though maybe there is something to be said for most people doing harm as a result of their ignorance. — Tzeentch

On the same theme, there may also be something to be said for people doing bad things when they are damaged.

No no. It's evil at it's core because you want it for it's on reason. Too hurt another and you enjoy it. It's the person who is evil. — Caleb Mercado

It's a definition, sure. But more like a journalist's (narrow) definition than a philosophical one. Are you saying evil can't happen if the protagonist is not enjoying it?

The evolution idea is interesting because young chimps petrol the boarder and if they see another chimp tribe and outnumber them, they kill them. It's like war, like we do. — Caleb Mercado

I'm hearing a lot of echos of Jordan Peterson around these parts.

No no. It's evil at it's core because you want it for it's on reason. Too hurt another and you enjoy it. It's the person who is evil.

You have to kinda be able to be a evil person too do good. Or else, you can't do anyone anything — Caleb Mercado

So you have defined what evil is. You're not really asking anyone else.

Thanks Jordan Peterson. Say hi to Tammy. :joke:

And if you do that with the intention too hurt and derive pleasure from it, that's evil. — Caleb Mercado

Evil? Maybe not. Confused, lost, broken, fractured.... These may explain the above rather than evil per say.

Is the action evil or the person who does it? Are the consequences evil, or the intention behind it? Or both, or none? Can you do an evil thing to accomplish a greater good?

This is just not the case. I think we are born with both potentials but tilt towards evil. Anything too add? — Caleb Mercado

Good and evil seem to me to be almost indefinable theological categories. I don't know many people who think they are good. I think more accurately people imagine they are 'not evil'. That said, many people think they are bad (often indefinably so), hence the proliferation of self-help paraphernalia and substance use to distract or attempt to divert from what one imagines one's nature to be.

I am not sure who I find more boring Marx or Hegel. I have never been able to get though either. But both are significant figures in philosophy.

Here's a tip.

What you are arguing is a largely ad hominem and amounts to simple smearing. You need to examine his arguments and criticise them. Not him. Saying he was a self-aggrandizing douche-canoe, or that few at the time liked his books is irrelevant and as far as criticism goes, a rookie mistake or poor form.

There are famous artists/writers/thinkers who were disliked or didn't sell their works, but were later considered great - Van Gogh, for instance. Wagner was a piece of shit, but many consider his music to be inspired. Me included. Arthur Schopenhauer's philosophy was largely ignored during his lifetime but he became a great figure in world philosophy, etc, etc...

I guess the simplest way of saying this is: One can't prove that he didn't make a mistake. — Qmeri

Sure. And?

The idea that we do not have access to absolute truth or certainty is common enough: fallibilism.

But anyone can say D may have made a mistake - the trick is to identify the mistake. Can you?

What he is actually saying is 'consciousness, therefore me.' A common critique is the presupposition there is a me or I involved.

:up:

:up:

...so you are an ismist. You espouse ismism. — Banno

I think he's an anti-ism-isamist

For example, one can be a Jungian and that is not an ism. — Jack Cummins

I studied Jungianism and Mythos so, perhaps not.

"ism" is just a bit of language, a suffix, which people associate with dogma. But really, from fascism or pacifism, it's a diverse world despite those three letters. From whence we get the notion of acrimonious schisms between the isms.

I think they are all just tools, which may or may not be useful (i.e. lead to growth and greater freedom) in any particular case. — Janus

Fair enough. Well there are versions of the above that are morally wrong in less dramatic ways. Gay-hating Pentecostal Christianity, for instance. Is Scientology anything more than a scam that seeks to rigidly control its members? What counts as psychotherapy (we may need to list specific versions)? There are centrally a couple of Freudian schools I know of where therapists sometimes sleep with their patients. Not meant to of course. The fidelity of the model may be inversely proportionate to the morality of the practice. As is often the case with schools of thought.

How can we tell when someone has experienced personal growth and greater freedom, I wonder? It seems to me that sometimes this is said to be experienced when what is seen by others is a shrinking away from life and a palpable decrease in liberty. Personal testimony is unreliable.

How would you determine that some approach is wrong, per se, though? — Janus

All we can do here is go with a common sense approach. If a pathway involves gassing people - I think we can safely say it is wrong. If it involves harming children: wrong. Etc.

In my view there are as many approaches as there are people, and none of them wrong. — Janus

I'm not sure you can say this. Are you saying it is impossible to follow a wrong approach?

Agree. And many people follow a tradition or therapy mode for many years without any changes or results.

Ok. I prefer who you can be. Who you are implies some kind of essence or truth. Not that this matters two shits... :smile:

Not saying there is no 'you' as such, I'm proposing there is no real you 'who you are' in your words. There are just better or worse functioning versions of you, relative to a criteria. None of them are more or less who you are, it's just that some versions may be easier to be.

I suppose; for me there is nothing more attractive or interesting than the struggle to overcome fears and neuroses, and all the confused views and negative emotions that come with them, and become who you are — Janus

I'm not so sure there is a you to become exactly. But some people can sure make improvements in how they manage their lives. This can be done in many ways and none of them need to cater in truth or ultimate reality.

If enlightenment is just liberation and involves "knowing how" but no "knowing that", then it could be understood to simply consist in realizing the ability to completely be oneself, and nothing more than that could be justifiably said about it. — Janus

Which doesn't sound especially attractive or interesting.

Yes, a lot of money has been made by therapists who have peddled worldviews and 'therapeutic' ideas with not a lot of evidence to support the efficacy of their practices.

Jung's ideas have always been popular with artists and New Agers because they are romantic and dramatic and promise to unite human experience through myth. The entire Star Wars series was based around Jung's archetypes as interpreted by Joseph Campbell in Hero with a Thousand Faces. Some people seem to get a lot out of seeing the world through a Jungian lens and it's worth trying to understand this better.

I'm not sure how you are thinking the "sage caper" to be "beyond the fragilities of even the scientific method"; I see the method itself as the most robust just because it incorporates the possibility of public corroboration. What do you think the aforementioned fragilities consist in? — Janus

I simply meant the common place observation that you can't use science to assess sages. Wayfarer calls science a blunt tool which I think it not quite right either, but I understand his point.

So, I think the only test of any purported sage's wisdom is to be found in their fruits; in their actions and works; just as it is with any of us. Who is a sage we can explore? I don't know, perhaps just pick any purported sage and look at their biography insofar as it is publicly available. — Janus

Problem with this is how does the quotidian mind discern what constitutes an appropriate/robust demonstration of sageness? What exactly are these fruits? No history of sexual predations, or abuses of power, or financial fraud (common enough issues amongst gurus and sages) might be a clue and a starting point. But so much is hidden to us.

There are a few female mystics counted as saints; would they count as sages? — Janus

You tell me. What do we count as a robust demonstration of sageness?

Even if one were to grant that there are sages who can access higher reality and that they might be able to teach you something about this, how on earth do you choose wisely if you do not have this knowledge? On balance I think dead sages from antiquity may be the safest bet.

An increasing number of philosophers and even some neuroscientists are coming around to the idea that it may be our best hope for solving the problem of consciousness. — spirit-salamander

It may solve the problem of consciousness theoretically but will it be true and how can that be demonstrated?

Which often makes debate pointless, because having to explain to them what they actually believe before you tell them what's wrong with it is like explaining a joke. — Wayfarer

That's a pretty good line.

Beautifully put.

That is the definition of empiricism, it's not 'one view'. One can have views of the implications of empiricism, but the principles are pretty non-negotiable. — Wayfarer

I hear you but I'm not sure we often encounter people who hold to such a rigid form of empiricism.

Closely intertwined with empiricism, the view that only what can be detected by the senses (and instruments) is to be considered real. The other component is 'positivism'. — Wayfarer

That is one view. But I prefer a version of naturalism/physicalism that says this is all we know for now. It's not making proclamations about what is real (yes, I know, some are dogmatic) just what we we can reliable talk about.

nteresting. — Manuel

I dontl think it is interesting. But thanks for your politeness.

So these physical objects you have in mind, do they exist mind-independetly, as in, before people existed there were trees, but only after we arose is that the notion or idea of a tree got articulated? — Manuel

Well, we all know the various theories we can adopt here. But the matter or realism versus idealism doesn't interest me much. I'll take quantum waves even though I have no idea what these are. I hold the view that speculative theories about the reality of things in themselves doesn't bring me anything useful.

Got ya. Thanks. My mind doesn't process the notion of a thing in itself. For me there are physical objects and my senses and that's about it.

I think Hollywood still exists — ssu

Hollywood and the studio system is long gone, as is that worldview. There are other systems and worldviews in operation.

Does science tell us about things in themselves generally? Can we have an idea of what they could be?

This last question torments me. — Manuel

Can you expand on this?

Westerns are an integral part of American culture, or at least were once. — ssu

Hollywood (when it existed) shredded history with almost everything it touched - war stories; gangster films, detective stories. In the mid 20th century, most films were artful propaganda pieces demonstrating that crime doesn't pay and that the decent American man will stand up against the bad guy and win. Is it any wonder the latter half of the 20th century was such a disappointment?

Probably also the case that western movies aren't really about cowboys in general. They are mythic settler stories.

The height of that stylization were then the Spaghetti Westerns. — baker

Well said. The Italians, to my eye perfected the Western and at least these 'cowboys' were caked in dirt.

As I said, a stylized cartoon... a myth.

I've always been a bit bewildered by the role played by the cowboy in our culture. — Ciceronianus the White

Well, it's the perfect stylised cartoon of mid-century male identity - a rugged individualist who keeps his mouth shut most of the time, can handle himself in a fight and who opened up his nation with just a dream, his bare hands and a Colt.

Anyway, a small thread with small stakes, curious to see what others might think. — StreetlightX

Orson Welles put it like this and I am paraphrasing, "A warthog can be happy. Joy is a great big electrical experience."

"I think the whole world is mad apart from me and thee. And I'm not so sure about thee." — Cuthbert

My old boss used to say this too.

The issue with political positions is that most people assume theirs is rational or common sense and the other side is evil or barking.

Down here we also have the expression, the lunar right. Both sides sling shit at each other.