|
Post by Orionation on Apr 25, 2007 22:23:14 GMT -5
bleh, I actually only have more questions about that book. But for the record i'm not necessarily seeking answers here, I already have my beliefs. I'm just curious about how you came to the conclusion you have.
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Apr 25, 2007 22:26:03 GMT -5
that only shows that you are limiting yourself if you are not seeking answers then i won't bother answering your questions
|
|
|
Post by Orionation on Apr 25, 2007 22:30:34 GMT -5
No, I've come to my conclusion as a result of my studies. I've swung all over the place in the past.. But aside from that, you didn't answer my question. You said that evil is typically things that cause pain and suffering. So, I asked how is that not the absence of good?
|
|
|
Post by Orionation on Apr 26, 2007 0:10:59 GMT -5
lol. I'm assuming you don't know how to answer them I don't need to be seeking any answers for my own beliefs to ask questions. You quoted my post with statements and claims, so therefore logically it's upon you to defend those claims, or it makes sense to just assume that they have no reasoning, but are just personal preference. And if that's the case I'm not saying that's a bad thing or anything of course, I was just curious about if you had reasoning to come to that conclusion or not.
|
|
|
Post by Tal on Apr 26, 2007 3:38:14 GMT -5
I see, and I know you just say in your opinion, but still I'm just curious where you come to that conclusion. I mean, just out of curiosity is all, what influences you to believe this as a personal preference? I guess I'm just asking if this is simply the view you've thought up that you're most comfortable with or if you've used some kind of reasoning to come to this conslusion, which you may have answered already, just clarifying. I guess its a combination of my lack of spirituality and a study of basic history/philosophy. I don't see any reason to assume a divine being exists, thus I don't link morality, good, evil, etc to religion. I look at human history and see how well we manage to create and use such abstract concepts, so I assume good and evil originate in the Human mind. To me its just common sense and a bit of rational thinking...I don't need to fit spirituality into my theories at any point. Ok, I'm just curious of one thing though. If there is no universal basis for ethical values and morality, then how do we draw a line between what's good and bad? In other words, if there's no universal moral standard, does that not imply that each person could have their own relative idea of what good and evil is? And if that is the case, then would Hitler be evil if in his mind he thought that for whatever reason it was good to kill all those people? Throughout history individuals/societies have had their own moral frameworks and often these have led to violence, subjugation against witches, non-White skinned people, homosexuals, atheists, scientists even.....what's immoral one day is fine the next, so its obvious there have never and can never be absolute morals lol I'd imagine in an educated democratic society, people power would generate a moral framework which benefits most of us. Moral values shift...we've seen that in the last century on various issues. The only way to prevent Hitlers is to dissect their moral values and hope the general population can make a rational decision on whether or not those are values they wish to live by. IMO, most prejudice is caused by closed-mindedness and inherited morality, not some general Human nastiness, so I have hope society's morality will benefit rather than oppress the vast majority.
|
|
|
Post by phoenixferret on Apr 26, 2007 14:16:23 GMT -5
lol. I'm assuming you don't know how to answer them Kid, I may have to hurt you.
|
|
|
Post by Orionation on Apr 26, 2007 15:13:14 GMT -5
lol. I'm assuming you don't know how to answer them Kid, I may have to hurt you. If you openly disagree with someone else's view, it's just the respectable (and logical) thing to support why, rather than just basically saying they're wrong. That's why I asked. If he doesn't know how to answer then he just doesn't know, no biggie.
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Apr 26, 2007 16:00:09 GMT -5
if you claim something is good, it is up to you to show that. i don't see any value in your definition.
|
|
|
Post by ridder on Apr 28, 2007 1:15:47 GMT -5
There is a lot of playing around with words in this thread. Good, evil- whatever, for me it boils down to simply:
"Good. Bad. I'm the guy with the gun." - Ash, "Army of Darkness"
|
|
|
Post by Orionation on Apr 28, 2007 14:19:15 GMT -5
if you claim something is good, it is up to you to show that. i don't see any value in your definition. I didn't make the claim, you did. I didn't claim something is good, I simply asked about how you came to the conclusion that you hold. When someone makes a claim, whether that is a claim that they believe in something, or even a claim of denying belief, it's still a claim. A belief is nothing but a view one holds, a possition they take. The nature of that statement being positive or negative is irrelevant, it is still a claim. The burdon of proof is on the one who makes the claim. That's not playing with words, it's logic.
|
|
|
Post by phoenixferret on Apr 28, 2007 18:29:55 GMT -5
if you claim something is good, it is up to you to show that. i don't see any value in your definition. I didn't make the claim, you did. I didn't claim something is good, I simply asked about how you came to the conclusion that you hold. When someone makes a claim, whether that is a claim that they believe in something, or even a claim of denying belief, it's still a claim. A belief is nothing but a view one holds, a possition they take. The nature of that statement being positive or negative is irrelevant, it is still a claim. The burdon of proof is on the one who makes the claim. That's not playing with words, it's logic. You're questioning not the validity of the response, but the manner in which the response was arrived at. That's not really "logical" as I see it, and in fact it just seems belligerent to me. You could put it up to simple personal interest, but that conveys no obligation--logical, moral, or otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Apr 28, 2007 20:22:10 GMT -5
your parallel between heat and cold and shadows and light, does not automatically mean that evil is the absence of good anywhere except in your own head no I don't agree that similarly evil is the absence of good your analogy is poor and does not lead to a conclusion that evil is the absence of good neither is there a relationship between my definition and yours (except also in your head where any definition leads to yours, the one and only true definition that will save humanity)
in fact both coldness and shadows exist, if you would like i can show you some pictures of shadows, and if you stick your hand in the freezer you can feel what cold is. but you will not be able to explain to a person that never felt cold what it is by saying cold is the absence of heat. its like saying that a chicken is not a duck. While its true, its a useless definition.
if you think you can lead people to light with your clever questions you are mistaken, because they don't hold any substance if you want people to think differently the burden of proof is upon you
|
|