There is no such thing as evil
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-06-2014, 12:44 PM
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(19-06-2014 07:57 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Nope. It's going to sound like mental gymnastics, but that's the reason why philosophy is an elite discipline.

Don't worry about bragging about how awesome philosophy is. Your arguments stand on their own merit or they don't. I'm not concerned with an appeal to authority.


(19-06-2014 07:57 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I am not attributing ownership rights to an object. You are attributing them to yourself when you pick some object. By that act YOU say, "ownership rights exist". And when you say that, you will understand what if someone else already has claimed this object. If you are healthy and rational, you will be consistent. If you can claim ownership, other people can claim ownership too. If you want to keep the object indefinitely, someone else who came first might want to keep the object indefinitely. Freedom for you is freedom for me. Consistency, consistency, consistency.

You're basically arguing the basis of social contract. I agree with this. I just don't think it's objective. It's a subjective evaluation of objective facts, and we both happen to share this opinion. We objectively accomplish more when we work together, and we subjectively evaluate this as good.


(19-06-2014 07:57 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Humans can and do have ownership rights by default. We own everything we make. If we didn't, you wouldn't know who said these words, but you do, because I own my words.


How? Souls? You're making a soul argument.


(19-06-2014 07:57 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Even thieves respect the existence of property rights, because they want to get themselves some property. Thieves are just very hypocrital on top of that.


No. Thieves want stuff. There is a difference between physically having an object and claiming a right to it. One of those doesn't actually do anything unless other people agree it does.

What's more useful?
  • Physically having an ice cream cone you stole and eating it, or
  • Having your ice cream stolen and talking incessantly about your property rights while the other guy eats it in front of you?
Property rights don't do anything. Society agreeing to abide by them is what gets stuff done. Your rights will never get you your stuff back; people do that.


(19-06-2014 07:57 AM)Luminon Wrote:  The ownership rights exist in our minds, in our brains, which are real and part of the world. They are no less real than software that directs city traffic or global stock markets. They are by no means powerless! Civilizations rise and fall directed by minds. The surface of Earth is changed by machines directed by human minds.

So, you're saying that ownership rights are just as real as the unicorn I just imagined right now, by virtue of it originating from my physical brain? This explains a lot, actually.


(19-06-2014 07:57 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Nope! It's human. Humans objectively exist and so their properties are objective too. You can not have your own opinion without the principle of human dignity (integrity). If you assert your opinion, you assert your integrity, even if you say that there is no principle of human dignity, you're just using it. It's a self-detonating statement. The principles are already here by default, only our language is too dumb to reflect them accurately.

Objective things about humans are:
  • We (generally) have two eyes
  • We have more complex brains than other animals
  • We're mammals
  • We're capable of forming opinions
That doesn't make the opinions in and of themselves objective. It only makes their existence objective.


(19-06-2014 07:57 AM)Luminon Wrote:  That's why we need philosophers.

There is, if you understand general systems theory, or at least something of automation and cybernetics, or if you study sociology or are really good at philosophy. When you get this education, these things will be self-evident to you. But lots of things aren't self-evident if you don't have the education. We can't even see the magnetic fields and electrons with bare eye. And you can't go back to the first principles if you aren't a philosopher. We are not all equally competent at some things. I can't teach you everything I know so that you agree with me. So we have to ask the practical questions.

Again, stop bragging. It makes your position look weak. It stands on it's own, or it doesn't.


(19-06-2014 07:57 AM)Luminon Wrote:  It's not nonfalsifiable. It's just that you can't think of empirical counter-evidence.

Like souls?


(19-06-2014 07:57 AM)Luminon Wrote:  And that is all right, because in rational method, we can make valid proposals about how the reality works and they are valid as long as they are internally consistent. In rational method, proof is much easier and stronger than empirically.

This sounds like an unsupported claim that you are simply asserting.


(19-06-2014 07:57 AM)Luminon Wrote:  We can choose not to obey the objective moral principles, but then there is no civilization. We can choose to obey them partially and hypocritally, but then there is the boom and bust of economies and empires with much suffering. Every time there is a rise in wealth, a nation goes to war, because that's the only way how politicians can make themselves necessary again.

Get rid of that idea that whatever is behind the layer of bone that is human skull, doesn't exist or isn't effective. You might as well say that a computer processor is not real, effective or objective, because it is hidden deep behind a computer casing. Nope, processors are enormously powerful things and humans have the most powerful one of all. So powerful, that they have a terrible choice of not using it.

Again: I'm not arguing against social contract. We accomplish more together than on our own. This is an objective fact; however, you and I subjectively evaluate it as good.

I never said brains weren't real. I never even said people don't have opinions. I'm saying that they're subjective.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RobbyPants's post
19-06-2014, 12:52 PM
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(19-06-2014 12:03 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Most resources are non-renewable at human scales.

Deal with it.
Reality is more complex than that. Deal with it, you Malthusian devil.

(19-06-2014 12:03 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I've said a couple times before that I ought to stop bothering attempting to engage with you (notably, the times you've thoroughly, petulantly, maliciously, and ignorantly insulted and denigrated vast swathes of society). This is an excellent illustration of where that impulse arises.
Laugh out load Yeah, me denigrating society! I think society is already good at it. Bombing, money printing and child-beating, that's what society does or approves or does not care about.

(19-06-2014 12:03 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Not only do you not understand the point I was making (witness your straw man!) but your response to that misunderstanding is even more pathetic.
Well, your argument was so meaningless that the straw man actually more meaningful than the original version.

(19-06-2014 12:03 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You have far less depth than I had hoped if that's what you manage to push out. "I am exclusively and objectively correct because I feel like I am, and that proves it"; how nice for you. Funny how many billions of other people feel the same. You can't all be right. Oh, but I forgot: you call yourself objective. Well; clearly that settles that.

Now, instead of even attempting to understand and address the flaws and shortcomings amply pointed out to you in your bloviating screed, you've decided that the problem lies with me. Perhaps in your insane worldview this even makes sense. It does not.

I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Nah, I know exactly what do you want. You don't grant people any credit unless they change themselves to your image. You present a set of hoops and you expect me to jump through them, that's the academia approach. You know what? This isn't a goddamn test.
I don't see academia solving global problems. What worse, I don't see you thinking of new solutions. The way you think, there is nothing new about it. So I really don't have any respect to your knowledge and I refuse to answer in a prescribed way. I'm sure your knowledge is specialized and difficult and 100 % true, verified and peer-reviewed, but it doesn't solve global social problems. It doesn't even recognize and address them. It doesn't even tell you to start topics about them. It doesn't make you question cultural values, questioning religion and woo woo is your limit.

None of what you said is constructive, creative or problem-solving. I think you're a wonderful example of a sane, well-proven stagnation and I hope everyone on the forum sees that. The world is full of broken, conservative and hopeless people. Maybe the younger ones will see that there is a way to challenge the authorities. Authorities tend to suck, when they aren't challenged regularly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-06-2014, 12:57 PM
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(19-06-2014 12:52 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(19-06-2014 12:03 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Most resources are non-renewable at human scales.

Deal with it.
Reality is more complex than that. Deal with it, you Malthusian devil.

(19-06-2014 12:03 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I've said a couple times before that I ought to stop bothering attempting to engage with you (notably, the times you've thoroughly, petulantly, maliciously, and ignorantly insulted and denigrated vast swathes of society). This is an excellent illustration of where that impulse arises.
Laugh out load Yeah, me denigrating society! I think society is already good at it. Bombing, money printing and child-beating, that's what society does or approves or does not care about.

(19-06-2014 12:03 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Not only do you not understand the point I was making (witness your straw man!) but your response to that misunderstanding is even more pathetic.
Well, your argument was so meaningless that the straw man actually more meaningful than the original version.

(19-06-2014 12:03 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You have far less depth than I had hoped if that's what you manage to push out. "I am exclusively and objectively correct because I feel like I am, and that proves it"; how nice for you. Funny how many billions of other people feel the same. You can't all be right. Oh, but I forgot: you call yourself objective. Well; clearly that settles that.

Now, instead of even attempting to understand and address the flaws and shortcomings amply pointed out to you in your bloviating screed, you've decided that the problem lies with me. Perhaps in your insane worldview this even makes sense. It does not.

I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Nah, I know exactly what do you want. You don't grant people any credit unless they change themselves to your image. You present a set of hoops and you expect me to jump through them, that's the academia approach. You know what? This isn't a goddamn test.
I don't see academia solving global problems. What worse, I don't see you thinking of new solutions. The way you think, there is nothing new about it. So I really don't have any respect to your knowledge and I refuse to answer in a prescribed way. I'm sure your knowledge is specialized and difficult and 100 % true, verified and peer-reviewed, but it doesn't solve global social problems. It doesn't even recognize and address them. It doesn't even tell you to start topics about them. It doesn't make you question cultural values, questioning religion and woo woo is your limit.

None of what you said is constructive, creative or problem-solving. I think you're a wonderful example of a sane, well-proven stagnation and I hope everyone on the forum sees that. The world is full of broken, conservative and hopeless people. Maybe the younger ones will see that there is a way to challenge the authorities. Authorities tend to suck, when they aren't challenged regularly.

And you just went full blown gibbering madman.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-06-2014, 01:17 PM
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(19-06-2014 12:52 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(19-06-2014 12:03 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Most resources are non-renewable at human scales.

Deal with it.
Reality is more complex than that. Deal with it, you Malthusian devil.

Nice try, but vacuously asserting things doesn't make them true.

You got any substance to that facetious claim?

Most resources are non-renewable at human scales. That's a fact. Accept it, deny it, eat your own turds, do whatever you like, but it won't change facts.

(19-06-2014 12:52 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(19-06-2014 12:03 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I've said a couple times before that I ought to stop bothering attempting to engage with you (notably, the times you've thoroughly, petulantly, maliciously, and ignorantly insulted and denigrated vast swathes of society). This is an excellent illustration of where that impulse arises.
Laugh out load Yeah, me denigrating society! I think society is already good at it. Bombing, money printing and child-beating, that's what society does or approves or does not care about.

Just so long as you're clear on what your own stance is.

I tend to find self-obsessed blanket condemnations and holier-than-thou sanctimonious douchebaggery rather the opposite of compelling or engaging. You are, of course, still free to prefer them.

I would simply caution you against expecting much productivity from that avenue.

(19-06-2014 12:52 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(19-06-2014 12:03 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Not only do you not understand the point I was making (witness your straw man!) but your response to that misunderstanding is even more pathetic.
Well, your argument was so meaningless that the straw man actually more meaningful than the original version.

Commendable evasion, my good man. Simply commendable.

(19-06-2014 12:52 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(19-06-2014 12:03 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You have far less depth than I had hoped if that's what you manage to push out. "I am exclusively and objectively correct because I feel like I am, and that proves it"; how nice for you. Funny how many billions of other people feel the same. You can't all be right. Oh, but I forgot: you call yourself objective. Well; clearly that settles that.

Now, instead of even attempting to understand and address the flaws and shortcomings amply pointed out to you in your bloviating screed, you've decided that the problem lies with me. Perhaps in your insane worldview this even makes sense. It does not.

I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Nah, I know exactly what do you want.

Sweet noodly appendage.

This'll be good.

No, really. Why don't you tell me what I think.

(19-06-2014 12:52 PM)Luminon Wrote:  You don't grant people any credit unless they change themselves to your image. You present a set of hoops and you expect me to jump through them, that's the academia approach. You know what? This isn't a goddamn test.

What the actual fuck?

(19-06-2014 12:52 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I don't see academia solving global problems.

Wait, so who invented electricity, agriculture, and computers, again?

(19-06-2014 12:52 PM)Luminon Wrote:  What worse, I don't see you thinking of new solutions.

And your basis for making this insane declaration is... ?

That I don't particularly agree with your nonsense?

I mean, I guess if you're so benightedly one-dimensional that anything even slightly deviating from your "objective" solutions doesn't count as a solution or even an improvement... That's a way to look at things.

(19-06-2014 12:52 PM)Luminon Wrote:  The way you think, there is nothing new about it.

O RLY?

That's news to me.

I guess you must be right, too, after you so brilliantly exposed my traumatic deprived childhood, what with the loving parents and well-off family in one of the richest countries in the world...

(19-06-2014 12:52 PM)Luminon Wrote:  So I really don't have any respect to your knowledge and I refuse to answer in a prescribed way. I'm sure your knowledge is specialized and difficult and 100 % true, verified and peer-reviewed, but it doesn't solve global social problems.

That's partly true. A slight improvement to approximation methods for electron spin resonance analysis of quantum magnetic systems won't solve global social problems.

Surprisingly enough, however, my knowledge, opinions, and interactions are not limited to the specific topics of my physics thesis. Who knew?

(19-06-2014 12:52 PM)Luminon Wrote:  It doesn't even recognize and address them. It doesn't even tell you to start topics about them. It doesn't make you question cultural values, questioning religion and woo woo is your limit.

"Everyone who doesn't agree with me is CLOSED MINDED BRAINWASHED SHEEPLE TROLOLOLOLOLOL"

Can we keep playing? I've almost got crank bingo.

(19-06-2014 12:52 PM)Luminon Wrote:  None of what you said is constructive, creative or problem-solving.

Bullshit it isn't.

Even allowing for you to be as all-consumingly, objectively correct as your ego desires, constructive criticism is nonetheless constructive by definition.

You, incidentally, have never come close to proposing anything concrete. You've shat out a bunch of magical thinking and called it a day.

(19-06-2014 12:52 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I think you're a wonderful example of a sane, well-proven stagnation and I hope everyone on the forum sees that. The world is full of broken, conservative and hopeless people. Maybe the younger ones will see that there is a way to challenge the authorities. Authorities tend to suck, when they aren't challenged regularly.

This is a wonderful example of just what a failure pile you're becoming.

Because I don't agree with you, I'm stagnating? Because I find your nonsensical claims lacking, I'm broken, conservative, and hopeless? In what universe does that follow? By what insane troll logic is that conclusion reached?

Is your imagined authority (and you are so convinced of your own righteousness your authority must be no less than monumental) above challenge and criticism?

Do you even listen to yourself? Are you capable of introspection? Do you admit of the possibility, under any circumstances, of your views being proven wrong?

I strongly suspect the answer to that is "no". You are not engaging with me. You are not engaging with Rev. You are not engaging with EK. You are not engaging with Robby. You are stroking off to the sound of your own voice and your convictions of boundless superiority. That is not productive. Oh well.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-06-2014, 01:17 PM
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(19-06-2014 12:57 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  And you just went full blown gibbering madman.

...

"just"?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
19-06-2014, 01:26 PM
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(19-06-2014 12:52 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I don't see academia solving global problems.






#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-06-2014, 01:40 PM
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(19-06-2014 01:17 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(19-06-2014 12:57 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  And you just went full blown gibbering madman.

...

"just"?

Fair Point.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-06-2014, 01:48 PM
RE: There is no such thing as evil
Property

Property is the ownership of an object.
Cats have little interest in owning objects 9but they do have some understanding in marking out (claiming) a territory thus property rights isn't objective, its subjective.

Why are humans interested in property.
Probably because we understand the value that some objects have for us.
We know that clothes can make us warm, we know that a house can give us shelter, we know that money can bring us food.

There isn't some magical objective aspect tying humans to property rights. It is a natural understanding of the value having things and controlling things has and an understanding that if someone else has these things then we ourselves cannot, so we compete to claim "ownership".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-06-2014, 03:16 PM (This post was last modified: 19-06-2014 04:17 PM by Luminon.)
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(19-06-2014 12:44 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  Don't worry about bragging about how awesome philosophy is. Your arguments stand on their own merit or they don't. I'm not concerned with an appeal to authority.
I just think you underestimate both my arguments and philosophy. Just like 99,99 % of people in the world.

(19-06-2014 12:44 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  You're basically arguing the basis of social contract. I agree with this. I just don't think it's objective. It's a subjective evaluation of objective facts, and we both happen to share this opinion. We objectively accomplish more when we work together, and we subjectively evaluate this as good.
You can put it like that, except THIS social contract does not argue for centralized violent monopoly that is going to make everything all right. It argues for bringing up children peacefully, without having violence initiated against them. That's more than a contract, that's a neurological transformation of society, all with higher brain mass and about 10 points higher IQ.

(19-06-2014 12:44 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(19-06-2014 07:57 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Humans can and do have ownership rights by default. We own everything we make. If we didn't, you wouldn't know who said these words, but you do, because I own my words.


How? Souls? You're making a soul argument.
Nope, no soul argument. I think souls are today used as another word for personality. Brains automatically associate ownership. Both our ownership and what other people own. We keep track of these things. If I ask you "have you seen my wallet?" you will know what I mean. It seems trivial, but try to tell that to an IRS officer.

(19-06-2014 12:44 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  No. Thieves want stuff. There is a difference between physically having an object and claiming a right to it. One of those doesn't actually do anything unless other people agree it does.
Ownership is a concept, which is mostly information in our brains. Just an idea in our brains is enough to base a society on and to build whole civilizations, because it is somehow connected with the objective world outside.

(19-06-2014 12:44 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  What's more useful?
  • Physically having an ice cream cone you stole and eating it, or
  • Having your ice cream stolen and talking incessantly about your property rights while the other guy eats it in front of you?
Property rights don't do anything. Society agreeing to abide by them is what gets stuff done. Your rights will never get you your stuff back; people do that.
Property rights build civilizations. Nobody bothers managing Microsoft or General Motors if there are raiders every year who take everything. Property rights set into motion a social, moral technology called capitalism. Capitalism in turn creates economic productivity. Then come raiders and tax it just a little, so capitalism isn't completely destroyed.
Slaver societies were always less productive than free people with personal rights including ownership. Just compare China vs England, in the year 1500 they were about the same. England became a superpower and China started rising economically in the 1950's or so.

(19-06-2014 12:44 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  So, you're saying that ownership rights are just as real as the unicorn I just imagined right now, by virtue of it originating from my physical brain? This explains a lot, actually.
I'm not saying that, but you are welcome to test it. Will you let me pick some things from your house? If not, this is the real thing that is a physical part of the concept of ownership. If yes, I'll be happy to lose an argument and keep your stuff.
Except that I can't! That would be me asserting ownership all over again. Damn.

(19-06-2014 12:44 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  Objective things about humans are:
  • We (generally) have two eyes
  • We have more complex brains than other animals
  • We're mammals
  • We're capable of forming opinions
That doesn't make the opinions in and of themselves objective. It only makes their existence objective.
You can think of ownership as a real piece of software in our brains, that causes real behavior and has real, deep and beneficial effects on society. Also, when we assert ownership, we make a signal to the same piece of software in everyone's brains to keep them from taking our stuff. It works since we are babies. Whatever infants see, they universalize, in a way that says if adults do that, I want to do that too. Freedom for you is freedom for me. We process rational arguments and one of them says, if I can own things exclusively, other people can also own things exclusively. It's a very real mechanism, a downright social technology, which is just another word for morality. The thing that is moral about it is not the stuff itself, but how items become a part of our integrity and consistency with which we then behave.

(19-06-2014 12:44 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  Again, stop bragging. It makes your position look weak. It stands on it's own, or it doesn't.
It may stand on knowledge that you don't have, such as most of what I already said.

(19-06-2014 12:44 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  This sounds like an unsupported claim that you are simply asserting.

That's how rational arguments work! And how ancient Greek philosophers worked.
Rational method is like playing Battleships with reality. You don't know in advance what reality and logic allows you to do. And just like with Battleships, there are not that many possibilities or ambiguities, not in the world of reason and logic. Logic naturally leads to or excludes lots of possibilities. The ones that are left, are our, human real possibilities, ready to be tested. So you make a proposal (or take someone else's proposal) and follow it logically, like question it through Socratic method to see if that hits something or leads somewhere. Especially you check if it doesn't go against its own premises, things like that.

(19-06-2014 12:44 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  Again: I'm not arguing against social contract. We accomplish more together than on our own. This is an objective fact; however, you and I subjectively evaluate it as good.

I never said brains weren't real. I never even said people don't have opinions. I'm saying that they're subjective.
I know what subjectivity is, but I don't know what meaning I am supposed to draw from that. It never stopped my parents or teachers from punishing me and blaming me from the position of moral authority. I don't think subjectivity ever served as a reason to stop anybody from anything.

In fact, I think subjectivity is only a problem when we are researching, when we lack knowledge and/or reason. In daily life, we are perfectly aware what is a consistent thing to do. The obstacle to morality is not subjectivity or ignorance, it's culturally and emotionally justified inconsistency. We teach morality to toddlers and we violate it ourselves. Everyone knows what is moral if they try it on themselves. If that isn't objective enough for you, I don't care, I don't see what practical conclusion can be derived from that.

Morality by definition can not be subjective, because it is interpersonal. When we are alone on an island, or alone in our head, there is no morality, because there are no other people. Morality might as well be called interpersonal consistency. Rules of logic and rationality are the same in all minds and they are derived from properties of objects. I mean, people come up with philosophy independently in western and eastern civilizations. Children start asking philosophical questions on their own. Philosophy is the way how neurons work, if there's enough of them and they're not damaged.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-06-2014, 05:47 PM
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(19-06-2014 01:48 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Property

Property is the ownership of an object.
Cats have little interest in owning objects 9but they do have some understanding in marking out (claiming) a territory thus property rights isn't objective, its subjective.

Why are humans interested in property.
Probably because we understand the value that some objects have for us.
We know that clothes can make us warm, we know that a house can give us shelter, we know that money can bring us food.

There isn't some magical objective aspect tying humans to property rights. It is a natural understanding of the value having things and controlling things has and an understanding that if someone else has these things then we ourselves cannot, so we compete to claim "ownership".

Dogs have property too, and they can get in disputes over it also. I am sure other animals do too.

Sorry, I haven't been following this whole thing, it has nothing to do with Jeremy misquoting what I said as per the title of the thread. But you mentioned that cats don't own objects but territory, well, dogs have both and I am sure other animals do, too.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: