The philosophy thread general discussion

Well if the word "evil" brings something to mind then it means you have some concept of it in your brain. Words are just levers to bring certain thoughts, feeling and expectations to mind. If you dispute the word evil due to it linking to different concepts for you, then just taboo it and say what you want to know or what you what others to know.

For example, if you think of evil as acting with harmful intentions then talk about that directly. If it is a matter of scope, question to the scope. This way you avoid disputing over waves in the air/text on a page and focus on what is important.

Suggesting to Euo that children be used as Guinea pigs was probably not, strictly speaking, a good idea.

edited 10th Jul '14 11:17:22 AM by chi_mangetsu

I can spot a joke, though. However, if it ever gets meant seriously... out come my scalpels and jump leads. Bwhahahaha! *cough*

Oh, Euo. I do think we might have our first...volunteers for our little experiments

And, a special place for Simon Cowell. There's corporal punishment, and then there's him.

I was talking about Baudrillard's 1981 book 'Simulacra and Simulation' on the last page . http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacra_and_Simulation. It discusses the artificiality of many ideas and concepts in society, how these postulate to be real when they're far from or a distortion of the truth, or were never real in the first place , and how this is increasing with the rise of new forms of media. I don't appreciate my thoughts being dismissed as a B.L.A.M. . When I have an idea I want to discuss it or at least head so e actual feedback

edited 10th Jul '14 12:46:12 PM by Xopher001

You didn't really explain yourself well in your last post. I thought you were posting to the wrong thread.

You know I might need to play Skyrim but if people were born 'evil', can they defy their nature and be 'good'? I might thread on scared ground with this but Christianity teaches that all humans are essentially sinners and 'fall short of God's glory' whereas in the East or more specifically in Asia it shows that humans are fundamentally good. Again, I might threading on something or starting that I might not walk out of so easily but I feel that it might have somehtiong with the topic of 'What Is Evil'.

If humans were born evil then we wouldn't care about doing good.

The rest of life is amoral(not caring at all) While humans live with the lack of ability to act completely moral even when we want to. Humans are born without self-awareness or theory of mind. Once we have those, we still have a large number of biases and lack self-awareness of our utility function.

I think you meant "sacred" ground, by the way.

As far as any of this goes, good and evil are concepts that only really have meaning within a society of some sort. As such, it doesn't make much sense to say humans, or anything else for that matter, are by nature one or the other because it's not really an intrinsic quality in the first place.

Everybody has different experiences and isn't our "utility function" to survive and reproduce?

Yeah, pretty much. We've discovered the true meaning of life and honestly it's kind of disappointing, so we just make a bunch of new ones now that we like better.

Religious views are just different societies with different point of views. Their points are as political as they are telling of a culture.

But not particularly useful for trying to discern human nature in the "good" and "evil" context. It is just one culture with one point of view motivated by political, economical, and traditional local influences.

@Greenmantle: No it's not. Our evolutions "purpose" gene fitness is not our utility function.

Our values such as surviving are istrumental to evolution but terminal goals for humans. Evolution isn't smart and can't make a fitness maximizer(a being that does everything to promote their own gene fitness). If you look into our brains you are going see a lot more to the decision process then surviving and having children.

Evolution strives to help us survive up to the next generation, and reproduce. It will help us by giving us the traits that will help us survive the most according to our environment up to the point where we are viable to reproduce, and will also try to help us by helping us reproduce.

But past that, evolution gives no fuck of how we live. It is why genetic diseases like Huntington's chorea exist.

Basically, evolution wants you to get laid, and then it pats you on the head and kidnaps your son to play with him. It has the attention span of a coffee-squirrel with ADHD. Actually not really but it is a funny comparison.

edited 11th Jul '14 8:00:47 AM by Aszur

Evolution doesn't "give" us anything. It doesn't give traits that are better for survival. We get a ton of different traits and those who happen to be better for survival will survive. Rinse and repeat. It doesn't help our survival it just happens that some traits are better in certain circumstances than others. There's no plan, no goal and no caring. Evolution is a process not a thinking entity.

I did not intend to portray evolution as Santa Claus giving gifts or Oprah giving away presents :P

Simply a representation of "This is what it does because it does".

And YOU get a cancer! And YOU get a malformation! And YOU get a disease! And YOU get glaucoma! EVERYONE GETS A DISEASE! Fuck you Oprahlution

http://m.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/06/does-chimp-warfare-explain-our-sense-of-good-and-evil/58643/

http://m.phys.org/news/2012-11-anthropologist-reciprocity-chimpanzees-bonobos.html

(Boo, the websites won't let my damn tablet to highlight the text. Bollocks.)

"the 97.3 percent of us that is chimpanzee." I always crinch a bit when someone emphasizes this percentage as if it was very indicative. We share up to a fourth or so (not sure about the exact percentage) of our DNA with plants as well. A lot of that is just basic stuff like protein shapes and cell building etc.

98% chimp, 52% banana, IIRC.

As Neil deGrasse Tyson has mentioned at length those few percentage points matter a whole lot in the grand scheme of things.

Indeed. It's something of a philosophical humbling of sorts.

edited 11th Jul '14 10:15:40 AM by chi_mangetsu

Whilst simultaneously not seeming to matter much at all in the other grand scheme of things, ironically enough.

edited 11th Jul '14 10:04:34 AM by Elfive

"Marxist superstar philosopher"^note A crime against all three terms Slavoj Zizek has been plagiarizing white nationalists.

Heh heh heh. Never liked him.

edited 11th Jul '14 4:17:58 PM by Achaemenid

It seems though, that in order to someone to be a good guy (to be the White in the Black-and-White Morality), he/she must be a goody two shoes who never gets angry/annoyed with anyone, never seek revenge or keep a grudge against those who wronged him/her, always put other people's problem ahead of their own and always oblige to people's requests, no matter how absurd they are and never, ever Pay Evil unto Evil, he/she must always Turn the Other Cheek. Now, I may be wrong, but to me, this is not a good guy, to me this is an Extreme Doormat with an extreme necessity to appease everyone.

edited 12th Jul '14 8:39:52 PM by PersistentMan

Counterpoint: Captain America.