Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Thu Aug 09, 2018 6:59 am**

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Aug 09, 2018 5:12 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 08, 2018 3:19 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Aug 08, 2018 7:39 am

I have defined 'what is evil' somewhere in this thread and provided some clues. It is off topic to this OP.

"Evil" [as defined] exists on a basis of empirical evil acts, deeds and thoughts [as expressed].
Examples and definition are separate things. Empirical evil still does not define evil other than observing that "evil" is derived through the senses...it does not define what evil is.

Provide a list or define what evil is, otherwise you are using a premise subject to the fallacy of equivocation where is may have multiple and illusive meanings.
I posted this in another thread.
As I had stated we are not chasing after ontological evil.
There is no universal 'evil' like Plato's that is free floating waiting for humans to discover it.

For secular 'evil', there cannot be a fixed meaning nor universal re the term 'evil'.
The critical issue is merely arriving at a proper definition of 'evil' as a placeholder or a pigeon-hole that is acceptable by the majority.

What is critical is we identify all the human acts that can be put into that pigeon-hole tag as 'evil'.

For a start, human acts like genocides, mass rapes, murders, tortures are acts that ordinary people will agree as very detrimental and a bane [net-negative] to the well being on individual[s] and humanity.
Most will not dispute if we label them 'evil'. It is not difficult to list what is evil from all known human acts and thoughts. Whatever acts are disputable, ambiguous and marginal can be set aside for further deliberations.

At present the term 'evil' [secular] is being thrown around everywhere and I don't see any serious disputes within it secular users.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/evil

Your solution is is too ambiguous to be useful.

Posted: **Thu Aug 09, 2018 1:46 pm**

Reflex wrote: ↑Wed Aug 08, 2018 5:56 pm
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Aug 07, 2018 8:44 pm
So just as one has to 'kill the Buddha on sight' one has to kill the idea of a permanent soul and eternal God as something permanent and eternal.
You cannot kill what you ARE you can only kill what you are not.

This is incomprehensible to anyone closely identified with what they are not.

Ain't that the truth.

Sometimes putting ideas about the nature of reality as simply as they can possibly be put ..is maybe just too damn complicated for one to understand.

Make it so simple that no one knows what the heck you are talking about. Hmm, how can it be that simple I wonder scratching head

.

Posted: **Thu Aug 09, 2018 2:02 pm**

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Aug 09, 2018 2:54 am
Reflex wrote: ↑Thu Aug 09, 2018 1:38 am
Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Aug 08, 2018 8:55 pm So you’re not able to explain what you claim is "incomprehensible to anyone closely identified with what they are not” -– even when the question is so simple as: WHAT IS THAT? What are you not?
The question is nonsensical because it’s circular: the expectation of a “not” from a “not.” (DAM amy not agree.)
I think DAM's statements are circular.

I'm simply asking you what the fuck YOU mean by this that you said: "incomprehensible to anyone closely identified with what they are not".

Just explain further. Don't claim that something is incomprehensible (like an arrogant dick) if you can't do a better job of explaining your meaning other than little snippy replies that go in circles and reveal you to be a fraud.

No one is being a fraud here. It's not rocket science to work out what you are not. For example: You are not an arrogant dick that likes to say fuck a lot are you?

Or maybe you are just sometimes? I see you haven't learnt to curb your aggressive argumentative ways yet.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Aug 09, 2018 2:54 amI've often thought of taking in a roomie, but it IS a big energy suck... especially for those of us who tend to be peaceful, quiet hermits.

There is no room in here for two...suck it up, preferably in a quiet manor....or is that supposed to be manner.

Get off my manor.

.

Posted: **Thu Aug 09, 2018 2:26 pm**

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Aug 09, 2018 2:02 pm...

As I've said, DAM, I think we're ALL of it from the broader, spiritual perspective. I thought you shared this view. But apparently in this moment you were not speaking from that view: as you speak of killing what you are NOT.

Okay, so... on your level...

DAM and Reflex... I see that you're NOT here on the forum to communicate and discuss ideas.
You're NOT interested in answering any questions or challenges about anything you say.
You would rather make claims and look down your nose at people and stroke yourselves in front of everyone.

Oh yes, so brilliant!

Posted: **Thu Aug 09, 2018 6:10 pm**

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Aug 09, 2018 5:12 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 08, 2018 3:19 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Aug 08, 2018 7:39 am

I have defined 'what is evil' somewhere in this thread and provided some clues. It is off topic to this OP.

"Evil" [as defined] exists on a basis of empirical evil acts, deeds and thoughts [as expressed].
Examples and definition are separate things. Empirical evil still does not define evil other than observing that "evil" is derived through the senses...it does not define what evil is.

Provide a list or define what evil is, otherwise you are using a premise subject to the fallacy of equivocation where is may have multiple and illusive meanings.
I posted this in another thread.
As I had stated we are not chasing after ontological evil.
There is no universal 'evil' like Plato's that is free floating waiting for humans to discover it.

Then one cannot argue universally that all religions are evil.

For secular 'evil', there cannot be a fixed meaning nor universal re the term 'evil'.
The critical issue is merely arriving at a proper definition of 'evil' as a placeholder or a pigeon-hole that is acceptable by the majority.

But secular evil is not universal and varies from one state to the next...secular evil is relative to the context of the society which is always changes...hence no secular evil can exist in these respect as what is evil in one society in one time and space is eventually cancelled out through time and space through that same society.

What is critical is we identify all the human acts that can be put into that pigeon-hole tag as 'evil'.

Hence you universalize evil through "human act", but this "human act" is merely an abstract universal.

For a start, human acts like genocides, mass rapes, murders, tortures are acts that ordinary people will agree as very detrimental and a bane [net-negative] to the well being on individual[s] and humanity.

Fallacy of authority, democracies do not determine what is true or not true but rather construct morality as a means through which they exist as a collective.

Most will not dispute if we label them 'evil'. It is not difficult to list what is evil from all known human acts and thoughts. Whatever acts are disputable, ambiguous and marginal can be set aside for further deliberations.

Disputable, ambiguous and marginal are relative terms to collective opinion and vary with time.

At present the term 'evil' [secular] is being thrown around everywhere and I don't see any serious disputes within it secular users.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/evil

Posted: **Thu Aug 09, 2018 6:32 pm**

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Aug 09, 2018 2:26 pm
As I've said, DAM, I think we're ALL of it from the broader, spiritual perspective.

Yes, there is only the ALL...or as I like to put it, there is only the Non-dual.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Aug 09, 2018 2:26 pm I thought you shared this view.

I am this view, but have no one to share it with except myself. I do that by looking in the mirror, which is outside the inside of me.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Aug 09, 2018 2:26 pm

DAM and Reflex... I see that you're NOT here on the forum to communicate and discuss ideas.

I can't speak for Reflex, but yeah, in a nutshell Dam is not on this forum communicating and discussing ideas.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Aug 09, 2018 2:26 pmYou're NOT interested in answering any questions or challenges about anything you say.

All answers are contained within the question you already have. Why or how could /would a question even arise if there was no answer to it. That's just silly... and not possible...so irrelevant.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Aug 09, 2018 2:26 pmYou would rather make claims and look down your nose at people and stroke yourselves in front of everyone.

Would you?

But hey, go ahead, say and do what you want, no one cares and no one is watching.

.

Posted: **Thu Aug 09, 2018 11:05 pm**

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Aug 09, 2018 2:26 pm
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Aug 09, 2018 2:02 pm...
As I've said, DAM, I think we're ALL of it from the broader, spiritual perspective. I thought you shared this view. But apparently in this moment you were not speaking from that view: as you speak of killing what you are NOT.

In a sense, we do share this view (at least, I do), but it has to be remembered that "from the broader, spiritual perspective," infinite being (being undifferentiated) cannot be said to either exist or not exist.

Most people today live under the illusion that the sum of their mental life, or “self,” has real existence. It does not. It might be said that a human being is Being-as-it-is-within-itself succumbing to the temptation to exist; that is, to exist experientially.

Okay, so... on your level...

DAM and Reflex... I see that you're NOT here on the forum to communicate and discuss ideas.
You're NOT interested in answering any questions or challenges about anything you say.
You would rather make claims and look down your nose at people and stroke yourselves in front of everyone.

Oh yes, so brilliant!

There is nothing to communicate, no one to answer questions, no one to be challenged. (I'm sure DAM groks this even if you don't

)

Posted: **Thu Aug 09, 2018 11:21 pm**

Reflex wrote: ↑Thu Aug 09, 2018 11:05 pm There is nothing to communicate, no one to answer questions, no one to be challenged. (I'm sure DAM groks this even if you don't )

Oh I grok it baby... I just think you're full of crap. You and DAM talk on and on about how there's nothing for you to communicate, no one to answer questions, blah, blah, blah. Yet you keep talking... and you ask questions too! Sooo... what the fuck? What is it that you think you're doing here?

Posted: **Thu Aug 09, 2018 11:40 pm**

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Aug 09, 2018 6:32 pm
I can't speak for Reflex, but yeah, in a nutshell Dam is not on this forum communicating and discussing ideas.

I can't count the number of times I said it's not about ideas.

I lost my faith in philosophy to actually say anything meaningful.

Posted: **Fri Aug 10, 2018 6:10 am**

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Aug 09, 2018 5:12 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 08, 2018 3:19 pm Examples and definition are separate things. Empirical evil still does not define evil other than observing that "evil" is derived through the senses...it does not define what evil is.
Provide a list or define what evil is, otherwise you are using a premise subject to the fallacy of equivocation where is may have multiple and illusive meanings.
I posted this in another thread.
As I had stated we are not chasing after ontological evil.
There is no universal 'evil' like Plato's that is free floating waiting for humans to discover it.

Then one cannot argue universally that all religions are evil.

Agree.
There a range/continuum of good and evil in all religions.
Buddhism and Jainism has 0.00001 degree of evilness.
Hinduism has some.
Christianity has quite a bit.
Islam per se has loads of evil elements.

For secular 'evil', there cannot be a fixed meaning nor universal re the term 'evil'.
The critical issue is merely arriving at a proper definition of 'evil' as a placeholder or a pigeon-hole that is acceptable by the majority.

But secular evil is not universal and varies from one state to the next...secular evil is relative to the context of the society which is always changes...hence no secular evil can exist in these respect as what is evil in one society in one time and space is eventually cancelled out through time and space through that same society.

As I had stated there is no ontological and universal evil existing by itself.

However from the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics we need a fixed definition of what is good and therefrom use it to contrast against what is 'evil'.

Kantian Morality relied on Fixed Moral Principles and maxim as Guides [only].
Thus there will be 'Thou Shall Not Kill Another Human Being' [no ifs and buts].
This is in a way a 'universal' but not of Plato and this is only a guide for the practical ethics.

What is critical is we identify all the human acts that can be put into that pigeon-hole tag as 'evil'.
Hence you universalize evil through "human act", but this "human act" is merely an abstract universal.

That is not my point.
What I am stating we review ALL known and potential human acts and thoughts.
Then we classify them as 'good' 'neutral' and 'evil.'
How? we need some fixed points and has to establish grounds for comparison.

So humanity will have to abstract universal [not Plato's] but to be used as a guide only.

Do we have a issue if we label, say mass killings, genocides, mass rapes, mass tortures, murders, child-rape, child abuse as evil acts?
We can continue to list acts that are obviously evil and deliberate on those that are debatable.

For a start, human acts like genocides, mass rapes, murders, tortures are acts that ordinary people will agree as very detrimental and a bane [net-negative] to the well being on individual[s] and humanity.

Fallacy of authority, democracies do not determine what is true or not true but rather construct morality as a means through which they exist as a collective.

Note the critical point is to ground what we regard as 'good' or 'evil.'
This most critical and difficult task for humanity.

Most will not dispute if we label them 'evil'. It is not difficult to list what is evil from all known human acts and thoughts. Whatever acts are disputable, ambiguous and marginal can be set aside for further deliberations.

Note my points above, re the need to establish objective fixed moral principles as guides. Then we can decide what is good and evil more objectively.

Posted: **Fri Aug 10, 2018 6:01 pm**

VA's non-theistic morality is dualistic reductionism at it's worst. From a biblical perspective, it's partaking of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. Politics is the attempt "to establish objective fixed moral principles as guides." If insanity is doing the same thing over and over and hoping for different results, the policies advocated by VA is insane.

The morality of monistic theism is very simple: the acknowledgment that whatsoever we do, we do unto our greater "self"; personal beliefs, likes and dislikes (politics and the attempt to establish objective fixed moral principles as guides) out of the count.

Posted: **Fri Aug 10, 2018 11:59 pm**

I want to flesh out the difference between theistic and non-theistic morals and ethics.

“Humans consider themselves unique, so they've rooted their whole theory of existence on their uniqueness. 'One' is their unit of measure. But it's not. All social systems we've put into place are a mere sketch. 'One plus one equals two.' That's all we've learned. But one plus one has never equaled two. There are, in fact, no numbers and no letters. We've codified our existence to bring it down to human size, to make it comprehensible. We've created a scale so we can forget its unfathomable scale.” — Lucy

Non-theistic morals are determined by consent or forced agreement ("brainwashing"). Indeed, VA's model exemplifies the notion that secularism is an ideal that must impose its values (or lack thereof) in order to attain its goals. It is dualism at its worst. It gives us a list of predetermined privations and instructions on how to avoid them. But there will always be dissent. There will always be those resent being told what to believe, how to think and what values to pursue. Much of what passes for religion is, in fact, secularism in disguise.

Religion -- real religion -- isn't about justified beliefs or rules. It's not about beliefs at all. It's about the courage to be and the freedom to act according to one's highest ideals. Theism, and in particular monistic theism, fosters a selfless I-Thou relationship between the illusory "self" and Self. Having the total freedom to pursue our highest ideals of selfless service, the need to codify our existence will vanish.

Posted: **Sat Aug 11, 2018 8:46 am**

Reflex wrote: ↑Fri Aug 10, 2018 11:59 pm I want to flesh out the difference between theistic and non-theistic morals and ethics.

“Humans consider themselves unique, so they've rooted their whole theory of existence on their uniqueness. 'One' is their unit of measure. But it's not. All social systems we've put into place are a mere sketch. 'One plus one equals two.' That's all we've learned. But one plus one has never equaled two. There are, in fact, no numbers and no letters. We've codified our existence to bring it down to human size, to make it comprehensible. We've created a scale so we can forget its unfathomable scale.” — Lucy
Non-theistic morals are determined by consent or forced agreement ("brainwashing"). Indeed, VA's model exemplifies the notion that secularism is an ideal that must impose its values (or lack thereof) in order to attain its goals. It is dualism at its worst. It gives us a list of predetermined privations and instructions on how to avoid them. But there will always be dissent. There will always be those resent being told what to believe, how to think and what values to pursue. Much of what passes for religion is, in fact, secularism in disguise.

The above is a straw man.
I have not described my hypothetical secular Framework and System of Morality and System fully in this thread yet.
Generally the system I proposed [Kantian based] will not involve any enforcement nor imposing at all.
It is a Moral System that is established by the people for themselves, i.e. the individual[s] will follow the rules that he had set by himself but at the same time involve every one else doing the same thing.
It is not like democracy at present where the people choose and the elites set up the rules.

It is definitely not like theological morality where God delivered fixed immutable command as moral laws to be enforced with the threat of Hell for non-compliance.

My hypothesis is not effective in the present conditions but require individuals to increase their moral competency [moral compass] drastically over the current state, say 300% to 500% over the present status. So there is a need for work to be done before my proposals are to be effective.
I am very optimistic my proposed system is feasible given the current trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge and technology.

In addition there are already piecemeal parts of my proposed system being carried out, so it is a matter of organizing and expediting the processes holistically based on an Framework and System.

Religion -- real religion -- isn't about justified beliefs or rules. It's not about beliefs at all. It's about the courage to be and the freedom to act according to one's highest ideals. Theism, and in particular monistic theism, fosters a selfless I-Thou relationship between the illusory "self" and Self. Having the total freedom to pursue our highest ideals of selfless service, the need to codify our existence will vanish.

Where in the world is such a moral system of a real religion established.
The Abrahamic religions [majority 5+ billion] are already established with immutable moral laws from a God that cannot be changed.
There are no formal moral system from Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism and others.

Posted: **Sat Aug 11, 2018 9:16 am**

Huh? You're the poster child for no one full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

Posted: **Sat Aug 11, 2018 9:52 am**

Reflex wrote: ↑Sat Aug 11, 2018 9:16 am Huh? You're the poster child for no one full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

Oh but what can the mind do with nothing?...except make some thing up out of it...

That's the trap VA is stuck in..net i net i

Philosophy Now Forum

Theistic Versus Non-Theistic Morality and Ethics.

Re: Theistic Versus Non-Theistic Morality and Ethics.

Re: Theistic Versus Non-Theistic Morality and Ethics.

Re: Theistic Versus Non-Theistic Morality and Ethics.

Re: Theistic Versus Non-Theistic Morality and Ethics.

Re: Theistic Versus Non-Theistic Morality and Ethics.

Re: Theistic Versus Non-Theistic Morality and Ethics.

Re: Theistic Versus Non-Theistic Morality and Ethics.

Re: Theistic Versus Non-Theistic Morality and Ethics.

Re: Theistic Versus Non-Theistic Morality and Ethics.

Re: Theistic Versus Non-Theistic Morality and Ethics.

Re: Theistic Versus Non-Theistic Morality and Ethics.

Re: Theistic Versus Non-Theistic Morality and Ethics.

Re: Theistic Versus Non-Theistic Morality and Ethics.

Re: Theistic Versus Non-Theistic Morality and Ethics.

Re: Theistic Versus Non-Theistic Morality and Ethics.