|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jun 15, 2020 3:27:00 GMT
OK how about another example, let's say there's a serial killer that brutally murders a bunch of people. On the face of it that seems "evil", but let's say he was captured and it turned it out he had a brain tumor and once he had it removed his psychopathic behvaior and thoughts went away. Would you consider that an example of someone not knowingly doing evil? If I say evil is the act of intentionally causing harm for no reason other than to cause harm, would you agree? That seems a pretty limited definition. That would make, eg, Hitler not evil. He thought he had a good reason for inflicting the harm he did.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 15, 2020 3:40:27 GMT
OK. Let me spell this out. On the RFS Board we constantly discuss whether there is an 'objective' morality. Those of the theist variety mistakenly believe that there is ( God's Law in the Bible { though in the OT he killed heaps himself} 10 commandment Moses etc etc etc) Those with a more intellectual and historically knowledgeable view realise that man's morality, since the time of tribalism, through evolving societal rules and laws, is only as good as the current morals rules and mores of the day and the society they exist in. Hence it is inevitably possible that in one society ( or even within a society) that people can be unaware that their actions are 'evil ( whatever that means) and that their actions may be evil in the eyes of others and not in their own. Hence they would be unaware...so yes 'context. I am certain that Mayan native who did human sacrifice thought that they were appeasing their Gods and not doing anything wrong that we, in our society would call 'murder'. I'm not a fan of colored statements. You know, like "mistakenly believe" and "those with a more intellectual and historically knowledgeable view." Lucky for you, however, I am not influenced by slanted descriptors; I just gloss over them. That said, does the "forgive them for they know not what they do" thing apply here? Or is it still "evil" regardless? OK. I will truncate it and make it simple. 'Evil is in the eye of the bee holder'.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 15, 2020 3:43:02 GMT
If I say evil is the act of intentionally causing harm for no reason other than to cause harm, would you agree? That seems a pretty limited definition. That would make, eg, Hitler not evil. He thought he had a good reason for inflicting the harm he did. That would be the adjective form of the word, which is not something you do, knowingly or otherwise. If evil is an action, then there are no "evil people."
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 15, 2020 3:45:51 GMT
I'm not a fan of colored statements. You know, like "mistakenly believe" and "those with a more intellectual and historically knowledgeable view." Lucky for you, however, I am not influenced by slanted descriptors; I just gloss over them. That said, does the "forgive them for they know not what they do" thing apply here? Or is it still "evil" regardless? OK. I will truncate it and make it simple. 'Evil is in the eye of the bee holder'. I don't blame bees for stinging me. They're bees.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jun 15, 2020 3:50:29 GMT
That seems a pretty limited definition. That would make, eg, Hitler not evil. He thought he had a good reason for inflicting the harm he did. That would be the adjective form of the word, which is not something you do, knowingly or otherwise. If evil is an action, then there are no "evil people." OK, just reword what I said to "that would make the things Hitler did not evil."
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 15, 2020 3:50:39 GMT
OK. I will truncate it and make it simple. 'Evil is in the eye of the bee holder'. I don't blame bees for stinging me. They're bees. Then you could extrapolate that to my previous example of Mayans who killed people in human sacrifice.... they were more primitive than us with a different morality and view of what is a norm and what is evil. Just like bees, for whom stinging you is 'bee normal'.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 15, 2020 3:57:06 GMT
That would be the adjective form of the word, which is not something you do, knowingly or otherwise. If evil is an action, then there are no "evil people." OK, just reword what I said to "that would make the things Hitler did not evil." You're still using "evil" to describe something - in this case, "evil things" or "evil acts." Is the Socrates quote incomplete?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 15, 2020 4:00:37 GMT
I don't blame bees for stinging me. They're bees. Then you could extrapolate that to my previous example of Mayans who killed people in human sacrifice.... they were more primitive than us with a different morality and view of what is a norm and what is evil. Just like bees, for whom stinging you is 'bee normal'. Goz, I don't think we're on the same page here. You seem to be talking about what is evil, whereas I'm talking about what evil is.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 15, 2020 4:07:23 GMT
Then you could extrapolate that to my previous example of Mayans who killed people in human sacrifice.... they were more primitive than us with a different morality and view of what is a norm and what is evil. Just like bees, for whom stinging you is 'bee normal'. Goz, I don't think we're on the same page here. You seem to be talking about what is evil, whereas I'm talking about what evil is. No, it is the same thing. 'Evil' is merely what each individual society through time... thinks it is. My point is that there are no absolutes that constitutes any and all societies think is evil. My Mayan example, is one...you go through what people think is evil and it comes down to murder and rape and child abuse etc, in our society, and you find other societies in history thinking ALL of these things are 'normal. Girls were married young, the Mayans killed people, rape in wartime and murder was OK. The fucking Bible had the whole trifector FFS. In short there is no evil that is absolute.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jun 15, 2020 4:16:47 GMT
OK, just reword what I said to "that would make the things Hitler did not evil." You're still using "evil" to describe something - in this case, "evil things" or "evil acts." Is the Socrates quote incomplete? I was just addressing your definition, not Socrates's.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 15, 2020 4:21:42 GMT
Goz, I don't think we're on the same page here. You seem to be talking about what is evil, whereas I'm talking about what evil is. No, it is the same thing. 'Evil' is merely what each individual society through time... thinks it is. My point is that there are no absolutea what constitues any and all societies think is evil. My Mayan example, is one...you go through what people think is evil and it comes down to murder and rape and child abuse etc, in our society, and you find other societies in history thinking ALL of these things are 'normal. Girls were married young, the Mayans killed people, rape in wartime and murder was OK. The fucking Bible had the whole trifector FFS. In short there is no evil that is absolute. If you were to tell me you have taupe wallpaper, I'd only know you have wallpaper if I didn't know what taupe was. Likewise, when someone tells me that this act or that thing is evil, it would mean nothing to me if I don't know what evil is. So I would ask, then immediately regret doing so, apparently. So, evil is just a word we use to describe things we don't like, and since what we like is subjective, so is evil. If that's it, then the Socrates quote is completely nonsensical. He may as well have said, "No man knowingly does purple." Actually, having written that, I think I solved the riddle: Purple isn't something you do, so no man does purple. Period. Socks was spot on.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 15, 2020 4:22:40 GMT
You're still using "evil" to describe something - in this case, "evil things" or "evil acts." Is the Socrates quote incomplete? I was just addressing your definition, not Socrates's. Socrates' definition is what I'm addressing. What is it?
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jun 15, 2020 4:34:12 GMT
I was just addressing your definition, not Socrates's. Socrates' definition is what I'm addressing. What is it? But you said: "If I say evil is the act of intentionally causing harm for no reason other than to cause harm, would you agree?" Sounds like you were offering a definition, not just discussing Socrates's...
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 15, 2020 4:37:14 GMT
No, it is the same thing. 'Evil' is merely what each individual society through time... thinks it is. My point is that there are no absolutea what constitues any and all societies think is evil. My Mayan example, is one...you go through what people think is evil and it comes down to murder and rape and child abuse etc, in our society, and you find other societies in history thinking ALL of these things are 'normal. Girls were married young, the Mayans killed people, rape in wartime and murder was OK. The fucking Bible had the whole trifector FFS. In short there is no evil that is absolute. If you were to tell me you have taupe wallpaper, I'd only know you have wallpaper if I didn't know what taupe was. Likewise, when someone tells me that this act or that thing is evil, it would mean nothing to me if I don't know what evil is. So I would ask, then immediately regret doing so, apparently. So, evil is just a word we use to describe things we don't like, and since what we like is subjective, so is evil. If that's it, then the Socrates quote is completely nonsensical. He may as well have said, "No man knowingly does purple." Actually, having written that, I think I solved the riddle: Purple isn't something you do, so no man does purple. Period. Socks was spot on. I am so pleased that you worked this concept out around wallpaper and colour as I am an Interior Designer( amongst other things) Yes. Evil and sin are completely arbitrary except for the religious amongst us who are brainwashed about these matters and have lost their ability for logical thinking.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 15, 2020 4:46:50 GMT
Socrates' definition is what I'm addressing. What is it? But you said: "If I say evil is the act of intentionally causing harm for no reason other than to cause harm, would you agree?" Sounds like you were offering a definition, not just discussing Socrates's... I was offering a possible definition of "evil" as quoted in the subject line. Apparently we don't know what his definition was in the context of that quote, and that seems like good fodder for discussion to me. It also seems like a pertinent question. Sorry for the confusion.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 15, 2020 5:00:16 GMT
If you were to tell me you have taupe wallpaper, I'd only know you have wallpaper if I didn't know what taupe was. Likewise, when someone tells me that this act or that thing is evil, it would mean nothing to me if I don't know what evil is. So I would ask, then immediately regret doing so, apparently. So, evil is just a word we use to describe things we don't like, and since what we like is subjective, so is evil. If that's it, then the Socrates quote is completely nonsensical. He may as well have said, "No man knowingly does purple." Actually, having written that, I think I solved the riddle: Purple isn't something you do, so no man does purple. Period. Socks was spot on. I am so pleased that you worked this concept out around wallpaper and colour as I am an Interior Designer( amongst other things) Yes. Evil and sin are completely arbitrary except for the religious amongst us who are brainwashed about these matter and have lost their ability for logical thinking. Settle an argument for me. We have four or five framed pictures we want to hang in a row on the wall of a hallway. They are all different widths and heights, but not huge differences. One of us says they should be vertically aligned with each other across the middle. The other one of us says they should line up across the top. Who's right?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 15, 2020 5:17:43 GMT
I am so pleased that you worked this concept out around wallpaper and colour as I am an Interior Designer( amongst other things) Yes. Evil and sin are completely arbitrary except for the religious amongst us who are brainwashed about these matter and have lost their ability for logical thinking. Settle an argument for me. We have four or five framed pictures we want to hang in a row on the wall of a hallway. They are all different widths and heights, but not huge differences. One of us says they should be vertically aligned with each other across the middle. The other one of us says they should line up across the top. Who's right? Depending on the differences, you have a choice to either accentuate the differences and hang them totally up and down like not randomly yet high up low down whatever( this is however a matter of a professional or natural eye for such things) ( within parameters of course) OR try to ameliorate the differences that may be minimal. In this case, because it is a hallway, I would line up the tops as it is more pleasing for the eye down a hallway to follow a line as you walk. If it were not a hallway, the opposite would apply.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 15, 2020 5:23:58 GMT
Settle an argument for me. We have four or five framed pictures we want to hang in a row on the wall of a hallway. They are all different widths and heights, but not huge differences. One of us says they should be vertically aligned with each other across the middle. The other one of us says they should line up across the top. Who's right? Depending on the differences, you have a choice to either accentuate the differences and hang them totally up and down like not randomly yet high up low down whatever( this is however a matter of a professional or natural eye for such things) ( within parameters of course) OR try to ameliorate the differences that may be minimal. In this case, because it is a hallway, I would line up the tops as it is more pleasing for the eye down a hallway to follow a line as you walk. I am not the other one of us, and I had to look up ameliorate. Now I have to find an interior decorator who agrees with me and doesn't use weird words. Gee thanks, Goz. Kidding. The eye level makes sense. She was right, and so I get to live to fight another day. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 15, 2020 5:28:04 GMT
Depending on the differences, you have a choice to either accentuate the differences and hang them totally up and down like not randomly yet high up low down whatever( this is however a matter of a professional or natural eye for such things) ( within parameters of course) OR try to ameliorate the differences that may be minimal. In this case, because it is a hallway, I would line up the tops as it is more pleasing for the eye down a hallway to follow a line as you walk. I am not the other one of us, and I had to look up ameliorate. Now I have to find an interior decorator who agrees with me and doesn't use weird words. Gee thanks, Goz. Kidding. The eye level makes sense. She was right, and so I get to live to fight another day. Thanks! If it was a woman...….. pick your battles
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 15, 2020 5:33:19 GMT
I am not the other one of us, and I had to look up ameliorate. Now I have to find an interior decorator who agrees with me and doesn't use weird words. Gee thanks, Goz. Kidding. The eye level makes sense. She was right, and so I get to live to fight another day. Thanks! If it was a woman...….. pick your battles Can I pick none?
|
|