Philosophy Now Forum

TSBU wrote:And evil people is evil to the core, not in the surface.

Were these "intrinsically evil people" evil as infants, as babies, as toddlers? People get damaged in life and can go haywire. It's not as if people are born with an "evil soul".

TSBU wrote: Things like a house exist, but they don't have houseness in them as a thing.
And evil people is evil to the core, not in the surface.

I think you are speaking at cross purposes, TSBU. I think what people are saying is that things like "evil", "love", "beauty" only exist subjectively in the person that perceives them, they are just names for our emotional responses. These things are not entities in their own right, just like the red of a tomato only exists in the mind of someone or something with the appropriate senses to perceive it.

Harbal wrote:

TSBU wrote: Things like a house exist, but they don't have houseness in them as a thing.
And evil people is evil to the core, not in the surface.

I speaking at cross purposes, TSBU. I think what people are saying is that things like "evil", "love", "beauty" only exist subjectively in the person that perceives them, they are just names for our emotional responses. These things are not entities in their own right, just like the red of a tomato only exists in the mind of someone or something with the appropriate senses to perceive it.

And the same for "100 hunderd metters tall" or "house", I agree. If you can't perceive it in any way, directly or indirectly, it doesn't exist.

Greta wrote:

TSBU wrote:And evil people is evil to the core, not in the surface.

Were these "intrinsically evil people" evil as infants, as babies, as toddlers? People get damaged in life and can go haywire. It's not as if people are born with an "evil soul".

Who said intrinsically? No, not every evil person has get damaged in life, many of them have a context not very different from yours. Like there are people who born with a mind to be depressed or nervous or stupid, there are people who born "to be evil", sure, no one is in anything only a matter of how you born, the context is important. But the context is not the only thng either.
And please, I say "core" or "soul"like I can say "operative system".

TSBU wrote: And the same for "100 hunderd metters tall" or "house", I agree.

No, not the same. If we both fell 100 metres we would both die. If a woman that you thought beautiful but I thought plain asked us both for money, you would be more likely to end up out of pocket than me.

Harbal wrote:

TSBU wrote: And the same for "100 hunderd metters tall" or "house", I agree.

No, not the same. If we both fell 100 metres we would both die. If a woman that you thought beautiful but I thought plain asked us both for money, you would be more likely to end up out of pocket than me.

If we both fell 100 metres we would both die. But we are not equall in what we find attractive, that's true.

But I don't think that share something with more people make something "more true", the girl would keep being pretty no matter if the whole world say other thing, and I would keep saying that it can't be 100 metters tall if I think so.

We can disagree in what is 100 meters, as we can disagree in what is beautifull (even though disagree in that is not equally common), and you can be wrong with the woman to, when you see her naked or maybe when she open her mouth.

TSBU wrote:

FlashDangerpants wrote:

TSBU wrote: In... the people I've found? Like the color red in the tomatoes?

Tomatoes are red. But they don't have redness in them as a a thing.
People who do evil shit exist, but they don't have evilness in them as a thing either.

Things like a house exist, but they don't have houseness in them as a thing.
And evil people is evil to the core, not in the surface.

That didn't work. Existence of House isn't a workable analogy for Existence of Evil.

The evil core of the evil person also does not exist.

FlashDangerpants wrote:

TSBU wrote:

FlashDangerpants wrote: Tomatoes are red. But they don't have redness in them as a a thing.
People who do evil shit exist, but they don't have evilness in them as a thing either.

Things like a house exist, but they don't have houseness in them as a thing.
And evil people is evil to the core, not in the surface.

That didn't work. Existence of House isn't a workable analogy for Existence of Evil.

The evil core of the evil person also does not exist.

Yeah, sure, feelings and thoughts don't exist.Sade? he had a bad day.
And your argument about the house was brilliant, now I understand your point.

Why would the house thing need further elucidation? If a house exists it exists directly as a house independent of other objects. You aren't claiming that evil exists as evil, independent of other objects are you?

You said evil exists "to the core" not "in the surface." There is no core of a person. The core is a metaphor. It isn't a sensible location to claim for a thing you say exists (and which therefore is not metaphorical).

FlashDangerpants wrote:Why would the house thing need further elucidation? If a house exists it exists directly as a house independent of other objects. You aren't claiming that evil exists as evil, independent of other objects are you?

You said evil exists "to the core" not "in the surface." There is no core of a person. The core is a metaphor. It isn't a sensible location to claim for a thing you say exists (and which therefore is not metaphorical).

Now we go to metaphisics. Define house. Nothing exist indepent of other objects. The core is the deepest thoughts and feelings, the personality, the hardware, etc, can be the core: what makes you different of the rest of bipeds.

Nah, tired. Photos for now on.

Nice try, but denied. That "core" is completely metaphorical. It doesn't actually exist.
You were already in metaphysics, if you only just noticed, you are visiting the wrong forum.

It could be useful to have an unequivocal way of saying 'bad'. As has been remarked, 'bad' is a judgement we make of the behaviour of others, with the suggestion that they might disagree, but there are also occasions when we find ourselves doing what we also know is wrong. In that case, I think the religious connotation is useful; not necessarily an association with a particular religion but the idea that we are somehow taken over, 'possessed', in the grip of some god, that overcomes our normal more rational character.

FlashDangerpants wrote:Nice try, but denied. That "core" is completely metaphorical. It doesn't actually exist.
You were already in metaphysics, if you only just noticed, you are visiting the wrong forum.

An another one who see this as "tries"...