IS EVIL REAL? OR, LIKE GOD, A HUMAN INVENTION?

[tom sarbeck]

Davis, the shortest duck-and-dodge I ever heard was Catholicism’s “Error has no rights”. Your post deserves and will get better but not on April 29 at 2:55 am.

Hm-mm, 2:55 am where I am is 9:55 am in this discussion. Google says it’s in Greenwich.

• This reply was modified 8 years ago by tom sarbeck.

[Davis]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:

I will consider that profound question with the use of my 2 philosophical pencils, the ones I use when I ponder our existence. One of them is a 2B, the other one is not a 2B.

Hahahahaha. I think you should write down and sell your metaphysical/ontological/epistomological/cosmological poetry fast….before all the philosophy departments of the world close down and sell off their books at half price!!!!

[Davis]

Simon Paynton wrote:

If these famous philosophers are famous because they’re good, then it means they’re different from most people, enough to be going crazy once in a while.

They are “good” for many reasons, not necessarily because their works are relevant today. They provide insight into how and why people thought the way they did in their time, when modern western ideas and critical thinking emerged (Plato), presents entertainment value and were larger than life (Nietzsche), was the first to write down something (Aristotle) etc.

But insanity and stupidity and being a colossal asshole is definitely not limited to philosophy. For example

• Unfortunate or crazy scientists:
• Pseudo historians who semi-got-away with their schenanigans:
• Eccentric mathematicians:

 

 

[Reg the Fronkey Farmer]

@ Davis – It’s not that I am a poet and did not know it or that I talk in rhyme all of the time so here is a first draft 🙂

Socrates told me I did not know what I thought I knew and would frown at me for writing this down.

Plato put me in a cave to ponder reality and ignoring its shadows gave me some clarity.

Pyrrho made me a sceptic and said not to sit on fences but in truth I think it a nonsense to never trust my senses.

Epicurus taught me there was no need to fret about death so my epitaph I might steal from him –

I was not; I have been; I am not; I do not mind.

 

[PopeBeanie]

#like8921 

Now, if I could only make it count up (or down) like a Real Like Button. Uh oh, now, do I have time to see if there’s a third party Like Button service? Should be easy enough to invent.

[PopeBeanie]

So I’m right in the middle of a Critical Thinking philosophy class, pretty disappointed with their narrow view of it. It’s all so American-centric, language-wise, with the grammar nazi predicate that no matter how one speaks, there is a supposedly provable, dogmatic way it should be interpreted, or labeled as “non-sensical” regardless of what the speaker may intended it to mean.

It’s not only American-centric, but cultural-timeline specific such that more than one kind of context is required in order to tease out a supposedly “exact” interpretation that should be rendered, even when persons speaking are possibly unaware of their own contexts.

A lot like evolving language, yet presumed by many to have or deserve some kind of credence wrt how something spoken or written should have some exact interpretation, per purported dogma.

At some point, the exactitudes are more of an exercise in one-way thinking than in two-way communication.

Given:

A theist can believe in evil, because everything happens “for a reason”, which is presumably defined by a supreme being and/or implemented as part of a divine or Satanic plan.

Ditto for a metaphysicist that can believe in evil because of some kind of universal force or consciousness, but just not necessarily God or Satan.

Scientists don’t see any point in researching a human construct like evil. How could it even be described, proven, or disproven as an entity or force? No, wait, ahh, so that’s what Dark Matter is! But kidding aside, purported dark matter and energy can be repeatedly observed, measured, documented, and predicted. And what is unknown about dark matter and energy is generally held up high as a challenge to take on, not just generally accepted as sacred dogma like our ever-so-popular astrologist industry.

[Unseen]

tom sarbeck wrote:

Davis, another predilection of philosophers is the use of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of words to remark on what non-philosophers can say in a half dozen or so.

A lot of philosophers lack the gift of brevity. I’m of a more “ordinary language” bent and like to be short and sweet. If a solution to a philosophical issue can’t be explained so that an intelligent non-philosopher can a “get it,” it isn’t a solution at all.

[tom sarbeck]

Davis, I agree that my posts are usually impeccable and insightful. That much of my writing for other audiences deals with law and those audiences include attorneys account for the former. That I have decades of experience in hardball politics accounts for the latter.

Your saying I know nothing of philosophy fails a truth test.

I apply Occam’s Razor to philosophy. Despite philosophers’ efforts, much of their product does not satisfy Pragmatism’s requirement that it succeed in practical application.

As to what fails that requirement, Existentialism says there are no excuses.

Insanity? It may result when people lack the intellectual strength to cope with the stresses in their lives.

 

[Simon Paynton]

@popebeanie – “something spoken or written should have some exact interpretation, per purported dogma”

– I would have thought that if the person listening understands what the person talking wants to say to them, then the two people are communicating successfully.

[Davis]

@Pope. Are you auditing the course at a university or college? Is it for non-degree students?

Perhaps you have a bad teacher. I did when I first did critical thinking (got a B-) and did really well with, believe it or not, a  Catholic priest professor. The first was very extreme in his severity of differentiating sound arguments. The next taught us the principle of allowing the level of precision necessary to challenge ourselves…without making any progress impossible (the middle road). In so he fields like medicine…precision is essential. If you misjudge the motivations behind an historical event or political event..you’ll be forgiven (after a short but brute whipping).

Two things that are really important to remember about critical thinking:

Its a method of forming sound arguments based on objective interpretation of evidence and premises which can be easily challenged by fellow critical thinkers (99% of scientists, 90% of philosophers and historians).

Critical thinkers have never claimed they have the one and only one way to make sense of the world. Many critical thinkers have, however made what I think, is the reasonable claim…that critical thinking is the most reliable way to make claims about the world and challenge if they are sound. Other methodologies may produce useful results, but they are far less reliable and consistent and the more you leave critical thinking…the more that correct and incorrect become meaningless.

I imagine your problem with this course the that the teacher is demanding extreme precision. I don’ think that’ a good way to teach critical thinking.

Have you started on fallacies? Have you compared critical thinking to other methodologies (that really helps).

[Simon Paynton]

The unattractively successful feature of evil is that it is enjoyable.  If it is another form of being social, then being antisocial can be every bit as enjoyable as being prosocial.  Its downfall though is that there are negative consequences: it carries negative-positive emotional valence instead of the win-win we get with cooperation.

[Davis]

@Simon

This may be true in some cases where people inflict unnecessary suffering on others, but it isn’t always the case. In endless examples of a group of people stuck in a mass movement of cruel insanity…countless people take no pleasure from the horror they inflict on others, or this complicity when doing nothing. Reluctant Japanese citizens drafted into the imperial army, disgusted as they slaughter civilians and watch fellow soldiers rape in China, Child soldiers murdering entire villages, German citizens horrified and doing nothing while their neighbors are rounded up and herded into box cars, American executioners who lose sleep after participating in the execution of a mentally disturbed 19 year old boy, psychologically disturbed girl who vacillates between doing vicious unspeakable things and then feeling empathy and disgust at what she has done, a parent feeling terrible and even a little guilty as they harshly and viciously discipline their child telling themselves it is for the best. These are all acts under the enormous umbrella term “evil”. And taking pleasure from it is hardly universal.

[Davis]

@Tom

Yeah, well, if a short duck and dodge is the best way to make broad criticisms of something you don’t like and avoid defending it, then a short duck and dodge is the most successful!

• This reply was modified 7 years, 12 months ago by Davis.

[Simon Paynton]

But sometimes people do evil things for fun, and in the present moment, it’s a successful (social) strategy for thriving, given that we are competitive as well as cooperative.  But a negative payback usually comes later in some form or other.  Crime doesn’t pay; it pays to be nice.

The other kinds of inflicting deliberate harm for its own sake that you mention are mainly institutional, and presumably there are/were leaders at the top who enjoy(ed) the carnage, and a group-think of mass hysteria.

[Reg the Fronkey Farmer]

But sometimes people do evil things for fun.

I think that would read better if you said But sometimes people do sadistic things for fun.

Crime doesn’t pay….only if you are an amateur. I know some people involved in a certain type of crime on a full time basis and nobody knows anything and they have no records. Nobody is harmed, it is just illegal activity.

[Author]

Posts