My top sentence was a response too you. The second one to someone else.

Yes agree with that. But i think we should also see how we too could be nazi guards (not necessarily racist)

That is rubbish. If you throw out psychology you throw out all of social science. Weird thing too do. Also one of the great discoveries from psychology is iq. You definitely see the difference in people and we can measure it reliably. If you test the same group twice the correlation is so high it’s like measuring the same people twice.

And you think you will have a great life if all is given too you. You will destroy it so quickly just too make something different happen. Nobody takes pleasure in unearned “status” let’s say. It’s something creepy about it.

And communism killed more people than the nazi’s.

Yes it’s definitely about jungs idea.

No. It’s still evil but not at the same level.
I don’t think people will say that the holocaust wasn’t evil. And most people participated in it. And we are most likely as most people. Sometimes you can’t reduce things.

someone asked me too define it, so i defined it.

Yes i have gained alot of knowledge from him. I'm not taking credit for these ideas. I mean you do get your knowledge somewhere, and i surely didn't think them up

Yes, I agree. i have learned that the snake represents knowledge of the self (not saying knowledge is bad) But they then realized they where naked. Got ashamed and hid. When they later realized they could get hurt, they gained the knowledge of evil bacause they could then hurt others.

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.

Yes, but that does not make the lazy people good. If they had the upper hand, what then?

I don't believe true evil is rare. It's just that we don't confess too it. Most people in nazi germany did terrible things. What makes us so different from them? They are also human. And i do believe what they did in nazi germany was evil.

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

It does take you somewhere good. It's only by being able too be evil that you can be good

One way of saying something is evil is that you know what can hurt you. Because of this you know how to hurt others. And if you do that with the intention too hurt and derive pleasure from it, that's evil.

Most people i know think they are good. But let that be another thing.

read about big five, fool.

you know nothing about personality psychology (Big five). Forget indentity politics. Individual is the salvation too the state (that is what the west got right).

No pseudo-science. Have you even read how they got to the conclusion? Probably not. You dismiss so quickly with your arrogance. Good luck with that. The arrogance of the intellect is shining here

. Statistically most people who are open are liberals. This is a fact.
You generally vote you personality. not because you have "great" ideas

I agree. there where no scientists at that time.

Not everything about religion is supernatural. I think they explained more how we should act in the world and different types of “truths”.

Like noah and the flood. Many people see it as a real boat. It’s more a truism for every human being. The flood is coming no matter who you are. And too be prepared for it (building the boat) is the “true” way.

*i know you where not talking too me

It is. But we liv in it. I think we liv in a world of good and evil and that is the battle everyone faces. Most of the actions we take are a problem of good and evil. And most of us are not good.

I realized i was evil trough introspection and fantasy. I think it’s important that everyone realizes this about themselves.

But who wants too go down that road. That’s why most people never do it.

We all play out the archetypes though. It’s like a representation on how humans act. Like we know that beavers build dams. We have used the archetypes to represent our potential modes of being. The hero being of great importance. The tyrant and the wise king as a representation of society.

It might not be perfect but it still works. We go too the movie not to usually see the world as such. And we still understand it. But i get your point

I like those two ideas though. I think they are relevant today. I think it’s like freud. They don’t separate the good from the bad. And then dismiss most of his thinking.

I don’t think you can answer the question. What you say and what you do are two different things. What you think about what you believe is one thing, but how you act proves what you really believe.

You shouldn’t be too quick too throw away jung. I think he had an iq of 200.

The shadow aspect is dead on and is still relevant.
The archetypes are great. I mean common. The fool, the hero, the flood. The tyrant. The wise king. All patterns of human potential.

You can believe what you want man :)

I like this. Equality of outcome is ridiculous. In the end some guy wrote that there has to be a tyrant to enforce these outcomes.

In the end philosophy is philosophy but people are also part of they’re culture.

Very good questions. There are psychological differences that makes us choose the left vs the right. People in trait openness are liberal and people low on trait openness are conservative.

Defensive: many reasons. One is because it’s an important issue. Like closing the boarder when there is a pandemic. Another is when your fundamental beliefs disappear it’s like letting go of the boat that keeps you afloat. People don’t like that. You end up in chaos then.

Far left are loonies and far rights are loonies. Normal left are loonies because they are the creative types. They are eccentric. They want change. And they have many ideas (most ideas are stupid) they are ofc not loonies but can be seen as such.

The far left has gone too far. Wanting everything the be equal is not gonna work. It’s a foolish idea. No way can you have equal amounts of people of different “types” for lack of a better word in any system.

No point talking about far right (we know where that goes)

Far left also think that western society is patriarchal (it is) but not the way they think. They think everything is based on power. Which is ofc not true. Most hierarchies in the west are based on competence. It’s not the brute destructive programmer that rises too the top. It’s usually the most competent.

Why the different part: well we mostly like our kin. People who think and act like us. You have your own group. It’s weird for a philosophy group to take a day out with the practical types and do practical things and vice versa.

And society is a tyrannical force (not only) it makes you conform. You have to be a cog in the machine. It deletes part of you that might be beneficial for all and also deletes part of you that won’t. It also gives you everything that society has given you. And creative (open) people are more original (they like to be different) They feel that more strongly when things get “tyrannical” and low open people feel it more when things generate into chaos. Both need a balance ofc. Thats why we need free speech and talk to the other side. Sometimes conservatives are right and sometimes liberals are.

I believe that we don’t liv in a world of objects. Not saying the objective world isn’t true but you liv in a pyramid of values(abstract reality) Without it you wouldn’t know which facts to take in as there would be too many. And you wouldn’t know where to go. And for A to go to B you need a value hierarchy.

You should not lie (psychologically) it messes up your system and in the end you can’t tell if your lying or not. Then where will you go?

I think law is based on morality. Why is every man under the law? Even the leader is under the law. The leader is under the law so no man can be omnipotent. The law holds it together. When it doesn’t it gets retooled.

And ofc something ought to be. You believe it yourself when you teach your children. You hold yourself accountable when you don’t liv up to your potential and your conscience tells you when you walk the wrong path. There is an ought ofc because nobody is born perfect. We all know that. We know we could be better. And you berate yourself when you are not living up to your ideal.

Fair enough im no philosopher but your claims seem more like assumptions. Reciprocal does not equal morality.

I also took a stab on reading hume. He assumes we have a fellow feeling. This is not the case in according to personality psychology (big five)

Some people are “agreeable” and they care more about others and some people are“disagreeable” and they care about themselves. So the fellow feeling thing is absolutely wrong. Which is his basis for morality. And science figured that out.

And yes. We can talk about right and wrong. I don’t think you could say that Auschwitz wasn’t wrong.

We are reciprocal. But that does not mean we are moral. It could and i think it is more a selfish thing (not bad) It’s more a benefit than being good.

I have to re read that.

I am not saying there is a god. Just that it’s reasonable to take whatever you can when you want. Why should we consider others as moral beings? maybe morals are predicated on the idea of god?

Yes. But why should i care about them if i get away with it? Or even if i don’t and have alot of “power” why should i care?

Hehe. I’m blind to alot of things :)

Something to add to this. You actually see what you aim at. And not the rest.

Alot makes sense here too me but human reason? What is so unreasonable for me to take and get everything i want whenever i want? Seems like the reasonable thing too do.

Im not a philosopher so this is more hard for me but ok. Moral sense by evolution might be wrong. Why is it right?

We all have a conscience and if we violate it we pay for it with negative emotions. We strangely don’t have to follow it though.

Truth is facts but can also be how to be.

You do have a sense for kin, but you “break” out of it. The west got it right. The individual is the salvation. So group identity should be dropped. It’s essentially tribalism and tribes go too war.

I think life is hard for everyone.

I don’t know. Science deals with facts. It doesn’t tell us how to act. We all like batman. We go watch him at cinema and we know that he is a hero. He is a representative of who you should be. Not entirely but you get my point. You don’t go rooting for the bad guys usually. This is a form of truth that is outside science. It tells you who you should be, how you should act. I think we more need to know how to act and figure out who we can be. I think that will help us alot. Not denigrating science on any level.

Im a stereotypical guy guy. silent, aggressive (not in a bad way) and seldom feel anxiety and am not the nurturing type. I kinda have that look, stern, no emotion look with furrowed eyes. And I’m mostly logical and don’t get swayed by my emotions. For me, a man is a guy capable of aggression (force) you can be a nurse guy or someone else but as long as you got that then you are golden in my eyes. Ofc there are masculine traits like aggression and competitiveness.

You should read up on personality psychology (big five) and look at the statistics about male and females.