<< it is a function of time
And what, praytell, is time?
Cheers !
>>cute, but i think we will eventually quantize time, its a problem physicists have mulled over for a long time.
<< it is a function of time
And what, praytell, is time?
Cheers !
>>cute, but i think we will eventually quantize time, its a problem physicists have mulled over for a long time.
<< There is an easy test to ascertain Man's nature. Look into your heart (figuratively please) and ask yourself, "Am I a good person or a bad one?" >>
how do you know what is bad and what is good?
What qualifies as a good person or a bad one?
its all perspective. I dont believe in good or evil. I think some people follow a high moral code and others opt for the easy way out.
<< When something is "properly" cleaned, what prevents virii from immediately entering again? >>
To answer this question, you'd have to understand why people do 'evil' things.
<< Can we assume something without evidence? >>
Of course not. Nobody should believe something unless they believe it. But like I said, you have to understand why people behave irrationally (evil).
<< how do you know what is bad and what is good?
What qualifies as a good person or a bad one?
>>
To put it bluntly, any action that increases the survival potential of living things is good. Evil is the opposite.
Hehehe! You're being silly today, Linuxboy!
Well, give your definition of "evil" and "good" and tell us if man measures up to either naturally.Or if Neomits doesn't mind telling us what is "evil" and "good". Really though, I think one's definition of "evil" and "good" is insignificant, for at some point, we all agree on at least one quality of evil or good.
It was difficult for me to decide on my perception of human beings when I had to write a paper on it.
At the end, the resolution I reached was that man's nature was not necessarily good but it was certainly bad. In other words, I think "bad" is a fixed part of human nature but good was possible.
If you ask me too, I would say human nature is self-interested. And self-interest isn't necessarily bad if used discretely. I subscribe to moral egoism when it comes to business ethics!
Well, give your definition of "evil" and "good" and tell us if man measures up to either naturally.Or if Neomits doesn't mind telling us what is "evil" and "good". Really though, I think one's definition of "evil" and "good" is insignificant, for at some point, we all agree on at least one quality of evil or good.
It was difficult for me to decide on my perception of human beings when I had to write a paper on it.
At the end, the resolution I reached was that man's nature was not necessarily good but it was certainly bad. In other words, I think "bad" is a fixed part of human nature but good was possible.
If you ask me too, I would say human nature is self-interested. And self-interest isn't necessarily bad if used discretely. I subscribe to moral egoism when it comes to business ethics!
<< Really though, I think one's definition of "evil" and "good" is insignificant, for at some point, we all agree on at least one quality of evil or good.
>>
I agree. My view of what is morally right and wrong doesn't matter. We all have set things that in our minds are either good or bad. The question I'm trying to ask is whether you think if people, were left alone without guidelines or lessons from their parents, would their acts be of good nature or bad?
If you can't see that the NY firefighters' altruistic acts of heroism aren't a clear testament to Man's good nature, you are being cynical.
They did what anyone else would do in their place. How can we call it altruistic when we know that they knew they would be glorified and turned into heros? Then they go and pose for calenders, do endorsements. These "altruistic acts of heroism" are a marketing label, they just did their jobs, and got caught up in the energy of the moment, a collective cause.
They did what anyone else would do in their place. How can we call it altruistic when we know that they knew they would be glorified and turned into heros? Then they go and pose for calenders, do endorsements. These "altruistic acts of heroism" are a marketing label, they just did their jobs, and got caught up in the energy of the moment, a collective cause.
not one or the other.
we cannot be good without being evil, and we cannot be evil without being good.
we cannot be good without being evil, and we cannot be evil without being good.
Man is inherently self-interested which is neither good nor evil.
For example someone could completely live in their ego, but feel good about life and like themselves, so they're likely to help others, which in turn affirms their ego.
Or if you've had a miserable life and been abused and treated like crap, you probably feel bad most of the time, and have little respect for others or the norms of society. In fact inflicting pain on others can feel good.
Theres something beyond self-interest however, and can be summed up as wholeness of mind, you know the whole ying, yang thing.
So basically though no man is not inherently good or evil, just inherently self-interested. Thats why its important as parents to teach children right!
For example someone could completely live in their ego, but feel good about life and like themselves, so they're likely to help others, which in turn affirms their ego.
Or if you've had a miserable life and been abused and treated like crap, you probably feel bad most of the time, and have little respect for others or the norms of society. In fact inflicting pain on others can feel good.
Theres something beyond self-interest however, and can be summed up as wholeness of mind, you know the whole ying, yang thing.
So basically though no man is not inherently good or evil, just inherently self-interested. Thats why its important as parents to teach children right!
<< They did what anyone else would do in their place. How can we call it altruistic when we know that they knew they would be glorified and turned into heros? Then they go and pose for calenders, do endorsements. These "altruistic acts of heroism" are a marketing label, they just did their jobs, and got caught up in the energy of the moment, a collective cause. >>
When they were running [/i]into[/i] the WTC, knowing that they would probably never return, I'm sure they weren't thinking about being Mr. August. Furthermore, their job requires great discipline and aptitude, so I think it highly unlikely for them to get "caught up in the energy of the moment."
<< For example someone could completely live in their ego, but feel good about life and like themselves, so they're likely to help others, which in turn affirms their ego. >>
Although some human behaviour can be explained through the ego, there is much that can't. I think it is more likely that survival of self, family, group, and race is the sole motivation for all human behaviour.
<< Although some human behaviour can be explained through the ego, there is much that can't. I think it is more likely that survival of self, family, group, and race is the sole motivation for all human behaviour. >>
That explains human behavoir at a certain animal level, but there are many levels of humanity, though we look basically the same, we operate on many different levels. That old saying 'you get what you put in' is certainly true.
People are born not knowing what is good or bad, they must be taught the difference by older people. If nobody teaches them what is evil, they will not know what they are doing.
The concepts of good and evil are constructs of man, not babies. Babies pop out rather neutral. Although they get quite selfish a bit later on in life as others have said, that's not evil, just natural.
True evil is building and managing your own Evil Petting Zoo.
True evil is building and managing your own Evil Petting Zoo.
When they were running into the WTC, knowing that they would probably never return
It's not going to be me, it's going to be the guy next to me. If people knew they would die in war or in a rescue attempt, things would probably be different. Everyone's trying to be a hero, that's how these things get done.
It's not going to be me, it's going to be the guy next to me. If people knew they would die in war or in a rescue attempt, things would probably be different. Everyone's trying to be a hero, that's how these things get done.
Everyone's true nature is pure. It just has been "clouded" over many many years of reincarnation. I mean, if an animal jumped out in front of your moving car, you'll try to avoid it.....that's our true nature showing.
<< People are born not knowing what is good or bad, they must be taught the difference by older people. If nobody teaches them what is evil, they will not know what they are doing. >>
EXACTLY what I'm asking is, will what they be doing then be considered by us as good or bad?
<< Everyone's true nature is pure. It just has been "clouded" over many many years of reincarnation. I mean, if an animal jumped out in front of your moving car, you'll try to avoid it.....that's our true nature showing. >>
I think you're on to something here. But just for the record, a rabbit jumped in front of my car and I ran it over. Sorry rabbit.
You know what I think?
Man isn't inherently anything...man is a SPECIAL creature, in that via its ability to reason, it can identify and objectify anything, including its impulses (feelings, instincts, hungers/lusts) and other qualities due to said impulses (jealousy, etc...) B/c of this, man also is able to "like" stuff and "dislike" stuff; to condemn or revere...thus, these impulses and such, cultivated by reason, and society, create the concepts of good and evil...
Man isn't inherently anything...man is a SPECIAL creature, in that via its ability to reason, it can identify and objectify anything, including its impulses (feelings, instincts, hungers/lusts) and other qualities due to said impulses (jealousy, etc...) B/c of this, man also is able to "like" stuff and "dislike" stuff; to condemn or revere...thus, these impulses and such, cultivated by reason, and society, create the concepts of good and evil...
<< Man isn't inherently anything...man is a SPECIAL creature, in that via its ability to reason, it can identify and objectify anything, including its impulses (feelings, instincts, hungers/lusts) and other qualities due to said impulses (jealousy, etc...) B/c of this, man also is able to "like" stuff and "dislike" stuff; to condemn or revere...thus, these impulses and such, cultivated by reason, and society, create the concepts of good and evil... >>
It's a lot simpler than that, actually. Any pro-survival behaviour brings pleasure (good). Any contra-survival behaviour brings pain(evil). Pleasure and pain are the only motivating factors in life. That's it!
It's a lot simpler than that, actually. Any pro-survival behaviour brings pleasure (good). Any contra-survival behaviour brings pain(evil). Pleasure and pain are the only motivating factors in life. That's it!
your nick reminds me of a quote from Faust
Right appetizing are you upward from the bosom, But further down your beastly part is gruesome
Although you seem to take what is Hobbes' view on motivation/human nature, I maintain the Aristophanean view that insight into human nature cannot be gathered from philosophizing or judging entire totality and reality through one's limited perspective. So I must invoke Goethe and try to make sense of that quote, incidentally about Mephistopheles.
It may appear to us that we are either good or bad on the surface. Our reason may be pure and we can fit things in a box. When when you go down, deeper into your own self, you see that the surface is illusory and the surface below that is, what seems to be the truth (finally !) is also false. So I must say that your lucubrations certainly are nice, especially when you make claims like "only motivating factors", but I think I like Goethe better, being persuaded by Aristophanes and all...
Cheers !
your nick reminds me of a quote from Faust
Right appetizing are you upward from the bosom, But further down your beastly part is gruesome
Although you seem to take what is Hobbes' view on motivation/human nature, I maintain the Aristophanean view that insight into human nature cannot be gathered from philosophizing or judging entire totality and reality through one's limited perspective. So I must invoke Goethe and try to make sense of that quote, incidentally about Mephistopheles.
It may appear to us that we are either good or bad on the surface. Our reason may be pure and we can fit things in a box. When when you go down, deeper into your own self, you see that the surface is illusory and the surface below that is, what seems to be the truth (finally !) is also false. So I must say that your lucubrations certainly are nice, especially when you make claims like "only motivating factors", but I think I like Goethe better, being persuaded by Aristophanes and all...
Cheers !
Both 'good' and 'evil' are highly subjective words. All events are neutral, only our perception determines whether we see them as negative or positive.
With that said, Humans can not be either (good or evil) since both aren't objective terms.
Humans simply develop, based on genetic and environmental factors.
With that said, Humans can not be either (good or evil) since both aren't objective terms.
Humans simply develop, based on genetic and environmental factors.
Random Variable
Lifer
- Aug 10, 2001
- 10,420
- 2
- 0
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter