What to do with the evil, undeniably with us?
Let's face the fact. The evil is undeniably with us. It's an undeniable part of us. Of me, of everyone, of the universe, of the eternal gods.
The question is, what shall we do with it? Shall we let it persist, shall we restrict it, even annihilate it? The last seems even worse than evil itself, for shouldn't we then annihilate the whole universe? Are we living in a time in which the evil has shown itself as never before, while the chances of annihilation where never that high? Is this chance of total annihilation a means of the universe to cleanse itself from the evil we introduced, to restore the balance.
Let's not forget that without the darkness of evil, the good lies sleeping in the bright light of day.
The question is, what shall we do with it? Shall we let it persist, shall we restrict it, even annihilate it? The last seems even worse than evil itself, for shouldn't we then annihilate the whole universe? Are we living in a time in which the evil has shown itself as never before, while the chances of annihilation where never that high? Is this chance of total annihilation a means of the universe to cleanse itself from the evil we introduced, to restore the balance.
Let's not forget that without the darkness of evil, the good lies sleeping in the bright light of day.
Comments (167)
No particular point to my post.
I had similar thoughts hanging up such a sticky long thing against flies (don't know what's it called in English, flypaper?). :gasp:
Amor fati. :fire:
p.s.
:snicker:
Yet we give meaning and significance to the Universe. What is the point of trees and galaxies if such as we don't exist to look at them in wonder and ponder what, how and why they are?
Its true that if no one sees a tree fall in a forrest then that does not mean that the tree did not fall but if someone reports that it fell then that seems to give the event more meaning. Especially if the event is also memorialised.
Are some animals more evil than others?
Which animal actions would you consider evil?
Do you think that prey consider their predators evil?
Evil/good are inventions of human culture and its preference for a 'civilised system.'
Our Darwinian origin taught us that the jungle rules are not the most efficient way to increase human quality of life and longevity of life, so we created such concepts as good and evil and started to legislate to support what we identified as good behaviour and we legislated against what we identified as evil behaviour. Unfortunately, these new rules of acceptable behaviour were flawed from the beginning as they differed from village to village and tribe to tribe and would only hold if enforced.
Human suffering is such a complicated issue. This is confirmed by such popular adages as, 'we are our own worst enemies,' and 'one man's meat is another man's poison,' etc.
Imo, we just have to keep working hard to make things better for all humans and all other fauna and flora. The universe is my country and to do good things is my religion!
Don't think so. There are some pretty evil animals. Like people.
Though seemingly reasonable, this doesn't hold in practice. Since science was introduced, the amount of evil has increased only.
Example? How about an evil dog? I can understand a human labeling particular dog behaviour as evil and I can tell when one dog is afraid of another but do you think the scared dog thinks the other dog is evil or merely of a higher (alpha) status than it.
Quoting Hillary
Based on what evidence?
So more evil today, compared to our days as jungle survivors? Total BS in my opinion.
Do you think there is more chance of human suffering and horrible death now for the vast majority of humans compared to our days in the jungle?
Don't suggest that the threat of global nuclear war is the big difference, because it's not, for two reasons.
1. Full global nuclear war has not ever happened so it's not a valid comparison yet.
2. We have always been threatened with extinction from natural disasters such as a big rock from space.
A full nuclear exchange would produce the same result, extinction. That threat has always been with
us, since the first homo sapiens
It is human conceit to think only they can be evil. Our dog can be pretty mean!
Quoting universeness
Oh come on brother Uni! Do you have your eyes closed?
Much more evil! I think it would be far more relaxed back then than now, so your evolution isnt reassuring. My dreams wouldnt be hunted by nuclear explosions, for a fact. Didnt Oppenheimer say he'd become death, the destroyer of worlds?
Evil is not an inherent part of man. When one understands why evil tendencies exist, it becomes a choice. It is therein that morality lies. From that point onward man becomes a moral agent.
"And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not."
I don't think humans relish the idea that evil belongs to them alone but I think you are projecting your concept of evil onto what you label 'mean' actions in your dog. There is no way to currently know if your dog is actually capable of understanding the difference between the HUMAN concept of good and evil.
I think dogs can clearly demonstrate human concepts such as happy/sad/need/fear/anger/violence etc but not good/evil.
Quoting Hillary
Right back at you!
Quoting Hillary
Based on what evidence?
Would you prefer to be chased by predators on an almost daily basis, having to find your hierarchical place amongst your tribe and show subservience to the desires and level of tolerance towards you of those with a better 'alpha' status that you?
You face disease, toothaches, skin diseases, parasitical infestations, venereal diseases etc, with almost 0 medical assistance available. Constant war and violence within and outwith your own community group. A horrible struggle for survival and a very good chance of a very short lifespan and a nasty death.
Do you really think your current life in your home with your wife is plagued by more evil threats now than you would have had as a cave-dwelling couple in an early community of homo sapiens?
Quoting Hillary
Yeah, very dramatic-sounding BS. What world did Oppenheimer destroy? He is dead and the Earth is still here. A full nuclear exchange might kill all humans and create massive climate change but it would not destroy this planet. Even if it took a few million years, the Earth would recover.
Quoting Hillary
That's the better example of human conceit, Oppenheimer's conceit that HE had become the destroyer of worlds :roll: Earth is quite capable of surviving human activity. It is much more threatened by the Sun's activity!
Obviously, the dog can't. She's no human! But that doesn't mean she can be mean, if you know what I mean.
Quoting universeness
Then my answer is, look at the state of the planet. Thousands of fellow species have disappeared, natural cultures ceased to exist, and people are exposed to the "delicious" fruits of science. And dint give me that shit that its not the fault of science.
Quoting universeness
There's still time...
Quoting universeness
But he did become the destroyer of two cities. That's what he meant. There have found place 900 tests! Real life! Pigs burned alive and soldiers cancer. At Mururoa, people of nature in the neighborhood were victims. But hey, thats far away. Poor people. Did they ask for that shit?
BS!
Quoting Hillary
No, he didn't. Did Colt kill lots of cowboys? Oppenheimer did not launch the bombs which destroyed Nagasaki and Hiroshima. He does not even have sole responsibility for developing the atom bomb, he was no more than a significant cog.
Not directly. You see, that's the scary thing with science. You dont know where it ends up.
That's true of all human activity.
Okay, but they cant have that devastating effects.
I gave you examples of the effects!
So, facing the OP question “What to do...”, what is important is looking not for a conclusive answer, but exactly for something to do, which is, a kind of doing that must be never expected to stop, like instead conclusive answers are.
In other words, a conclusive answer to evil not only does not exist, but we need to be vigilant to avoid any temptation to find or to built it; a conclusive answer must not exist and we need to work actively to make impossible for it to exist. Conclusive answers to evil are worse than evil itself, because evil can change, but conclusive answers are aimed at not changing: they block progress.
So, from a philsophical point of view, facing the question “What to do with evil”, I think a good answer is working on philosophy to make it dynamic, permanently self-critical and in dialogue with experience and subjectivity, avoiding conclusive answers, conceptualizations that can make us disconnected, forgetful of personal human experience.
All your examples are due to human use of tech. All tech can be used for good purposes as well.
Yes, obviously. But that isn't happening only. The poor natural people on Mururoa could live thousands of years without science.
Yeah, but you don't explain how we can know what good IS without a comparator existing!
Quoting Angelo Cannata
I agree.
Quoting Angelo Cannata
I agree we all need to keep the dialogue going about human perception of evil and how it manifests in individuals and groups but your suggested approach seems a bit weak to me.
I agree that we cannot totally defeat evil, it will always remain as a 'potential' and therefore a comparator but we should vigorously fight tooth and nail against it manifesting in the more extreme ways it did during such examples as the holocaust. I would like limits of future evil to be no higher a level than heated disagreement of the kind we exemplify on TPF and physical fighting to be limited to something like the queensbury rules.
I think so many current societies owe a lot to abused minorities. We have to give back.
I am an avid supporter of all minority rights, especially indigenous peoples.
Do you remember this one:
I see that the evil in the world is in me, and I ask what to do about the evil in me, as if what I might do is unaffected by, and separate from, the evil. In other words, I imagine myself good in operating on my evil. Reminds me of the Zen saying: "If you have a thought in your head, throw it out. If it is so persistent that you cannot throw it out, then take it out." Am I the good that is left when the evil is removed or is the good what is left when I am removed?
I think your question is important. In a radical philosophical way, I find useful to think of evil as objectivity and good as subjectivity; this is equivalent to say that evil is what goes against me, good is me. I think this framework has the advantage of being based on our natural instinct, that in other brutal words would be called natural selfishness. But this would be only a starting point. Then we can realize that good and evil are never 100% separated, as well as subjectivity and objectivity. As a next step, I think the best way to go on is to adopt Heraclitus’ mentality of becoming, which is the basis of what I said in my preceding message. In this context, I think that there is no point in throwing out or taking out any thoughts from our mind: it would be almost equivalent to throwing out our mind itself, and even ourselves. Instead, I think we need just to build in our mind an attitude, a familiarity with a dynamic mentality, based on becoming, changing, progressing, fighting against anything static.
So, in a synthesis, I would say: I am subjectivity, I am good, but contaminated with objectivity, with evil. The world and other people are evil (Sartre: “Hell is other people”), but there is also a lot of good in them. In this context, I just need to elaborate, to plan my activity, to find continuously better solutions, better dialogues or harmonies between subjectivity and objectivity, better contaminations between good and evil.
I think the good is in what you do, not what you think you might do. Yes you have to resist your more base thoughts but you need fury if you are facing someone who wants to kill you or those you care about. Evil remains mainly subjective. There are human actions which are almost universally/objectively considered evil such as pedophilia but there are few of these I think.
We all have thoughts at times which seem outwith our normal sense of extremity.
If turned to actions these would indeed be evil but I think they are from the Freudian ID and are remnants of our instinctive reactions to experiences from our days in the wild. I think the main source of such is the R-complex of our triune brain. Sometimes called our reptilian or lizard brain section.
Is that not a base thought?
No, Resisting a thought I have labeled 'base' is my neocortex overruling an instinctive reaction/message/thought from my R-complex. I use the word 'base' here not in the sense of 'basic' but in the sense of 'low' or 'basement' or 'low brow' etc.
I say that with no qualifications in neuroscience at all but I have read Carl Sagan's Dragons of Eden and Broca's Brain and listened to some audiobooks by Dan Dennet and Sam Harris.
In otherwords, I don't even claim amateur status in neuroscience.
Wow! That's a good one! :clap:
Be good.
Be part of the light.
SUBLIMATE, SUBLIMATE, SUBLIMATE!
Chameleons.
Eh?
How could we possibly do anything about it, if it is, as you claim, "an undeniable part of us?
Geckoes, frogs, dragonflies, spiders, antlions,...
Well we shouldn't kill it, for sure. That means killing everyone.
Quoting baker
You heard me...
I would take more of a cognitivist anti-realist position on morality: there are no moral phenomena, only moral interpretations of phenomena. I don't think the universe instantiates any "good" or "evil".
"good" and "evil" are essentially the projection of subject's onto the world. Depending on the intellectual capacity of a given subject's faculties of reason, they will have a different interpretation of what the terms encompass.
However, this doesn't mean no one is correct (or more cogent) or wrong (or less cogent) in their views: varies based of off their intellectual capacities. I think the best we can do is slowly progress towards the most cogent positions by means of those subjects who can contribute, but ultimately there's no telling the capacities (and thusly interpretations) of those in power (or/and the masses) as time moves forward.
What one annihilates today as "evil", is only an annihilation of what they considered "evil": there's nothing objective to annihilate that instantiates evil.
Do you interpret existence itself as "evil" or partially so?
I don't think the universe has some sort of plan to restore "the balance". Humanity may annihilate itself, but I don't see how that equates to somehow "annihilating evil", unless one is referring to the fact that interpretations arguably won't exist anymore: I guess it is amoral at that point.
A moral interpretation of the phenomena implies that phenomena have inherent morals, as interpretations are phenomena. So if a phenomenon is interpreted as good or bad, that interpretation instantiates the good or bad.
Quoting Bob Ross
That means that there are no goodness and badness in people or other creatures, which is contradicted by the phenomena.
Quoting Bob Ross
In practice though, what is interpreted as good or bad, can be annihilated. History is full of examples. The question is, should we allow irrational annihilation of the interpreted evil? Isn't annihilating interpreted evil even bigger (and objective!) evil than the evil being annihilated?
Quoting Bob Ross
Still, it seems to be happening. The path of western man away from nature seems a path away from a natural moral. The digression from this moral translates in natural chaos and chance of natural annihilation.
Tanx for sharing the light! Dunno about sublimation... sublimize crime in sophisticated spectacular and intelligent bank robberies or jewel thefts from museums?
"In psychology, sublimation is a mature type of defense mechanism, in which socially unacceptable impulses or idealizations are transformed into socially acceptable actions or behavior, possibly resulting in a long-term conversion of the initial impulse."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimation_(psychology)
So, a jewelry heist as in movies? Ocean's 11?
Is a jewelry heist socially acceptable behavior? Not sure what you're getting at.
Do you mean watching a heist movie in place of orchestrating a heist? That would be sublimation.
Well, I mean the actual heist. People like that more than a simple shoplift. While in fact more material harm is done.
Evil doesn't have to be 'part of us', we can all live just good.
Evil in my eyes is morbid stupidity, there is no greater evil, only solipsist or all future acts are determined morbid stupidity; how can one have a stupidity that's greater than another stupidity - deeply think about it.
Stupid 1 is ~ what? ~ by stupid 2. Outwitted?
We have determined morbid stupidity and predetermined morbid stupidity, neither are a part of us.
Good is the way to go.
Your post is exactly what I need at this moment.
Some of us remember a different experience of our democracy in the US. We remember believing a good citizen took action when something was wrong, and that is no longer possible in most cases because we no longer have the communication and organization, NOR THE EXPECTATION OF CITIZENS, that we once had. Government blocks us from taking action far more than it did in the past, and there are too many of us for communication to be as effective as it once was. And I really don't believe education is teaching our young to be responsible citizens, but instead, everyone is prepared to follow orders and rely on the experts, just as Eisenhower warned in his farewell speech.
Today taking action can mean being a martyr because we have to push against huge organizations that are about making money and policy, not listening to and interacting with people. They may be doing plenty of surveys but those surveys serve their purpose not the people dependent on them. It is all very efficient and also very dehumanizing.
I pushed a friend to get mental health counseling and evidently, his Jewish name became a problem. He fled after the counselor when she asked "How long have you had this delusion of grandeur?" His problem is totally the opposite of that, and she made a "you statement" that none of should be making. Then she followed him and publically humiliated him. Someone who overheard her said she was an "ignorant bitch" and she said "Better that than a stinking Jew."
We asked for a grievance form and after filling it out we were told that is the wrong form for mental health department complaints. Then we were given a phone number and that is a dead end because the caller is told the mailbox is full. Then a got a second number and it turned out to be the same dead-end. On this path to resolve the problem, everyone we spoke with is following policy and has a "just following orders" Naxi attitude. That is, no one feels the least bit of responsibility for resolving this violation of a Jew. What happened is an evil, and no one cares, leaving us to feel powerless against evil and like unwanted intruders in their nice day. They are just doing their jobs and we should not be bringing a problem to them.
Daily my sister deals with the homeless and bureaucrats who are not doing the job they are paid to do. She used to be a bureaucrat and those who need her help have no idea how to deal with the bureaucracies they must depend on, which includes how hospitals are run as well as government. It is irritating people like us, who get things done, but boy, does it take a toll on us and I would say 99% of the citizens think we should be following policy and stop making trouble. This is not how things used to be. We remember "If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem". We remember being told it is our freedoms and good citizens that make America great, not the impersonalness and "efficiency" we are experiencing today.
A heist is more socially acceptable than shoplifting?
Did you go to the local/national newspapers with the story? Did you contact any human rights-based pressure groups? Did you write letters of complaint and get copies sent to every local politician in the area. Did you look at any legal path due to the fact that your Jewish friend suffered racial discrimination?
Did you ask for help from protest groups who might consider organising a petition or organise a protest outside the place where this counselor works? How angry are you, the Jewish community and those around your Jewish friend at his/her treatment? You have had setbacks in your pursuit of justice for your friend, do these initial defeats/barriers mean you are done fighting already?
Quoting Athena
The fight is hard, sometimes very very hard and the rewards can be few indeed BUT YOUR FIGHT IS JUST! I think your 99% is a bit high, when others see your tenacity it can fire many towards supporting you.........eventually.
Wow, if that were the case there would be no life that depends on good parenting. That would eliminate all mammals. The book "Science of Good and Evil" by Michael Shermer speaks of the pre-moral state of animals. All creatures, including humans, are born with instincts and evolution has favored the development of instincts that promote the survival of the species. Human evolution has brought us to the consciousness level of the scientific method, and with philosophy, provides the grounds for good moral judgment.
However, a society that focuses on technology and neglects education in virtues and good moral judgment full fills the fear of Zeus. We have mastered technology and turned our backs on the gods. We are technologically smart but not wise.
:up:
We also could turn our back to technology.
If a painting is stolen from a museum, in an ingenious way, people tend to have more respect than for me as a junkie stealing ahorn syrup in a supermarket.
Neither is socially acceptable.
Wow, thank you for being so supportive. I work and I have every little energy so I have not done all those things yet, but I am working on them. I devoted today to following the steps that the hospital told me to follow, before calling in the big guns.
In the past, I took my social concerns directly to the newspaper and almost always got my letters to the editor printed, but the locally own paper was sold and the staff is out of town and very different from the past! In the past, I have also taken concerns to the local and state levels of public hearings. I had a lot more fire and energy back then and I miss my working relationship with the newspaper.
After failing to make progress with the medical facility I have asked for help from a local synagogue and I am waiting for a reply. I forgot about the Human Rights Commission, and thanks to you, I bookmarked the Commission page and have called and left a message. I hate confrontation, but with the support, you have given me and my sister pointing out how damaging that experience was to his effort to get counseling, I am willing to do as much as my time and energy allow me to do.
I think it's pretty substantial. It resides in substance. Like charge in an electron.
What does turning to technology mean to you? How would that improve our moral judgment?
How's your site doing?
I mean, focusing less on technology. Technology tends to de-humanize.
For example, there is a movement called transhumanism aiming to artificially "improve" people and giving longer lives. Creating the new übermensch. They could better focus on existing life as it is.
It is technology that has pushed paradise further and further away from us. And there is no harm meant maybe, but the evil done by far exceeds the natural badness inherent in the universe.
Quoting Hillary
Quoting Hillary
Quoting Hillary
Again, you are reifying what people do; that strikes me as a poor way of approaching the problem.
Where? I place evil inside the universe and ask how or if to deal with it.
In your statement you recognise evil as something distinct from good.
"I place evil... [I]inside the universe[/I], how is it dealt with?
You recognise that evil must be 'dealt' with...
Thus, isolation.
Evil is thus isolated, to remain in tact.
Wow, nothing is simple. :grin: You make me think when humans transitioned from small nomadic tribes to cities they manifested a shared consciousness far beyond the limits of small tribes. As cities grew more and more ideas bounced off each other and greatly expanded our shared consciousness, and increasing our knowledge of nature, math, and science, and now the web unites the world and holds more information than ever before possible. Socrates and others saw information as essential to good moral judgment.
So now what can we make of the contradictions of good and evil? I mean this sincerely? How do we maintain our humanness and integrate our growing knowledge and technology with it? Like this technology should be our tool, not our master, but it seems to me it is coming up like the Borg, which consumes sentient beings and makes them part of the Borg. The Star Trek series frequently visited this idea of societies controlled by computers and I think, thanks to Prussian bureaucracy mixed with technology, we are a computer-controlled society but the components of the computer are programmed humans who are organized by policies, not just manufactured parts.
See the examples I gave.
Good point and an exciting notion. I read in a very old book that the ancient Eyptians believed in the trinity of the soul. One part of the trinity died with the body. One part was judged and either got to enter the good afterlife or not, depending on the weight of the heart. No matter what, the third part reunited with the source. Christianity made the god spirit separate from who we are and made the trinity a supernatural father, son, and holy ghost, and created a separate being of evil to explain evil. This difference is a difference in how we judge each other and our relationships and how we understand good and evil.
I say evil is with us and part of us. It has shown itself. By what life does (not only people). Why is that reifying? What else approach can we take?
A moral interpretation of a phenomena implies a distinction between "phenomena" and "the interpretation". An interpretation is not a phenomena and is likewise not an object (I would hold phenomena and object as synonymous). The main point I was trying to make is that morality is projection as opposed to discovery, so to speak. A moral interpretation does not imply anything moral about the objective nature of the phenomena (or object) in question.
Other humans are subjects, not objects. Subjects are not phenomena. In other words, there is no inherent moral "goodness" or "badness" in objects.
I agree. But that wasn't what I was explicating: there's a difference between annihilating what one interprets as bad or good and annihilating what is bad or good. I don't think there are any valid ontic or phenomenological traits or properties or essence of objects that make them bad or good, nor any relations that produce "badness" or "goodness": it is solely a matter of contemplation of subjects.
I agree that history is full of examples of trying to fight (or even annihilate) what people (in their time) interpreted as wrong or right: that's doesn't have any relation to any objective morality.
The way that question is framed heavily implies a specific answer (e.g. irrational annihilation pretty much turns the question into a statement hidden as a question). I'm not sure what you mean here. I think most humans would agree that we are striving to remove "evil" or even "annihilate" it if you will. Do you mean more like "should we walk to the edge of extinction to prevent 'evil'"?
Again, I don't see how it would be objective. But, furthermore, how is annihilating evil, evil? Is this a question of "does the end justify the means"? I think the question would need to be formulated more precisely for me to give a substantive response.
If by "seems" you are trying to convey that it seems as though humans are naturally going to self-extinction, then I think that is a defensible position (I am not thoroughly convinced of it though).
I don't see how advancing society away from nature strays away from "natural" morals because they don't exist: morals aren't something objectively real in the universe. Sure, there's benefits to being connected with nature, but I don't see how that has anything to do with straying away from morals: our morals and ethics have progressed substantially over the millennia.
There's no "natural" morality. Deviating into what most people may consider "evil" nowadays (or what they considered it three thousand years ago) does not imply that "natural chaos" ensues.
I've never heard of masochists going happiness = (psychological) suffering.
The brain/mind is a very complex organ!
:snicker:
I think this is almost irrefutable!
Quoting Athena
A clarion call of caution against how technology is employed and how it might affect all stakeholders involved is one that the human race has to hear and fully understand, through past examples which prove the point. We are technologically smart but we must become much wiser in its use.
To do this, however, we must obtain better control. WE CANNOT allow technological advancement and technological applications to be left to the whims and machinations of creatures such as Elon Musk.
It is all of us who have to thank you, your sister and your like for being the brave, vital front-line warriors for good that you sound like you are. You connect with many more people than you realise, which is why your 99% figure seemed too high to me.
I would not like to be in the shoes of the moronic counselor you describe. The Jewish community are known for producing many lawyers for example. I would write to one or two of their legal groups as well.
You only need one of those to feel angry at how your friend was discriminated against to start legal proceedings against the company/group that employs this counselor on a no win no fee basis. You should also cite those who tried to obstruct your ability to complain. I probably don't have to tell you to retain every piece of evidence you can including on those who are trying to hinder you. I hope some 'energetic' people volunteer to support you and help you do some of the groundwork involved.
If I lived in the same country as you, I would volunteer my time and effort, free of charge to help in any way I could. There must be plenty of folks nearer to you who would do the same.
Thank you again for your fight for human equality of treatment and respect, regardless of ethnicity or national identity. ALL POWER TO YOU! And please always remember YOU are part of the solution and NOT part of the problem.
:up: :clap: :100:
It's what humans judge as evil behavior or evil acts performed by other humans.
That's how the human label 'evil' manifests or exemplifies.
Evil has no objectively real existence as a fundamental part of the Universe.
That's just more supernatural woo woo BS!
Open your eyes!
The greatest evil present in modern society, but not recognized by them in the middle of it, is the distancing from nature. Woowoo visions of a future super transhuman testify of this. Somehow, modern man and woman are not satisfied with the gods-given.
My visual sensors work fine and provide real input, unlike the 'dreams' based input you assign significant value to.
Aint the judgement part of the universe? You might say it's a feature caused by evolution, to whatever nonsensical woowoo purpose, but then you take away it's fundamental existence and replace it by your own interpretation.
BS
You'll make it to transhuman. In fact, you already are.
Btw, have you seen what they did what the question on stack exchange? They closed it. Do I have to say more?
Everything which is 'part' of the Universe does not permeate the entire Universe or else the word 'local' would have no meaning. A human judging a particular act of another human as evil is a local subjective judgment and the act involved, that is being judged, is not a consequence of, or a manifestation of, a fundamental force of evil that exists objectively, separately, and universally.
Quoting Hillary
What are you calling BS. The fact my eyes work or the fact that you value your dreams as a source of a commlink with the supernatural?
Aw, thanks! Its nice of you to see me as an advanced human but my modestly must insist you are being too complimentary :blush:
Quoting Hillary
Do they give you their reason?
What if the other option is Donald Trump? :snicker:
I just clicked on the physics stack exchange link to the post you are referring to. You had provided a link to it earlier in a PM. I got the following message:
Page not found
This question was voluntarily removed by its author.
Please explain!
:lol: What a choice! :rage: :broken:
My only option in that circumstance would be to seek a third way.
I remember my exchange with 'Nikolas Gaspar,' regarding the choice between dropping the two A-bombs on Japan and the alternative or (probably even more horrific) invading Japan to end the war.
Any kind of 'Sophies choice,' scenario is horrific but I don't think the only two choices available to the human race for who can develop and wield current and future human tech is Elon Musk or The big orange balloon of Donald Trump. I hear the calls of caution from @Athena when it comes to how the human race employs tech. I suggest we don't allow F***wits such as Elon Musk or Donald Trump any significant influence in the area.
Between Scylla and Charybdis. Right! My, my what a pleasant day it is.
You know much more about mythology than I do agent smith. I had to go to google again.
Thank goodness for the google search engine. I would not understand most of the references people use here on TPF without it. Its such a vital tool imo to try to understand the viewpoints of others:
Wiki offered:
"Being between Scylla and Charybdis is an idiom deriving from Greek mythology, which has been associated with the proverbial advice "to choose the lesser of two evils". Several other idioms, such as "on the horns of a dilemma", "between the devil and the deep blue sea", and "between a rock and a hard place" express similar meanings. The mythical situation also developed a proverbial use in which seeking to choose between equally dangerous extremes is seen as leading inevitably to disaster"
Quoting Agent Smith
You know I have difficulty understanding your 'true' state of mind from the enigmatic style of words you employ. Are you actually having a pleasant day today?
Lack of detail. Missing clarity. But I mean, how clear can I be? Rotating particles in the whole of spacetime. Rotating in space and time. Equivalent to rotating in energy and momentum, taking all possible values independently from one another, offering real (themselves, with an anti, being virtual particles with the relativistic energy momentum relation) charged particles the perfect means for interaction by coupling to them.
An analogy. Consider the virtual particles elastic strings all over space. Two charged particles interact by coupling both to a string. It breaks up and resembles the curvy line in a Feynman diagram. It delivers the right energy and momentum to both electrons (which is easy since it has all of them!). In the mathematical expression for the associated Feynman diagram this is accomplished by Dirac deltas which pick out the right energy and momentum value (or, in the position representation, the Fourier transform, the right times and position; that's why QFT in phasespace is perfect!). The photon, after the electrons have couple ld, decouples and returns to it's closed form, the "virtual" elastic string. A single electron continuously couples to a whole bunch of them. An electric potential is established. The elastic strings continuously break up, reach out, and return to the vacuum.
:smile:
Nice one! Like 10 000 tears... :lol:
They closed it. It git down voted. Then I deleted. Ill undelete!
Already on the fundamental level, good and bad exist. Attractive forces and repulsive forces. Positively charged particles and negatively charged. Particles and antiparticles. In my cosmology there is as much matter as antimatter. A balance of good and bad. Disturbing the balance is the true evil. And that's man-made.
You really need to have this discussion with qualified physicists. From a layperson's viewpoint, you need to explain what you mean by 'interact by coupling' (the word coupling is used in many different ways.)
'coupling to a string,' makes even less sense from someone who does not advocate string theory!
Quoting Hillary
Yeah, I edited that typo! and one of my favourite phrases is 10000 YEARS OF tears, not 10000 tears.
Quoting Hillary
How many other opposites do you conflate with the human labels good and evil.
You have used
positive/negative or attractive/repulsive
particle/antiparticle or matter/antimatter.
In what way do these differ from
push/pull, up/down, backwards/forwards, big/small, male/female, black/white etc?
Good and evil have no such associations.
The particle itself is no string. The elastic strings stand for the closed quantum bubble without external legs in a Feynman diagram. The mathematical expression that goes along with it is an integration over all energies (including negatives!) and momenta (independent time and space components of the momentum four vector, which in the real particle case are connected by the relativistic energy momentum relation). The particle rotates in spacetime (fluctuates!, hence a fluctuation!) With all energies and momentum, giving what is needed in an interaction, and returning to the isolated elastic string state. They are not strings from string theory, just a means to visualize. A closed string breaks open, connects with two electrons (coupling), gives them the right energy and momentum, and closes again. Of course, the virtual photon interacts with virtual electrons. Second order processes. A single electron can interact with closed loops to reach out but it can also reach out to itself (self coupling, giving rise to anomalous magnetic moment). And imagine. For one two electron interaction there are infinite Feynman diagrams. There is no need to renormalize this though if we consider the particle non pointlike. A point particle is the biggest mass hallucination in history.
Reaching out to attract is love. Reaching out to repel is hate, the bad, the evil.
No, I think that dubious honour belongs to god posits!
So two attracting poles of magnets love each other! :lol:
The asteroid that was attracted to Earth and wiped out the dinosaurs was an act of Universal love? :lol:
Your attempts to anthropomorphise observed scientific phenomena and conflate them with human labels such as good and evil is at best, entertaining.
Love kills! We wouldnt have been here if that didnt happen!
Quoting universeness
Yes. Basic, simple pure love. The longing to be together.
Yes. Like the Higgs mechanism.
Yeah ooooookkkkaaayyyyy! If we go extinct by full nuclear war then, that will be a godly act of Universal love in your mind. After all, according to you, love kills.
War is hate! And the way its performed nowadays, caused by science and its mive away from nature.
War is caused by humans but so is peace and nature invokes science through the human tendency to ask qustions.
In the film Spartacus with Kirk Douglas.
He explains to his love interest Lavinia that he hates war. She asks what he wants from life and he says he wants to know things like where the wind comes from. She tells him that the wind comes from a god who blows into the world from a cave. He laughs at this suggestion (thankfully).
My worry is that if you read Lavinia's story of where the wind comes from you might suggest to others that her story may in fact have been true, originally, as the first cause of all wind but now that god just lives in heaven beside his dinogod chums and is entertained by watching us. :rofl:
Here's what I think:
Evil, there seems little doubt that it's real/it exists; I've deliberately ignored the possibility that it has to be an illusion (omnibenevolent God, karmic debt, justice).
Let's proceed...
Contextualize evil in an end-means framework/setting.
1. Evil as an end is, in my humble opinion, true evil. To enjoy/draw satisfaction from the suffering/death of others (sadism). Rarest of the rare and so less of a problem.
2. Evil as a means. Sic vita est. A saving grace, a redeeming quality, ought implies can. We really need to work on this, with a vengeance I might add. We should be able to figure out how we can make both the ends and the means good. Anyone who discovers this secret of morality deserves not one, not two, but an [math]\infty[/math] of Nobel Prizes.
:snicker:
Quoting universeness
War is caused by humans, off course. But there are different means for waging it. Based on science it turns into pure evil.
Quoting universeness
Don't worry. The gods enjoy the wind they see blowing from caves! :grin:
Damned brother Agent! You astound me every time! :grin:
But the question is does it exist as a 'force of evil,' outwith the human condition or/and outside of the sentient experiences of any lifeform?
:snicker:
Oh I don't know so much! If I knew for sure a nuclear war was coming I would try to stand right where the ICBM lands. Very quick death! Much nicer than getting chopped to pieces by swords wielded by mental Romans in the past. The vast majority of all humans will dies very quickly in a full nuclear exchange, thanks to Science!
For most victims, nuclear war offers a quicker death than conventional war.
In my humble opinion, evil is just biological (pest) control. :snicker:
That's not the question. It's a fact.
Yes. A-bombs are only human! Only those who survive die very slowly, while not being involved in the battle at all!
:up: Quick & Painless Morte!
:roll: Are we back to your electrons (evil as negatively charged), antielectrons or positrons (good as positively charged) Does the fact that its the ANTIelectron that's positively charged not mess up your pure conjecture? ANTIchrist is evil after all! And another thing is the antichrist not just Jesus' mother's sister. If she was Mary Christ then her sister would be Jesus' anti by relation (or is my spelling wrong? :rofl: )
I can hear the conversation in the christ household now!
Jesus: Now listen ma! you cant invite your sister, i know she is my anti but she is evil, Satan spawn!
Mary: BUT SHES MA SISTER! you little spoiled brat!
Exactamundo! Try getting @hillary to appreciate all that science has done for him :roll:
He is an ungrateful little tyke of a polytheist! :rofl:
Your attempt to point to contradictions and inconsistencies doesn't hold up. The anti electron is anti negative, so a love electron. But when meeting another positron, they hate each other. Only opposites attract. That's why I love my wife. She's ugly and stupid! :lol:
Quoting Agent Smith
The spray?
Yes. Thanks to that I have happy dreams about destruction. And now I feel it getting near, what else to thank for a quick death I'm to much a coward for to do myself? :lol:
To deal with evil we have laws but laws do not stop more evil and new kinds of evil.
Evil can be chased away only with incense and torture but issue is that evil today has run out of control not by amount of evil but rather by count of people tolerating evil.
So human laws that deal with human evils which have been labeled as such by other humans.
So do you agree that evil does not exist as a fundamental force/power outside of sentient lifeforms?
Do you think evil has a metaphysical existence?
Quoting SpaceDweller
Why would evil be scared of torture? is evil not masochistic? Why would evil be afraid of one of its own manifestations? That of torturing others.
Quoting SpaceDweller
Compared to all times past? Compared to early tribal cultures? Compared to during the holocaust?
:snicker: We've made so much progress! :grin:
Something like that! I however can't figure out how Jesus was a pest? It's relative then. Good folks can get in the way of a perfectly laid out plan. :chin:
The alternative, mon ami, is worse: Should the good retaliate (tit-for-tat)? That would be moral suicide, oui? Evil only understands evil, eh?
[quote=Brutus]As fire drives out fire...[/quote]
Yes agree, evil is unique to humans, ex. saying that a Lion or Tiger are evil because they eat other animals is nonsense because animals are driven by survival instincts and animals also do not know good and evil unlike humans.
Quoting universeness
If by existence you refer to the devil or the devil tempting people to do evil then I would rather say that this is spiritual existence of evil.
but otherwise evil is product of people rather than thing or a being which could exist.
Quoting universeness
Torture is more effective than laws because one is less likely to commit evil works knowing the consequence.
Quoting universeness
Yes because punishment for evil in earlier times was more adequate than it is today.
What has become if us?
What made us blind?
Could evil exist as a quantum field or as a consequence of subatomic interactions or as opposite magnetic poles such as positive and negative attractions, as proposed by @Hillary?
Quoting SpaceDweller
But my question was why do you think pure undiluted evil could be defeated by torturing it?
Quoting SpaceDweller
So what forms of earlier punishments would you recommend bringing back?
Would you bring back the death penalty for all evil acts or just some and how do you prevent the death of the small minority, who are later discovered to be innocent?
Panpsychism!
Animals can be good and bad too. They defend their children or fellows from bad forces. Like the lion saving his pall from the evil group of sharky biting hyenas.
Quoting SpaceDweller
Why should evil be punished or prevented in the first place?
Thank goodness for drops in temperature or life would just be too hot to live.
I love the winter, (snow, snowballs, wearing thick warm clothing, its good to know cold as it allows you to enjoy the experience of getting warm. Too warm can be good as well as you can enjoy a really cold beer much more than you can in the winter)
Quoting Hillary
We are still here! hi hillary! :smile:
Quoting Hillary
Nefarious b******* who poke you in the eye too much, staring at the Sun without proper protection, medical conditions that science hasn't found a solution to YET, GO TRANSHUMANISM!!
Quoting Hillary
Are you a polytheistic panpsychist?
Panpsychism does not suggest the fundamental building blocks of consciousness are inherently good or evil. Compare tasting each ingredient of a cake and then taste the cake, would you say the cake tastes good or evil? based on how good or evil each ingredient tasted?
I thought I may as well ask you about this one as well.
Are you suggesting that if I was an evil deranged serial killer in the house of my next intended victim and I was ready to strike, that I may be dissuaded from my evil act if my intended victim lit some incense?
Certain smells can cause evil to run away in fear? Is that what you are suggesting?
No, definitely not.
Quoting universeness
I told you, because it would scare sh**t out of potential future evil doers.
Quoting universeness
All of them, including most horrible such as crucifixion, skinning a live or greek bull.
Quoting universeness
I would bring or judge death penalty only for evil acts which cause death of whomever.
Quoting universeness
you can't prevent any death that is later discovered innocent because who ever is in question is already dead.
What is possible is to investigate what misjudgement happened and then apply adequate punishment.
Quoting universeness
You don't use incense to deal with serial killer or to defend against him :smile:
-----------------
I know this sounds horrible but the evil that we're talking about is things like mass killings in the US, war crimes, raping a child and similar.
to prevent such evil punishment must be severe.
because nobody wants evil.
But it exists in the very basics of the universe. To get rid of it means to get rid of the universe and humanity. The evil is part of all of us. That's why science is scary.
You maybe onto something. Certain kinds of music can defuse a tense situation. It works the other way round too, aggravate an already very volatile situation.
Why not smell too? Pheromones, perfume, cologne...what do they do?
Dear mother of gods...Quoting Agent Smith
Don't get me started, brother Agent! :starstruck:
evil part of universe?? maybe, but then your understanding of what is evil is not same as mine.
Of what else?
Is this not just some humans trying to be more brutal or evil towards those who have committed the most evil acts? The way to stop someone from being evil, is to threaten them with an evil more evil that their evil. All you do with that approach imo is to create competition amongst those who are evil.
Here is an example someone came up with as a punishment for those who commit the most evil acts in our modern society. It starts with an old idea.
They are placed alive in the same coffin as one or more of their victims. But they will be constrained to an apparatus around the body of, but they will not be able to touch their victim. There will be various illuminations, recording equipment and some worms and bugs etc included in the coffin, which will be buried at the traditional depth.
The killer will be naked and have two tubes down their throat and they will have a small breather unit connected to their nose, which will not close off their ability to smell. These will be connected to an automated system outside of the grave.
This system will maintain the life of the killer by force-feeding them food and water. any waste produced will just add to the punishment. They will have to watch the deterioration of their victim as well as feel the result of that deterioration move towards themselves. This process will be filmed to study the killer's descent into probable madness. These recordings will then be used to scare other potential offenders. Do you approve of this idea or do you think this shows that hell, horror and terror are only limited by what a human imagination can perceive? I am sure someone could come up with an even worse punishment than this quite disturbing suggestion. Do you really think that encouraging competitive evil is the way forward for a future human justice system?
Is that supposed to be a punishment? How lovely it would be to be just buried, get your food and drink, and just lay back... only the pile of excrements will gonna be smelly...
Absolutely not. I think resorting to evil to to deal with evil as a general approach is stunted and just smacks of a person who is aroused by and interested in abject cruelty.
Good is harmony pertained between matching and mismatching behaviours.
Humankind and animals live together, therefore not all human or animal personalities are acceptable. In black and white, humans are hot, terrifying creatures who might come across as too violent to an amount of things(bar animals who accept friendly violence).
Good is an automatic behavioural norm adjusted depending on natural selection; behavioural norms can theoretically vary.
Evil are the beahviours out of the realm of good or expiring normal behaviours.
Morality and immorality suggests this.
Morality and immorality exhibits imbalance and balance in my opinion having read the word here a total of 1,897,875 times.
What I wondered is how is balance and imbalance achieved concerning behaviour and Eureka! I thought of behavioural norms.
Mankind is NOT the only populus, considering both alive and dead things. It meddles with other things so it's persona is tested, must appease it's luxuries, and quarry burdens.
It cannot at any time abuse what it's got or it at least will think negative thoughts.
On negative thoughts we move onto forgiveness of evil which lies in mental and physical handicaps.
You can always volunteer to be the first to try out the punishment! I certainly wont volunteer.
Quoting Tom Storm
It's always nice to hear a logical voice of reason and rationality break through the din of irrational thinking Tom. :100: :clap: :party:
That Voice will lead to the demise of humanity and the planet it lives on. Only if we say farewell to reason (Feyerabend) we might have chance to survive. Only when modern day man looses their mind, we (and all other life) stand a chance.
Well, a few weeks maybe...
Yeah, that's what I figured you would say! :flower: :death:
We can always say 'sure' to you, 'we will release you in time.' :halo:
:lol:
We get to know each other, brother zuni! Flowers of death...
Flowers of death are all the human race will have to offer each other if our justice system becomes one that desires vengeance based on competitive evil.
Anyone who desires a punishment deterrent based on being more evil than the evil perpetrated on victims by evil people, are asking for a dystopian society.
If institutionalized, yes. In the US it is still allowed. A humane lethal injection. Without pain. You just fall asleep. I sign for it... :flower: :death: :party:
Capital punishment by lethal injection does not fit the kind of deterrent punishments suggested by @SpaceDweller. My dialogue was about his suggestions for a future human justice system.
Any capital punishment runs the risk of executing someone who is later found to have been innocent. I remain conflicted on the issue of capital punishment for the more extreme crimes.
I have a lot of sympathy for the viewpoint 'better that all the guilty remain alive, than one innocent is executed by mistake.'
Your imagination for punishment methods is funny, but some facts about most severe evil must be taken into account:
1. We learned from history that excess use of torture to deal with evil is counter productive because it leads to false accusations and public unrest.
Serious evil like war crimes, child rape or mass shootings happens on rare occasions therefore harsh punishment would be used only is such rare cases causing no problems for society.
2. Using evil such as torture to punish evil doer should be reciprocal, that is not more evil than evil that the evil doer did.
3. It is up to debate how to measure evil and what asymmetric evils to apply for evil as punishment.
For example if someone killed 15 people it would be stupid to perform symmetric evil such as to kill 15 members of his relatives in return, killing the person who killed 15 as a punishment is not ideal as well since that's 1 life for 15 and is not painful at all compared to pain of the people whose relatives were killed by him.
Instead asymmetric evil of equal weight may be Cangue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cangue leaving the person to the mercy of those who lost their relatives, let them decide and let everyone know what will happen if such evil happens again.
Quoting universeness
Yes as long there is guarantee that such punishments are not abused and used only for most serious and most disgusting crimes.
Sixteen times a lethal injection. Or four electric chairs, four gallows, four bullets, and four injections. At choice, maybe...
It's not only about deterrent, but you seem to be suggesting that it's inhumane to perform torture as a punishment, Cangue ie. as a punishment is perfect to let us see how humane are those seeking for justice.
If relatives who lost their family decide to stop the punishment we can call the society humane, but I'm sure most won't be humane when it touches them.
It's easy to be humane If some evil doesn't touch you or me, but what if you seek justice because someone killed your family? would you be humane instead of seeking fair justice?
maybe you would, but we are all different. someone else would not.
You have a strange sense of humour and I think your viewpoints on a balanced human system of justice is more driven by revenge than it is by rehabilitation. I remain conflicted between the two but I would fight vehemently against any system based on competing extremities of punitive evils.
This can be problematic in a 'one system fits all' justice system. If you kill then the system will kill you.
What if a person considered their family a bunch of evil b******* who deserved to die. Perhaps they will seek to reward the killer rather than seek punishment. Can the justice system rely on the statement of opinion from the surviving family member and reward the killer as he/she wishes?
[I]He felt like a star the whole time, as he was pushed further and further into decrepit dimensions of pain, he was stabbed in the back at every surprising occasion"[/I]- Prometheus.
Why?
Hell would be more professional and we would fear it less for unruly reasons such as severity, instead, it would be like missing the good life, rather than being opposite.
If you're so much about rehabilitation over revenge then you should favor torture over death penalty.
if you favor lifetime prison instead of death, that's is not rehabilitation either, it's waste of time for the prisoner and waste of resources for society since that person will not be able to return to society.
:snicker:
You are misquoting me, I stated that I remain conflicted between the two goals of 'punishment' and 'rehabilitation.' I think getting the balance correct or just improving the balance that currently exists within most judicial systems at present, is a very complicated issue.
I don't accept torture as a punitive methodology but I would use it against someone to extract information to save my loved ones or to save innocents in general but it's how I would define 'innocents' that may be problematic. Trying to avoid hypocrisy in the application of justice is very hard on a case-by-case basis.
I think the current prison system has many many problems and I do think new approaches are required.
I just don't know for sure, what they are. I do think we need much more investment in psychological studies, neuroscientific studies etc. I think we have to look much more deeply into how prisoners might 'payback' to the society they have harmed but I think it needs to be more nuanced than use of their physical labour. I think we need to study all the issues involved in far greater detail and we need many new 'pilot schemes,' conceived by those who have the best expertise in the area of 'evil behaviour,' and how to deal with it.
I certainly don't advocate your suggestions of deterrents or punishments based on mimicking the worse that evil people can come up with to abuse their victims.
What is a better way to communicate the ideas?
Hana Arendt's essay on the banality of evil would be a good start.
I am a rather busy person. Can briefly say why Hana Arendt's essay is about?
Basically, evil does not have power but is petty.
What else would qualify a person for a death sentence because keeping them alive is a waste of resources? How about paralyzed people or severely mentally challenged people?
The question of the thread is What to do with the evil, undeniably with us?
SpaceDweller said.
"if you favor lifetime prison instead of death, that's is not rehabilitation either, it's waste of time for the prisoner and waste of resources for society since that person will not be able to return to society.
— SpaceDweller
It is easy to hate a mass murderer and perhaps realize it is not safe to leave this person on the streets unsupervised. What made this person like this? I think SpaceDweller argued in favor of killing these people but other things also make people useless to society and is it a waste of resources to care for them?
A broken neck can leave a person paralyzed. What good is this person to society? Various things can leave a person mentally incapable of having an independent life or maybe even learning to behave like a civil human being and require them to depend on others to keep them alive. They may or may not be pleasant people. What do they contribute to society? Many of us may face the reality of Alzheimer's Disease and become a burden on others.
What is the criteria for respecting a human's life? What does this judgment have to do with evil?
I had time to read an explanation of Hana Arendt's essay. I love it! I think we saw it when people stormed the Capital Building in the US. I think this thinking is very much about Max Weber and the Prussian model of bureaucracy and education for technology.
I have a job that is all about compassion and it is also under the authority of a government bureaucracy and seriously lacking in compassion. At monthly meetings, I see the spirit of this bureaucracy is also capable of sending people to concentration camps. Those who are above me, work in fear of not enforcing the rules and losing their jobs or perhaps losing the whole program for everyone. They know enforcing the rules is harsh and against being compassionate, but they do it because they fear the consequences of not doing it.
You might learn much about being human by hanging around with disabled folk.
There's a thread of nastiness running through this topic. It derives from the conceptual error I identified at the start; treating evil as if it were a thing rather than a choice.
As for evil being a thing, I think Mongols and plagues were seen as evils or as God's way of punishing people. A problem with Christianity is one can not be sure if it is Satan or God causing terrible things to happen. A violent spirit that leads someone to kill others is an evil thing and I don't think people choose that. Such people may believe they are possessed by Satan. They may actually want to be stopped from acting on their thoughts and feelings. I don't think these things occur for supernatural reasons but I think some believe it is all caused by good and bad supernatural beings.