Lars

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…

[Read more]

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.

Nice misdirect. How would you know? You know nothing about philosophy or you wouldn’t keep using these tired cliches. Plato and Kant and Heidiger and some post-modern…

[Read more]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
@davis – while a “Like” button does not exist I have conceptualized one and press it regarding your recent responses.

Now the real question is: are like buttons entities that can exist without humans?

• Nearly every field of philosophy is intimately related with some other field of study as such as law logic pedagology physics astrophysics literature politics history mathematics medicine architecture psychology sociology. A polítical science student deals with human rights in terms of its history, evolution, status, failings, how robust it is…

[Read more]

tom sarbeck wrote:
Thank you, Zweifel, for trying to prevent philosophy’s suicide.

Philosophy is alive and well and is under no threat by doubters and haters and most especially by those who don’t put any work into understanding critical approaches to universal problems. Some areas of philosophy would be best thrown down the toilet, other areas a…[Read more]

Simon Paynton wrote:
You’ve defined Evil as something that only living things can display in their behaviour, but that doesn’t need living things to exist.  Yes it needs living things, no it doesn’t need living things. At least, you’ve allowed that definition to stand.

This is a pretty poor interpretation of Unseen’s total response to your que…

[Read more]

Unseen wrote:
I assume I don’t have to list all the things done in the past, considered right and proper at the time, that we consider Evil today.

Indeed. Unseen has pointed out something we overlooked. Not only is “evil” conceptually questionable (all over the place really), but what actions in particular are considered obviously evil (or s…[Read more]

Unseen wrote:

Simon Paynton wrote:
So Unseen, your point seems to be that any human choice is imaginary, and therefore, any human behaviour based on choice has no meaning.

Umm…no. Nothing is imaginary once properly understood and categorized. Of course, we make choices. Confronted with chocolate or vanilla, we choose one or the other. The q…

[Read more]

John Oliver did a segment on ‘Crisis Pregnancy Centers’ last Sunday night.  The problem is worse than I though it was possible to be.

That’s the slimy underhanded manipulative swamp of religious recruitment. I hope she gained some kind of lesson from it. I could not be more thankful this kind of garbage rarely happens here.

It’s pretty hard for me to find any example in developed western democratic country where atheists lure people by offering a service that helps them with a…[Read more]

No Jake I don’t think that if a term becomes bothersome it should be dispensed with. You’re making a bad slippery slope argument there. Evil is a term that is so saturated with religious baggage, cultural baggage and covers such a broad range of extremely different behavioural patterns that it is really best to the flames. Good luck finding more…[Read more]

David Boots wrote:
My view is that this conviction should serve as a warning that your liberty to voice an opinion is threatened and has been for some time. Either people wake up soon to this or we will all have to submit to religious oppression and in our lifetime.
As I’ve said before. The United States has a very unique and quite extreme a…[Read more]

jakelafort wrote:
Evil on other hand describes deliberate harm and intentional cruelty to a shocking degree.

Unfortunately it is not that simple. Unseen is right in two ways. First, Evil is a terribly terribly vague term and it does not objectively describe a certain kind of human behaviour but instead many overlapping patterns of human…[Read more]

Can you operate with never using the word ‘evil’?  Would there be an obstacle to your communications without this word?  It’s a ‘magic thinking’ word, and since no human is all bad or all good, it would appear to be an invalid term

_Robert_ wrote:
Davis, you certainly have Putin’s number. I would think after 100’s of years of asshole leadership, Russians would have had enough. I really don’t understand why they put up with it.

Totally. First they had the mongol invasion. Then most Russians suffered the misery of serfdom for centuries. Then a violent revolution. Then a viole…[Read more]

Not really. Bad, awful, mean, unkind, spiteful, hateful…  there’s no need for ‘evil’ because you endow the act with some kind of superpower. People can be arseholes.

The proper antonym of ‘good’ is ‘bad’. The term ‘evil’ is a giving up of the possibility to make the ‘bad’ become less so, or even good.   It’s populism can most probably be linked to religion or group thinking.  There is no real antonym to ‘evil’   I don’t believe in ‘evil’, I think it’s a perjurative term.