Philosophy : How can people confuse good and evil with accuracy?

How can people confuse good and evil with accuracy?

1 - 1 = 42 is inaccurate, not evil and rape is evil, not inaccurate. And yet people go on and on about "morally right" and "morally wrong" like the universe handed out a script one can deviate from.

"Need" is just a fiction. As is "should", "must", "value" and "importance".

Re: Why do people confuse good and evil with accuracy?

"1 - 1 = 42 is inaccurate, not evil and rape is evil, not inaccurate..."

Huh?

Re: Why do people confuse good and evil with accuracy?

Rape is not wrong, it's evil. 1-1=42 is wrong.

Because the universe doesn't have an opinion about rape. It doesn't have an opinion about how evil we are. It doesn't look at a rapist and go "Well, that's not in the script. This person is acting incorrectly."

"Need" is just a fiction. As is "should", "must", "value" and "importance".

Re: Why do people confuse good and evil with accuracy?

Aren't you the same person who was trying to emphasize the notion that the we don't know whether 1+1=2 tomorrow and that it may become 5, adding a notion of temporality to its correctness, in another thread? Yet, you're trying to make a distinction between rape not being wrong, but evil and 1-1=42 is wrong. All you're doing is equivocating on two different aplications of the meaning of an equivocal word. I have never heard of anyone conflating accuracy or its lack thereof with good and evil, respectively, in common parlance. The only sense where such juxtaposition of terms makes sense is when one talks about something being accurate to the conformance of a particular model or standard as being good, and its lack thereof, being bad.

Do you even have a point to your questions?

--

I want a unicorn. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1MKQbNPkgU

Re: Why do people confuse good and evil with accuracy?


Aren't you the same person who was trying to emphasize the notion that the we don't know whether 1+1=2 tomorrow and that it may become 5, adding a notion of temporality to its correctness, in another thread?

No, I'm the person who emphasized that we don't KNOW 1+1 WON'T equal 42 tomorrow or that gravity won't suddenly disappear tomorrow. You're the person who tried to play it off that I was arguing temporality of numbers or gravity or anything whatsoever.

EDIT: Even though I tried several times to explain the temporality of something is irrelevant to the point.


Yet, you're trying to make a distinction between rape not being wrong, but evil and 1-1=42 is wrong.

Yes. There's no disparity to what I'm saying in that other thread.


All you're doing is equivocating on two different aplications of the meaning of an equivocal word.

Nope.


I have never heard of anyone conflating accuracy or its lack thereof with good and evil, respectively, in common parlance.

I'm very confident you have. Usually when someone says something is "morally wrong" or "morally right" they are conflating accuracy with good and evil.


The only sense where such juxtaposition of terms makes sense is when one talks about something being accurate to the conformance of a particular model or standard as being good, and its lack thereof, being bad.

No, I'm fairly confident that's a different thing.

"Need" is just a fiction. As is "should", "must", "value" and "importance".

Re: Why do people confuse good and evil with accuracy?


No, I'm the person who emphasized that we don't KNOW 1+1 WON'T equal 42 tomorrow or that gravity won't suddenly disappear tomorrow. You're the person who tried to play it off that I was arguing temporality of numbers or gravity or anything whatsoever.

We don't know only because no one can say they know the future. We can't guarantee it because we don't have the power to enforce such causality on the Universe. You're the one who focused on the irrelevant issues of "guarantees" and temporality as if that had anything to do with the point I was making.

Nope.

Yep.

I'm very confident you have. Usually when someone says something is "morally wrong" or "morally right" they are conflating accuracy with good and evil.

No, I'm fairly confident that's a different thing.

. You don't have a clue what someone is talking about.

--

I want a unicorn. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1MKQbNPkgU

Re: Why do people confuse good and evil with accuracy?


We don't know only because no one can say they know the future. We can't guarantee it because we don't have the power to enforce such causality on the Universe. You're the one who focused on the irrelevant issues of "guarantees" and temporality as if that had anything to do with the point I was making. 

No, since temporality was not part of my point (despite your trying to put those words into my mouth) while there being no guarantees was NOT irrelevant since being my counterpoint to your point about "If that were so, we couldn't blablabla" and I said "We CAN'T blablabla."

"Need" is just a fiction. As is "should", "must", "value" and "importance".

Re: Why do people confuse good and evil with accuracy?

Holy moly dude.

I said:


If this was not the case then "one thing would only follow another only by chance", because there would be no guarantee that every time gasoline was lit it would burn...

First of all, using the word "guarantee" was completely irrelevant to the point that causality as such exists presently. Second of all, you thought you made some kind of counterpoint to the entirety of the post which contained the above quote, or the ones that preceded it, by pointing out that there is no guarantee that the laws of logic and such causality would hold tomorrow, three weeks, three years, three million years or longer from now, etc., which is precisely making it into an issue about temporaility, as if issues about guarantees concerning the future mattered at all to the content concerning purpose/aim/ends, e.g., teleology, that had been discussed.

--

I want a unicorn. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1MKQbNPkgU

Re: Why do people confuse good and evil with accuracy?


First of all, using the word "guarantee" was completely irrelevant to the point that causality as such exists presently.

No, it was not irrelevant, you used it for a reason. Your argument was one thing would follow another "only by chance" and there'd be no guarantee the same thing would happen as predicted. I countered that there is no such guarantee and you've been trying to make it about temporality ever since.

But the temporality of gasoline or of fire is irrelevant. The "rules" or "laws" of nature is that consequences, the patterns, are predictable, that's what science is all about. That's the causality you're talking about, yes?

My point was that science ASSUMES that causality. That the patterns of reality are solid, for lack of a better term.

Saying that if things were as I say they are (e.g. that "purpose" is just in the human imagination) then "one thing would follow another only by chance" is really saying nothing at all since that's not giving what chance would be and what order would be and how the non-existence of what I'm saying doesn't exist would mean the patterns of reality would not be as they are now.

In short:
I don't see how taking "purpose" out of the equation means now things happen "only by chance" whereas if we leave it in the equation fits the reality we live in.


Second of all, you thought you made some kind of counterpoint to the entirety of the post which contained the above quote, or the ones that preceded it, by pointing out that there is no guarantee that the laws of logic and such causality would hold tomorrow, three weeks, three years, three million years or longer from now, etc., which is precisely making it into an issue about temporaility, as if issues about guarantees concerning the future mattered at all to the content concerning purpose/aim/ends, e.g., teleology, that had been discussed.
And there you go again, trying to make it about temporality even though I keep explaining how it isn't.

Temporality is about past, present and future. Not about the universe simply tossing out the rulebook without warning or cause and unraveling into chaos.

In other words:
Temporality is about things changing over time. Not that we don't know everything about how time and space and everything else works.

"Need" is just a fiction. As is "should", "must", "value" and "importance".

Re: Why do people confuse good and evil with accuracy?

OMG dude. You think "purpose" doesn't exist. I went through a process of explaining to you that "purpose" in the human intentionality sense doesn't have to exist in Nature for the generic meaning of the term as an "end" or "aim" to apply. That because there are substances in Nature which exhibit regular patterns of behavior, this is evidence that ends/aims exist. If causality as such did not exist in Nature, then "one thing would not follow another except by chance" meaning that there would be no guarantee that cause A would produce effect B and not effect C, or D, or Z. That is the particular context in which I used the term. The fact that A produces B every time - or enough to state that temporality of such regularity is a non-issue - instead of C, or D, or Z, is an argument for the notion that something intrinsic exists within A that "points to" producing B, and hence the idea of a "final" cause, or end/aim, in the Aristotelian sense, i.e., teleology.

--

I want a unicorn. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1MKQbNPkgU

Re: Why do people confuse good and evil with accuracy?


OMG dude. You think "purpose" doesn't exist.

Correct.


I went through a process of explaining to you that "purpose" in the human intentionality sense doesn't have to exist in Nature for the generic meaning of the term as an "end" or "aim" to apply.

Not exactly, you went into a whole spiel about teleology, Aquinas and Aristotle, final causes (being "not only for conscious, willing agents like ourselves, but anything that exists in Nature, even unconscious ones") and that if causality (which is not the same thing as "purpose", mind) did not exist then "one thing would not follow another except by chance" and science modelling regularities in Nature.


That because there are substances in Nature which exhibit regular patterns of behavior, this is evidence that ends/aims exist.

So you claim as you are parroting others but you don't explain.



If causality as such did not exist in Nature, then "one thing would not follow another except by chance" meaning that there would be no guarantee that cause A would produce effect B and not effect C, or D, or Z. That is the particular context in which I used the term.

I know it is. But I've already explained more than once that there is no such guarantee and I've already explained more than once how I cannot see how removing the hypothetical "purpose" from the universe suddenly means things happen as they do only by chance anymore than before.


The fact that A produces B every time - or enough to state that temporality of such regularity is a non-issue - instead of C, or D, or Z, is an argument for the notion that something intrinsic exists within A that "points to" producing B, and hence the idea of a "final" cause, or end/aim, in the Aristotelian sense, i.e., teleology.

*sigh* Parroting, parroting, parroting.

Please pay attention:
We don't know that A will produce B every time. That is the basic assumption of science. Regularities of Nature, patterns of reality, call it what we will. So three words: No guarantees, assumption. Got it?

Now please pay attention again:
Imagine two universes, one where "purpose" exists and one where "purpose" doesn't exist.
How would we know causality would look any different in the second from how our real-Life universe looks around us today?
Your point is that things in the second universe would happen only by chance but you don't explain what chance is or what order is. You're just parroting other philosopher's conclusions to me. Do you follow?

"Need" is just a fiction. As is "should", "must", "value" and "importance".

Re: Why do people confuse good and evil with accuracy?

You are so obtuse. I've explained myself plenty of times. Just because you don't have a clue what someone is saying doesn't mean they are simply parroting what others have said.

--

I want a unicorn. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1MKQbNPkgU

Re: Why do people confuse good and evil with accuracy?

Repeating another person's conclusions without the reasoning leading up to it is parroting.

"Need" is just a fiction. As is "should", "must", "value" and "importance".

Re: Why do people confuse good and evil with accuracy?

You're an idiot. Explaining the reasoning behind another person's conclusions is not parroting. You think because I mentioned Aristotle and Aquinas, I was simply "name-dropping". If that is all I did, then I would have said "because Aristotle and Aquinas said so and so, therefore this," but I clearly did not. Just because you're too obtuse to understand what was said and as a result want to deflect from this fact doesn't mean someone is parroting another.

--

I want a unicorn. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1MKQbNPkgU

Re: Why do people confuse good and evil with accuracy?


Explaining the reasoning behind another person's conclusions is not parroting.

Then I suggest you try that for a change.


You think because I mentioned Aristotle and Aquinas, I was simply "name-dropping".
No and you know I don't since we've had that conversation already. Do you want me to quote it here?

"Need" is just a fiction. As is "should", "must", "value" and "importance".

Re: Why do people confuse good and evil with accuracy?

I already explained it. Just because it went over your head and you keep repeating that I didn't doesn't mean it didn't occur.

The fact of the matter is, causality as such implies an end or an aim, which is what purpose is in the generic sense, without the notion of human intentionality or deliberation. Such ends exist in the nature of things, otherwise causal regularity would not even exist. An agent does something. In order for an agent to do something in particular - this instead of that - it has to be predetermined with an end to do the former. "Otherwise one thing would not follow another except by chance." It would be such that an agent would produce some effect at one point in time and another at another point it time. That's what isn't getting into that thick skull of yours.

--

I want a unicorn. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1MKQbNPkgU

Re: Why do people confuse good and evil with accuracy?

No, you just repeat the conclusion, not the reasoning.


The fact of the matter is, causality as such implies an end or an aim, which is what purpose is in the generic sense, without the notion of human intentionality or deliberation.
Which is no different from "The univrse existing implies God exists" which is a conclusion, not the reasoning leading up to someone (famous or not) making that conclusion.


Such ends exist in the nature of things, otherwise causal regularity would not even exist.
A claim you keep repeating but never explain how that works.


An agent does something. In order for an agent to do something in particular - this instead of that - it has to be predetermined with an end to do the former.

And can you give an example of this? Though I remind you that my position is that nothing "has to be" anything.

I tried to get you back to gasoline and fire you left hanging but instead it boils down to just repeating "Causality implies intent and aim so there! Smart people get that so you're stupid, nyahh!"


"Otherwise one thing would not follow another except by chance." It would be such that an agent would produce some effect at one point in time and another at another point it time.
How many times have I asked you now to explain the reasoning of that conclusion rather than parrot that conclusion? How would we know a universe without "purpose" would act like that conclusion says it would act? You don't explain, you just parrot Aquinas' conclusion.

EDIT: Or if it was Aristotle or Josef Stalin or Taylor Swift, I don't care who.

"Need" is just a fiction. As is "should", "must", "value" and "importance".

Re: Why do people confuse good and evil with accuracy?

I've come to the conclusion you're f!cking retarded.

I'd explain myself but then I'll just hear how I haven't done so on rinse and repeat and so like the current segment of "conversation" it would be utterly futile.

--

I want a unicorn. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1MKQbNPkgU

Re: Why do people confuse good and evil with accuracy?

So you're saying I'm stupid? Wow, that just floors me. I'm devastated. Gutted. You're like a gladiator with words.

"Need" is just a fiction. As is "should", "must", "value" and "importance".

Re: Why do people confuse good and evil with accuracy?

No, not just stupid. You're a liar too.

Anyone who thinks that the following:


"The univrse existing implies God exists"

Is remotely even close to anything that I stated has to be.

--

I want a unicorn. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1MKQbNPkgU

Re: Why do people confuse good and evil with accuracy?

It is identical in the sense that it is a conclusion, not the reasoning leading up to it.

"Need" is just a fiction. As is "should", "must", "value" and "importance".

Re: Why do people confuse good and evil with accuracy?



What's ironic about your engagement in this forum is that you repetitively use the metaphysical principle of final cause in your reasoning while being completely intellectually unaware of it.

Here's a metaphysical principle that I learned long ago: all philosophy is axiomatic upon two fundamental principles 1) an intelligible Reality 2) the adequation of the human intellect to perceive and conceive of it.

What is reasoning except for engaging in the activity of leading premises to a conclusion, a process where one starts from a beginning and reasons to an end, except in order for the end of validating a truth, the latter being nothing more that conformance of thought to Reality? If the human being did not have the essence of being a naturally rational animal, of which the active potency or power that is encapsulated under the term intellect is an intrinsic part of its constitution as its final cause, then the entire process of argumentation would be incoherent. You want me to believe that I haven't argued that there are ends that exist in Nature per se. Yet, here you are attempting to argue (impotently) as a prima facae example of an entity created by Nature which engages in such a teleological process. It is people like you who are conceptually unaware of your utter irrationality. Everything you - and those like you - who attempt argue in such a way is rooted on the fundamentally incoherent notion that something which does not have something can suddenly give it, i.e., that being could suddenly and "magically" arise from non-being, without cause, and hence without a reason or end behind it.

--

I want a unicorn. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1MKQbNPkgU

Re: Why do people confuse good and evil with accuracy?



Here's a metaphysical principle that I learned long ago: all philosophy is axiomatic upon two fundamental principles 1) an intelligible Reality 2) the adequation of the human intellect to perceive and conceive of it.

Sure, I can agree with that.


What is reasoning except for engaging in the activity of leading premises to a conclusion, a process where one starts from a beginning and reasons to an end, except in order for the end of validating a truth, the latter being nothing more that conformance of thought to Reality?

Would you mind rephrasing that sentence for me?


If the human being did not have the essence of being a naturally rational animal, of which the active potency or power that is encapsulated under the term intellect is an intrinsic part of its constitution as its final cause, then the entire process of argumentation would be incoherent.

And this one too? No offence but they seem intentionally verbose.


You want me to believe that I haven't argued that there are ends that exist in Nature per se.

There is a difference between arguing and explaining the reasoning behind your claim.


Yet, here you are attempting to argue (impotently) as a prima facae example of an entity created by Nature which engages in such a teleological process.

If I can decipher the verbose statements above, you are claiming human intellect has a "final cause" and that I'm arguing against it having one because I'm saying you haven't explained the reasoning behind your claim that "final causes" exist?


It is people like you who are conceptually unaware of your utter irrationality. Everything you - and those like you - who attempt argue in such a way is rooted on the fundamentally incoherent notion that something which does not have something can suddenly give it, i.e., that being could suddenly and "magically" arise from non-being, without cause, and hence without a reason or end behind it.
I think you're trying to push us into another area.

Cause is not the same thing as "purpose".

Say a carpenter is fashioning a chair intending to sit on it. There is a cause there. That does not simply resolve our dilemma when we question the nature of "purpose", such as when we question how and where it exists when someone can come in and use the chair for firewood before anyone sits in sit.

"Need" is just a fiction. As is "should", "must", "value" and "importance".

Re: Why do people confuse good and evil with accuracy?


Would you mind rephrasing that sentence for me?

I cannot make it any clearer.

And this one too? No offence but they seem intentionally verbose

It effectively means that without the intrinsic ability of the intellect to validate truth, which is what it is "for the sake of", then the entire process of using the intellect to argue about anything is effectively begging the question.

There is a difference between arguing and explaining the reasoning behind your claim.

You are equivocating on some difference between arguing and explaining the reasoning. An argument is both the premises and the movement to the conclusion. In leading the argument through the progression of premises to conclusion, a person performs the act of reasoning. The argument is valid if its form is considered so, i.e., it conforms to the "laws of logic". It is sound if the premises are also true.

If I can decipher the verbose statements above, you are claiming human intellect has a "final cause" and that I'm arguing against it having one because I'm saying you haven't explained the reasoning behind your claim that "final causes" exist?

The "final" cause in the Aristotelian sense of the term is that for which something exists for the sake of. Thus, the "final" cause of the intellect is to know and comprehend truth.

Cause is not the same thing as "purpose".

Yes, I have already said numerous times, in the Aristotelian sense it is more general than "purpose". In his metaphysics, there are four fundamental "causes", i.e., explanations for being, or the "why" of a thing in itself, labelled as material, formal, efficient, and final. "Purpose" falls under the latter, and it both subsumes human intentionality and beings of Nature which intrinsically have ends.

In your example, the carpenter is the efficient cause of the chair, his final cause is for people to sit on it, the material cause is the wood or other material from which he creates the chair, and the form is the shape and structure of the chair itself. In Aristotelian metaphysics, all of these "causes" are needed to fully explain its being. In Nature, the three outside of the material are intimately tied together. Hence an acorn's "final" cause is to grow into a tree. But it is also the efficient and formal cause of the latter as well since it is a natural substance within which the immanent causation for growth into the form also exist entirely within it.

--

I want a unicorn. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1MKQbNPkgU

Re: Why do people confuse good and evil with accuracy?


It effectively means that without the intrinsic ability of the intellect to validate truth, which is what it is "for the sake of", then the entire process of using the intellect to argue about anything is effectively begging the question.

You're losing me here. Humans can argue about things in order to test their reasoning about reality.


You are equivocating on some difference between arguing and explaining the reasoning.

No, that's not what equivocating is.


An argument is both the premises and the movement to the conclusion. In leading the argument through the progression of premises to conclusion, a person performs the act of reasoning. The argument is valid if its form is considered so, i.e., it conforms to the "laws of logic". It is sound if the premises are also true.

So you are being intentionally verbose.

Yes, an argument is that but arguing is not the same thing as explaining the reasoning.

You've been throwing me conclusions without going through the progression of premises.


The "final" cause in the Aristotelian sense of the term is that for which something exists for the sake of. Thus, the "final" cause of the intellect is to know and comprehend truth.

Which amounts to nothing different from claiming "the purpose of of the intellect is to know and comprehend truth".
If I understand you correctly all you've done is claiming "Purpose is real because final cause is real!" but you have not explained what "final cause" is or even how it's even slightly different from what "purpose" is.

Which amounts to saying "Aristotle says purpose is real because of his thinking about final cause." and then being evasive about "final cause".

That is, if I understand you correctly.


Yes, I have already said numerous times, in the Aristotelian sense it is more general than "purpose". In his metaphysics, there are four fundamental "causes", i.e., explanations for being, or the "why" of a thing in itself, labelled as material, formal, efficient, and final. "Purpose" falls under the latter, and it both subsumes human intentionality and beings of Nature which intrinsically have ends.

As I understand it no human has ever really uncovered the "why" of anything. Why do people eat? We can say to survive because if people didn't eat they wouldn't survive but that is not a complete answer to why people eat.
As I understand it, it's possible there is no "why" to anything. We can see the "how" of the Earth orbiting the Sun but there may be no "why the Earth orbits the Sun". Do you follow?


In your example, the carpenter is the efficient cause of the chair, his final cause is for people to sit on it,

It is the carpenter's desire and intention that the chair is for sitting but (for the nth time I bring up that) another person can enter and use the chair for firewood before anyone sits on it. How is the carpenter's desire and intention for the chair any different from the other person's desire and intention? Your "The carpenter's final cause" seems to me to do exactly nothing. Do you follow?

I understand the carpenter being the efficient cause of the chair and have never argued against it hence you'd be mistaken if you were to think I am trying to convince you or anyone else that there are no causes or ends.


the material cause is the wood or other material from which he creates the chair

Interesting. I wouldn't consider that a cause but I haven't studied Aristotle, I only apply my thinking.


and the form is the shape and structure of the chair itself.

Seems logical.


In Aristotelian metaphysics, all of these "causes" are needed to fully explain its being.

I'm not really learned enough on the subject to say but that sounds very much to me like circular logic, basically Aristotle making things convenient for Aristotle.


In Nature, the three outside of the material are intimately tied together. Hence an acorn's "final" cause is to grow into a tree. But it is also the efficient and formal cause of the latter as well since it is a natural substance within which the immanent causation for growth into the form also exist entirely within it.

But that amounts to nothing! That's saying "Acorns turn into trees so I guess that is it's purpose/final cause!" Kids turn into adults so we can guess that is the purpose/final cause of kids. Humans turn into corpses so we can guess that is the purpose/final cause of humans.

"Need" is just a fiction. As is "should", "must", "value" and "importance".

Re: Why do people confuse good and evil with accuracy?



Man, you're silly dude. You claim that I haven't explained anything in the past umpteen number of posts, yet all of your OPs and responses to other people's posts are nothing but bald assertions, questions, and claims that they haven't explained anything.

Look at your lame signature. Have you ever remotely attempted to argue for such nonsense? No. Do you even know what the word "fiction" means?

You say no human has uncovered the "why" to anything. Yet, here you are in this forum attempting to say something that I can't even decipher because it's such a convoluted mess.

Why?

--

I want a unicorn. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1MKQbNPkgU

Re: Why do people confuse good and evil with accuracy?


You claim that I haven't explained anything in the past umpteen number of posts
Not exactly what I mean, I mean that you're handing me the conclusions of philosophers and then not explaining in your own words how the reasoning leading up to those conclusions prove me wrong.

I don't mean that you're literally not explaning anything.


yet all of your OPs and responses to other people's posts are nothing but bald assertions, questions, and claims that they haven't explained anything.
Bald assertion and questions, sure, but quote me where I claim someone hasn't explained anything like I've done with you.


Look at your lame signature. Have you ever remotely attempted to argue for such nonsense? No.

You'd be surprised if you go through my history far back enough.


Do you even know what the word "fiction" means?

I do, and I've tried to find an even more apt term but white lie or myth don't really fit perfectly either. Human construct is a bit iffy as well.


You say no human has uncovered the "why" to anything.

Yep.


Yet, here you are in this forum attempting to say something that I can't even decipher because it's such a convoluted mess.

It's not convoluted. "Purpose" is imaginary. Three words not simple enough for you?

"Need" is just a fiction. As is "should", "must", "value" and "importance".

Re: Why do people confuse good and evil with accuracy?


Not exactly what I mean, I mean that you're handing me the conclusions of philosophers and then not explaining in your own words how the reasoning leading up to those conclusions prove me wrong.

Using the terminology of particular philosophers does not mean I have not explained it to you. I clearly explained to you why I believe final cause exists in Nature as such multiple times. Just because it keeps going over your head doesn't mean that I have not done so.

"Purpose" is imaginary.

And yet, here you are engaging in forum and writing posts for a particular purpose. Methinks you don't know what imaginary means, or are simply using it in some different sense from its primary meaning.

--

I want a unicorn. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1MKQbNPkgU

Re: Why do people confuse good and evil with accuracy?


Using the terminology of particular philosophers does not mean I have not explained it to you.
Actually that is kind of what it means. I can throw out an explanation to you in Swedish and say it's your problem you don't know Swedish.


I clearly explained to you why I believe final cause exists in Nature as such multiple times.
You parroted philosophers' conclusions and gave it as reasons why my conclusions are wrong. That is not explaining the reasoning that gives us those conclusions, as I have said multiple times.


Just because it keeps going over your head doesn't mean that I have not done so.
You've parroted philosophers' conclusions you agree with. That explains how you come to believe what you believe but is not explaining how it disproves my reasoning or any reasoning that does not give us those (philosophers') conclusions.


And yet, here you are engaging in forum and writing posts for a particular purpose.

Nope, just with intent.


Methinks you don't know what imaginary means, or are simply using it in some different sense from its primary meaning.
Neither. I simply mean imaginary, as in does not exist outside imagination.

"Need" is just a fiction. As is "should", "must", "value" and "importance".

Re: Why do people confuse good and evil with accuracy?

You're an idiot. The only person who parrots things is you in repetitively parroting in response after response this myth that all I did was parrot the conclusions of particular philosophers. I'm not here to explain the entire metaphysical argument from scratch - from premise to conclusion - to you. There are far better sources that can do that. I neither have the interest nor the want to waste my time on someone who can't even wrap his head around a concept of purpose and what the term means in the generic sense of subsuming human intentionality and ends existent in Nature as such.

Nope, just with intent.

Way to say the same thing as purpose.

What do you think human intentionality is? Holy moly.

I simply mean imaginary, as in does not exist outside imagination.

It must be a joy living in that imagination of yours.

--

I want a unicorn. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1MKQbNPkgU

Re: Why do people confuse good and evil with accuracy?


The only person who parrots things is you in repetitively parroting in response after response this myth that all I did was parrot the conclusions of particular philosophers.

It's not a myth. You are doing that. Also, parroting and repeating oneself is not the same thing.


I'm not here to explain the entire metaphysical argument from scratch - from premise to conclusion - to you.

No? How convenient for you. And I take it is too complex for you to sum it up in your own words.


There are far better sources that can do that.

How convenient for you.


I neither have the interest nor the want to waste my time on someone who can't even wrap his head around a concept of purpose

I feel as if I've said this before but I don't have a problem with the concept of it just like I don't have a problem with the concept of Santa Claus or the concept of unicorn.


and what the term means in the generic sense of subsuming human intentionality

"Subsuming human intentionality"? I neither have the interest or the want to wrap my head around what you're trying to communicate when you don't bother trying to communicate it.


and ends existent in Nature as such.

I don't have a problem with that but I do not see how it plays into the reasoning leading up to the conclusion that "purpose" isn't imaginary.


Nope, just with intent.
Way to say the same thing as purpose.

Intent is non-fictional. "Purpose" is fictional. Example: A chair's intent is not for people to sit on it. Do you follow?

If not, then you're the one having problems with the concept of "purpose", not I.


What do you think human intentionality is? Holy moly.

The defining characteristic of the mental state of a person when deliberating about an intention.

"Need" is just a fiction. As is "should", "must", "value" and "importance".

Re: Why do people confuse good and evil with accuracy?


Also, parroting and repeating oneself is not the same thing.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=parroting


Intent is non-fictional. "Purpose" is fictional.

https://www.google.com/search?q=intent&oq=intent&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.1215j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

You are as clueless as they come. Not only that, you persist in your cluelessness.

--

I want a unicorn. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1MKQbNPkgU

Re: Why do people confuse good and evil with accuracy?

Hey, I rarely -- actually never -- say this, but you're messed up, Man!

Re: Why do people confuse good and evil with accuracy?

Why, because I don't believe the universe is watching us with script in hand going "Heeey, that's not in here. This says everybody is nice to everybody."?

"Need" is just a fiction. As is "should", "must", "value" and "importance".

Re: Why do people confuse good and evil with accuracy?

In religion, ethics, philosophy and psychology "good and evil" is a very common dichotomy. In cultures with Manichaean and Abrahamic religious influence, evil is usually perceived as the dualistic antagonistic opposite of good, in which good should prevail and evil should be defeated.[1] In cultures with Buddhist spiritual influence, both good and evil are perceived as part of an antagonistic duality that itself must be overcome through achieving Śūnyatā meaning emptiness in the sense of recognition of good and evil being two opposing principles but not a reality, emptying the duality of them, and achieving a oneness.[1]

Evil, in a general context, is the absence or opposite of that which is described as being good. Often, evil is used to denote profound immorality.[2] In certain religious contexts, evil has been described as a supernatural force.[2] Definitions of evil vary, as does the analysis of its motives.[3] However, elements that are commonly associated with evil involve unbalanced behavior involving expediency, selfishness, ignorance, or neglect.[4]

How to achieve good is also discussed in the social sciences and in biology.

The philosophical question of whether morality is absolute, relative, or illusory leads to questions about the nature of evil, with views falling into one of four opposed camps: moral absolutism, amoralism, moral relativism, and moral universalism.

The modern English word evil (Old English yfel) and its cognates such as the German Ãœbel and Dutch euvel are widely considered to come from a Proto-Germanic reconstructed form of *ubilaz, comparable to the Hittite huwapp- ultimately from the Proto-Indo-European form *wap- and suffixed zero-grade form *up-elo-. Other later Germanic forms include Middle English evel, ifel, ufel, Old Frisian evel (adjective and noun), Old Saxon ubil, Old High German ubil, and Gothic ubils.

The root meaning of the word is of obscure origin though shown[5] to be akin to modern German Das Übel (although evil is normally translated as Das Böse) with the basic idea of transgressing.[6]

Every language has a word expressing good in the sense of "having the right or desirable quality" (ἀρετή) and bad in the sense "undesirable". A sense of moral judgment and a distinction "right and wrong, good and bad" are cultural universals.[7]

In the eastern part of ancient Persia almost five thousand years ago a religious philosopher called Zoroaster simplified the pantheon of early Iranian gods[8] into two opposing forces: Ahura Mazda (Illuminating Wisdom) and Angra Mainyu (Destructive Spirit) which were in conflict.

Main article: Gnosticism
For the western world, this idea developed into a religion which spawned many sects, some of which embraced an extreme dualistic belief that the material world should be shunned and the spiritual world should be embraced. Gnostic ideas influenced many ancient religions[9] which teach that gnosis (variously interpreted as enlightenment, salvation, emancipation or 'oneness with God') may be reached by practising philanthropy to the point of personal poverty, sexual abstinence (as far as possible for hearers, total for initiates) and diligently searching for wisdom by helping others.[10]

In Western civilisation, the basic meanings of κακός and ἀγαθός are "bad, cowardly" and "good, brave, capable", and their absolute sense emerges only around 400 BC, with Pre-Socratic philosophy, in particular Democritus.[11] Morality in this absolute sense solidifies in the dialogues of Plato, together with the emergence of monotheistic thought (notably in Euthyphro, which ponders the concept of piety (τὸ ὅσιον) as a moral absolute). The idea is further developed in Late Antiquity by Neoplatonists, Gnostics, and Church Fathers.

This development from the relative or habitual to the absolute is also evident in the terms ethics and morality both being derived from terms for "regional custom", Greek ήθος and Latin mores, respectively (see also siðr).

Medieval theology was largely shaped by St. Augustine of Hippo and St. Thomas Aquinas. According to the classical definition of St. Augustine of Hippo sin is "a word, deed, or desire in opposition to the eternal law of God."[3][4]

Many medieval Christian theologians both broadened and narrowed the basic concept of Good and evil until it came to have several, sometimes complex definitions[12] such as:

a personal preference or subjective judgment regarding any issue which might be earn praise or punishment from the religious authorities
religious obligation arising from Divine law leading to sainthood or damnation.
a generally accepted cultural standard of behaviour which might enhance group survival or wealth
natural law or behaviour which induces strong emotional reaction
statute law imposing a legal duty.

These basic ideas of a dichotomy has developed so that today:

Good is a broad concept but it typically deals with an association with life, charity, continuity, happiness, love and justice.
Evil is typically associated with conscious and deliberate wrongdoing, discrimination designed to harm others, humiliation of people designed to diminish their psychological needs and dignity, destructiveness, and acts of unnecessary and/or indiscriminate violence.[13]
the dilemma of the human condition and humans' and their capacity to perform both good and evil activities.[14]
The nature of being good has been given many treatments; one is that the good is based on the natural love, bonding, and affection that begins at the earliest stages of personal development; another is that goodness is a product of knowing truth. Differing views also exist as to why evil might arise. Many religious and philosophical traditions claim that evil behavior is an aberration that results from the imperfect human condition (e.g. "The Fall of Man"). Sometimes, evil is attributed to the existence of free will and human agency. Some argue that evil itself is ultimately based in an ignorance of truth (i.e., human value, sanctity, divinity). A variety of Enlightenment thinkers have alleged the opposite, by suggesting that evil is learned as a consequence of tyrannical social structures.

Philosophers inquire into what sorts of things are good, and what the word "good" really means in the abstract. As a philosophical concept, goodness might represent a hope that natural love be continuous, expansive, and all-inclusive.[this quote needs a citation] In a monotheistic religious context, it is by this hope that an important concept of God is derived —as an infinite projection of love, manifest as goodness in the lives of people. In other contexts, the good is viewed to be whatever produces the best consequences upon the lives of people, especially with regard to their states of well being.

For other uses of "good", see Good (disambiguation).
In religion, ethics, and philosophy, goodness and evil, or simply good and evil, is the concept of all human desires and behaviors as conforming to a dualistic spectrum—wherein in one direction are aspects that are wisely reverent of life and continuity ("good"), and in the other are aspects that are vainly reverent of death and destruction ("evil").

Religious and philosophical views tend to agree that, while "good and evil" is a concept and therefore an abstraction, goodness is intrinsic to human nature and is ultimately based on the natural love, bonding, affection that people grow to feel for other people. Likewise, most religious and philosophical interpretations agree that evil is ultimately based in an ignorance of truth (i.e. human value, sanctity, divinity), and evil behavior itself is an aberration —one that defies any understanding save that the path to evil is one of confusion and excessive desire (greed). In physics and statistical thermodynamics, the property of goodness or order is often referred to as a state of low entropy.

As a philosophical abstraction, goodness represents a hope that natural love be continuous, expansive, and all-inclusive. In religious context, it is by this hope that an important concept of God is derived —as an infinite projection of love, manifest as goodness in the lives of people. The belief in such hope is often translated as "faith", and wisdom itself is largely defined within religious doctrine as a knowledge and understanding of innate goodness. The concepts of innocence, spiritual purity, and salvation are likewise related to a concept of being in, or returning to, a state of goodness—one that, according to various teachings of "enlightenment", approaches a state of holiness, righteousness, (or Godliness).

As with Buddhism below, in Confucianism or Taoism, there is no direct analogue to the way good and evil are opposed although reference to demonic influence is common in Chinese folk religion. Confucianism's primary concern is with correct social relationships and the behavior appropriate to the learned or superior man. Thus evil would correspond to wrong behavior. Still less does it map into Taoism, in spite of the centrality of dualism in that system, but the opposite of the basic virtues of Taoism, compassion, moderation, and humility can be inferred to be the analogue of evil in it.[15][16]

Spinoza[edit]
Benedict de Spinoza states:

1. By good, I understand that which we certainly know is useful to us.
2. By evil, on the contrary I understand that which we certainly know hinders us from possessing anything that is good.[17]

Spinoza assumes a quasi-mathematical style and states these further propositions which he purports to prove or demonstrate from the above definitions in part IV of his Ethics :[17]

Proposition 8 "Knowledge of good or evil is nothing but affect of joy or sorrow in so far as we are conscious of it."
Proposition 30 "Nothing can be evil through that which it possesses in common with our nature, but in so far as a thing is evil to us it is contrary to us."
Proposition 64 "The knowledge of evil is inadequate knowledge."
Corollary "Hence it follows that if the human mind had none but adequate ideas, it would form no notion of evil."
Proposition 65 "According to the guidance of reason, of two things which are good, we shall follow the greater good, and of two evils, follow the less."
Proposition 68 "If men were born free, they would form no conception of good and evil so long as they were free."

Friedrich Nietzsche, in a rejection of the Judeo-Christian morality, addresses this in two works Beyond Good and Evil and On the Genealogy of Morals where he essentially says that the natural functional non-good has been socially transformed into the religious concept of evil by the slave mentality of the weak and oppressed masses who resent their masters (the strong).

Carl Jung[edit]
Carl Jung, in his book Answer to Job and elsewhere, depicted evil as the dark side of the Devil. People tend to believe evil is something external to them, because they project their shadow onto others. Jung interpreted the story of Jesus as an account of God facing his own shadow.[18]

In 2007, Philip Zimbardo suggested that people may act in evil ways as a result of a collective identity. This hypothesis, based on his previous experience from the Stanford prison experiment, was published in the book The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil.[19]

The Bahá'í Faith asserts that evil is non-existent and that it is a concept for the lacking of good, just as cold is the state of no heat, darkness is the state of no light, forgetfulness the lacking of memory, ignorance the lacking of knowledge. All of these are states of lacking and have no real existence.[20]

Thus, evil does not exist, and is relative to man. `Abdu'l-Bahá, son of the founder of the religion, in Some Answered Questions states:

"Nevertheless a doubt occurs to the mind—that is, scorpions and serpents are poisonous. Are they good or evil, for they are existing beings? Yes, a scorpion is evil in relation to man; a serpent is evil in relation to man; but in relation to themselves they are not evil, for their poison is their weapon, and by their sting they defend themselves."[20]

Thus, evil is more of an intellectual concept than a true reality. Since God is good, and upon creating creation he confirmed it by saying it is Good (Genesis 1:31) evil cannot have a true reality.[20]

The primal duality in Buddhism is between suffering and enlightenment, so the good vs. evil splitting has no direct analogue in it. One may infer however from the general teachings of the Buddha that the catalogued causes of suffering are what correspond in this belief system to 'evil.[21][22]

Practically this can refer to 1) the three selfish emotions—desire, hate and delusion; and 2) to their expression in physical and verbal actions. See ten unvirtuous actions in Buddhism. Specifically, evil means whatever harms or obstructs the causes for happiness in this life, a better rebirth, liberation from samsara, and the true and complete enlightenment of a buddha (samyaksambodhi).

"What is evil? Killing is evil, lying is evil, slandering is evil, abuse is evil, gossip is evil: envy is evil, hatred is evil, to cling to false doctrine is evil; all these things are evil. And what is the root of evil? Desire is the root of evil, illusion is the root of evil." Gautama Siddhartha, the founder of Buddhism, 563-483 B.C.

In Hinduism the concept of Dharma or righteousness clearly divides the world into good and evil, and clearly explains that wars have to be waged sometimes to establish and protect Dharma, this war is called Dharmayuddha. This division of good and evil is of major importance in both the Hindu epics of Ramayana and Mahabharata. However, the main emphasis in Hinduism is on bad action, rather than bad people. The Hindu holy text, the Bhagavad Gita, speaks of the balance of good and evil. When this balance goes off, divine incarnations come to help to restore this balance.[23]

In adherence to the core principle of spiritual evolution, the Sikh idea of evil changes depending on one's position on the path to liberation. At the beginning stages of spiritual growth, good and evil may seem neatly separated. However, once one's spirit evolves to the point where it sees most clearly, the idea of evil vanishes and the truth is revealed. In his writings Guru Arjan explains that, because God is the source of all things, what we believe to be evil must too come from God. And because God is ultimately a source of absolute good, nothing truly evil can originate from God.[24]

Nevertheless, Sikhism, like many other religions, does incorporate a list of "vices" from which suffering, corruption, and abject negativity arise. These are known as the Five Thieves, called such due to their propensity to cloud the mind and lead one astray from the prosecution of righteous action.[25] These are:[26]

Moh, or Attachment
Lobh, or Greed
Karodh, or Wrath
Kaam, or Lust
Ahankar, or Egotism
One who gives in to the temptations of the Five Thieves is known as "Manmukh", or someone who lives selfishly and without virtue. Inversely, the "Gurmukh, who thrive in their reverence toward divine knowledge, rise above vice via the practice of the high virtues of Sikhism. These are:[27]

Sewa, or selfless service to others.
Nam Simran, or meditation upon the divine name.

here is no concept of absolute evil in Islam, as a fundamental universal principle that is independent from and equal with good in a dualistic sense. Within Islam, it is considered essential to believe that all comes from Allah, whether it is perceived as good or bad by individuals; and things that are perceived as evil or bad are either natural events (natural disasters or illnesses) or caused by humanity's free will to disobey Allah's orders. See Devil (Islam).

According to the Ahmadiyya understanding of Islam, evil does not have a positive existence in itself and is merely the lack of good, just as darkness is the result of lack of light.[28]

In Judaism, evil is not real, it is per se not part of God's creation, but comes into existence through man's bad actions. Human beings are responsible for their choices. However Jews and non-Jews have the free will to choose good (life in olam haba) or bad (death in heaven). (Deuteronomy 28:20) Judaism stresses obedience to God's 613 commandments of the Written Torah (see also Tanakh) and the collective body of Jewish religious laws expounded in the Oral Torah and Shulchan Aruch (see also Mishnah and the Talmud). In Judaism, there is no prejudice in one's becoming good or evil at time of birth, since full responsibility comes with Bar and Bat Mitzvah, when Jewish boys become 13, and girls become 12 years old.

Evil according to a Christian worldview is any action, thought or attitude that is contrary to the character or will of God. This is shown through the law given in both the Old and New Testament. There is no moral action given in the Bible that is contrary to God's character or God's will. Therefore, evil in a Christian world view is contrasted by and in conflict with God's character or God's will. This evil shows itself through deviation from the character or will of God.

Christian theology draws its concept of evil from the Old and New Testaments. The Christian Bible exercises “the dominant influence upon ideas about God and evil in the Western world.”[29] In the Old Testament, evil is understood to be an opposition to God as well as something unsuitable or inferior such as the leader of the fallen angels Satan[30] In the New Testament the Greek word poneros is used to indicate unsuitability, while kakos is used to refer to opposition to God in the human realm.[31] Officially, the Catholic Church extracts its understanding of evil from its canonical antiquity and the Dominican theologian, Thomas Aquinas, who in Summa Theologica defines evil as the absence or privation of good.[32] French-American theologian Henri Blocher describes evil, when viewed as a theological concept, as an "unjustifiable reality. In common parlance, evil is 'something' that occurs in experience that ought not to be."[33]

In Mormonism, mortal life is viewed as a test of faith, where one's choices are central to the Plan of Salvation. See Agency (LDS Church). Evil is that which keeps one from discovering the nature of God. It is believed that one must choose not to be evil to return to God.

Christian Science believes that evil arises from a misunderstanding of the goodness of nature, which is understood as being inherently perfect if viewed from the correct (spiritual) perspective. Misunderstanding God's reality leads to incorrect choices, which are termed evil. This has led to the rejection of any separate power being the source of evil, or of God as being the source of evil; instead, the appearance of evil is the result of a mistaken concept of good. Christian Scientists argue that even the most evil person does not pursue evil for its own sake, but from the mistaken viewpoint that he or she will achieve some kind of good thereby.

Zoroastrianism[edit]
In the originally Persian religion of Zoroastrianism, the world is a battle ground between the god Ahura Mazda (also called Ormazd) and the malignant spirit Angra Mainyu (also called Ahriman). The final resolution of the struggle between good and evil was supposed to occur on a day of Judgement, in which all beings that have lived will be led across a bridge of fire, and those who are evil will be cast down forever. In Afghan belief, angels and saints are beings sent to help us achieve the path towards goodness.[citation needed]

It is possible to treat the essential theories of value by the use of a philosophical and academic approach. In properly analyzing theories of value, everyday beliefs are not only carefully catalogued and described, but also rigorously analyzed and judged.

Re: Why do people confuse good and evil with accuracy?

Really? You cut and paste that mountain of text about good and evil and expect me to excavate the bits that relate to "good and evil = right and wrong" from it?

Or do you imagine you've presented a good argument relevant to the discussion?

"Need" is just a fiction. As is "should", "must", "value" and "importance".

Re: Why do people confuse good and evil with accuracy?

I tried speaking my mind and you gave me invalid answers. I just wanted to see what you'd say and you didn't disappoint.

We have what we seek, it is there all the time, and if we give it time, it will make itself known.

Re: Why do people confuse good and evil with accuracy?

I'm trying to get a read on you. You use big words. An obvious sign of someone who isn't as intelligent as he believes himself to be. You know the right words. You know how to deflect arguments. You know how to make people seem vulnerable. Deep down you want to believe you know everything because knowing everything means that you no longer question life's meaning. But, you don't know everything. You don't know everything. And you never will because if you knew everything, you wouldn't have anything to prove.

We have what we seek, it is there all the time, and if we give it time, it will make itself known.

Re: Why do people confuse good and evil with accuracy?


You use big words.

Such as?


You know the right words.

Such as?


You know how to deflect arguments.

I do? Give me an example where I've deflected your argument.


Deep down you want to believe you know everything because knowing everything means that you no longer question life's meaning.

Does it sound like I've stopped questioning life's meaning? I obviously question a few things most people don't as you can tell from my threads.

"Need" is just a fiction. As is "should", "must", "value" and "importance".

Re: Why do people confuse good and evil with accuracy?

Are you God? I don't need to reread what you wrote in order to determine that what you're saying is wrong. If a child stumbles into this forum and sees what you're saying you could destroy them. An adult can hardly understand this conversation let alone a child that is only here for movies. Use some sense man.

Re: Why do people confuse good and evil with accuracy?


Are you God?

No. But out of curiosity which god? We've had a few over the last 4.3 million years.


I don't need to reread what you wrote in order to determine that what you're saying is wrong.

How am I wrong? If it's so easy, it wouldn't be difficult for you to explain how I'm wrong.


If a child stumbles into this forum and sees what you're saying you could destroy them.

If it was that easy to destroy children certain genres of pop culture would be banned.


An adult can hardly understand this conversation let alone a child that is only here for movies.

Wow, you don't credit humans with a lot of intelligence. This conversation is not difficult to follow.

"Need" is just a fiction. As is "should", "must", "value" and "importance".

Re: Why do people confuse good and evil with accuracy?

You're right it isn't hard to follow if you calculate the sum of 300 and divide it by the sum of gods we've had over the last 4.3 million years. so multiply that and then divide the wave frequency by the number of errors I've made. Turn every sentence into AACHUTCLAACTIOHFM and google it. Then based on the result you might have to reciprocate


Your search - AACHUTCLAACTIOHFM - did not match any documents.

Suggestions:

Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
Try different keywords.
Try more general keywords.
Search Results



We have what we seek, it is there all the time, and if we give it time, it will make itself known.

Re: Why do people confuse good and evil with accuracy?

Cool story, bro.

"Need" is just a fiction. As is "should", "must", "value" and "importance".

Re: Why do people confuse good and evil with accuracy?

ha ha ha ha beat me to it.

We have what we seek, it is there all the time, and if we give it time, it will make itself known.

Re: How can people confuse good and evil with accuracy?


1 - 1 = 42 is inaccurate, not evil and rape is evil, not inaccurate.
Huh?

Re: How can people confuse good and evil with accuracy?

Kicking puppies to death for fun is evil. It is not inaccurate.

1 + 42 = 1 is inaccurate. It is not evil.

"Rape is morally wrong" is false.
"Rape is immoral" is true.

It's not that difficult.
Morality is about good and evil, not about who has insight into the cosmic script the universe consults while observing every move you make.

'(sigh) We humans are stupid egotistical self-deluded beings'

'(sigh) We humans are stupid egotistical self-deluded beings'

Re: How can people confuse good and evil with accuracy?

Humans create value systems and call things moral or immoral.
A mother dinosaur has a biological instinct to keep the baby dinosaur safe, and that has nothing to do with morality

Re: How can people confuse good and evil with accuracy?

Things are moral or immoral even if humans never existed. That's diffferent from "morally right/wrong".

A mother dinosaur keeping her baby dinosaur safe is moral just like a human mother keeping her baby human safe is. Both have biological instincts.

'(sigh) We humans are stupid egotistical self-deluded beings'

'(sigh) We humans are stupid egotistical self-deluded beings'

Re: How can people confuse good and evil with accuracy?

Is this going to be on the final?




😺 Schrodinger's Cat walks into a bar, and doesn't. 🤨 Let's go, Brandon! 🤨 Try that in a small town.

Re: How can people confuse good and evil with accuracy?

Heeehe
Top