Calling evil "good" and good "evil"
17 Jan 2012, 1:13 pm
undefineable wrote:
Saturn wrote:
So, you're saying that Nietzche was against what we conventionally think of good in terms of the actions of a 'caring' society because this only encourages a basic weakness, all of which holds back what to Nietzche is best in human beings.
It's an interesting example of this you give in reflecting on your own upbringing. Without reflecting too hard on this particular question, I tend to agree that it might have been better for me (and why not many others?) to have had develop, to a keener extent than it was, that instinct for survival and associated self-reliance.
I appreciate some of David Cameron's rhetoric relating to this. I think his message of 'go out and do it yourself' is a positive and empowering and self-perpetuating one ('teach a man to fish' and so on). The Conservative Party in the UK, of course, have traditionally favoured a smaller state in general.
However, I seem to recall that Nietzche is also pretty committed to perspectivism, and, as I think you said, this means that there are no actual grounds for his view, and there is an inevitability about the existence of opposing perspectives. I tend to agree with this. In fact, I go further and suggest that it is the existence of a particular perspective or concept that necessarily requires the existence of it's opposite (they kind of give birth to each other).
Good and evil is a simple example of this. There can't be one without the other. The way to get rid of evil is to get rid of good and vice versa. In this way, I think iamnotaparakeet is mistaking concepts and thinking about the world for the actual world.
However, in practice I'm not sure something like this is is possible as perspectivism is unavoidable: if we are not of one view, we are of another.
It's an interesting example of this you give in reflecting on your own upbringing. Without reflecting too hard on this particular question, I tend to agree that it might have been better for me (and why not many others?) to have had develop, to a keener extent than it was, that instinct for survival and associated self-reliance.
I appreciate some of David Cameron's rhetoric relating to this. I think his message of 'go out and do it yourself' is a positive and empowering and self-perpetuating one ('teach a man to fish' and so on). The Conservative Party in the UK, of course, have traditionally favoured a smaller state in general.
However, I seem to recall that Nietzche is also pretty committed to perspectivism, and, as I think you said, this means that there are no actual grounds for his view, and there is an inevitability about the existence of opposing perspectives. I tend to agree with this. In fact, I go further and suggest that it is the existence of a particular perspective or concept that necessarily requires the existence of it's opposite (they kind of give birth to each other).
Good and evil is a simple example of this. There can't be one without the other. The way to get rid of evil is to get rid of good and vice versa. In this way, I think iamnotaparakeet is mistaking concepts and thinking about the world for the actual world.
However, in practice I'm not sure something like this is is possible as perspectivism is unavoidable: if we are not of one view, we are of another.
All good arguments, except that a) I don't see that good and evil -if done with an eye to the likely consequences- lead directly back to one another except in the sense that good encourages evil men to take avantage of the surplus resources while evil encourages good people to alleviate its effects, and b) that Nietzsche had a convincing defence for the mystical nature of his view that his own perspective was the 'best' perspective - namely that his perspective is simply 'cooler' (in what you might call a 'high-school jock' kind of way) than all other possible perspectices. -The word 'cool' in its recent uses seems to mean 'adapted to life' when you think about it.- It's fairly well-argued, as I've explained, and also meets the typical modern scientist's requirement that we also want it to be false, although this, ofcourse, speaks less of its actual 'truth' or 'falsehood' and could be a subconscious double-bluff. {I.e. intellectuals in our cultures are so worried about subconsciously arguing a position out of desire for its truth that they automatically gravitate to the position they don't want to be true to protect themselves from this effect - as well as from dissappointment.}
Given my point a), if iamnotaparakeet is also viewing 'good' and 'evil' as intentions synchronised with actions via a full calculation of their likely outcome, he may be viewing them as actions that lead to a surplus of either happiness or suffering - the actual world rather than a concept; whether even this narrow definition aligns with what is conventionally seen as good and bad is a separate question, as Nietzsche and others have shown. In other words, we can't tell whether 'evil' has been a net force for good and 'good' a net force for ill.
point a) I'm not sure what you mean about good and evil not leading back to each other. I was meaning that good and evil are conceptual opposites. I consider their actual existence in the world to be highly questionable. If they are terms that are used to refer to types of behaviour that we do see occuring, then I suggest that it is clearer to talk about those particular behaviours rather than assuming their normativity in advance. I'm not going to use the terms good and evil without problematizing them.
point b) what was, in summary, Nietzche's mystical justification of his perspective as best?
17 Jan 2012, 1:24 pm
undefineable wrote:
The denial of subjective experience, as 'argued' (i.e. effectively asserted dogmatically by ignoring self-evident objections) by the likes of Dan Dennett, is just one of those 'black is white' statements that we're all expected to swallow by one or other elite. Coming form a different cultural sphere, a Russian scientist agreed with his interviewer, in a doc I saw the other day, that subjective experiences are, to self-honest human beings atleast, *more* real than the outside world.
So morality is atleast worth thinking about to anyone who'se interested. My point about Marx is that it seems to have been his bitterness at the basic conditions of existence, rather than a big-hearted wish for everyone to be relieved of their degradations, that drove him to his 'work', meaning that even his intentions were less than good.
P.s. I think you misunderstand the bible quote, in its usual sense atleast - In the Shakespearian English of the time of the Bible's standardised translation into English, 'woe unto' implies a wish for someone to be stopped in their tracks and possibly for them to suffer consequences, in other words that they have done something wrong and should be treated accordingly. Just saying that someone would suffer unpleasant consequences would be written as something like 'woe betide them'.
So morality is atleast worth thinking about to anyone who'se interested. My point about Marx is that it seems to have been his bitterness at the basic conditions of existence, rather than a big-hearted wish for everyone to be relieved of their degradations, that drove him to his 'work', meaning that even his intentions were less than good.
P.s. I think you misunderstand the bible quote, in its usual sense atleast - In the Shakespearian English of the time of the Bible's standardised translation into English, 'woe unto' implies a wish for someone to be stopped in their tracks and possibly for them to suffer consequences, in other words that they have done something wrong and should be treated accordingly. Just saying that someone would suffer unpleasant consequences would be written as something like 'woe betide them'.
Yes, I agree about the reality of subjective experience including 'moral' experience and I am happy to talk and speculate about these in a manner unamenable to the present capacity scientific enquiry.
I understand better your point about Marx but I don't see how wanting to change something out of bitterness, (probably not the isolated single emotional factor, anyway,) means that intentions were less than good. As i said in previous post, the meaning of 'good' is not self-evident or uncontroversial for me.
Thanks for your comment on my Bible interpretation. Sounds like you know more about this than me.
techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,529
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi
17 Jan 2012, 1:26 pm
Saturn wrote:
I'm sorry but I don't follow that well what you mean. We seem to have rather different ways of seeing the world, or of expressing that, at least. I'm interested in what you're saying but there are so many points you make, that I don't understand or would dispute, that seem pivotal to you perspective, so much so that it's going to take to0 long writing to get a clear way forward, on this particular topic, at least. Sorry.
You'd have to quote what you're trying to figure out and ask a few questions. Without that I'll likely be able to read your mind about as well as you're reading mine right now.
_________________
The loneliest part of life: it's not just that no one is on your cloud, few can even see your cloud.
17 Jan 2012, 1:30 pm
undefineable wrote:
abacacus wrote:
There is no such thing as good or evil.
Look at terrorism. To many, they are evil people killing for the sake of it. To others, they are fighting to get foreign oppressors out of their lands. So how can they be called evil? They aren't doing anything most people wouldn't.
Look at terrorism. To many, they are evil people killing for the sake of it. To others, they are fighting to get foreign oppressors out of their lands. So how can they be called evil? They aren't doing anything most people wouldn't.
Ah, back on topic!
Whatever; maybe 'actions that are beneficial on balance' versus 'actions that are harmful on balance' would be better terms to use if you want to be pedantic, or else - on the other hand - 'active intentions to destroy others for your own gain and/or their pain' versus 'active intentions to build others up for their gain and/or your own pleasure'.
But there again, gain, pleasure, and being built up etc. are not the same thing, and one notices that on the political right people emphasise that fulfilment that comes from participating in civilisation while on the left a comfortable 'happiness' seems to be enough - the two being opposites in many cases.
'Evil', though, is a convenient label, not (necessarily!) a supernatural force, that conveys pleasure at the self-effected pain and destruction of other sentient creatures.
I don't think the issue is about being pedantic about the meaning of good and evil. Your suggested elaboration doesn't speak to the criticism that suggests that all normativity is conceptual rather than actually existing apart from conceptually.
17 Jan 2012, 1:34 pm
undefineable wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
undefineable wrote:
First hand experiences seem more real, but they could be hallucination. The seeming reality of experience does not establish its veracity. For crazy people, their delusions are as real as rain. And the question of "self honesty" is always an open question. Is the man who believes he is Jesus Christ dishonest or is he merely deluded.
ruveyn
Hallucinations are real experiences that just lack direct object referents in the physical world. Experience is real because its existence is proven by purely empirical means ('a priori'), not because it necessarily corresponds with the reast of reality. Whether the basis of that existence is physical in the usual sense is neither here nor there, as I'm using a straightforward/commonsense definition of real objects as things that *are*, rather than the misleading definition (used by scientists, buddhists, and others) of real objects as things that boil down to a universal 'substance' of some kind or other. In your misreading of my post, you used the old and even narrower definition of real objects as things which correspond *at all levels* - in imagination as well as in substance - with physical matter.
A very good reply undefinable and very well put.
17 Jan 2012, 7:15 pm
I was starting to get bored of this thread, but Pandabear just summed up what I think we were trying to say - Thanks!!
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
Every movement, every thought comes from an internal agitation of some type and you can trace most moves back to prime building blocks of some type.
Agitation? Maybe, but there's a contention that while that's normally an accurate comment, there's also a kind of 'pressure lid' deep inside us that's making our thoughts 'agitated'_
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
If someone wishes to essentially become a high earner in society its commendable (provided its not dealing drugs, robbery, or something along those lines) - however, if a high earner or even a moderate earner is uncharitable and gives nothing of their income; that's usually seen in the second sense as being a bit miserly and often can catch criticism.
Interesting - I agree 'grabbing for yourself' is fine when it doesn't directly harm others - In any case, the 'agitation' you mentioned isn't generally directed against others to begin with. But paying taxes to the government as opposed to giving money to charity is seen as bad, right?
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
As for your critic of it in broader terms though - this is where I think technology comes in. Super-abundance, rich and poor gaps shrinking in the standard of living sense based on goods and services available and continuing to do so.
This brings me on to Sunshine's question about Nietzsche, as this wonderfully barmy aspie (Nietzsche that is!) justified his defence of his 'noble ethics' by appealing to aesthetics, i.e. social patterns he thought one should feel drawn to. - For example, Nietzsche often wrote that the gap between rich and poor should always be WIDENED, simply to create a vaster, more bracing setting for human life. {I think we are all too familiar with this feeling as people who are in a sense profoundly split off from those around us!} I don't feel economic equality is needed for most people to 'self-actualise', as there's no equality to begin with, except perhaps an equality in overall brain complexity - One man's self-actualisation may be another man's idle boredom_
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
17 Jan 2012, 7:45 pm
Saturn wrote:
point a) I'm not sure what you mean about good and evil not leading back to each other. I was meaning that good and evil are conceptual opposites. I consider their actual existence in the world to be highly questionable. If they are terms that are used to refer to types of behaviour that we do see occuring, then I suggest that it is clearer to talk about those particular behaviours rather than assuming their normativity in advance. I'm not going to use the terms good and evil without problematizing them.
I don't think many people, atleast in the UK, believe in a positive force of evil or one of good, and I take your point about conceptuality. I think there's more to it that the old encyclopaedist's circular trick you still find in dictionaries (i.e. in this case, good is 'whatever contrasts with evil' and evil is 'whatever contrasts with good'), however - I think you miss the wood for the trees if you rule out/ignore/give up looking for distictive unifiying patterns in behaviour (or anything else).
To use the most extreme possible contrast as an example to 'illustrate' my point, the feeling of sadistic pleasure not only *feels different* to the subject than the feeling of compassion, but also has a completely different set of goals, even (and I'm stepping out on a limb here, so shoot me down if you can!) at a subconscious level. I understand if an autie or aspie can't or won't see this though.
techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,529
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi
17 Jan 2012, 11:21 pm
undefineable wrote:
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
Every movement, every thought comes from an internal agitation of some type and you can trace most moves back to prime building blocks of some type.
Agitation? Maybe, but there's a contention that while that's normally an accurate comment, there's also a kind of 'pressure lid' deep inside us that's making our thoughts 'agitated'_
When I said agitation though I meant it in the most general sense possible. The desire to open your eyes in the morning is from a certain restlessness or compulsion, the desire to eat is from an internal stress, the desire to go socialize - while positive - also comes from some kind of internal nagging. Sex drive - its essentially an itch that resolves like a sneeze. The need to push yourself further for status relates back to resources and having the things you desire.
In that sense there's nothing we do that we aren't propelled to do - otherwise we'd have no impulse to bring about or organize a given action.
undefineable wrote:
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
If someone wishes to essentially become a high earner in society its commendable (provided its not dealing drugs, robbery, or something along those lines) - however, if a high earner or even a moderate earner is uncharitable and gives nothing of their income; that's usually seen in the second sense as being a bit miserly and often can catch criticism.
Interesting - I agree 'grabbing for yourself' is fine when it doesn't directly harm others - In any case, the 'agitation' you mentioned isn't generally directed against others to begin with. But paying taxes to the government as opposed to giving money to charity is seen as bad, right?
Depends where you are; we have a significant enough left to where I'd say no, generally speaking you're regarded as a racist, classist bumpkin to say such a thing (at least in much of the area where I live). The majority of conservatives would admit that they have no desire to pull up safety nets and make it impossible for people to get help; they just hate the waste and, how you put it - throwing money at problems rather than coding feasible solutions or real 'help' into that spending (ie. like the notion that if a person slips and falls you give them a helping hand up, not a hammock). We could debate the merits of how far that ideology goes as the world economies change and as people are needed less and less to produce but, its much more a self-reliance and smart-help ideology than any kind of Randian 'let nature take them' that some people like to suggest.
undefineable wrote:
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
As for your critic of it in broader terms though - this is where I think technology comes in. Super-abundance, rich and poor gaps shrinking in the standard of living sense based on goods and services available and continuing to do so.
This brings me on to Sunshine's question about Nietzsche, as this wonderfully barmy aspie (Nietzsche that is!) justified his defence of his 'noble ethics' by appealing to aesthetics, i.e. social patterns he thought one should feel drawn to. - For example, Nietzsche often wrote that the gap between rich and poor should always be WIDENED, simply to create a vaster, more bracing setting for human life. {I think we are all too familiar with this feeling as people who are in a sense profoundly split off from those around us!} I don't feel economic equality is needed for most people to 'self-actualise', as there's no equality to begin with, except perhaps an equality in overall brain complexity - One man's self-actualisation may be another man's idle boredom_
I'm not sure what I'd make of Nietzche's argument there; my sense of him was that he had a heck of a Stockholm syndrome relationship with social Darwinism that he ran on parade. The interesting thing about the coupling between wealth gap and standard of living gap though - that much is shrinking. I can't remember where I heard it said but the claim was made that a poor person in the US in the 2000's had a better standard of living than John D Rockafeller had in his time. Obviously that's ignoring the human element and focusing on amenities but, I think they had a point. Again, I can think of plenty here who'd lambast me for even suggesting such a thing but, I guess I'm really saying that even if the gap between rich and poor was ten times greater in the future - if the discernible difference in standard of living was even less, it would likely mean just that; wealth could still help a certain amount (and I'm sure it still would in terms of your grappling match for status and whether the opposite sex will give you the time of day) but outside of that the sky would be pretty close to being the limit for all. To think right now even, so many people on welfare or barely scraping by on SSDI have the world wide web at their fingertips: it still doesn't necessarily dissolve the blow of being in that spot but, if you compare that to being in the same spot in 1980, 1960, 1940, it gets quite noticeable.
_________________
The loneliest part of life: it's not just that no one is on your cloud, few can even see your cloud.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| New International Axis of Evil |
06 Feb 2025, 7:11 am |
| Some good news... |
24 Nov 2024, 8:32 pm |
|
Good news
in Bipolar, Tourettes, Schizophrenia, and other Psychological Conditions |
26 Jan 2025, 6:49 pm |
| Feel good about my life and future |
08 Jan 2025, 1:05 pm |
