Don't you think this reassurance will be a reason for some to start such a war? I think it's a very scary idea that such a war is possible in the first place. Gives me nightmares! — Dijkgraf

Only those who are insane would do so, but yes, they exist and they can reach the highest levels of power at the moment and yes, that is terrifying. But seriously, we f****** deserve extinction if we let that happen. No individual system should exist where the will of an individual or small group can cause something like a global nuclear exchange to occur or any equivalent or worse technology in the future. We must strive to create a global socio-political system that makes such a circumstance almost impossible. Very powerful checks and balances are needed at every stage in hierarchical authority. Absolute scrutiny of anyone appointed to any significant position of trust and power is essential. We even have to regularly scrutinise the scrutineers. History has been screaming these facts at us for centuries. We have to do this until we have at least billions of us living and thriving off-planet. Then such an event as Earth's destruction would not mean our extinction was assured. Our own survival is the imperative that shows space exploration and development is wise. I am also hopeful that if we can make a future where individual humans are a lot happier with their individual experience of 'being alive' then conflict will naturally reduce its 'threat level,' perhaps even all the way to zero.

I was intrigued by the Rand description (in wikipedia) of an objectivist ethic as the concept of man as a heroic being with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life. I have always rejected this viewpoint. Which I think is clear from my OP. So human debate about such labels continues, as it should. — universeness

I would highly recommend venturing into all of them to learn their value, but you really should familiarize yourself with what Rand's arguments were for that. So far, the two most reasonable ethical frameworks I've discovered are Objectivism and Utilitarianism, they make the most sense to me if you sort of combine them, and respect each respective domain of dilemma's you may find yourself in. Virtue Ethicals is splendid as well. Deontological Ethics is Kantian, and for the most part I reject him outright, but the Hypothetical Imperative is a stroke of genuis as far as ethics is concerned.

Is it evil that someone is born with 'paranoid delusions or sociopathic tendencies etc?' I dont think this would be due to any kind of childhood nurture, although it must be true that how such conditions are treated is of paramount importance when discovered. But economic issues or ethnicity or religion or region or any other such dumb barrier should not be reasons why we don't intervene effectively when someone has such a condition. If they go on to behave in 'evil' ways toward others, then who is really responsible here? We even have such concepts in law. Declared insane! Not legally responsible for their actions and they go into institutes for the criminally insane. But are they evil? — universeness

Good questions, really. I would say actions that are determined to be evil through the application of ethical framework remain evil no matter who enacts them. However, if it can be dertermined that a person actually lacks the cognitive faculties the define consciousness, like healthy, aware, consciousness, no they cannot be considered either good, nor evil. That's when we as arbiters must apply reason and ethical framework to assess how to operate futher in the situation.

In Carl Sagan's book, 'Broca's brain' he cites the case of a Russian serial killer who it is thought to have killed over 50 people. When science eventually studied him, they decided on a process hitherto untried (which was ok as such as he could be 'ethically' used for medical experimentation.) They severed his corpus callosum ( the communication channels between the right and left hemisphere of his brain). He was left with some difficulties but they eventually declared him 'cured' of his urge to kill others. — universeness

Such a good topic that isn't talked about enough. The corpus callosum is the only connection between both hemispheres. They've done experiments with "spli-brain" patients where if they ask a question to the person while stimulating one side of the brain, the patient will answer the question in the opposite manner he answers the same question if they stimulate the other side of the brain when asking it. Groundbreaking stuff on the nature of consciousness that no one ever thinks about. Good reference. I think they use this method to treat very severe schizophrenia, or something like that. Normally leaves the patient ruined forever. There's even been cases where a patient went crazy on his wife and began beating her while telling her that it wasn't him, that he didn't want to do it. Both sides of his brain were operating independently of eachother.

To me, it's illogical to see these labels as 'stand alones,' they are intertwined and interdependent aspects of the human psyche. On a practical level, we must continue the struggle to gain a full non-religious understanding of these concepts (Evil is F*** all to do with ghosts and demons etc) and create a just system for all, which is not dependent on economics or availability of services, etc on a global scale. — universeness

Bingo! That's the key for me. I told you I'd stop my writing to send you a poem, what I'm writing right now is a new ethical framework that incorporates elements from all bodies of ethical work that I can find that are compatible, and integrate them into something a bit more coherent for the average person. A bit more accessible, I even have a name for it that' totally new, however I can't share that publicly because there's a good chance I'm actually onto something. At least something more a kin to a real exploration that you're going to find in the modern world. I'm not saying I'll be successful, but I'm pretty fucking committed, this is also my field of study in college, so I've got formal ed to help me along. But, yeah, I completely feel what you're saying in all of this.

I doubt that public education has much to do with personal moral calculations. — Gnomon
Surely the way in which you are educated affects your moral compass. — universeness

Of course, it should. But my comment was directed at the current conflicted situation of public education in the US. For example, government-funded schools are now political battlegrounds over the teaching of "Critical Race Theory", among other academic concerns. One side seems to view it as an ethical issue regarding fair treatment of "minority" citizens. Meanwhile, the opposition treats it as a political propaganda attack on the besieged colorless race. (note -- I know nothing about the CR theory other than the label)

Up to about a century ago, secular public schools were primarily mandated to produce ethically-good citizens. But now, the teaching of good morals is left mostly to private religious organizations. So, the secular mandate of modern mind-molding is to train children to be technically-good workers. Presumably, regardless of Race, Religion, or National Origin. The attitude seems to be : the future is untainted, but history is morally compromised -- and best avoided in the presence of tender minds. :smile:

I am socialist but I don't accept your suggestion that socialism is a political polarisation. — universeness

That "suggestion" was not my personal opinion, but a reflection of the historical & current political polarization between "socialist" Liberals and "capitalist" Conservatives. Throughout history, those on the top echelons of society (owners of capital) were typically status-quo Conservatives. The Moderate mid-levels of society were content to just hang-on to their not-so-bad positions. And the huddled masses, were either passively accepting of their lot in life, or frustrated by the lead-ceilings as they tried to climb-up to the next rung in society.

For millennia, upward social mobility was mostly a pipe dream, until the Socialism & Communism & Unionism movements reacted vigorously to the inhumane conditions of smoke-stack industrialism. As long as the masses remained compliant and quiescent though, there was no political polarization. But when poverty & racism & sexism became in-your-face issues, and the divide between Haves & Have-nots became un-ignorable. Only then did the top dogs began to have their noses pushed into their own sh*t.

Traditionally, Monarchic politics was a concern of only the rich & powerful. But, when Democratic ideals began to question the morality of ancestral aristocracy, a newly-revealed chasm between top & bottom of society soon became entrenched into routine Democratic politics. Unfortunately, the hierarchical gap between rich & poor remains to this day, as a running sore in all societies. Hence, the ancient Left vs Right division between noble peers, has evolved into a Top vs Bottom polarization of minority & majority classes. Yet, political mud-slinging still labels social Liberals as commie Leftists, and economic Conservatives as fascist Right-wingers. That's why moderates in the middle must learn to duck, as the slinging now comes from left & right and top & bottom. :cool:

We all have these three voices due to having a triune brain. — universeness

I don't much like brainspeak. I have never seen or felt my brain and I am not convinced I have one. Nor do i believe that you or anyone else is more experienced wrt their own brain.

Defeating any kind of addiction is a mammoth task. — universeness

Alas, you have not understood me; it is so simple, that almost no one does. No one has defeated anyone or anything, and no task has been performed. There is literally nothing easier than not doing what one does not want to do.

BUT WE WILL! — universeness

Bravo! That sounds much more optimistic than the OP. I just hope your momentary enthusiasm doesn't turn into apathy, when the ideal of egalitarianism remains as far away as the horizon. I learned long ago, to lower my expectations, even as I set moderately higher goals. :smile:

A good way of conceptualizing what Ethics, Morality, and Virtue are, is to compare it with like-framework. Ethics is to behavior what Science is to inductive observation. Morality is to behavior what the Scientific Method (s) is to inductive observation. Virtue is to behavior what proper analysis of data is to inductive observation. — Garrett Travers

If we are to depend on our rational faculty to guide our ethical decisions and understanding, what assures us that the truths we arrive at can be nailed down as factual? This is of course the problem of skepticism that occupied philosophers like Hume and Kant. Kant’s solution led him to his categorical imperative and moral ‘duty’. I assume you reject his approach , as did Rand. I could be wrong but I suspect that the whole course of 20th and 21at century ethical theory devolves upon Kantian ethics , even as many approaches submit him to critique. Most contemporary philosophers share Kant’s subjectivism, or what Grants Hartman calls ‘correlationism’ , the belief that real objects in the world can only be understood in their empirical scientific truth relative to our subjective schemes and categories of understanding. This means. that science can never have direct access to truths about the world, but only approximate and falsify. In other words, for post-Kantian thought a certain degree of relativism is built into rationality.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t your notion of rational thought, like Rand’s, give us such direct access to empirical truth that Kant rejected? Descartes believed we had such direct access to truth, mediated by the direct connection between the pineal gland of the brain and Divine guidance that equips our brains with the faculty to recognize truth in the causal relations we discover in the world. But you are an Atheist so it sounds like you believe that we have that faculty but it is not given to us by God.

You have used many words in your posts which are not bitter and are not cranky. I would like to see you change your 'handle' but perhaps you like the 'ironic' element too much and I fully accept your choice of 'handle' is just that, your choice. — universeness

It is an ironic choice, the irony more visible to me than anyone else. I don't want to change horses mid stream, and this handle goes back to the first incarnation of Philosophy Forum, so a few years worth. Plus it would take too much CPU time to think of another handle.

There is literally nothing easier than not doing what one does not want to do. — unenlightened

Tell that to the heroin addict.

Tell that to the heroin addict. — Dijkgraf

Firstly, the myth of the heroin addict is not all it's cracked up to be. After Vietnam, GI heroin addicts were generally able to give up the habit without too much trouble.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2012/01/02/144431794/what-vietnam-taught-us-about-breaking-bad-habits

But that aside, the point I am making is that people are conflicted. An addict will typically honestly claim to want to stop but by their action show that they want to continue. when you want to do something, then it is very hard not to do it. It is the ending of psychological conflict that is required; when one is single-minded, there is no conflict, and things become fairly straightforward.

If we are to depend on our rational faculty to guide our ethical decisions and understanding, what assures us that the truths we arrive at can be nailed down as factual? — Joshs

In short, we can't. We have to use reason, evidence, induction, hypothesis, data analysis to inform of us the best possible conclusion. Which is an exercise in rationality, or 'executive function,' as I've remarked upon in our other discussion. The method I use is one I'm currently developing which involves applying the logic from all established ethical framework to vett for consistency and applicability. For example, the only logical validation for the deontological framework would be contracts and undertakings that involve tacitly accepted responsibilities like child-rearing, or college. Meaning, deontological ethics, when placed in its proper context is actually compatible with the Objectivist framework. I can provide more clarity on that if need be.

This is of course the problem of skepticism that occupied philosophers like Hume and Kant. Kant’s solution led him to his categorical imperative and moral ‘duty’. I assume you reject his approach , as did Rand. I could be wrong but I suspect that the whole course of 20th and 21at century ethical theory devolves upon Kantian ethics , even as many approaches submit him to critique. — Joshs

Yes, I reject both Kant's categorical imperative, specifically, and Hume's 'Problem of Induction," specifically. However, not necessarily just because of Rand's arguments against them, which are sound. And yes, Kant's presence dominates the default-mode ethical framework of the general publis, which is a bit of an enormous problem, even though it has been highlighted and argued against definitively in my opinion. Which I am happy to do with you myself, if you so desire.

the belief that real objects in the world can only be understood in their empirical scientific truth relative to our subjective schemes and categories of understanding. — Joshs

Yes, which is absurd. It is only through logic chopping and semantic word-play that such a conclusion be asserted. In fact, it wouldn't matter if it were the case that such was true, which it isn't. The domain of existence is apprehendable by the human, using only induction to guide him, let alone logic, experimentation, independent observation, with the entire history of science and innovation predicated upon it to demostrate it. There's not a single modicum of evidence suggesting as much beyond theory. Our subjective schema are predicated upon perceiving objective data that comes through objective instruments, processed by an objective brain, objectively created to do so through the objective process of evolution by natural selection, organized by objective standards of consistency, and objectively experimented with in the objective world, to objectively repeat the process. Subjectivity, although an element of human life, is practically irrelevant to it. Human life is overwhelmingly situated upon objective phenomena. It may even be prudent to regard the term 'subjectivity' as little more than a subjective concept to describe only that small space between our thoughts and our actions.

science can never have direct access to truths about the world, but only approximate and falsify. In other words, for post-Kantian thought a certain degree of relativism is built into rationality. — Joshs

This is absolutely true. Access to reality we certainly have, but that access is only spread over five domains and what instruments we can build to augment them, thus delimited. That does not mean that what we perceive is not reality, or that reality cannot be known. It would quite literally be impossible to conclude such given the history of science upto this point. If we couldn't detect truth, we wouldn't have done any of the things we've accomplished apropos tech, medicine, engineering, it's just irrational.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t your notion of rational thought, like Rand’s, give us such direct access to empirical truth? — Joshs

Without a doubt. However, there's this misunderstanding of Rand's that claims she asserted the notion of Radical Objectivity, which is patently false, and I've had to dispel this a number of times for her misinformed - having never actually read her epistemology - detractors who formulated their thoughts by word-of-mouth from other detractors. But, yes, I am empirically typing this message, and you are empirically reading it at this time. No doubt about it. Or, you wouldn't have made it to this sentence here. Our intake of empirical data is a natural function of the brain, also an empirically observable entity, empirically used for everything we're discussing here.

Descartes believed we had such direct access to truth, mediated by the direct connection between the pineal gland of the brain and Divine guidance that equips our brains with the faculty to recognize truth in the causal relations we discover in the world — Joshs

Yes, Descartes is another philosopher that needs to be thrown out of the 'important' category of philosophical thinkers. I applaud his attempt, but his epistemology is completely backwards from where it should have started. "I am" and "What am I," are some of the first things I ever asked myself consciously, which is where that should have begun for Descartes. However, it's clear that the thing Descartes was highlighting was actual the entire working structures of the main-brain, emotional processing network, and the healthy operation of the prefrontal cortex (controlling both) that was the source of it all, he wouldn't have known so he get's a few points there for effort.

But you are an Atheist so it sounds like you believe that we have that faculty but it is not given to us by God. — Joshs

Yes. When we see how the brain operates, the inclusion of a divine presence is not required for the model to produce what you see before you in the mirror.

The domain of existence is apprehendable by the human, using only induction to guide him, let alone logic, experimentation, independent observation, with the entire history of science and innovation predicated upon it to demostrate it. — Garrett Travers

Rationality of course needs a substrate on which to operate, and that’s where causality comes into play. Rationality allows us to figure out how things fit together in causative patterns. Prior to Kant , a good example of a nice , rational causative scheme would have been a clock or a car engine. In these devices , individuals parts works together in a specific way to create a functioning machine. The parts retain their identity outside of their role in the workings of the device. After Kant the focus shifted to the idea of machine as a gestalt whole, wherein each part only has its identity in relation to its contribution to the larger whole. So Kant’s subjectivism contributes a relationality to causation that sees connections where previous objective causal models saw only independent parts arbitrarily combined in causal sequences.
One could say we have here two kinds of rationality. The pre-Kantian rationality accepts arbitrary concatenations of parts as the exemplar of reason. The post-Kantian approach looks for gestalt pattern everywhere. In terms of ethics , the pre-Kantian ethicist sees narrow islands of rational ethical conduct surrounded by a sea of irrationality , psychopathology, emotionality, malevolence and evil. The individual will is declared sovereign because it is the only thing that can be counted on to be understandable and predicable, a machine we know well because it belongs to us. We can’t be in a position to endorse other beings the way we endorse ourselves because we know so little about others, they are unpredictable and potentially irrational. And even when we see them as rational, they will be operating according to a rationality which, like a car engine, has its own arbitrary causative sequence of working parts. So we have no choice to use our own will as sovereign basis of ethics.

wherein each part only has its identity in relation to its contribution to the larger whole. So Kant’s subjectivism contributes a relationality to causation that sees connections where previous objective causal models saw only independent parts arbitrarily combined in causal sequences. — Joshs

Yes, this has been something that has been impeding some of the sciences for some time. For example, check out this article on the nature of consciousness, you'll see what I mean; just skim it, don't even need to tarry on it. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351365249_WHAT_PRODUCES_CONSCIOUSNESS
The gestalt methodology is something that cannot be divorced from the mechanistic, they have to be observed together, or the resolution of the image is distorted. Another one of those elements of objectivity that can be used to predicate one's ethical framework upon.

The pre-Kantian rationality accepts arbitrary concatenations of parts as the exemplar of reason. — Joshs

Oh, how I wish this were truly true. I see your point, and I agree. But, when you detach the fundamentals of reality from your philosophical approach, the links of the catena dissolve into misapprehension, confusion, and in Kant's case, a nonsensical prolix of self-generated jargon that doesn't have correspondence any longer.

The post-Kantian approach looks for gestalt pattern everywhere. In terms of ethics , the pre-Kantian ethicist sees narrow islands of rational ethical conduct surrounded by a sea of irrationality , psychopathology, emotionality, malevolence and evil. The individual will is declared sovereign because it is the only thing that can be counted on to be understandable and predicable, a machine we know well because it belongs to us. We can’t be in a position to endorse other beings the way we endorse ourselves because we know so little about others, they are unpredictable and potentially irrational. And even when we see them as rational, they will be operating according to a rationality which, like a car engine, has its own arbitrary causative sequence of working parts. So we have no choice to use our own will as sovereign basis of ethics. — Joshs

An utterly brilliant assessment. Thank you, I needed that from this website. It was getting to the point of nonsense dealing with some of these arguments. You're right, we actually have no choice. But, it isn't just for reasons associated with what you're saying. It's actually hard wired into you, you ONLY have the tools of cognition offfered to you by 3.5 billion years of evolution, that has somehow produced beings that can apprehend a high-enough resolution image of reality to not only survive, but to expand presence and knowledge. This is only done throught that mechanism, and it is quite literally bound to every individual, individually. Reason is the one evolutionary advantage that has outlasted every other predator in the history of the world, or bested them; and for the reason of its ability to navigate reality and assess beyond the fulfillment of basic, subcortical activity and thought.

I completely feel what you're saying in all of this. — Garrett Travers

I think we mainly concur with each other's viewpoint in the areas discussed here.
I will spend some time reading on the general area of ethics to deepen my knowledge on the topic.
I hope your deep study of ethics proves fruitful for everyone.

But my comment was directed at the current conflicted situation of public education in the US. — Gnomon

I don't know enough about this to comment.

the teaching of "Critical Race Theory" — Gnomon

In the UK, the area of historical slavery is taught at secondary school level(12-17) within the subject called 'Modern Studies.' But it's no more than a course unit. I am certainly attracted to the idea of teaching the topic of 'racial conflict/harmony in schools but I agree that it cannot be skewed in the way you are suggesting it currently is in the US schools.

But now, the teaching of good morals is left mostly to private religious organizations. — Gnomon

I am against any religious organisation being involved in the education of children. I don't have a problem with schools informing children of the existence of and the main tenets of the main world religions but there should never be any hint of 'this is the one WE favour.'
I would not allow religious schools in any form.

So, the secular mandate of modern mind-molding is to train children to be technically-good workers. Presumably, regardless of Race, Religion, or National Origin. The attitude seems to be : the future is untainted, but history is morally compromised -- and best avoided in the presence of tender minds. :smile: — Gnomon

Sounds like the secular school system in America and the UK needs a lot of change.
Surely in US schools, they understand that ignorance of history causes repetition of horrific historical events.

That's why moderates in the middle must learn to duck, as the slinging now comes from left & right and top & bottom — Gnomon

I can't argue with any of the points you make in this response. It sounds like an accurate synopsis of the rise of the current political framework in many countries.

I don't much like brainspeak. I have never seen or felt my brain and I am not convinced I have one. Nor do i believe that you or anyone else is more experienced wrt their own brain. — unenlightened

All I can respond with is 'what a bizarre viewpoint!'

Alas, you have not understood me; it is so simple, that almost no one does. No one has defeated anyone or anything, and no task has been performed. There is literally nothing easier than not doing what one does not want to do. — unenlightened

Ok, if that works for you :meh:

I just hope your momentary enthusiasm doesn't turn into apathy, when the ideal of egalitarianism remains as far away as the horizon. I learned long ago, to lower my expectations, even as I set moderately higher goals — Gnomon

My belief that the vast majority of human beings are good people is deeply held.
I will never become apathetic.
The cosmic calendar scale's the time since the big bang to a single year.
On that scale, the past 8 thousand years scale's to only a few seconds on the cosmic calendar.
A human lifespan is currently no more than a blink of a cosmic eye.
I think that Human society will be fair and just within the next few seconds of the cosmic calendar.

Fair enough! :up:

It is the ending of psychological conflict that is required; when one is single-minded, there is no conflict, and things become fairly straightforward. — unenlightened

If a person becomes too 'single-minded' and they have very little or no 'psychological conflict' then they can lose all empathy/compassion for others. The state of mind you describe can be very good in many situations and very dangerous and damaging in others. I rely on my psychological conflict as a monitor of any musings I am having about actions I may/may not perform.

I'm a good-for-nothing, but if you want my opinion,it's this: Take care of yourself; put the oxygen mask on yourself before you try to help others. If everybody had the good sense to do that, the world wouldn't need heroes or a Christ savior. It's that simple, the solution that is, but no, some of us just don't do enough to stay away from trouble - we make mistake after mistake until we end up on the streets, homeless, penniless, hopeless, helpless, etc.

That said, Lady luck has a way of messing up the most carefully of laid out plans. To bad, that's just the way it is I'm afraid. For such unfortunate peeps, help is justified and necessary for they usually become the first domino to fall, setting of a chain reaction that usually spirals out of control. A fine mess we've got ourselves in!

We can’t be in a position to endorse other beings the way we endorse ourselves because we know so little about others, they are unpredictable and potentially irrational — Joshs

So we have no choice to use our own will as sovereign basis of ethics. — Joshs

I read with interest your exchanges with Garrett Travers.
I am trying to focus past the philosophical historicity you are both discussing and attempt to arrive at the more practical, everyday consequences of your deliberations.

To create a fairer system for all, what structural, societal changes would you suggest?
Let me suggest one.
Every democratic system must have powerful checks and balances so that the 'sovereign will' of any individual does not become a justification for abuse of any powers wielded by that individual.
So, as well as elected representatives in a hierarchy of power, we must also have an elected 'counci//senate/forum of the people.' Such a group can call for a plebiscite from any group of stakeholders regarding the status of any politician in government or the term of that government before a new election is required. The term can never be increased, but it can be reduced or terminated. No such horrors as a lifetime presidency would be allowed, ever!
This group could stop a law from being passed by the sitting government if they obtain the necessary sanction from the people.
This group could remove anyone from their position, again if they obtain the sanction of the particular stakeholders involved (probably those people who elected the individual in the first place.)
This group can consult any relevant mass of population they choose, at any time on any issue.
Is such a group viable? desirable? Would they be effective scrutineers of government actions?

I'm a good-for-nothing, but if you want my opinion,it's this: Take care of yourself; put the oxygen mask on yourself before you try to help others. If everybody had the good sense to do that, the world wouldn't need heroes or a Christ savior. It's that simple, the solution that is, but no, some of us just don't do enough to stay away from trouble - we make mistake after mistake until we end up on the streets, homeless, penniless, hopeless, helpless, etc — Agent Smith

So, we must all take responsibility for this, every single one of us!
It is everyone's responsibility to help change this truth.
It is your responsibility also. You are not good-for-nothing, that's just untrue.

If a person becomes too 'single-minded' and they have very little or no 'psychological conflict' then they can lose all empathy/compassion for others. — universeness

Again we are not of one mind here. I say 'single-minded', and you hear 'bully' or 'tyrant'. But a tyrant is not single-minded but is deeply conflicted, dependent for his identity on having power over others, because he has no self-understanding. It is the lack of insight that leads to the loss of empathy.

Again we are not of one mind here. I say 'single-minded', and you hear 'bully' or 'tyrant'. — unenlightened

No, I don't only hear bully or tyrant, I merely flag possible consequences of individuals who are too 'single-minded' and do not engage in any psychological conflict. I don't have a strong enough example of what I would consider 'pure evil.' The best offering I could make would be the theist description of satan but as an atheist, I don't like to employ anything invented in the theistic mind. But I could employ terms like single-minded and no psychological conflict when describing pure evil. I could also of course use such terms to describe someone who is determined to defeat or combat pure evil
.

It is the lack of insight that leads to the loss of empathy — unenlightened

Raw hatred has no empathy with its target but it does not necessarily lack insight.
I hate fascism but I do not lack insight into its doctrine.

I don't like to employ anything invented in the theistic mind. But I could employ terms like single-minded and no psychological conflict when describing pure evil. — universeness

Well if you have to speak of evil, then you seem to be already in a theological discourse, in which case you need to understand the way that language works. The term 'pure evil' is at best paradoxical, and liable to lead to contradiction. "How can evil be anything but impure?", I might ask.

I hate fascism but I do not lack insight into its doctrine. — universeness

I have been using insight in a restricted sense of inward seeing or understanding of oneself in a specifically undivided way. I'm sorry if that was not clear in the context. I do not suppose you are seeing the doctrine of fascism in yourself and as yourself?

The cosmic calendar scale's the time since the big bang to a single year.
On that scale, the past 8 thousand years scale's to only a few seconds on the cosmic calendar.
A human lifespan is currently no more than a blink of a cosmic eye.
I think that Human society will be fair and just within the next few seconds of the cosmic calendar. — universeness

For what it's worth, here's my own cosmic calendar. It shows an optimistic upward progression, despite all the physical entropy and political digressions. I attribute the upward evolution to the counter-entropy force of Enformy. Scientists call it "negentropy", but I prefer the more positive sounding term. :smile:



Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress. [ see post 63 for graph ]
1. I'm not aware of any "supernatural force" in the world. But my Enformationism theory postulates that there is a meta-physical force behind Time's Arrow and the positive progress of evolution. Just as Entropy is sometimes referred to as a "force" causing energy to dissipate (negative effect), Enformy is the antithesis, which causes energy to agglomerate (additive effect).
2. Of course, neither of those phenomena is a physical Force, or a direct Cause, in the usual sense. But the term "force" is applied to such holistic causes as a metaphor drawn from our experience with physics.
3. "Entropy" and "Enformy" are scientific/technical terms that are equivalent to the religious/moralistic terms "Evil" and "Good". So, while those forces are completely natural, the ultimate source of the power behind them may be supernatural, in the sense that the First Cause logically existed before the Big Bang.
BothAnd Blog

So, we must all take responsibility for this, every single one of us!
It is everyone's responsibility to help change this truth.
It is your responsibility also. You are not good-for-nothing, that's just untrue. — universeness

It's helpful to look at life as a battle/war. Sure, there's the possibility of reinforcement, but it's better to assume there's none! Every man, woman, child for himself/herself/itself! Be independent and all will be well!

The term 'pure evil' is at best paradoxical, and liable to lead to contradiction. "How can evil be anything but impure?" — unenlightened

Pure can be defined as 'not mixed with anything else, not diluted, not questioned' which fits with my intention for using the term 'pure evil.' My advice to you would be to concentrate on thinking about why you have difficulty recognising the existence of your own brain.

Every man, woman, child for himself/herself/itself! Be independent and all will be well! — Agent Smith

It's very easy to snap a single twig. Join enough twigs together and they become a lot harder to break.