>Whether that system is good in anothers eyes or not doesn't matter.<
I agree. But whether a system is good or not is not necessarily subjective. I don't care if the Iraqis were used to their system, I can guarantee that not a single one of them liked it. The few that did like it were part of the system, not under it, and benefitted from the oppression of others.
>>Of course it did, there were only two options, diplomacy and war, and diplomacy had failed for twenty years.<
>This is only conjecture on your part that it wouldn't work. It could work if done intelligently and in the right way.<
I think you misunderstood me here, I was not talking about future possibilities, I was talking about things that have already happened in reality. It's not conjecture that diplomacy didn't work in that case, you can get a history book and look, for the last twenty years diplomacy with Saddam was failing. This is the exception not the rule, in most cases problems can be solved with diplomacy very quickly, because both sides want it to be solved that way. But Saddam didn't so it was guaranteed to fail.
>known a few people<
I am one of them. Humanity is not innately good. If it were there would be no need for religion or war. To clarify, little kids are innately good, but only because they don't know any better when they do evil things. Past some age they know enough to tell the difference between good and bad, and yet they always continue to do bad things anyway. This is true regardless of culture or era.
I think I can proof that humanity is innately bad, by contradiction. You say that evil causes evil, and no one is evil to start with. So if you go way back in time to the first people, they must by definition be good, since no evil has been done to then to cause them to be evil, and they are good to start with. But if they're all good, then none of them does evil to any of the others, and they continue to be all good. They have kids, and since there is no evil in the world yet, and those kids are born good, then they stay good. It continues in this matter until this day, and at no point is evil able to get a foot hold. Therefore your conception of the nature of human psychology and evil has no explaination for how there is any evil in this world. Since there is evil in this world, then you must conclude that your conception is wrong. The correct conception is that evil causes evil and people are innately bad; they screw up at some point and evil gets a foothold, and then it is impossible for people to completely remove.
>You don't have to be a physical slave to stil be a slave.<
Don't need to convince me, that is the second definition of slave.
>Therefore war is really an undesired thing to have, yet you and Mr. Tim are also saying it is good. Your condradicting yourself.<
I see the misunderstanding here. War is undesired, preferably there would be no war and no evil. MrTim and I recognize that war is good insofar as removing some evil, though bad insofar as requiring pain and suffering. The summation of all affects of war, good and bad, comes out as a net good, which is why we say that war is good and why war continues to be practiced. I guess we've been a little unclear, I'm sure I speak for both of us that we don't mean war is 100% good, we mean it is a net good.
>Evil people aren't born Jonathan, they are made.<
This is not provable. In fact I contend that it is actually falsifable, via the long paragraph above.
>>>generalized one sided and simplistic viewpoint.<
>>Generalization and simplification are the means to attain wisdom.<
>Your taking this out of context and I think you know you are.<
No, I don't think it is out of context. I will repeat the whole sentence: "A sure sign of complacency is a generalized one sided and simplistic viewpoint.". In the context of the whole paragraph you were using "complacency" in the sense of being 'completely apathetic and/or ignorant of other persectives'. My point was that quite to the contrary, a wise person will carefully consider all possible views, and then choose which is the best. It is statistically known that, for some reason, the best is often the simplest. It is taken for granted that the best view will be one view, for if it were two contradictory views it could hardly be the best. One would then statistically expect the wisest choice to be both one sided and simplistic, and therefore these cannot then be sure signs of complacency.
>Use you imagination and go back to when you were little. (whole paragraph quote again)....<
It didn't happen that way for me at all. But for the life of me I can't off the top of my head put my finger on how it did happen, as a child I did not reflect upon the events a day to an extent sufficient for me to remember something that happened back then without something reminding me of it first.
>It has nothing to do with controlling anyones mind, but now I am repeating myself.<
I think you misunderstood what I meant by "control", I meant 'to have a havey influence upon what they think'. To remove an entire concept from the realm of anyone's, let alone everyone's, thoughts is not possible.
>The mere comtemplation of it is a waste of time...<
In case you thought this was an example of something I won't consider to to psychological slavery, I'd like to clarify here that I don't find it repugnant to comtemplate such things, just that I think it is a waste of time.
>I am not name calling you.<
I'll take your word for that and retract "simpleton".
>...to call an entity "evil"instead of taking a good hard look and everything does exactly what you said, it gives a fragmented and inaccurate picture.<
I agree that such can occur, the idea though to to give the good hard look before making the determination of evil or not.
>In otherwords Jon, if you want to do some good endevor yourself to actually doing good acts, not acts disguised as good to erradicate "evil".<
I think I see, be good by being good, not good by being anti-bad. The way I see it, a=a=-(-a), such that a=good; either way is equally acceptable.
"To an Iraqi Child"
Moderator: scott
re: "To an Iraqi Child"
Disclaimer: I reserve the right not to know what I'm talking about and not to mention this possibility in my posts. This disclaimer also applies to sentences I claim are quotes from anybody, including me.
-
Silver Eyes
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 165
- Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 9:42 pm
re: "To an Iraqi Child"
>Whether that system is good in anothers eyes or not doesn't matter.<
I agree. But whether a system is good or not is not necessarily subjective. I don't care if the Iraqis were used to their system, I can guarantee that not a single one of them liked it. The few that did like it were part of the system, not under it, and benefitted from the oppression of others.
And if you go and ask the average iraqi if they liked the way their system was changed I'll bet they will say no.
>>Of course it did, there were only two options, diplomacy and war, and diplomacy had failed for twenty years.<
>This is only conjecture on your part that it wouldn't work. It could work if done intelligently and in the right way.<
I think you misunderstood me here, I was not talking about future possibilities,
Ah but maybe you misunderstand. I am saying Bush acted without consent and to hastily. There was no need to do what he did in the time frame he did it in. To believe that is to believe the political spin doctors. Also it is nobody's business how another country operates unless that country has invaded another, which Ahem, America did. America is not the police of the world and of course oyvuus is absolutley right, it's mostly to stabalize an unstable country for the oil.
I was talking about things that have already happened in reality. It's not conjecture that diplomacy didn't work in that case, you can get a history book and look, for the last twenty years diplomacy with Saddam was failing. This is the exception not the rule, in most cases problems can be solved with diplomacy very quickly, because both sides want it to be solved that way. But Saddam didn't so it was guaranteed to fail.
>known a few people<
I am one of them. Humanity is not innately good. If it were there would be no need for religion or war. To clarify, little kids are innately good, but only because they don't know any better when they do evil things. Past some age they know enough to tell the difference between good and bad, and yet they always continue to do bad things anyway. This is true regardless of culture or era.
I think I can proof that humanity is innately bad, by contradiction.
#1 Jon, I said inately good, not uncapable of doing bad. Let me repeat, it is the continued belief and focusing on violent war like acts whether mental or physical that keep humanity in this repetative cycle.
You say that evil causes evil, and no one is evil to start with. So if you go way back in time to the first people, they must by definition be good, since no evil has been done to then to cause them to be evil, and they are good to start with. But if they're all good, then none of them does evil to any of the others, and they continue to be all good. They have kids, and since there is no evil in the world yet, and those kids are born good, then they stay good. It continues in this matter until this day, and at no point is evil able to get a foot hold. Therefore your conception of the nature of human psychology and evil has no explaination for how there is any evil in this world. Since there is evil in this world, then you must conclude that your conception is wrong. The correct conception is that evil causes evil and people are innately bad; they screw up at some point and evil gets a foothold, and then it is impossible for people to completely remove.
Answered this, multiple times. See #1. Sorry but I think it's sad you really believe in this.
>You don't have to be a physical slave to stil be a slave.<
Don't need to convince me, that is the second definition of slave.
>Therefore war is really an undesired thing to have, yet you and Mr. Tim are also saying it is good. Your condradicting yourself.<
I see the misunderstanding here. War is undesired, preferably there would be no war and no evil. MrTim and I recognize that war is good insofar as removing some evil, though bad insofar as requiring pain and suffering. The summation of all affects of war, good and bad, comes out as a net good,
Wait, condradiction here Jon. If you think people are inately bad then you must contend that most people are bad, or that all people have bad in them to the major degree instead of good. That bad is either hidden or apparent. Therefore since wars are commited by people (who are inately bad) wars must mostly be bad. Therefore the sum total of war is bad not good. See how we can keep playing these words games? It's ridiculous. You can keep thinking people are bad, if you want to. I think you are somewhat brainwashed and enslaved to a set of ideals and examples from our culture that you haven't really questioned.
which is why we say that war is good and why war continues to be practiced. I guess we've been a little unclear, I'm sure I speak for both of us that we don't mean war is 100% good, we mean it is a net good.
>Evil people aren't born Jonathan, they are made.<
This is not provable. In fact I contend that it is actually falsifable, via the long paragraph above.
I've just disproven your long paragraph.
>>>generalized one sided and simplistic viewpoint.<
>>Generalization and simplification are the means to attain wisdom.<
>Your taking this out of context and I think you know you are.<
No, I don't think it is out of context. I will repeat the whole sentence: "A sure sign of complacency is a generalized one sided and simplistic viewpoint.". In the context of the whole paragraph you were using "complacency" in the sense of being 'completely apathetic and/or ignorant of other persectives'.
My point was that quite to the contrary, a wise person will carefully consider all possible views, and then choose which is the best. It is statistically known that, for some reason, the best is often the simplest. It is taken for granted that the best view will be one view, for if it were two contradictory views it could hardly be the best. One would then statistically expect the wisest choice to be both one sided and simplistic, and therefore these cannot then be sure signs of complacency.
Yes a wise person will consider all options, which is what I felt you were not doing. You made a simplistic statement, not because you considered all options and anylized and found the best one but because it was an easy choice for you. Your use of the word evil is an example of this. You then tried to sound clever by quoting the rule of energy as defense for your simplistic statement and say by using it you were possibly wise in your summation when in fact you were and are mixing up arguments and taking things out of context. Your statement that It is statistically known that, for some reason, the best is often the simplest.
Is an example of this because you say for some reason, like you don't know why.
>Use you imagination and go back to when you were little. (whole paragraph quote again)....<
It didn't happen that way for me at all. But for the life of me I can't off the top of my head put my finger on how it did happen, as a child I did not reflect upon the events a day to an extent sufficient for me to remember something that happened back then without something reminding me of it first.
>It has nothing to do with controlling anyones mind, but now I am repeating myself.<
I think you misunderstood what I meant by "control", I meant 'to have a havey influence upon what they think'. To remove an entire concept from the realm of anyone's, let alone everyone's, thoughts is not possible.
>The mere comtemplation of it is a waste of time...<
In case you thought this was an example of something I won't consider to to psychological slavery, I'd like to clarify here that I don't find it repugnant to comtemplate such things, just that I think it is a waste of time.
>I am not name calling you.<
I'll take your word for that and retract "simpleton".
>...to call an entity "evil"instead of taking a good hard look and everything does exactly what you said, it gives a fragmented and inaccurate picture.<
I agree that such can occur, the idea though to to give the good hard look before making the determination of evil or not.
>In otherwords Jon, if you want to do some good endevor yourself to actually doing good acts, not acts disguised as good to erradicate "evil".<
I think I see, be good by being good, not good by being anti-bad. The way I see it, a=a=-(-a), such that a=good; either way is equally acceptable.
Jonathan, I'll sum up by saying that I remember most of my life from the time of 2, and I know how I was influenced by my environment, and how I influenced my environment. I have also known a lot of really bad people in my life. I mean really bad. Some were my friends before they went bad. One guy killed my moms minister. I suspect one or two others also killed people. Without exception, every single one of them were that way because of outside influences imposed on them. You have no doubt heard that abusers often come from abusive families, or have been abused in some fashion. well this is true. I can also tell you every songle one of these people hit a wall and the tables were turned.
I agree. But whether a system is good or not is not necessarily subjective. I don't care if the Iraqis were used to their system, I can guarantee that not a single one of them liked it. The few that did like it were part of the system, not under it, and benefitted from the oppression of others.
And if you go and ask the average iraqi if they liked the way their system was changed I'll bet they will say no.
>>Of course it did, there were only two options, diplomacy and war, and diplomacy had failed for twenty years.<
>This is only conjecture on your part that it wouldn't work. It could work if done intelligently and in the right way.<
I think you misunderstood me here, I was not talking about future possibilities,
Ah but maybe you misunderstand. I am saying Bush acted without consent and to hastily. There was no need to do what he did in the time frame he did it in. To believe that is to believe the political spin doctors. Also it is nobody's business how another country operates unless that country has invaded another, which Ahem, America did. America is not the police of the world and of course oyvuus is absolutley right, it's mostly to stabalize an unstable country for the oil.
I was talking about things that have already happened in reality. It's not conjecture that diplomacy didn't work in that case, you can get a history book and look, for the last twenty years diplomacy with Saddam was failing. This is the exception not the rule, in most cases problems can be solved with diplomacy very quickly, because both sides want it to be solved that way. But Saddam didn't so it was guaranteed to fail.
>known a few people<
I am one of them. Humanity is not innately good. If it were there would be no need for religion or war. To clarify, little kids are innately good, but only because they don't know any better when they do evil things. Past some age they know enough to tell the difference between good and bad, and yet they always continue to do bad things anyway. This is true regardless of culture or era.
I think I can proof that humanity is innately bad, by contradiction.
#1 Jon, I said inately good, not uncapable of doing bad. Let me repeat, it is the continued belief and focusing on violent war like acts whether mental or physical that keep humanity in this repetative cycle.
You say that evil causes evil, and no one is evil to start with. So if you go way back in time to the first people, they must by definition be good, since no evil has been done to then to cause them to be evil, and they are good to start with. But if they're all good, then none of them does evil to any of the others, and they continue to be all good. They have kids, and since there is no evil in the world yet, and those kids are born good, then they stay good. It continues in this matter until this day, and at no point is evil able to get a foot hold. Therefore your conception of the nature of human psychology and evil has no explaination for how there is any evil in this world. Since there is evil in this world, then you must conclude that your conception is wrong. The correct conception is that evil causes evil and people are innately bad; they screw up at some point and evil gets a foothold, and then it is impossible for people to completely remove.
Answered this, multiple times. See #1. Sorry but I think it's sad you really believe in this.
>You don't have to be a physical slave to stil be a slave.<
Don't need to convince me, that is the second definition of slave.
>Therefore war is really an undesired thing to have, yet you and Mr. Tim are also saying it is good. Your condradicting yourself.<
I see the misunderstanding here. War is undesired, preferably there would be no war and no evil. MrTim and I recognize that war is good insofar as removing some evil, though bad insofar as requiring pain and suffering. The summation of all affects of war, good and bad, comes out as a net good,
Wait, condradiction here Jon. If you think people are inately bad then you must contend that most people are bad, or that all people have bad in them to the major degree instead of good. That bad is either hidden or apparent. Therefore since wars are commited by people (who are inately bad) wars must mostly be bad. Therefore the sum total of war is bad not good. See how we can keep playing these words games? It's ridiculous. You can keep thinking people are bad, if you want to. I think you are somewhat brainwashed and enslaved to a set of ideals and examples from our culture that you haven't really questioned.
which is why we say that war is good and why war continues to be practiced. I guess we've been a little unclear, I'm sure I speak for both of us that we don't mean war is 100% good, we mean it is a net good.
>Evil people aren't born Jonathan, they are made.<
This is not provable. In fact I contend that it is actually falsifable, via the long paragraph above.
I've just disproven your long paragraph.
>>>generalized one sided and simplistic viewpoint.<
>>Generalization and simplification are the means to attain wisdom.<
>Your taking this out of context and I think you know you are.<
No, I don't think it is out of context. I will repeat the whole sentence: "A sure sign of complacency is a generalized one sided and simplistic viewpoint.". In the context of the whole paragraph you were using "complacency" in the sense of being 'completely apathetic and/or ignorant of other persectives'.
My point was that quite to the contrary, a wise person will carefully consider all possible views, and then choose which is the best. It is statistically known that, for some reason, the best is often the simplest. It is taken for granted that the best view will be one view, for if it were two contradictory views it could hardly be the best. One would then statistically expect the wisest choice to be both one sided and simplistic, and therefore these cannot then be sure signs of complacency.
Yes a wise person will consider all options, which is what I felt you were not doing. You made a simplistic statement, not because you considered all options and anylized and found the best one but because it was an easy choice for you. Your use of the word evil is an example of this. You then tried to sound clever by quoting the rule of energy as defense for your simplistic statement and say by using it you were possibly wise in your summation when in fact you were and are mixing up arguments and taking things out of context. Your statement that It is statistically known that, for some reason, the best is often the simplest.
Is an example of this because you say for some reason, like you don't know why.
>Use you imagination and go back to when you were little. (whole paragraph quote again)....<
It didn't happen that way for me at all. But for the life of me I can't off the top of my head put my finger on how it did happen, as a child I did not reflect upon the events a day to an extent sufficient for me to remember something that happened back then without something reminding me of it first.
>It has nothing to do with controlling anyones mind, but now I am repeating myself.<
I think you misunderstood what I meant by "control", I meant 'to have a havey influence upon what they think'. To remove an entire concept from the realm of anyone's, let alone everyone's, thoughts is not possible.
>The mere comtemplation of it is a waste of time...<
In case you thought this was an example of something I won't consider to to psychological slavery, I'd like to clarify here that I don't find it repugnant to comtemplate such things, just that I think it is a waste of time.
>I am not name calling you.<
I'll take your word for that and retract "simpleton".
>...to call an entity "evil"instead of taking a good hard look and everything does exactly what you said, it gives a fragmented and inaccurate picture.<
I agree that such can occur, the idea though to to give the good hard look before making the determination of evil or not.
>In otherwords Jon, if you want to do some good endevor yourself to actually doing good acts, not acts disguised as good to erradicate "evil".<
I think I see, be good by being good, not good by being anti-bad. The way I see it, a=a=-(-a), such that a=good; either way is equally acceptable.
Jonathan, I'll sum up by saying that I remember most of my life from the time of 2, and I know how I was influenced by my environment, and how I influenced my environment. I have also known a lot of really bad people in my life. I mean really bad. Some were my friends before they went bad. One guy killed my moms minister. I suspect one or two others also killed people. Without exception, every single one of them were that way because of outside influences imposed on them. You have no doubt heard that abusers often come from abusive families, or have been abused in some fashion. well this is true. I can also tell you every songle one of these people hit a wall and the tables were turned.
re: "To an Iraqi Child"
>liked the way their system was changed I'll bet they will say no.<
No one likes the way the system was changed, but there were no other ways to change the system. What I said before was that I think they like that it was changed; if they like how or not doesn't matter anymore because it is too late to do anything about that.
>I am saying Bush acted without consent and to hastily.<
I completely agree, but do not condemn him for it, because the consent couldn't be gotten from the corrupt, and the whole world had intelligence which indicated he should be hasty.
>Also it is nobody's business how another country operates unless that country has invaded another, which Ahem, America did.<
This is not true. If I see child abuse next door, I report it to the authorities. If I see genocide in another country, I report it to the UN. If the UN/authorities are corrupt and do nothing in either case, then it is my/America's job to do what is right.
>America is not the police of the world<
As the strongest in the world I view it as our prerogative to be the police if the UN won't; I see it as a natural extension of the Monroe Doctrine.
>it's mostly to stabalize an unstable country for the oil.<
You cannot prove this.
>I said inately good, not uncapable of doing bad.<
I never said you said that. My proof begins with humans that are innately good and haven't had the chance to be influenced, and then shows that as a result there would be no evil in the world. Of course if they had been influenced they would continue to be bad sporatically. But the content of the previous sentence has no relevance to my proof.
>If you think people are inately bad then you must contend that most people are bad, or that all people have bad in them to the major degree instead of good. ... Therefore since wars...<
That is not what innately bad means. It means to have a natural inclination toward bad behavior, not to that the summation of all behaviors up to a given time is a net bad. (All people are innately bad, most aren't net bad.) As a result, the inconsistency you've found between 'believing people are innately bad' and 'believing wars are a net good' doesn't exist.
>It's ridiculous.<
It is ridiculous, you're using incorrect definition for terms. Not to say that you're stupid, I mean that if we had understood at the beginning that we were using different definitions for the same term then we could have picked one and agreed when using it. I think mine is the correct version, as it is in line with the commonly used meaning in philosophy. At that website, I appear to be between bullet points 2 and 3, whereas you appear to be 1.
>You made a simplistic statement, not because you considered all options and anylized and found the best one but because it was an easy choice for you.<
Now it is unfair to ascribe motives to my choice, since you were not there when I made it. For all you know I opened a philosophy textbook and randomly picked a view to support, as a devil's advocate exercise. I didn't, but I can't prove that. Or maybe I did consider all possible views and, as one would statistically expect from the nature of wise choices, it happened to be simple (and by definition, singular).
>You then tried to sound clever by quoting the rule of energy<
I don't know what you're talking about, what is the rule of energy?
>>It is statistically known that, for some reason, the best is often the simplest.<
>Is an example of this because you say for some reason, like you don't know why.<
I really don't know why, it's called Ockham's razor, it is a tool that is used often, without strong justification, and one simply remembers that it has exceptions. I've put much thought into a lot of things, but Ockham's razor has not been one of them, I always took it as common sense and when I learned its name I was surprised that it had a name. Taking a moment to think about it, I guess it is used because, if you have two theories that work equally well for a set of phenomena, then it is a more practical use of time and thought to use the simpler one.
>Jonathan, I'll sum up by saying that I remember most of my life from the time of 2,...<
I didn't understand the point of this paragraph.
No one likes the way the system was changed, but there were no other ways to change the system. What I said before was that I think they like that it was changed; if they like how or not doesn't matter anymore because it is too late to do anything about that.
>I am saying Bush acted without consent and to hastily.<
I completely agree, but do not condemn him for it, because the consent couldn't be gotten from the corrupt, and the whole world had intelligence which indicated he should be hasty.
>Also it is nobody's business how another country operates unless that country has invaded another, which Ahem, America did.<
This is not true. If I see child abuse next door, I report it to the authorities. If I see genocide in another country, I report it to the UN. If the UN/authorities are corrupt and do nothing in either case, then it is my/America's job to do what is right.
>America is not the police of the world<
As the strongest in the world I view it as our prerogative to be the police if the UN won't; I see it as a natural extension of the Monroe Doctrine.
>it's mostly to stabalize an unstable country for the oil.<
You cannot prove this.
>I said inately good, not uncapable of doing bad.<
I never said you said that. My proof begins with humans that are innately good and haven't had the chance to be influenced, and then shows that as a result there would be no evil in the world. Of course if they had been influenced they would continue to be bad sporatically. But the content of the previous sentence has no relevance to my proof.
>If you think people are inately bad then you must contend that most people are bad, or that all people have bad in them to the major degree instead of good. ... Therefore since wars...<
That is not what innately bad means. It means to have a natural inclination toward bad behavior, not to that the summation of all behaviors up to a given time is a net bad. (All people are innately bad, most aren't net bad.) As a result, the inconsistency you've found between 'believing people are innately bad' and 'believing wars are a net good' doesn't exist.
>It's ridiculous.<
It is ridiculous, you're using incorrect definition for terms. Not to say that you're stupid, I mean that if we had understood at the beginning that we were using different definitions for the same term then we could have picked one and agreed when using it. I think mine is the correct version, as it is in line with the commonly used meaning in philosophy. At that website, I appear to be between bullet points 2 and 3, whereas you appear to be 1.
>You made a simplistic statement, not because you considered all options and anylized and found the best one but because it was an easy choice for you.<
Now it is unfair to ascribe motives to my choice, since you were not there when I made it. For all you know I opened a philosophy textbook and randomly picked a view to support, as a devil's advocate exercise. I didn't, but I can't prove that. Or maybe I did consider all possible views and, as one would statistically expect from the nature of wise choices, it happened to be simple (and by definition, singular).
>You then tried to sound clever by quoting the rule of energy<
I don't know what you're talking about, what is the rule of energy?
>>It is statistically known that, for some reason, the best is often the simplest.<
>Is an example of this because you say for some reason, like you don't know why.<
I really don't know why, it's called Ockham's razor, it is a tool that is used often, without strong justification, and one simply remembers that it has exceptions. I've put much thought into a lot of things, but Ockham's razor has not been one of them, I always took it as common sense and when I learned its name I was surprised that it had a name. Taking a moment to think about it, I guess it is used because, if you have two theories that work equally well for a set of phenomena, then it is a more practical use of time and thought to use the simpler one.
>Jonathan, I'll sum up by saying that I remember most of my life from the time of 2,...<
I didn't understand the point of this paragraph.
Disclaimer: I reserve the right not to know what I'm talking about and not to mention this possibility in my posts. This disclaimer also applies to sentences I claim are quotes from anybody, including me.
-
Silver Eyes
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 165
- Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 9:42 pm
re: "To an Iraqi Child"
Jonathan I'll answer some of your last comments first then do a final sum and leave it at that.
>You then tried to sound clever by quoting the rule of energy<
I don't know what you're talking about, what is the rule of energy?
See below.
>>It is statistically known that, for some reason, the best is often the simplest.<
>Is an example of this because you say for some reason, like you don't know why.<
I really don't know why, it's called Ockham's razor,
Hold it, you never said you didn't know why it was called ockhams razor, but this isn't what you said originally. What you originally said was you've heard that often the simplest is the best but you don't know why. My point is you made a reference originally and seemed to be saying you didn't know why it worked.
it is a tool that is used often, without strong justification, and one simply remembers that it has exceptions. I've put much thought into a lot of things, but Ockham's razor has not been one of them, I always took it as common sense and when I learned its name I was surprised that it had a name. Taking a moment to think about it, I guess it is used because, if you have two theories that work equally well for a set of phenomena, then it is a more practical use of time and thought to use the simpler one.
Okay these two paragraphs cover the same topic. First you make a statement but make the point that you really don't know why it works. So your in fact quoting dogma and retoric. Ockhams razor isn't really dogma but for you it is because you don't really understand it. Well at least you said you didn't but it seems that now you do. At least you say it correctly when you say it has exceptions. However those exceptions aren't really exceptions since if ockhams razor doesn't seem to apply to a certain situation it is only because that situation hasn't been fully analyzed for what it really is and this is what I was saying you were doing at that point in the conversation.
My statement concerning ockhams razor is, it is a truthful statement because in fact ockhams razor is the rule of energy and all things follow the rule of energy. The rule of energy is energy always seeks the path of least resistance. The simplest route.This might sound esoteric to you at first but it is true. Your close in your summation of it but there is a real physical meaning for it.
>It's ridiculous.<
It is ridiculous, you're using incorrect definition for terms.
I think you've taken me out of context again, I don't know where you are going with this, my point was we can keep going like this all day, so don't try to make an argument on a set of analytical rules that I can easily turn around and use on your statements as well. See below.
I never said you said that. My proof begins with humans that are innately good and haven't had the chance to be influenced, and then shows that as a result there would be no evil in the world. Of course if they had been influenced they would continue to be bad sporatically. But the content of the previous sentence has no relevance to my proof.
>If you think people are innately bad then you must contend that most people are bad, or that all people have bad in them to the major degree instead of good. ... Therefore since wars...<
That is not what innately bad means. It means to have a natural inclination toward bad behavior, not to that the summation of all behaviors up to a given time is a net bad.
Wait, your putting theories in my mouth. Jonathan innately bad means that the core of a person is bad. This is what I meant. It would also mean that a persons natural instinct would be for bad. So let's look at a few things.
You believe that all people are innately bad. This means that all good people do comes from a struggle to be good. It also means as you said that the good of a person does not come from within them but from outside of them so that's why there is a need for religion and moral systems. That people naturally need to be controlled. These are your words. This means that you would also view yourself as innately bad, or if you don't view yourself as innately bad and I think you do because your reasoning has to come from somewhere) then you are at least in your core innately bad. So why should I trust anything you have to say since there is always that natural innate inclination within you to be bad?Even though you think or say you are trying to be good? This also means that even though people commit seconds wars to eradicate the first war that is made by evil, those second wars possibly and probably do have deep threads of evil intent within them since they are committed by people who are by nature bad, despite their apparent struggle to be good. So, you argued that if people were innately good, bad would never have arisen, but the exact same can be said for your line of reasoning that if people are innately bad, good should also never have arisen.
Here's my final point.
People are innately good. They are innately good because we are material beings. Our awareness and existence, our ability to think comes from being tangible. Material. It takes a cooperative effort from different points in space to come together and form a stable cognitive unit. This is the essence of good. Where the essence of bad is destructive. Since we are material beings we covet material existence and material items. It feels good to hold a weighted object in our hands. It feels good to feel the warmth of another's body etc. A baby, a child, and us know at the deepest levels of our awareness that we are because of materiality. A baby has a natural deep respect for doing the right thing because they know at the deepest levels that their awareness IS because of material existence. It is when the individual has imposed upon them set limitations by other material beings that they begin to loose respect for their environment. Yes, a child needs to explore the world outside of them and yes they will learn all about that awareness outside of themselves is also aware, and by sensing pain and pleasure will come to know what is right and what is wrong. Evil starts when a child is told he or she are wrong, when their materialness is maligned. But imagine if a child was born into an environment that glorified awareness. Where they weren't constantly told no! Bad!, and worse, but were shown a profound level of respect, something that is very rare, and appreciation towards them, and they also saw others in his/her environment treating each other the same. Wow, how that child would grow up. They would exemplify the best of what a person could be and they would be tapping into inner resources that most people never bring into conscious attention because out of fear. This doesn't happen to much because a typical persons environment isn't like this. Most people have fallen asleep to themselves. It's the constant perpetuation of a bad environment that breeds badness into people Jonathan. This is why war in it's entirety has to go. You should put whatever talents you have into creating tools, systems of thought, write a book or a play, create something useful instead of helping to keep the aspect of war around.
>You then tried to sound clever by quoting the rule of energy<
I don't know what you're talking about, what is the rule of energy?
See below.
>>It is statistically known that, for some reason, the best is often the simplest.<
>Is an example of this because you say for some reason, like you don't know why.<
I really don't know why, it's called Ockham's razor,
Hold it, you never said you didn't know why it was called ockhams razor, but this isn't what you said originally. What you originally said was you've heard that often the simplest is the best but you don't know why. My point is you made a reference originally and seemed to be saying you didn't know why it worked.
it is a tool that is used often, without strong justification, and one simply remembers that it has exceptions. I've put much thought into a lot of things, but Ockham's razor has not been one of them, I always took it as common sense and when I learned its name I was surprised that it had a name. Taking a moment to think about it, I guess it is used because, if you have two theories that work equally well for a set of phenomena, then it is a more practical use of time and thought to use the simpler one.
Okay these two paragraphs cover the same topic. First you make a statement but make the point that you really don't know why it works. So your in fact quoting dogma and retoric. Ockhams razor isn't really dogma but for you it is because you don't really understand it. Well at least you said you didn't but it seems that now you do. At least you say it correctly when you say it has exceptions. However those exceptions aren't really exceptions since if ockhams razor doesn't seem to apply to a certain situation it is only because that situation hasn't been fully analyzed for what it really is and this is what I was saying you were doing at that point in the conversation.
My statement concerning ockhams razor is, it is a truthful statement because in fact ockhams razor is the rule of energy and all things follow the rule of energy. The rule of energy is energy always seeks the path of least resistance. The simplest route.This might sound esoteric to you at first but it is true. Your close in your summation of it but there is a real physical meaning for it.
>It's ridiculous.<
It is ridiculous, you're using incorrect definition for terms.
I think you've taken me out of context again, I don't know where you are going with this, my point was we can keep going like this all day, so don't try to make an argument on a set of analytical rules that I can easily turn around and use on your statements as well. See below.
I never said you said that. My proof begins with humans that are innately good and haven't had the chance to be influenced, and then shows that as a result there would be no evil in the world. Of course if they had been influenced they would continue to be bad sporatically. But the content of the previous sentence has no relevance to my proof.
>If you think people are innately bad then you must contend that most people are bad, or that all people have bad in them to the major degree instead of good. ... Therefore since wars...<
That is not what innately bad means. It means to have a natural inclination toward bad behavior, not to that the summation of all behaviors up to a given time is a net bad.
Wait, your putting theories in my mouth. Jonathan innately bad means that the core of a person is bad. This is what I meant. It would also mean that a persons natural instinct would be for bad. So let's look at a few things.
You believe that all people are innately bad. This means that all good people do comes from a struggle to be good. It also means as you said that the good of a person does not come from within them but from outside of them so that's why there is a need for religion and moral systems. That people naturally need to be controlled. These are your words. This means that you would also view yourself as innately bad, or if you don't view yourself as innately bad and I think you do because your reasoning has to come from somewhere) then you are at least in your core innately bad. So why should I trust anything you have to say since there is always that natural innate inclination within you to be bad?Even though you think or say you are trying to be good? This also means that even though people commit seconds wars to eradicate the first war that is made by evil, those second wars possibly and probably do have deep threads of evil intent within them since they are committed by people who are by nature bad, despite their apparent struggle to be good. So, you argued that if people were innately good, bad would never have arisen, but the exact same can be said for your line of reasoning that if people are innately bad, good should also never have arisen.
Here's my final point.
People are innately good. They are innately good because we are material beings. Our awareness and existence, our ability to think comes from being tangible. Material. It takes a cooperative effort from different points in space to come together and form a stable cognitive unit. This is the essence of good. Where the essence of bad is destructive. Since we are material beings we covet material existence and material items. It feels good to hold a weighted object in our hands. It feels good to feel the warmth of another's body etc. A baby, a child, and us know at the deepest levels of our awareness that we are because of materiality. A baby has a natural deep respect for doing the right thing because they know at the deepest levels that their awareness IS because of material existence. It is when the individual has imposed upon them set limitations by other material beings that they begin to loose respect for their environment. Yes, a child needs to explore the world outside of them and yes they will learn all about that awareness outside of themselves is also aware, and by sensing pain and pleasure will come to know what is right and what is wrong. Evil starts when a child is told he or she are wrong, when their materialness is maligned. But imagine if a child was born into an environment that glorified awareness. Where they weren't constantly told no! Bad!, and worse, but were shown a profound level of respect, something that is very rare, and appreciation towards them, and they also saw others in his/her environment treating each other the same. Wow, how that child would grow up. They would exemplify the best of what a person could be and they would be tapping into inner resources that most people never bring into conscious attention because out of fear. This doesn't happen to much because a typical persons environment isn't like this. Most people have fallen asleep to themselves. It's the constant perpetuation of a bad environment that breeds badness into people Jonathan. This is why war in it's entirety has to go. You should put whatever talents you have into creating tools, systems of thought, write a book or a play, create something useful instead of helping to keep the aspect of war around.
re: "To an Iraqi Child"
Jonathan,
In regards to your in depth rebuff, rebut, and debate with Silver Eyes I
sumit the following for refut.
You seem to enjoy math, so postulate this one out.
There has never been a war as far back as the cave man. The population has been allowed to expand with no elimination other than natural death.
How many centurys ago would the human race have expunged this planet into oblivion, simply by overpopulation?
For a simple example it is said that over 52 million lives were lost in WWII alone. If all these people had lived and their generations of siblings and
off-spring multiplying at a normal rate were alive, what would the world population look like today. Then consider this since man evolved.
Whether the wars are political, genocidal or oil, they all have one thing in common and that is population control.
The religious is not going to like this approach, but I say war is a neccessity of nature and until we evolve into the Norway Lemming instinct of running off a cliff, then war is a requirement of our existence.
Humans have the ability to reproduce once a month with a 9 month gestation period. What other creature as far up the food chain can compete with this. God gave man the intelligence to control this act but man disregards it for lust. Therefore he invented wars and put nature in control.
Ralph
In regards to your in depth rebuff, rebut, and debate with Silver Eyes I
sumit the following for refut.
You seem to enjoy math, so postulate this one out.
There has never been a war as far back as the cave man. The population has been allowed to expand with no elimination other than natural death.
How many centurys ago would the human race have expunged this planet into oblivion, simply by overpopulation?
For a simple example it is said that over 52 million lives were lost in WWII alone. If all these people had lived and their generations of siblings and
off-spring multiplying at a normal rate were alive, what would the world population look like today. Then consider this since man evolved.
Whether the wars are political, genocidal or oil, they all have one thing in common and that is population control.
The religious is not going to like this approach, but I say war is a neccessity of nature and until we evolve into the Norway Lemming instinct of running off a cliff, then war is a requirement of our existence.
Humans have the ability to reproduce once a month with a 9 month gestation period. What other creature as far up the food chain can compete with this. God gave man the intelligence to control this act but man disregards it for lust. Therefore he invented wars and put nature in control.
Ralph
-
Silver Eyes
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 165
- Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 9:42 pm
re: "To an Iraqi Child"
I guess if wars were gone and there was the possibility of over polulation mankind would have to use it's intelligence to determine the right thing to in a benign way. It's sad you guy's aren't willing to give humanity the benifit of the doubt, of its potential. Ralph, when your form of population control is needed will you offer yourself up for the sacrifice? It is the right thing to do since you believe in it.
re: "To an Iraqi Child"
Silver Eyes,I guess if wars were gone and there was the possibility of over polulation mankind would have to use it's intelligence to determine the right thing to in a benign way. It's sad you guy's aren't willing to give humanity the benifit of the doubt, of its potential. Ralph, when your form of population control is needed will you offer yourself up for the sacrifice? It is the right thing to do since you believe in it.
Yes my mathematical example was meant for you as well as Jonathan. I hoped to give you both a chance to reconsider your contentious postings. You are both right but both unenlightened. Whether you are an atheist or a Bible thumper man has been at war since Cain killed Abel. If you wish to refer to that as evil then feel free. Personally I see it as the Yin and yang of life as one is not appreciated without the other. If your ethics are based on the Bible then please tell me who Cains wife was that he met in the land of Nod, Was it his own sister?
What I am saying is, war not only offers population control but plays heavy on the evolutionary gene pool.
Here is what Plato has to say about evil. Good is an essential element of reality. Evil does not exist in itself but is, rather, an imperfect reflection of the real, which is good. In his Dialogues (first half of the 4th century bc) he maintains that human virtue (good and evil) lies in the fitness of a person to perform that person's proper function in the world.
If you wish to keep your debate going then may I suggest you do some background research in historical ethics and go back to at least 5000 B.C. you will find that things have not changed much when it comes to war and population balance. Dig deep and you will find the birth of the term "Golden Mean" Which stood for a balance of all things. That includes a population that this planet can balance and maintain with.
I feel that we have gave humanity the benefit of doubt and except the fact that it will never change in our life time. I say this as it has not changed in recorded history or legend
If you are referring to my statement of the Norway Lemming then please read it again as you missed the part about human evolution and instinct.
In the mean time I have gave my services to my country and therefore already volunteered to lay down my life. Can you say the same.
Ralph
re: "To an Iraqi Child"
God put Nature in control - that's funny! LOL...God gave man the intelligence to control this act but man disregards it for lust. Therefore he invented wars and put nature in control.
-
Silver Eyes
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 165
- Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 9:42 pm
Re: re: "To an Iraqi Child"
Edited out
Last edited by Silver Eyes on Wed May 11, 2005 12:38 am, edited 2 times in total.
re: "To an Iraqi Child"
Silver Eyes.
THe only reply I wish to make is that the Golden mean I referred to has absolutely nothing to do with architecture as you have implied. The Golden Mean deals with ethical balancing and philosophy, you will find some form or another in all societies or religions and beliefs.
I regret ever getting involved in your ongoing debate but thought another view may help settle the matter. I did not give you my beliefs as that is not what was intended. I did not say that I believed in war, I said it was a fact of life
From here forward I shall live by my on philosophy and consider the source. Such armchair debates is not the way I wish to spend my time.
THe only reply I wish to make is that the Golden mean I referred to has absolutely nothing to do with architecture as you have implied. The Golden Mean deals with ethical balancing and philosophy, you will find some form or another in all societies or religions and beliefs.
I regret ever getting involved in your ongoing debate but thought another view may help settle the matter. I did not give you my beliefs as that is not what was intended. I did not say that I believed in war, I said it was a fact of life
From here forward I shall live by my on philosophy and consider the source. Such armchair debates is not the way I wish to spend my time.
-
Silver Eyes
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 165
- Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 9:42 pm
re: "To an Iraqi Child"
Ralph I rephrased my golden mean statement so if you have anything interesting to share about it I really would like to see it. I thankyou for above statement and I am retracting my post.
re: "To an Iraqi Child"
I've been away studying all day for a final.
Silver Eyes,
>>I really don't know why, it's called Ockham's razor,<
>Hold it, you never said you didn't know why it was called ockhams razor, but this isn't what you said originally. What you originally said was you've heard that often the simplest is the best but you don't know why.<
You've misunderstood me here, I meant "I really don't know *why it works*, it is called Ockham's razor...", maybe that comma should've been a semicolon.
>My point is you made a reference originally and seemed to be saying you didn't know why it worked.<
I agree that is what I did.
>Ockhams razor isn't really dogma but for you it is because you don't really understand it.<
Not really, I said it is common sense for me and so it had never occurred to me to figure out why it works. Once you had brought it up as needing proof, I came up with one pretty easily.
>However those exceptions aren't really exceptions<
There really are exceptions. If someone asks that you come up with a solution to crime, and you answer with 'destory all humanity', then you have both the simplest and most effective solution. But it is not the best. As a result, the rule of energy, which is always true, cannot the same as Ockham's razor. Also, the former applies only to physical systems, the latter applies to abstract things.
>I think you've taken me out of context again,<
Yes, I did, and it was on purpose. But I did not mean it to confuse you, it was simply a way to attach a tangent: that I don't think you're using 'innate' correctly.
>Jonathan innately bad means that the core of a person is bad. This is what I meant. It would also mean that a persons natural instinct would be for bad.<
I completely agree. You went wrong previously though by implicitally taking 'innately bad' as being equivalent to 'bad most of the time', which was the distinction I tried to make in the aforementioned tangent.
>It also means as you said that the good of a person does not come from within them but from outside of them so that's why there is a need for religion and moral systems. That people naturally need to be controlled. These are your words.<
No, but very close. I did say "Humanity is not innately good. If it were there would be no need for religion or war.", but I meant "no need" from the perspective of unbiased pragmatism, that regardless of whether any religion is true or not, it clearly makes the world better if people believe in them. If people were innately good, then believing in a religion would have no positive effect on the world, and from that view, could be taken as a waste of time. But I'm not of that view.
>This means that you would also view yourself as innately bad,...So why should I trust anything you have to say since there is always that natural innate inclination within you to be bad?<
Yes and you are right. You should not trust anything I say simply because I say it. You should judge for yourself whether I'm right. And this applies to this sentence and the previous two.
>but the exact same can be said for your line of reasoning that if people are innately bad, good should also never have arisen.<
Now here you're not using 'innately bad' correctly. If people are innately bad, then there won't be a lot of good, but it will exist; being innately bad does not imply that every attempt to struggle against it will fail, sometimes people try to be good and manage to pull it off for a little bit. Your logic only holds up if 'innately bad'='evil through and through', because people of the latter type by definition do not do good, and if all people were of that type, then there would be no good.
>A baby has a natural deep respect for doing the right thing<
Babies have no respect, and indeed, no deepness.
>But imagine if a child was born into an environment that glorified awareness. Where they weren't constantly told no! Bad!, and worse, but were shown a profound level of respect, something that is very rare, and appreciation towards them<
Raising a child in this manner is known to produce a messianic complex in them.
>This doesn't happen to much because a typical persons environment isn't like this.<
I agree, but it does happen sometimes. Most often in the form of a spoiled rich kid. "Wow, how that child would grow up." Indeed!
>This is why war in it's entirety has to go.<
I completely agree, right after all the evil people are gone and everyone else is perfect.
Ralph,
>You seem to enjoy math, so postulate this one out.<
I think your point is made without me actually having to crunch the numbers.
>war is a requirement of our existence.<
On this I have to disagree. The natural causes of death occur at rates that are nonlinearly related to human population. So if there were no wars and the world got too crowded, then famine and disease would do the job. At that point the births and deaths would be equal and the population stable, all without war.
>You are both right but both unenlightened.<
I'm overwhelmed by your opinion of me. Also, our views are mutually exclusive, so how can we both be right?
>If your ethics are based on the Bible then please tell me who Cains wife was that he met in the land of Nod, Was it his own sister?<
This seems way off topic, I'll say that I don't know. Maybe Genesis should not be taken that literally?
Bill,
>God put Nature in control - that's funny! LOL<
I don't get it, could you explain? (pm if you prefer, I bet everyone else got it...)
Silver Eyes,
>>I really don't know why, it's called Ockham's razor,<
>Hold it, you never said you didn't know why it was called ockhams razor, but this isn't what you said originally. What you originally said was you've heard that often the simplest is the best but you don't know why.<
You've misunderstood me here, I meant "I really don't know *why it works*, it is called Ockham's razor...", maybe that comma should've been a semicolon.
>My point is you made a reference originally and seemed to be saying you didn't know why it worked.<
I agree that is what I did.
>Ockhams razor isn't really dogma but for you it is because you don't really understand it.<
Not really, I said it is common sense for me and so it had never occurred to me to figure out why it works. Once you had brought it up as needing proof, I came up with one pretty easily.
>However those exceptions aren't really exceptions<
There really are exceptions. If someone asks that you come up with a solution to crime, and you answer with 'destory all humanity', then you have both the simplest and most effective solution. But it is not the best. As a result, the rule of energy, which is always true, cannot the same as Ockham's razor. Also, the former applies only to physical systems, the latter applies to abstract things.
>I think you've taken me out of context again,<
Yes, I did, and it was on purpose. But I did not mean it to confuse you, it was simply a way to attach a tangent: that I don't think you're using 'innate' correctly.
>Jonathan innately bad means that the core of a person is bad. This is what I meant. It would also mean that a persons natural instinct would be for bad.<
I completely agree. You went wrong previously though by implicitally taking 'innately bad' as being equivalent to 'bad most of the time', which was the distinction I tried to make in the aforementioned tangent.
>It also means as you said that the good of a person does not come from within them but from outside of them so that's why there is a need for religion and moral systems. That people naturally need to be controlled. These are your words.<
No, but very close. I did say "Humanity is not innately good. If it were there would be no need for religion or war.", but I meant "no need" from the perspective of unbiased pragmatism, that regardless of whether any religion is true or not, it clearly makes the world better if people believe in them. If people were innately good, then believing in a religion would have no positive effect on the world, and from that view, could be taken as a waste of time. But I'm not of that view.
>This means that you would also view yourself as innately bad,...So why should I trust anything you have to say since there is always that natural innate inclination within you to be bad?<
Yes and you are right. You should not trust anything I say simply because I say it. You should judge for yourself whether I'm right. And this applies to this sentence and the previous two.
>but the exact same can be said for your line of reasoning that if people are innately bad, good should also never have arisen.<
Now here you're not using 'innately bad' correctly. If people are innately bad, then there won't be a lot of good, but it will exist; being innately bad does not imply that every attempt to struggle against it will fail, sometimes people try to be good and manage to pull it off for a little bit. Your logic only holds up if 'innately bad'='evil through and through', because people of the latter type by definition do not do good, and if all people were of that type, then there would be no good.
>A baby has a natural deep respect for doing the right thing<
Babies have no respect, and indeed, no deepness.
>But imagine if a child was born into an environment that glorified awareness. Where they weren't constantly told no! Bad!, and worse, but were shown a profound level of respect, something that is very rare, and appreciation towards them<
Raising a child in this manner is known to produce a messianic complex in them.
>This doesn't happen to much because a typical persons environment isn't like this.<
I agree, but it does happen sometimes. Most often in the form of a spoiled rich kid. "Wow, how that child would grow up." Indeed!
>This is why war in it's entirety has to go.<
I completely agree, right after all the evil people are gone and everyone else is perfect.
Ralph,
>You seem to enjoy math, so postulate this one out.<
I think your point is made without me actually having to crunch the numbers.
>war is a requirement of our existence.<
On this I have to disagree. The natural causes of death occur at rates that are nonlinearly related to human population. So if there were no wars and the world got too crowded, then famine and disease would do the job. At that point the births and deaths would be equal and the population stable, all without war.
>You are both right but both unenlightened.<
I'm overwhelmed by your opinion of me. Also, our views are mutually exclusive, so how can we both be right?
>If your ethics are based on the Bible then please tell me who Cains wife was that he met in the land of Nod, Was it his own sister?<
This seems way off topic, I'll say that I don't know. Maybe Genesis should not be taken that literally?
Bill,
>God put Nature in control - that's funny! LOL<
I don't get it, could you explain? (pm if you prefer, I bet everyone else got it...)
Disclaimer: I reserve the right not to know what I'm talking about and not to mention this possibility in my posts. This disclaimer also applies to sentences I claim are quotes from anybody, including me.
re: "To an Iraqi Child"
Sorry Jonathan, it's just that I think Nature was around and 'in control' long before people invented gods, so I think it's presumptuous, and funny, to put the cart before the horse, so to speak.Bill,
>God put Nature in control - that's funny! LOL<
I don't get it, could you explain it? (pm if you prefer, I bet eeryone else got it...)
re: "To an Iraqi Child"
I, the person who wrote it, "got it" and had to smile to myself for not catching or editing such a statement.Bill,
>God put Nature in control - that's funny! LOL<
I don't get it, could you explain it? (pm if you prefer, I bet eeryone else got it...)
Sorry Jonathan, it's just that I think Nature was around and 'in control' long before people invented gods, so I think it's presumptuous, and funny, to put the cart before the horse, so to speak.
Nature has been around much longer than man praying to the sun, the grass, and the rivers etc. Longer than man himself in fact.
Remember, your God may be the one who's followers preaches peace and harmony while your neighbors God may be preaching it's flock to blow hell out of the infidel dogs. I do not think nature has got much involvement in such actions.
Bill is right in saying that I got the cart before the horse. I am glad some one got a chuckle out of this. It hit me in the funny bone as well.
Ralph
-
Silver Eyes
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 165
- Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 9:42 pm
re: "To an Iraqi Child"
Oh Jonathan. Jonathan your just not completely admitting when your posts are in error to your previous statements.
~>It also means as you said that the good of a person does not come from within them but from outside of them so that's why there is a need for religion and moral systems. That people naturally need to be controlled. These are your words.<
No, but very close. I did say "Humanity is not innately good.
No again you didn't. You said it was innately bad. You are losing to your own arguments and you won't admit it.
If it were there would be no need for religion or war.", but I meant "no need" from the perspective of unbiased pragmatism, that regardless of whether any religion is true or not, it clearly makes the world better if people believe in them. If people were innately good, then believing in a religion would have no positive effect on the world, and from that view, could be taken as a waste of time. But I'm not of that view.
>This means that you would also view yourself as innately bad,...So why should I trust anything you have to say since there is always that natural innate inclination within you to be bad?<
Yes and you are right. You should not trust anything I say simply because I say it. You should judge for yourself whether I'm right. And this applies to this sentence and the previous two.
It was a retorical question Jonathan. You know it. Right?
>but the exact same can be said for your line of reasoning that if people are innately bad, good should also never have arisen.<
Now here you're not using 'innately bad' correctly. If people are innately bad, then there won't be a lot of good, but it will exist;
Uh no I am not using the term incorrectly Jonathan because this is your definition, not mine. Your statement was, no one can be innately good because then bad would never have arisen. I was showing you your argument could also be applied to what you would call innately bad, which is exactly what you said humanity was.
>but the exact same can be said for your line of reasoning that if people are innately bad, good should also never have arisen.<
Now here you're not using 'innately bad' correctly. If people are innately bad, then there won't be a lot of good,
This is what YOU had said initially. Your argument was if people were innately good bad would never have arisen. This is your logic Jonathan not mine, go back and look. I was only using your argument against the statements you made to show you why that was at fault. Now it seems you are mirroring my words. Is this the direction you go in when you can't completely win over a discussion, by wearing the other person out?
>A baby has a natural deep respect for doing the right thing<
Babies have no respect, and indeed, no deepness.
I disagree completely. You seem to have problems getting the gist of what's being said and fall back to your conception of word meanings. Babies do have a deep respect, a respect for the silent understanding that they are absorbing and are aware, which is really quite awesome to someone who perceives without the use of internal dialogue. You see the word respect and only consider what one person gives to another through something that has been learned, when respect can also mean an appreciation and in this case you could call it an instinctual appreciation for the very fact that they exist, without having to think about it. If you consider depth a knowledge of words you are right. If you consider it a stronger link to their awareness before their heads become filled with garbage I am right.
There really are exceptions. If someone asks that you come up with a solution to crime, and you answer with 'destory all humanity', then you have both the simplest and most effective solution. But it is not the best. As a result, the rule of energy, which is always true, cannot the same as Ockham's razor. Also, the former applies only to physical systems, the latter applies to abstract things.
And as I said ockhams razor fails only when a situation hasn't been analyzed for all values and situations. Your example is simplified over all and is not based on the point I made, as above, so it is faulty. By the way, anything that can be made real can only be done by physical systems so your argument is faulty here as well.
I just had to edit this in;
>But imagine if a child was born into an environment that glorified awareness. Where they weren't constantly told no! Bad!, and worse, but were shown a profound level of respect, something that is very rare, and appreciation towards them<
Raising a child in this manner is known to produce a messianic complex in them.
Oh really!?? Can you prove that? Hmm I guess it is better to bring the child down than to help build them up huh? Jonathan if I knew better I'd think I was talking with a devil. LOL
A messianic complex comes from someone who is deluded. A person raised in an environment that nourishes their spirit doesn't come out of it deluded. Read this carefully because I am not talking about an environment that is itself deluded and so helps to form a deluded consensus within the child.
I guess I have to say this again. We live in a deluded environment. It is when this deluded environment is sent bye bye, and war is a big part of this, will people become better, and your term of evil will become minimumized.
~>It also means as you said that the good of a person does not come from within them but from outside of them so that's why there is a need for religion and moral systems. That people naturally need to be controlled. These are your words.<
No, but very close. I did say "Humanity is not innately good.
No again you didn't. You said it was innately bad. You are losing to your own arguments and you won't admit it.
If it were there would be no need for religion or war.", but I meant "no need" from the perspective of unbiased pragmatism, that regardless of whether any religion is true or not, it clearly makes the world better if people believe in them. If people were innately good, then believing in a religion would have no positive effect on the world, and from that view, could be taken as a waste of time. But I'm not of that view.
>This means that you would also view yourself as innately bad,...So why should I trust anything you have to say since there is always that natural innate inclination within you to be bad?<
Yes and you are right. You should not trust anything I say simply because I say it. You should judge for yourself whether I'm right. And this applies to this sentence and the previous two.
It was a retorical question Jonathan. You know it. Right?
>but the exact same can be said for your line of reasoning that if people are innately bad, good should also never have arisen.<
Now here you're not using 'innately bad' correctly. If people are innately bad, then there won't be a lot of good, but it will exist;
Uh no I am not using the term incorrectly Jonathan because this is your definition, not mine. Your statement was, no one can be innately good because then bad would never have arisen. I was showing you your argument could also be applied to what you would call innately bad, which is exactly what you said humanity was.
>but the exact same can be said for your line of reasoning that if people are innately bad, good should also never have arisen.<
Now here you're not using 'innately bad' correctly. If people are innately bad, then there won't be a lot of good,
This is what YOU had said initially. Your argument was if people were innately good bad would never have arisen. This is your logic Jonathan not mine, go back and look. I was only using your argument against the statements you made to show you why that was at fault. Now it seems you are mirroring my words. Is this the direction you go in when you can't completely win over a discussion, by wearing the other person out?
>A baby has a natural deep respect for doing the right thing<
Babies have no respect, and indeed, no deepness.
I disagree completely. You seem to have problems getting the gist of what's being said and fall back to your conception of word meanings. Babies do have a deep respect, a respect for the silent understanding that they are absorbing and are aware, which is really quite awesome to someone who perceives without the use of internal dialogue. You see the word respect and only consider what one person gives to another through something that has been learned, when respect can also mean an appreciation and in this case you could call it an instinctual appreciation for the very fact that they exist, without having to think about it. If you consider depth a knowledge of words you are right. If you consider it a stronger link to their awareness before their heads become filled with garbage I am right.
There really are exceptions. If someone asks that you come up with a solution to crime, and you answer with 'destory all humanity', then you have both the simplest and most effective solution. But it is not the best. As a result, the rule of energy, which is always true, cannot the same as Ockham's razor. Also, the former applies only to physical systems, the latter applies to abstract things.
And as I said ockhams razor fails only when a situation hasn't been analyzed for all values and situations. Your example is simplified over all and is not based on the point I made, as above, so it is faulty. By the way, anything that can be made real can only be done by physical systems so your argument is faulty here as well.
I just had to edit this in;
>But imagine if a child was born into an environment that glorified awareness. Where they weren't constantly told no! Bad!, and worse, but were shown a profound level of respect, something that is very rare, and appreciation towards them<
Raising a child in this manner is known to produce a messianic complex in them.
Oh really!?? Can you prove that? Hmm I guess it is better to bring the child down than to help build them up huh? Jonathan if I knew better I'd think I was talking with a devil. LOL
A messianic complex comes from someone who is deluded. A person raised in an environment that nourishes their spirit doesn't come out of it deluded. Read this carefully because I am not talking about an environment that is itself deluded and so helps to form a deluded consensus within the child.
I guess I have to say this again. We live in a deluded environment. It is when this deluded environment is sent bye bye, and war is a big part of this, will people become better, and your term of evil will become minimumized.