you around. And hopefully I'll get more comments next time. It's my birthday, you know. Wishing me a happy birthday would be real nice from you. ;)
by smat on Wed Feb 11, 04 10:17am
[+]
Happy birthday!
I definatley don't consider good and evil objective. Good couldn't exist without evil, and evil couldn't exist without good. If both are derivatives of each other, than neither exists on their own. Not without 'God', anyway. Isn't good originally defined by God? Hell, even murdering someone wouldn't be considered immoral, or 'evil', were it not for his commandment.
Interesting, the whole phone dial thing. Did she actually say that? What a cool story.
At any rate, I believe that good and evil exist in universal absolutes, but that they are not graspable by man. I think part of what life is about is trying to reach towards what the absolute of good is.
This is not to say that some things are not clear- but they are only part of the greater Truth.
I tend to think of it in terms of construction and deconstruction. I think good builds upon itself for a greater good. It is easier to uncreate, then to create.
To Applepie's question just above this post:
"Yes. Absolutely."
I completely disagree with Mange though because I don't see one being unable to exist without the other. Surely our perception would be skewed if such were the case- Can you define day or night if you have only see one? Only as a concept- by the imagine absence of that which you know.
Great quote from Augustine- but I don't think faith should be so hard to grasp to an atheist. I mean, with or without God, there is a great depth to existance. The fact that any life exists is one thing, the fact that the universe exists is another. The very fact that we're here -the natural- is just as much a wild mystery as the existance or unexistance of a supernatural God.
I don't know if the following is relevant or not, but it came to mind... Somebody once told me- I don't remember which philosopher they were quoting, but:
"Why is it everyone is afraid of the empty space that comes after their life, and not afraid of the empty space that came before their life?"
Wynter-
In response to your day/night, dark/light theory (which actually supports my opinion), physical light can be proven to exist, while darkness cannot. Light can be measured and sensed. You say that you cannot define day or night without having seen both- so if you've only seen evil, how can you know good? Could good exist for you?
My point is that without assigning an omnipotent judge of all human action, there is no objective notion of good and evil. How can something be a fundamental truth if it needs an antithesis to exist in relation to? The notions of good and evil are just another social phenomenon. Can you give one instance of evil in nature, and not in human behavior?
Sorry Mange, I was unclear because I wrote a convoluted thought. I'm not trying to say that you can't define both without having known both- I'm saying it would be difficult, that it would be based on an imagined conceptualization.
But that is not to say that one cannot exist without the other, or that one cannot be understood without the other.
However I agree with you that without an absolute power they are understood as philosophical concepts in relation to one another. I believe in an absolute power though, so I believe in absolute goods and evils- existing with or without the perception of man.
Hello there again! Apparently you're having a conversation here without me, huh? And an interesting one! Well, let me give you all my opinions about what you said.
Applerod : Thanks! :)
Apple_Pie : Hey, thanks for wishing me a happy birthday, and nice to hear you ain't mad at me.
About your question : you know what the difference between you and me is? You believe in God, in a supreme being that holds the definition of "good" in his hands. And I dont. I believe in men.
A level of existence in which the concepts of good and evil are clear and understandable by their effects on humans and the world? Yeah, I believe there's one. Just like you. But I don't believe it has anything to do with supremem forces or absolute truths. I believe it has to do with the human mind, capable of reasoning about what's "wrong" and what's "right". I believe the concepts of "good" and "evil" come from empathy, from the realization that other human beings are, somehow, just like us. And "good" is good because it is the notion of "us" over the notion of "I". And "evil" is evil because it's just the contrary.
No, I bet it's not what you wanted me to say. But I can't help myself. I do believe those are subjective notions. However, just to make you feel a little better, it doesn't mean I don't have morals.
Mange : Now, this is interesting. First of all : do you believe those notions are subjective because each one of them depends on the other and can't therefore exist separately? Is that all what makes them subjective? If they didn't depend on each other, would they be objective?
Oh, and by the way, I agree with what you said so far. Keep it going, man.
And you have a good point too, about "good" being defined by God. See, I believe that morals and the concepts of "good" and "evil", for a correct understanding of all people, needed some kind of superstitious impersonation. Don't you?
And that last question of yours... You're cool, dude.
Wynter_relevance : Hey, nice to see someone actually reads everything I say! Terrifying, actually. But nice too. In a terrifying way. Hopefully you won't remember all the stupid things I said, only the good parts, right?
Yeah, the "phone incident" did happen. My sister can be really metaphysical when she wants to. It's her mutant power.
But you know, I couldn't define night without knowing day. What could you say about it? "Its dark." but how could you know what dark is if you don't know what daylight is? "Its kinda cold" but how can you know what cold is when you don't know what sun heat is? "You can see the moon and the stars at night"-but cant you always?
If day didn't exist, we wouldn't call night "night", because it would be like that all the time. Do you know what I mean?
Now, I could define night only by knowing day. I could say "it's when you can't see the sun", or "it's when there ain't no light anymore". Yet it would be a hypothetical situation, only defined by the absence of what defines "day". Follow me so far? I hope so, because I'm not quite sure of what I just said.
How would you define "good"? You say there is a supreme definition which would be God. Am I right? Therefore, it would exist objectively. It would be almost like "sun". Something that exists almost tangibly. But then again, that's because of what you believe. If there was no God (just think about the possibility for a sec), would "good" and "evil" be still objective?
So that's it for the moment, because I'm tired as hell and I have lots of work. But please post some comments. You know I love it. :)
by Smat on Fri Feb 13, 04 10:33am
[+]
Smat-
Even if they didn't depend on each other, they would be subjective. The reason I say this is that I believe good and evil are the products of the over active imagination and superstition of the human mind. I don't understand how something could ever possibly be objective that was created IN and OF humanity's brain. I also think it's interesting (and typical) of humans that in order to live and exist by the laws of morals and conscience, a God was necessary to mantain order. Animal colonies function just fine without such romantic notions- sort of destroys the objectivity of good and evil, doesn't it?
Not sure what all the big words some of you used and some of the laws mentioned but here go's, We all percieve norms these norms can be anything from the golen rule to for the sake of argrument that a palestinain kid hates jews and jews hate palestain's they both percieve this to be right and something percieve is reality to the perciever. So in fact by that defintion they are both right because in there reality they percive there right so it is cub-jective from person to person.
Not really good with this evil and good notions did i come close to the right answer?
Good and Evil do not exist. In order for them TO exist, there must be an absolute perspective, which, of course, there is not. Example: An angry man murders his entire family. Is that evil? To most of humanity: Yes. To the worms eating the family's corpses: No. Relative and arbitrary. Actions are better defined as "good" or "bad"... however, this still requires a relative perspective.
Hello everyone, I'm BACK! did you miss me? :)
Ok, let's get started then...
Mange: First of all, about the "would they still be subjective" question, yeah, that's what I think too, but since you only said they were subjective because they depended on each other, I wanted to make sure you thought the same too. And hey, what a nice, interesting comment. I'm actually going to post some new polls tonight (if I have the time), and I was thinking some of them could be about morals and religion, so I won't give you anymore details. Just go check them when they're up. :) Oh, and let me tell you this : I believe morals are necessary because of consciousness. And I believe that's the substancial difference between humans and animals. All my polls lead to my grand unified theory, but so far I encounter so many different opinions, by the time I get to explain what I think, I will no longer know what to think. Heh, it's all about sharing ideas, neh?
Doen5167: That sounds so much like wht Pascal (boring french guy) said once: "Truth behind the Pyrenees, wrong from the other side." Ok, it's not the exact quotation, but I tried my best with the translation. It all depends on perspectives, neh? Well, I don't know if that's the right answer (I mean, I don't even think there's a "right" answer) but it was an interesting comment. Keep it coming!
Sgt_Hartman: Nice to see yu posted a comment almost on every ballot I made. Teehee. Anyways, "good" and "bad" actions are defined by a parmeter, which would be the definition of "good" and "evil". Therefore, if you say "good" and "evil" are subjective, you're saying the adjectives "good" and "bad" are subjecive as well.
Now about the way to define "good" and "evil", there's this book called "The idea of justice", that says that justice is sharing all goods equally, with some minor differences to maintain equality. That means that, for example, a psycho killer doesn't get his share of freedom, which is unfair, in order to maintain the equilibrium. Even if morals, and "good" and "evil" notions are subjective, they respond to the concern of justice of men.
Anonymous: Nope, sorry dude, but Bush ain't good for anything at all, not even to prove your point. I personally believe he's too retarded to even be "good" or "evil". But hey, it's a matter of opinions.
The fact that most of the people believe that Bush is evil depends on the sense of morals we all share. What do you think?
Ok everyone, that's it for the day. Post as many comments as you wish, I might take while to answer, but I will eventually. And who knows? Maybe one day we will all manage to agree with something.
by Smat on Wed Feb 18, 04 7:54am
[+]
In one sense morality is subjective. Morality doesn't exist outside the context of human existence. It is not disconnected from consciousness like the concepts of gravity, thermodynamics, etc.
In this sense, morality can vary from one localized population to the next because shared experiences and circumstances change our perspective.
At the same time, there are certain morals that all societies have in common. In this sense I believe that subjective morality is influenced by objective reality. Reality is a dangerous place and morality is one way to stay out of trouble. Over the past 10,000 years or so we've fine-tuned our morals to the point we're at today; complex legal systems and governments. You might even say morality has evolved. Like organic life, morality constantly changes as circumstances warrant. Over a long period of time the "fittest" morals flourish while outdated and irrelevant morals die off. Objective reality guides this process the same way it guides the process of natural selection.
On a tangent... Jannine wrote: "Those who are capable of murder are genetically and neurally flawed and not 'normal' humans." I have bad news for you; every human (except quadriplegics possibly) is capable of murder. The only reason we don't all commit murder is because of morals. Do you really think other animals live in some blissful, Eden like paradise? We compete against each other, but mostly against one another. Since we're all human we must compete for the same basic resources needed to survive. Every animal on this planet competes most fiercely with members of its own species. The only function of morality is to protect us from one another.
Hey there, everyone! I'm flattered to see people still check my polls! :)
*** Nice to see you came back, I_always_lie! Cool name, by the way. And I agree with you, man. That's actually what I was trying to point out by saying that morality is necessary for society. Jannine wrote that? When? And why didn't she agree with me on the fact that morality is necessary, then? And even better: where is she? *sigh* Oh, well, too many questions...
I believe that morals are necessary to protect us from ourselves. But why? Now that's the cool part. I think it comes from awareness. Yup. Awareness that we're alive, and that otheres are alive too, awareness of our capacity of hurting others and of others hurting us. That's what allows us free will. In case free will exists, I haven't checked Mange's poll in a while, I wonder what the conclusions are so far.
And yeah, morality comes then from a need to protect ourselves, but the way morality answers to that awareness may differ. The example of the Ik from Uganda Guest_huh gave us is pretty clear to me.
It's kinda annoying to agree with everything in your comment, I wish there was something polemic for me to say. But hey, I'll think of something. And meanwhile don't forget to post new comments if you feel like saying something! Anything! Even things like "Avril lavigne must die"!
*** Guest_b2918: Hey, welcome to my ballot! You know, I have noticed that too. Everyone believes that he or she is perfectly right, and the others are wrong. I mean, I personally don't think one can be sure of anything that is not based only in logic purely abstract reasoning (like mathematics), but then again, maybe that's just me.
I believe that humans are weak, and that they need to believe their opinions are absolute for them to go on. Not being sure of anything can be pretty complicated for us, weak-minded people (and I don't intend to offend anyone by using this expression, I'm talking about human nature in general).
But yes, I don't believe we should be so close-minded. I don't believe we should see things in black and white. We need morals to protect us from ourselves, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't realize morals are, after all, subjective, and that nothing is completely "evil" or completely "good". I believe in a deeper look. But maybe that's just the voices in my head telling me what to type. Anyways, post another comment if you feel like adding something to what I just said. I love comments. :)
*** Oh, Anonymous, I'm afraid to disapoint you even a little bit more, but I have something to say about laws and morals... So take a deep breath and try not to take what I'm about to say too seriously.
I believe that "good" and "evil" notions are subjective. And that they were created by man in answer to the concern caused by the awareness of his existence and the existence of others like him. And I also believe that gods and mythical creatures (notice that I haven't said that gods are mythical creatures, in order not to offend your beliefs) were created as a personification of "good" and "evil" notions. To create a fear of being "evil" (fear of god's punishment) and a reward for being "good" (afterlife). religions also solve the problem that comes with self-awareness, the fear of death. And the impossibility of men to explain the universe.
Now, now, that's just what I think might be closer to the truth, I'm not saying you're wrong. I guess we'll never know which one of us is wrong (maybe we both are) until we die (and in that moment I don't think I'll have the time to post a ballot about it).
Laws are a more objective approach to these matters. Why more objective? Because they don't imply a moral judgement. See my point? Criminals are not "evil", they're criminals and they're punished, not for being "evil", but by breaking laws created to protect us from ourselves. See what I mean?
I'm not saying here that just because they're subjective "good" and "evil" notions are irrelevant. Please don't get me wrong. I'm just saying that one shouldn't believe they're absolutes. Ain't that what was behind so many religious crimes?
Ok, that's it for the moment. Please post new comments, and tell me what you think. See you around, guys. And don't forget to post new comments! Please?
by Smat on Thu Feb 19, 04 8:12am
[+]
Apple_Pie: Well, I'm sorry if I don't think the way you do. But you're right, you don't have to listen to me (or anyone) if you don't want to. I'm, hoever, somewhat disapointed to see your short tolerance to other opinions... But hey, nobody's perfect, right?
And I'm really flattered you think I'm that cultivated. I haven't read Nietzsche that much, actually, I just read some short parts from his different works when I was in highschool... Ignorance is bliss, huh? What I post is just my opinion, I never ment to make it sound like the absolute truth. And of course, you're probably right about me being a deficient thinker, but see, that's why I ask questions. I post my opinions, and see what you and other people think about them. I believe I have an open mind, but I have a particular cosmogony, and so far none of the things you have said convinced me to think otherwise. Please don't believe that I despise you fot thinking the way you think. I just happen to disagree. Doesn't mean I don't think you might be right either.
I don't know if you'll get to read this comment, but anyways, thank you for posting what you thought so far.
And for the rest of the people out there: What do YOU think? Are "good" and "evil" objective notions? Post your comments and you'll make me happy. So? Are they?
by Smat on Fri Feb 20, 04 6:01pm
[+]
Anyone whom has encountered another culture knows they are subjective and that being the case disproves the theory of the existance of karma.
Bush call anyone who is against him evil.
I think they are subjective because different people have different morals.
They arwe subjective from a religious point of view. Evil was defined to scare people away. Surely if you were evil or bad in some way, or practise Satanic rituals to further the word of Satan rather than God, shouldn't Satan reward you? instead of wanting to steal your soul???
|
