Am I the good that is left when the evil is removed or is the good what is left when I am removed? — unenlightened

Wow! That's a good one! :clap:

The question is, what shall we do with it? — Hillary

Be good.

Be part of the light.

SUBLIMATE, SUBLIMATE, SUBLIMATE!

We are in the grand scheme of things insects in our own eyes. Bug spray? DDT? Fly swatters? Flypaper? — Agent Smith

Chameleons.

Let's face the fact. The evil is undeniably with us. It's an undeniable part of us. Of me, of everyone,

of the universe, of the eternal gods. — Hillary

Eh?

The question is, what shall we do with it?

How could we possibly do anything about it, if it is, as you claim, "an undeniable part of us?

Chameleons — baker

Geckoes, frogs, dragonflies, spiders, antlions,...

How could we possibly do anything about it, if it is, as you claim, "an undeniable part of us? — baker

Well we shouldn't kill it, for sure. That means killing everyone.

Eh — baker

You heard me...

Let's face the fact. The evil is undeniably with us. It's an undeniable part of us. Of me, of everyone, of the universe, of the eternal gods.

I would take more of a cognitivist anti-realist position on morality: there are no moral phenomena, only moral interpretations of phenomena. I don't think the universe instantiates any "good" or "evil".

The question is, what shall we do with it?

"good" and "evil" are essentially the projection of subject's onto the world. Depending on the intellectual capacity of a given subject's faculties of reason, they will have a different interpretation of what the terms encompass.

However, this doesn't mean no one is correct (or more cogent) or wrong (or less cogent) in their views: varies based of off their intellectual capacities. I think the best we can do is slowly progress towards the most cogent positions by means of those subjects who can contribute, but ultimately there's no telling the capacities (and thusly interpretations) of those in power (or/and the masses) as time moves forward.

Shall we let it persist, shall we restrict it, even annihilate it?

What one annihilates today as "evil", is only an annihilation of what they considered "evil": there's nothing objective to annihilate that instantiates evil.

The last seems even worse than evil itself, for shouldn't we then annihilate the whole universe?

Do you interpret existence itself as "evil" or partially so?

Is this chance of total annihilation a means of the universe to cleanse itself from the evil we introduced, to restore the balance.

I don't think the universe has some sort of plan to restore "the balance". Humanity may annihilate itself, but I don't see how that equates to somehow "annihilating evil", unless one is referring to the fact that interpretations arguably won't exist anymore: I guess it is amoral at that point.

I would take more of a cognitivist anti-realist position on morality: there are no moral phenomena, only moral interpretations of phenomena. I don't think the universe instantiates any "good" or "evil". — Bob Ross

A moral interpretation of the phenomena implies that phenomena have inherent morals, as interpretations are phenomena. So if a phenomenon is interpreted as good or bad, that interpretation instantiates the good or bad.

good" and "evil" are essentially the projection of subject's onto the world. — Bob Ross

That means that there are no goodness and badness in people or other creatures, which is contradicted by the phenomena.

What one annihilates today as "evil", is only an annihilation of what they considered "evil": there's nothing objective to annihilate that instantiates evil. — Bob Ross

In practice though, what is interpreted as good or bad, can be annihilated. History is full of examples. The question is, should we allow irrational annihilation of the interpreted evil? Isn't annihilating interpreted evil even bigger (and objective!) evil than the evil being annihilated?

I don't think the universe has some sort of plan to restore "the balance" — Bob Ross

Still, it seems to be happening. The path of western man away from nature seems a path away from a natural moral. The digression from this moral translates in natural chaos and chance of natural annihilation.

Tanx for sharing the light! Dunno about sublimation... sublimize crime in sophisticated spectacular and intelligent bank robberies or jewel thefts from museums?

Dunno about sublimation... — Hillary

"In psychology, sublimation is a mature type of defense mechanism, in which socially unacceptable impulses or idealizations are transformed into socially acceptable actions or behavior, possibly resulting in a long-term conversion of the initial impulse."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimation_(psychology)

So, a jewelry heist as in movies? Ocean's 11?

So, a jewelry heist as in movies? Ocean's 11? — Hillary

Is a jewelry heist socially acceptable behavior? Not sure what you're getting at.

So, a jewelry heist as in movies? Ocean's 11? — Hillary

Do you mean watching a heist movie in place of orchestrating a heist? That would be sublimation.

Well, I mean the actual heist. People like that more than a simple shoplift. While in fact more material harm is done.

I think sin, thought of morbidly, is part of us - it's within us - we draw from it's source(like a passive wanting/seething).

Evil doesn't have to be 'part of us', we can all live just good.

Evil in my eyes is morbid stupidity, there is no greater evil, only solipsist or all future acts are determined morbid stupidity; how can one have a stupidity that's greater than another stupidity - deeply think about it.

Stupid 1 is ~ what? ~ by stupid 2. Outwitted?

We have determined morbid stupidity and predetermined morbid stupidity, neither are a part of us.

Good is the way to go.

Angelo Cannata
144
Certain things we talk about in philosophy are not so much concepts: they are much more experiences. Conceptualizing experiences can be useful, but it is not the best way to deal with everything. Many mistakes and misunderstandings in philosophy come for mixing these two perspectives. Saying that some evil is necessary for good to exist is a total conceptualization of evil and, as such, it looses sight of a lot of human aspects of it, especially personal involvement. On the opposite, complaining, crying, without any further action, happens when the intensity of experience overwhelms our ability to think. The solution is not in finding a balance between experience and concepts: such a balance cannot exist and, actually, there is progress, movement, becoming, exactly because of imbalance: a too perfect balance turns into absence of life, of progress. I think the solution needs to be dialectic, which means, a permanent action of work, movement, progress, self-criticism, among the different elements and imbalances.
So, facing the OP question “What to do...”, what is important is looking not for a conclusive answer, but exactly for something to do, which is, a kind of doing that must be never expected to stop, like instead conclusive answers are.
In other words, a conclusive answer to evil not only does not exist, but we need to be vigilant to avoid any temptation to find or to built it; a conclusive answer must not exist and we need to work actively to make impossible for it to exist. Conclusive answers to evil are worse than evil itself, because evil can change, but conclusive answers are aimed at not changing: they block progress.
So, from a philsophical point of view, facing the question “What to do with evil”, I think a good answer is working on philosophy to make it dynamic, permanently self-critical and in dialogue with experience and subjectivity, avoiding conclusive answers, conceptualizations that can make us disconnected, forgetful of personal human experience. — Angelo Cannata

Your post is exactly what I need at this moment.

Some of us remember a different experience of our democracy in the US. We remember believing a good citizen took action when something was wrong, and that is no longer possible in most cases because we no longer have the communication and organization, NOR THE EXPECTATION OF CITIZENS, that we once had. Government blocks us from taking action far more than it did in the past, and there are too many of us for communication to be as effective as it once was. And I really don't believe education is teaching our young to be responsible citizens, but instead, everyone is prepared to follow orders and rely on the experts, just as Eisenhower warned in his farewell speech.

Today taking action can mean being a martyr because we have to push against huge organizations that are about making money and policy, not listening to and interacting with people. They may be doing plenty of surveys but those surveys serve their purpose not the people dependent on them. It is all very efficient and also very dehumanizing.

I pushed a friend to get mental health counseling and evidently, his Jewish name became a problem. He fled after the counselor when she asked "How long have you had this delusion of grandeur?" His problem is totally the opposite of that, and she made a "you statement" that none of should be making. Then she followed him and publically humiliated him. Someone who overheard her said she was an "ignorant bitch" and she said "Better that than a stinking Jew."

We asked for a grievance form and after filling it out we were told that is the wrong form for mental health department complaints. Then we were given a phone number and that is a dead end because the caller is told the mailbox is full. Then a got a second number and it turned out to be the same dead-end. On this path to resolve the problem, everyone we spoke with is following policy and has a "just following orders" Naxi attitude. That is, no one feels the least bit of responsibility for resolving this violation of a Jew. What happened is an evil, and no one cares, leaving us to feel powerless against evil and like unwanted intruders in their nice day. They are just doing their jobs and we should not be bringing a problem to them.

Daily my sister deals with the homeless and bureaucrats who are not doing the job they are paid to do. She used to be a bureaucrat and those who need her help have no idea how to deal with the bureaucracies they must depend on, which includes how hospitals are run as well as government. It is irritating people like us, who get things done, but boy, does it take a toll on us and I would say 99% of the citizens think we should be following policy and stop making trouble. This is not how things used to be. We remember "If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem". We remember being told it is our freedoms and good citizens that make America great, not the impersonalness and "efficiency" we are experiencing today.

mean the actual heist. People like that more than a simple shoplift. — Hillary

A heist is more socially acceptable than shoplifting?

What happened is an evil, and no one cares, leaving us to feel powerless against evil and like unwanted intruders in their nice day. They are just doing their jobs and we should not be bringing a problem to them — Athena

Did you go to the local/national newspapers with the story? Did you contact any human rights-based pressure groups? Did you write letters of complaint and get copies sent to every local politician in the area. Did you look at any legal path due to the fact that your Jewish friend suffered racial discrimination?
Did you ask for help from protest groups who might consider organising a petition or organise a protest outside the place where this counselor works? How angry are you, the Jewish community and those around your Jewish friend at his/her treatment? You have had setbacks in your pursuit of justice for your friend, do these initial defeats/barriers mean you are done fighting already?

It is irritating people like us, who get things done, but boy, does it take a toll on us and I would say 99% of the citizens think we should be following policy and stop making trouble — Athena

The fight is hard, sometimes very very hard and the rewards can be few indeed BUT YOUR FIGHT IS JUST! I think your 99% is a bit high, when others see your tenacity it can fire many towards supporting you.........eventually.

I would take more of a cognitivist anti-realist position on morality: there are no moral phenomena, only moral interpretations of phenomena. I don't think the universe instantiates any "good" or "evil".
— Bob Ross — Hillary

Wow, if that were the case there would be no life that depends on good parenting. That would eliminate all mammals. The book "Science of Good and Evil" by Michael Shermer speaks of the pre-moral state of animals. All creatures, including humans, are born with instincts and evolution has favored the development of instincts that promote the survival of the species. Human evolution has brought us to the consciousness level of the scientific method, and with philosophy, provides the grounds for good moral judgment.

However, a society that focuses on technology and neglects education in virtues and good moral judgment full fills the fear of Zeus. We have mastered technology and turned our backs on the gods. We are technologically smart but not wise.

However, a society that focuses on technology and neglects education in virtues and good moral judgment full fills the fear of Zeus. We have mastered technology and turned our backs on the gods. We are technologically smart but not wise. — Athena

:up:

We have mastered technology and turned our backs on the gods — Athena

We also could turn our back to technology.

A heist is more socially acceptable than shoplifting? — ZzzoneiroCosm

If a painting is stolen from a museum, in an ingenious way, people tend to have more respect than for me as a junkie stealing ahorn syrup in a supermarket.

If a painting is stolen from a museum, in an ingenious way, people tend to have more respect than for me as a junkie stealing ahorn syrup in a supermarket. — Hillary

Neither is socially acceptable.

and all: Evil isn't a substance.

Did you go to the local/national newspapers with the story? Did you contact any human rights-based pressure groups? Did you write letters of complaint and get copies sent to every local politician in the area. Did you look at any legal path due to the fact that your Jewish friend suffered racial discrimination?
Did you ask for help from protest groups who might consider organising a petition or organise a protest outside the place where this counselor works? How angry are you, the Jewish community and those around your Jewish friend at his/her treatment? You have had setbacks in your pursuit of justice for your friend, do these initial defeats/barriers mean you are done fighting already?

It is irritating people like us, who get things done, but boy, does it take a toll on us and I would say 99% of the citizens think we should be following policy and stop making trouble
— Athena

The fight is hard, sometimes very very hard and the rewards can be few indeed BUT YOUR FIGHT IS JUST! I think your 99% is a bit high, when others see your tenacity it can fire many towards supporting you.........eventually. — universeness

Wow, thank you for being so supportive. I work and I have every little energy so I have not done all those things yet, but I am working on them. I devoted today to following the steps that the hospital told me to follow, before calling in the big guns.

In the past, I took my social concerns directly to the newspaper and almost always got my letters to the editor printed, but the locally own paper was sold and the staff is out of town and very different from the past! In the past, I have also taken concerns to the local and state levels of public hearings. I had a lot more fire and energy back then and I miss my working relationship with the newspaper.

After failing to make progress with the medical facility I have asked for help from a local synagogue and I am waiting for a reply. I forgot about the Human Rights Commission, and thanks to you, I bookmarked the Commission page and have called and left a message. I hate confrontation, but with the support, you have given me and my sister pointing out how damaging that experience was to his effort to get counseling, I am willing to do as much as my time and energy allow me to do.

I think it's pretty substantial. It resides in substance. Like charge in an electron.

Hillary
1.7k
We have mastered technology and turned our backs on the gods
— Athena

We also could turn our back to technology.
14 minutes ago — Hillary

What does turning to technology mean to you? How would that improve our moral judgment?

How's your site doing?

I mean, focusing less on technology. Technology tends to de-humanize.

For example, there is a movement called transhumanism aiming to artificially "improve" people and giving longer lives. Creating the new übermensch. They could better focus on existing life as it is.

It is technology that has pushed paradise further and further away from us. And there is no harm meant maybe, but the evil done by far exceeds the natural badness inherent in the universe.

with us. — Hillary

part of us — Hillary

Shall we let it persist, shall we restrict it, even annihilate it? — Hillary

evil has shown itself — Hillary

Again, you are reifying what people do; that strikes me as a poor way of approaching the problem.