Philosophy Now Forum

..ah fuckit.

I WON - I AM AN ASSHOLE!!!

(anyway Jacobi - get yer facts right it's the 1000th PAGE)

AJ,

"I will respond to what you write as best I can."

That's all I ask.

So, let's go...

"Though I do recognize the existence of metaphysical ideas, impetus, principles, and all the rest, what I now believe is that we receive these as if, one might say, plucked out of the air. These things are real, they are a part of reality, but only intelligent beings can conceive of higher metaphysical ideas. In this sense, they discover them through conceiving of them, and then seek to install them in our world. But our world is, precisely, the world of violent, unruly forces that don’t — can’t — think. We are subsumed in that world, we arise out of it, and our applications of metaphysical truths is always problematic, because tied up with authority and power."

Seems to me the very real 'metaphysicals' are part & parcel of us. We are the exemplars, the embodiments of them. We don't, I think, pluck them from the air. We recognize them, first within ourselves, then in others.

The violence of the world is, practically, the operation of machinery. The interplay of forces and materials. We, as I say, somewhere up thread, stand apart from the machinery even as we navigate it, even as we are sometimes chewed up in its working. We are in the world but not totally of it. We are the particles who can determine our own trajectories.

"The rule of law is always an imposition. True, enlightened citizens accede and assent to those rules, but the lower orders (corresponding to our lower, unruly selves) resists the law."

That depends on the law. Man's law, as it aligns with natural rights, is mere codification and application. Such an alignment is only an imposition on the one who -- while recognizin' his own inviolate claim to his life, liberty, and property -- refuses to respect the natural rights of his neighbor.

We can, as you say, 'accede and assent' but we do so as an act of submission only. Enlightenment is not the source. Kneeling to the moral parasite is cowardice, a betrayal of our status as free wills.

"Catholicism interests me because it is a total, and totalizing, system. There is an activity for every hour of the day. It offers an extremely replete ethical set (social doctrine) worked out over centuries. It is an amalgamation of Greek and Hebrew concepts and a melding together of these. The religious principles derive from Story, and Story is never completely true, but neither is it completely false. In any event the liturgy, taken as broadly as possible, allows for the metaphysics, invisible and incomprehensible to most, to be applied."

I'm fond of Catholicism. South Louisiana is steeped in it. My upbringing included it. The undergirding Christianity, raw and unwieldy, 'that' is what has my attention. Man, in my view, doesn't need a totalizing system: he needs to consistently, widely, recognize his neighbor is not just meat for eating.

-----
-----

AJ,

"Recently, and quite suddenly, the entire world has been introduced to a sort of potential monster that is directly impinging on our lives: this strange entity called Artificial Intelligence. The meaning of it? Well, here I will wax paranoiac but not without some justification. The man-made creation of a synthesis of everything we have ever imagined, or perceived, as evil has been rolled-out. (On LinkedIn it is asserted that if you do not use it, someone else will, and they will get ahead of you. You will be left behind)."

The monster, computerization of 'everything', has been with us for a while. This new iteration, the poor emulation of a 'person', is, right now, a parlor trick or the parrot trained to sing Pagliacci. We are amazed or amused by the trick or bird and stupidly ignore the man who enacts the trick or who trains the bird.

A.I. as one more agent of the Grendel-monster, or as vehicle for the monster itself? Mebbe, but not today.

-----
-----

AJ,

"The first is asserted through a Story, an allegory, a guilty memory, but it could also be explained as a memory of some other, prior, state of existence from which one fell."

This story -- we broke ourselves -- is elegant. It explains why we are seemingly at odds with ourselves, seemingly at odds with each other, and seemingly estranged from God. I think, though, it is false. Sin or disobedience, in the story, is a genetic thing. First Woman & First Man did wrong so First Children (and all who follow) are stained. Unless you cling to Calvinism, such an idea ought be repugnant to everyone. And the assertion -- 'at odds' -- is a clever recasting, I think, of what's actually goin' on. Man is a singular being. His 'lone-ness' sets him apart from his fellows who are each singular. 'at odds' is a possible natural consequence, not a crippling defect. We are separate from, not separated or estranged from, the Creator. He is not our Santa Claus Machine or our taskmaster and we are not His playthings or property.

"What is the fundamental problem? I’d say it is being incarnated in a delicate, flesh and blood vehicle prone to disasters and mortal."

I say the fundamental problem is the vast hoodwink that asserts all of us are just delicate mortal flesh & blood, prone to disaster.

"We all know — this is my view — that we are “broken from the start” in the specific sense that life always breaks us, in one way or another. It is inevitable."

We can break; we will die. The first is an individual possibility, not genetic necessity. The second may be the threshold to a 'continuing' or it may be the true end. Hell if I know. My religion, spare thing it is, offers no counsel, my gut, profoundly accurate, is silent; my head, sharp as any, will not commit.

"But what of those who choose to take full advantage and liberty of their time here, seeking & getting, without bothering to be concerned that others are displaced or eliminated? We call that lack of concern and these outcomes “evil”, right?"

The rapist, the murderer, the slaver, the thief, yes, they commit evil, are, mebbe, agents of Evil.

"But the fact is that it is always a question of degree. Life feeds on life, life displaces other lives. There is no way around this. Thus: there is no solution. The realm is as it is, unstable, unpredictable: determined by mutability."

It does not seem to me there is much 'gray' in the mechanized world or the moral world. The mechanized world is 'naturally ordered'. An ignorant eye sees instability, randomness, chaos; the not-so-ignorant eye sees, in part (always only in part) the 'structure'. Man, the wildcard, he too is not random, chaotic. He is a 'cause', a 'causer'. Small but not insignificant. There is a fact about him, when recognized, that offers a clear guide to what is permissible between and among men.

"We long for resolution. We imagine a “perfect world”.

Do we? Squeaky wheels get the grease (are noticed); those that go about their business aren't. I think there are far more who, with good reason, go about their business confident in their efficacy than those who live as though Godzilla were eyeing their Tokyo skyscraper. It does not seem to me most pine for utopia. Most, it seems, to me, want to be left the hell alone.

"To say “We are under attack” is also true. A perfectly “good” man (Job) may have everything reversed in a mere moment. What “attacks” us? Malign entity? Or nothing particularly just a random event that means nothing because meaning and intention are not behind it."

Oh yes, we are. We've learned, are continuing to learn, how to keep our fingers out of the gears (how to contend with, navigate around or thru, the blind forces and expressions of blind forces that surround us [how can I stop fire from burning me? Keep your friggin' fingers out of the flame, moron?]! but this back & forth between us and the universe is not, and never has been, the attack. Evil men, and the malign cosmic angler fish, these are the Enemy. Human free wills, and an Appetite from Beyond, these are who who contest with.

"What can alleviate all tense concern about these existential circumstances? That is, conquer the various “stings” all linked to mortality?"

There is no moral equivalent of chemotherapy, or even ibuprofen, to apply.

The death of free will is the only solution (our total eradication).

Not a solution I can get behind.

God help us all!

It was FishPie!

(I’m thinking of something like out of Rosemary’s Baby ….)

atto,

"Personally I don't believe God needs a separate entity, satan, monsters, demons etc for 'evil'."

Needs? No, He doesn't need an opposite. But, as I consider His work, it is not implausible to me what I'm callin' the Grendel-monster should not exist. It seems to me the Creator created with an eye toward an orderly world wherein wildcards (free wills) might flourish. That is: He fashioned a physical environment and introduced a 'metaphysical' into it. He seems to have succeeded. But, to get 'this' He mebbe had to accept the possibility of 'that'. He was, is, constrained by His intent. Mebbe the goal of having free wills includes the possibility of monsters -- voracious destroyers -- insanities that roam the dark lookin' to feed on what lights up the dark.

Malign cosmic angler fishes.

Speculatin' is what I'm doin'.

"I also don't consider natural disasters as evil - volcanoes, earthquakes etc.."

Me neither. The cancer that eats a child's eyes is a tragedy but it has no moral component. It's not 'evil' in the sense we're talkin' about.

Harry,

"In the metaphysical (Grendel-monster) sense, "evil" is that metaphysical reality/agency the basic nature of which is to commit (especially serious) immoral acts, and only (especially serious) immoral acts."

I'm not, when you refer to 'that metaphysical reality/agency the basic nature of which is to commit (especially serious) immoral acts, and only (especially serious) immoral acts', sure who or what you're talkin' about. I'm gonna, for the expositional opportunity, take it you mean man, himself.

I don't believe it's man's 'basic nature' to be immoral. He's a free will. By definition, his nature, generally is to self-direct, self-rely, and be self-responsible. As a tarot card, man would represent 'balance', 'choice', 'cause', and few other concepts. Reversed, tarot man represents 'imbalance', 'atrocity', 'War', and other notions. Now, yes, some men 'are' Black Hats, just as others are White Hats. I could argue such folks aren't, in the sense I mean it, truly free wills. Instead they could be thought of as avatars of a kind. Avatars for what? Black Hats for the Grendel-monster which, in context, is the Creator's opposite (though not His equal); White Hats for, of course, the Creator. The rest of us, we get to choose which side we'll stand on, and to be utterly responsible for that choice.

Tue Jul 13, 2021 1:23 am to Sun May 28, 2023 11:38 am

>gold star removed<

-----

I'm takin' the gold star back. You cheated thru multiple reposts.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 3:44 pm

Now, what happens to those of us who cannot conceive of God and cannot believe in a God that a) actually exists, and b) actually established demands that must be observed and applied? And what of those (like Dubious for example) who conceive of metaphysics as "invented" and therefore, itself, as mutable? What he declares is that there is nothing solid there, nothing that can be relied on. What is there is what we project as being there, but it is not there, not really.

It's the mental alchemy of metaphysics which determines the future...it's psychic contents which are real, very real. It's the methodology by which everything is conceived and reflected by any specific intelligence which has the means. In essence, it's the non-realities - mutabilities if you like - as provided by metaphysics, which create our conceptual realities in its wake.

Metaphysics has always had two cutting edges, not just one. Metaphysics as a function is indispensable and fixed precisely because its contents are mutable and variable as measured and inflected by time itself.

Why is that so hard so understand?

Dubious wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 7:05 pm Why is that so hard so understand?

Oh it is not that I do not understand what you are trying to assert, it is that I regard your view as your offer of an “ultimate description”. You are presenting an idea that operates as the final, ultimate one.

You present a view neatly tied up with a bow, and one that is constructed according to logical principles (principles that appear logical), but you do not seem to recognize that it itself is a construction of your personality. And it is also “a product of the times”.

It is an embellishment of the common idea “it is all made up”.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 4:42 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2023 6:40 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2023 5:36 pm If that's right, then certain logical corollaries automatically follow from it.

1. There is no such thing, objectively, as "evil."

If your definition of "evil" is malicious intent, then I suppose you could say that evil has an objective existence within the character of some people. But, again, that depends on one's definition of the word "objective".

Well, for "objective," let's just understand, "not-subjective," or "real," or "existing independently from the mere vagaries of perception." Let's understand it like "if a rock falls on somebody, then his subjective opinion that it hasn't will not keep him from being crushed by it." That's "objective."

So "malicious intent" would be unhelpful, since we don't know what "malicious" entails, and can't say why it would be "evil" to have such an "intent" without knowing what "evil" is, objectively. (We can also add that such a definition would exclude what some people, like Susan Neiman, have identified as "natural evils," which are bad things that happen without human intent.)

I would only use the word "evil" as an adjective, and completely interchangeable with the word "malicious". So, whatever the word "malicious" entails, the word "evil" would entail exactly the same. I don't know if I would consider the nouns "malice" and "evil" to be interchangeable. Malice seems -to me- like something that could have a sort of abstract existence, but evil somehow doesn't. I'm not familiar with Susan Neiman, but it seems ridiculous to think of natural events as being evil, malicious, or even bad. They could well be bad for human beings, but they are not capable of intending to be.

What we've really done is only to substitute the word "malicious" for the synonym "evil," and then we have to make the same claim as before: that "evil/maliciousness" is only subjectively real. But the merely subjectively real cannot be insisted upon to others, since it is only based in the perception of the subjective experiencer.

I don't insist on anything except a precise definition of the word "evil" before I am prepared to consider it as anything other than a word that merely means malicious intent. Is malicious intent subjectively real? If so, then evil intent -being the same thing- is also subjectively real in exactly the same way.

So we still need an objective account of evil, or #1 has to be acceptable.

#1 (There is no such thing, objectively, as "evil." ) is perfectly acceptable to me. If you want to provide an objective account of evil, I will be more than willing to give you my opinion,which is all I can give you.

---------------

IC wrote:

Harbal wrote: Well justice is also just a concept, existing only in the minds of men -and women, of course.

I don't see that that's an "of course" claim. It doesn't seem self-evident, for sure. It might be the case, or it might not: perhaps our conceptions of "justice" actually are derived from an objective reality of justice. We'll have to see.

I don't know what an objective reality of justice could possibly be. Even as a subjective concept, justice doesn't seem to mean a great deal. Justice implies equality of some sort; a balance. If I killed a man and was imprisoned for twenty years, and it was felt that justice had been done, meaning that my punishment had the same weight as my crime, by what means, other than by arbitrary judgement, could those two things be weighed, or measured, against one another?

Okay, so #2 is acceptable to you?

"There is no rational sense in the claim that an injustice is perpetrated when god/the universe includes "evil" in it. The word has no objective meaning at all. So it's an nonsense accusation."
The above doesn't make sense to me. It doesn't correspond with my perception and understanding of the universe.

----------------

IC wrote:

Harbal wrote: People are only entitled to whatever is agreed upon between themselves and other human beings.

Not even that. For before we could say that, we'd have to know a principle like, "People shouldn't lie," or "People should render whatever they agree upon." And absent any prior, objective moral precept, we don't have that.

We have the concepts of lying and truthfulness, and of honouring what we agree to. We could never have developed such a complex and sophisticated level of social functioning without them. Our capacity for incorporating honesty and trustworthiness into our conduct is just part of our evolutionary inheritance. Many people, however, are not honest and trustworthy, so there cannot be an objective force or authority that compels such things.

So #3 has to be accepted too, it would seem.

Yes, so it would seem.

-------------------

I would have to know how a person defines "evil" before I could offer an opinion on whether he has a right to expect a life without it.

That won't be enough, we would have to realize. The fact that I "expect" something that I have "defined" in a particular way is not even one step closer to proving that I actually have an objective right to have it. I might "expect" a Ferrari, and know full well what the definition of "Ferrari" is, down to the last bolt -- that doesn't mean anybody owes me a Ferrari.

The same applies to the phrase, "a life without evil in it." I might have a very precise definition of that, but even if I did, what would assure me that I have a right to expect it?

Rights are what human beings grant to each other, and I do not believe there is any other source of rights. Does that make my view clear?

IC wrote:

Harbal wrote: I don't know anything about the "theodicy problem", and I suspect you are already well aware of that.

Sorry...no, I wasn't. It's a term that's been kicked around in these forums before, so I thought maybe you did know what it was. It's simply the allegation that the existence of (what we claim is) "evil" is an argument against the goodness or the very existence of God.

Didn't mean to be obscure. My apologies.

No need to apologise. I know what theodicy is, but I don't know what the arguments are. My apologies, I should have explained that.

But we're still faced with conclusions 1-4, it would seem. They all follow logically and necessarily from the belief that evil is "just a concept," not an objective reality.

And if that is the case, what are we to make of it?

_______

I noticed the word "evil" being bandied about in quite a few of the recent posts, along with little consensus regarding its definition.

Well, I suggest that there is an ultimate benchmark (a "north star," if you will) by which all lesser forms of evil can be measured and rated.

It is a vision of a degree of evilness that is so outrageous, so egregious, and so over-the-top in the scale of its deliberate and merciless infliction of physical pain and psychological horror on defenseless beings, that it would be the mother of all understatements to propose that all other conceptions of evil would pale in comparison.

Ironically, the benchmark of evil to which I am referring is set-forth in Christianity which proposes that Jesus...

(the alleged icon of "love and forgiveness")

...is, in fact, going to personally condemn untold billions of men, women, and children* to a literal eternity of unimaginable torture in a dimension of reality called Hell.

Now that, my fellow humans, is what you should be using to measure the degree and severity of whatever piddling definition you may presently hold for the word "evil."

*(Amazingly, the main Christian apologist in this thread [I.C.] has personally provided justification for why it is perfectly reasonable for Jesus to savagely torture infants and toddlers for eternity.)
_______

Harbal wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 8:43 pm I would only use the word "evil" as an adjective, and completely interchangeable with the word "malicious". So, whatever the word "malicious" entails, the word "evil" would entail exactly the same.

But that still leaves both word without objective content. Both become just words people arbitrarily apply to situations they don't maybe happen to like, but which fall short of being objectively wrong, bad, malevolent, or even negative...since their only import is relative and subjective.

So there's still no such objective thing as whatever they are attempting to describe. There's just a petulant emotional outburst, entirely devoid of objective correspondence to any truth or reality.

I'm not familiar with Susan Neiman, but it seems ridiculous to think of natural events as being evil, malicious, or even bad. They could well be bad for human beings, but they are not capable of intending to be.

Yes, not everybody buys Neiman's distinction. But if we don't, then it means that there's nobody to blame for things like earthquakes and plagues, since they aren't really "evils," then.

So in the theodicy issue, God/universe is off the hook for all such phenomena, then.

But then, the whole theodicy problem starts to crumble, too: for if "malevolence" or "malice" is behind every "evil," then God is not responsible for evil -- man is.

Once again, the whole theodicy problem is on shaky ground, then.

Is malicious intent subjectively real?

Most people think "intent" is real. "Intent," however, is neutral. One can intend good or bad things, presumably.

So the real problem is that it's not clear what "malice" would entail, or that it would be objectively bad, given that the same people don't believe there's any objective reality to evil.

If so, then evil intent -being the same thing- is also subjectively real in exactly the same way.

So we still need an objective account of evil, or #1 has to be acceptable.

#1 (There is no such thing, objectively, as "evil." ) is perfectly acceptable to me. If you want to provide an objective account of evil, I will be more than willing to give you my opinion,which is all I can give you.

I'm just finding out if you're good with the four logical corollaries that follow from your belief. I'm not trying to advance my own view here; just to point out that some objective view is absolutely unavoidable. What that might entail, we can so far leave to the future, since it doesn't become applicable unless we come to realize we're going to need an objective view. There are several on offer, and we can test them all, if we want.

So the first real question is whether or not we're prepared to believe the whole package that comes with relativism on this point. Or do we see that without objective "evil," there's no theodicy problem.

Justice implies equality of some sort; a balance.

Yes: but a "balance" of what?

Some people think it's a "balance" between people. I don't think that's right. I think the more accurate implication would be that person X gets "just" what he or she deserves, no more and no less. So it's a balance between the individual, on the one side, and his/her deserving, on the other.

So "justice" for you, as a reasonable and decent person, might be a quiet life in peace; "justice" to somebody else might be that they have a more troubled life, because they've not chosen as well as you have; but "justice" to a serious criminal might be a life spent entirely in jail. The outcomes may be different, but "justice" is a universal quality, then. It just means, "getting just what just what you earned."

IC wrote:

Harbal wrote: People are only entitled to whatever is agreed upon between themselves and other human beings.

Not even that. For before we could say that, we'd have to know a principle like, "People shouldn't lie," or "People should render whatever they agree upon." And absent any prior, objective moral precept, we don't have that.

We have the concepts of lying and truthfulness, and of honouring what we agree to. We could never have developed such a complex and sophisticated level of social functioning without them. Our capacity for incorporating honesty and trustworthiness into our conduct is just part of our evolutionary inheritance. Many people, however, are not honest and trustworthy, so there cannot be an objective force or authority that compels such things.

In that case, they are just relations of convenience. Lying, truthfulness, and so forth are justifiable only so long as, and inasmuch as, they serve a person or a group; after that, they are entirely dispensible, because there's no objective reality to their rightness or wrongness...assuming "evil" is relative, of course.

I would have to know how a person defines "evil" before I could offer an opinion on whether he has a right to expect a life without it.

That won't be enough, we would have to realize. The fact that I "expect" something that I have "defined" in a particular way is not even one step closer to proving that I actually have an objective right to have it. I might "expect" a Ferrari, and know full well what the definition of "Ferrari" is, down to the last bolt -- that doesn't mean anybody owes me a Ferrari.

The same applies to the phrase, "a life without evil in it." I might have a very precise definition of that, but even if I did, what would assure me that I have a right to expect it?

Rights are what human beings grant to each other, and I do not believe there is any other source of rights. Does that make my view clear?

Yes, however, since all "human beings" are no more morally dignified than any others, being all nothing more than late products of the accidental creatorial powers of the indifferent universe, they can't "give" me anything objective. I only get to keep my rights so long as they continue to surrender them to me; and when they stop, I have no basis of complaint.

That's social relativism. It has all the same problems as personal relativism, but on a social rather than a personal scale. In both cases, "right" refers to nothing objectively real. And if my "society" takes away or denies my "right," then there's no sense in which I can rationally complain they've done me an injustice. My "right" came only from them; when they took it away, there was nothing left for me to appeal to. I couldn't say to anybody, "Hey, you're violating my rights!" because the rights stopped existing when my society took them from me.

Can we live with that? Would we want to?

But we're still faced with conclusions 1-4, it would seem. They all follow logically and necessarily from the belief that evil is "just a concept," not an objective reality.

And if that is the case, what are we to make of it?

Well, the obvious, I think: that without an objective "evil" existing, there's no way to accuse God or the universe of having treated any of us "unfairly" or "unjustly." The universe, or God, did no "evil" to us when it/He did not give us the happiness or peace we were wanting. And the old argument, "If there were a God, he would not allow evil" simply falls apart by way of its own incoherence. We don't believe in objective evil, so we don't believe there's a theodicy question.

But as a moral objectivist, I would actually turn around now, and side with those people who pose the question. I don't think their question is idle or wrong-headed. But it is, on the terms they offer, if they don't believe in objective evil. So they'll have to decide whether they want to abandon their commitment to "evil" being purely relative, or whether they want to stop crabbing about God/universe doing them dirt. Because they can't say evil is illusory, and then indict anybody for condoning evil. That simply fails to make a lick of sense.

That's where I was going with that.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 8:29 pm

Dubious wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 7:05 pm Why is that so hard so understand?

Oh it is not that I do not understand what you are trying to assert, it is that I regard your view as your offer of an “ultimate description”. You are presenting an idea that operates as the final, ultimate one.

You present a view neatly tied up with a bow, and one that is constructed according to logical principles (principles that appear logical), but you do not seem to recognize that it itself is a construction of your personality. And it is also “a product of the times”.

It is an embellishment of the common idea “it is all made up”.

Isn't that precisely what you're looking for, specific principles in the metaphysical domain that you can give complete and permanent credence to as something objective and inviolable? All your reading isn't going to discover it.

If you regard my view as the final, ultimate one - a complete misconception on your part - can you explain how you arrive at that conclusion after everything I wrote?

There is nothing in the universe, nothing in nature, which has any relation to your Christianized metaphysics. But just because it's "all made up" doesn't limit its importance as far as the psyche itself is concerned, which, having its own objectives, can never yield to the impersonal processes which created it.

Everything subsequent is a "construction", a commitment of one's psyche or personality if you like, which is always a product of the times. Since when hasn't that been true upon examining history?

If you're so desperate for a metaphysical fix, no problem, just adopt one that seems the most reasonable...or is that the wrong word! There are all kinds to choose from!

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 5:55 pm Seems to me the very real 'metaphysicals' are part & parcel of us. We are the exemplars, the embodiments of them. We don't, I think, pluck them from the air. We recognize them, first within ourselves, then in others.

I guess you could explain it like that, too. Not something exterior but something discovered interiorly. But I would still place emphasis on a distinction between *the way things are in Nature* and the impositions that man makes when he conceives of something arriving from *up there* and coming down. As far as I am aware no other animal but man has "a metaphysical dream of the world".

AJ: "The rule of law is always an imposition. True, enlightened citizens accede and assent to those rules, but the lower orders (corresponding to our lower, unruly selves) resists the law."

HQ: That depends on the law. Man's law, as it aligns with natural rights, is mere codification and application. Such an alignment is only an imposition on the one who -- while recognizin' his own inviolate claim to his life, liberty, and property -- refuses to respect the natural rights of his neighbor.

OK, but the point I focus on has to do with *systems of authority* and the way they go about asserting themselves. On one hand, I might be convinced to assent to obeying the law because I agree fundamentally with the reasons for the law. But what about those who are *unruly* and rebel? Authority comes to bear on them. I have mentioned Ortega y Gasset and his notion of the Mass Man entering into important decision-making. I agree with O&G that some, perhaps many, men are not qualified. And when they force their way in that they must be resisted. I mention this to illustrate a problem: we educate children in accord with value-systems and mora systems. And what do we do with children who do not or will not obey (give their assent)?

"Natural rights" seem to me a metaphysical idea, in essence. One must assent to it.

We can, as you say, 'accede and assent' but we do so as an act of submission only. Enlightenment is not the source. Kneeling to the moral parasite is cowardice, a betrayal of our status as free wills.

With this I disagree. If one agrees to the wisdom of a law, a rule or a principle, to accede to it is not submission, it is intelligent engagement and as I say 'agreement'. But I guess in a technical sense the word submission could a similar thing. Except not as it is used popularly.

I'm fond of Catholicism. South Louisiana is steeped in it.

I never had any experience of Catholicism until about 10 years ago. I launched into a study of it, and again all the forms that are pre-Vatican ll exclusively, as a way to understand better Europe's underpinning. It is a 'mansion with many different rooms'. However, I am just as appalled by a great deal of its exterior as many are. I have to look beyond them and through them. To encounter the old-school (original) Catholicism one has to access the older books. Unless one lives near a Church where the old rites are practiced and one has people one can associate with. I've never been to a Latin Mass.

A.I. as one more agent of the Grendel-monster, or as vehicle for the monster itself? Mebbe, but not today.

In and of itself AI has little power. It is when it is made a tool of men who seek power that it will amplify bad tendencies. I disagree with your assessment. We are in for real trouble. However, my take here is intuitive (and intuition can be tinged with paranoia and imagination).

This story -- we broke ourselves -- is elegant. It explains why we are seemingly at odds with ourselves, seemingly at odds with each other, and seemingly estranged from God. I think, though, it is false. Sin or disobedience, in the story, is a genetic thing. First Woman & First Man did wrong so First Children (and all who follow) are stained. Unless you cling to Calvinism, such an idea ought be repugnant to everyone. And the assertion -- 'at odds' -- is a clever recasting, I think, of what's actually goin' on. Man is a singular being. His 'lone-ness' sets him apart from his fellows who are each singular. 'at odds' is a possible natural consequence, not a crippling defect. We are separate from, not separated or estranged from, the Creator. He is not our Santa Claus Machine or our taskmaster and we are not His playthings or property.

Very well. Myself, I am only interest in the real facts. And my view is that, however it came about, we are inclined to corruption. I can speculate about causes but in a sense these don't matter. While I cannot now and will never be able to believe a mythological story, nevertheless the gist of it does make some sense.

AJ: "What is the fundamental problem? I’d say it is being incarnated in a delicate, flesh and blood vehicle prone to disasters and mortal."

HQ: I say the fundamental problem is the vast hoodwink that asserts all of us are just delicate mortal flesh & blood, prone to disaster.

Are we talking about the same thing? We are in fragile bodies that are prone to catastrophe. A simple accident can be 'life changing'. I am speaking about demonstrable reality. I am not sure what you are trying to say.

"But what of those who choose to take full advantage and liberty of their time here, seeking & getting, without bothering to be concerned that others are displaced or eliminated? We call that lack of concern and these outcomes “evil”, right?"

The rapist, the murderer, the slaver, the thief, yes, they commit evil, are, mebbe, agents of Evil.

The extreme cases take us away from seeing implicit complicity. We live in systems where those traits are part-and-parcel of the System, to one degree or another. K am not talking about the extreme cases, I am talking about systems and how they function.

We cannot get away from these basic realities. And that is a big problem for us.

"We long for resolution. We imagine a “perfect world”.

Do we? Squeaky wheels get the grease (are noticed); those that go about their business aren't. I think there are far more who, with good reason, go about their business confident in their efficacy than those who live as though Godzilla were eyeing their Tokyo skyscraper. It does not seem to me most pine for utopia. Most, it seems, to me, want to be left the hell alone.

We: philosophers, those inclined to such speculations, those who mold thought. Idealistic youth always seems to long for resolution, or perfection. That is what I mean.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 5:57 pm

atto wrote:"Personally I don't believe God needs a separate entity, satan, monsters, demons etc for 'evil'."

Needs? No, He doesn't need an opposite. But, as I consider His work, it is not implausible to me what I'm callin' the Grendel-monster should not exist. It seems to me the Creator created with an eye toward an orderly world wherein wildcards (free wills) might flourish. That is: He fashioned a physical environment and introduced a 'metaphysical' into it. He seems to have succeeded. But, to get 'this' He mebbe had to accept the possibility of 'that'. He was, is, constrained by His intent. Mebbe the goal of having free wills includes the possibility of monsters -- voracious destroyers -- insanities that roam the dark lookin' to feed on what lights up the dark.

Well, yes or to put it another way, allowing us free will meant kunts would end up existing. But "His" cosmic karma reincarnating through time is a bit of a kunt too!

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 5:57 pmSpeculatin' is what I'm doin'.

atto wrote:"I also don't consider natural disasters as evil - volcanoes, earthquakes etc.."

Me neither. The cancer that eats a child's eyes is a tragedy but it has no moral component. It's not 'evil' in the sense we're talkin' about.

Yes, unfortunately we are not all granted the protection of heaven on Earth as a given...(and what a boring planet it would be with no need to study to fix such ailments)

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 6:03 pm Tue Jul 13, 2021 1:23 am to Sun May 28, 2023 11:38 am

>gold star removed<

-----

I'm takin' the gold star back. You cheated thru multiple reposts.

Hang on! There were no rules set...I loved that gold star.

I honestly had given up to go back to my football game when I wrote "Ah fuckit!" - and it ended up on the new page!