Support NeoGAF

[synchronicity]

Just a food for thought type of thread for those interested in the philosophical musings on morality.

I guess the beginning of this issue would be to examine how anything is perceived. How do we come to identify anything, how can a label be affixed to a notion or a thing?

Inevitably, we are brought to the idea of contrast or context. A blank canvas has no story to tell. It's only when we bring in contrast via color and form that an image can emerge. Otherwise things are completely ineffable in their "sameness".

To express things another way, how do we identify hot? The presence of cold brings it to life. How do we identify pleasure? Pain gives it its flavor. How do we know light? It is known relative to the darkness.

So in understanding the necessity of contrast and opposites in informing our perception, would it be fair to say that "good" utterly depends upon "evil" for its existence? (And vice versa, of course) If these notions are indeed inseparable, are they not, in fact, a whole rather than disparate parts? When I label something as "good" am I not validating the necessity of "evil" by default. (and vice versa)

It's why the idea of "utopia/heaven" is impossible. A "perfect" world could not be perceived in the first place because there would be no point of reference.

I'm sure there will be other views, and they are welcome, naturally. I'll just watch the discussion. I don't want to direct it or engage other than this post. But I am very curious to hear others thoughts.

 

[HellforLeather]

You are all over the place here. You are comparing the duality of physical phenomena (light/dark, pain/pleasure, hot/cold) with concepts (good/evil).

On a physiological level, you dont need cold to tell you a thing is hot (burning flesh will do just fine) and you dont need pain to release pleasure chemicals. One may lead you to appreciate the other more, but they are not needed.

Also, you want to ponder the sliding scale between concept duality but in your thread title you are asking if they are the same thing, which if there is a sliding scale between one extreme and the other, then no, they are not the same thing. Good is not evil and evil is not good, by their very nature as concepts. One thing could be good to one person and evil to the other but they are still separate as concepts.

 

[synchronicity]

You are all over the place here. You are comparing the duality of physical phenomena (light/dark, pain/pleasure, hot/cold) with concepts (good/evil).

On a physiological level, you dont need cold to tell you a thing is hot (burning flesh will do just fine) and you dont need pain to release pleasure chemicals. One may lead you to appreciate the other more, but they are not needed.

Also, you want to ponder the sliding scale between concept duality but in your thread title you are asking if they are the same thing, which if there is a sliding scale between one extreme and the other, then no, they are not the same thing. Good is not evil and evil is not good, by their very nature as concepts. One thing could be good to one person and evil to the other but they are still separate as concepts.

I said I just wanted to hear others views (and I do - thank you for your perspective) and wasn't going to reply, but I can't help it.

In the first place, I would say that physical phenomena *are* also concepts. In fact they are concepts measure by other concepts. They are labels attached to experience by mind. They have no inherent meaning just as, imho, good and evil are arbitrary labels of the mind.

My thought in posting this was in more in relation to those who are... moral absolutists, which in regards to the belief in "good" and "evil" is fairly common, but not always the case. As you stated, "One thing could be good to one person and evil to the other..." making them necessarily arbitrary concepts, and therefore, meaningless.

What I mean in regards to them being the same, is that they can only be defined relative to the "other", therefore inseparable and a whole rather than independent. Remove all darkness from the world and what is light? Remove all the "evil" from the world and what is the flavor of "good"? It could have no value without any polarity to compare. So any distinction between the two is upheld by the very existence of both, making them a singular rather than dual concept. Without the ability to separate them while still allowing for any definition, how can they be labeled as "different"?

 

[DKehoe]

To me evil implies intent. I would say that the bad, not the evil, helps you appreciate the good.

Say I have a bad day at work where a bunch of stuff goes wrong for whatever reason. Maybe then coming home to have a nice meal and do something fun makes me appreciate the good of that even more than if I'd just had an average day.

Evil is something like someone murders my family. Something like that doesn't help me appreciate the good any more.

 

[HE1NZ]

The concept of good vs evil comes primarily from Christianity. It indicates rather clearly what is good and what is evil, and explains why you should be good. Christianity gives you agency over your actions, whereas most other religions usually take it away, leaving you to the hands of fate or acts of God. So, I guess something has to be evil, so that you can do the opposite.

It makes sense that Marxism, which also operates on a basis of good vs evil ("oppressor" vs "oppressed"), pretty much replaced the eroded religion in the West. There is a desire to be moral and join the "good" fight. Unlike the Bible though, Marxist definition of good and evil gets rewritten every ten years or so.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

There's a neutral, amoral middle ground between Evil and Good, arguably. Is there a moral imperative to piss holding with your left or your right? Yet you make a decision. It could be argued the brands you buy and the frequency of your tooth-brushing and your consumption of coffee are all "evil" from a certain point of view. I don't think the answer is to get lost in nihilism or moral relativity.

The concept of Good and Evil both assume some kind of fundamental law that is violated or fulfilled. Humane treatment of animals, for instance, and animal obedience to humans are moral propositions. Both imply that human definitions of compassionate treatment and loyalty are a "Good" that can be applied even cross-species.

Good and evil aren't opposites of one another. They can exist in a vacuum without the other, but they do indeed contrast one another. Good is about the propagation of life and consciousness. Being "Good" involves action to generate and regenerate. Evil squelches life and destroys consciousness. These are two different sets of behaviors, are they not? We're always going to see a mix of good and evil in society, tugging back and forth, but that doesn't imply they are reliant on one another, it just means they are jostling over the same "territory", as it were.

So my answer to your question is no, good does not utterly depend on evil for its existence. Evil does not depend on good for its existence. I don't believe that "evil" is the absence of Good or God, either. Good and Evil are two different substances.

 

[synchronicity]

I'm enjoying everyone's thoughts on the subject. Thank you for your input.

So my answer to your question is no, good does not utterly depend on evil for its existence. Evil does not depend on good for its existence.

So in a scenario where all is "good" how is it known/defined/experienced? From my perspective all definitions are of a relative nature. Things derive meaning due to context/contrast. Without it there can be no meaning.

From your perspective there is such a thing as "goodness", and as a hypothetical exercise, I would ask, how is it known/sustained/defined without "evil" as a measuring stick?

I can't see that it would be perceivable, and therefore may as well not exist at all.

 

[#Phonepunk#]

BEAVIS: How come, like, some stuff sucks, but then, like, some stuff is pretty cool?

BUTT-HEAD: Uhhh, well, if nothing sucked, and everything was cool all the time, then, like, how would you know it was cool?

BEAVIS: I would know. You just said, everything would be cool.

BUTT-HEAD: No, buttmunch. I mean like, let’s say someone came up and just hit you upside the head? Well, that would be cool.

BEAVIS: No it wouldn’t. That would suck.

BUTT-HEAD: Yeah. . . . [hits Beavis repeatedly]

BEAVIS: Owww! Cut it out butthole!

BUTT-HEAD: That was cool!

BEAVIS: No it wasn’t. That sucked!

BUTT-HEAD: Yeah, but like, you know, after it’s over, doesn’t it, like, feel pretty cool?

BEAVIS: Oh yeah.

BUTT-HEAD: See, you need, like, stuff that sucks to have stuff that’s cool.

Beavis and Butt-head

BEAVIS: How come, like, some stuff sucks, but then, like, some stuff is pretty cool? BUTT-HEAD: Uhhh, well, if nothing sucked, and everything was cool all the time, then, like,…

www.artforum.com

 

[Karma Jawa]

There’s not really anything such as evil. At most it’s an extreme form of ‘bad’.

Ultimately it’s a matter of perspective. Let’s say Hitler took over the world, some of the stuff we recognise as disgusting atrocities might be considered to be ‘good’ from their perspective.

John Wayne Gacy wasn’t ‘evil’. He was extremely bad within a society that reasonably considers the rape and murder of multiple people to be atrocious. The Pope isn’t necessarily considered good by people raped as kids by catholic priests. In some other world those actions might be commonplace and accepted.

Kant’s categorical imperative suggests that we all have some inherent sense of what is good or bad based on how we would want to be treated. Our brains do all sorts of moral gymnastics to shift our own definitions, especially when reacting to the actions of others. A guy murders your family? You’re probably going to feel very different around them compared to some average Joe.

Ultimately if you act in a way that would be beneficial for everyone, including yourself, that’s ‘good’. Anything else is ‘bad’ from someone’s perspective. Of course there’s a huge amount of confusion about what fits into those categories.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

So in a scenario where all is "good" how is it known/defined/experienced?

I'm not implying all is good. Like I said, arguably there are amoral things in the middle, observable decisions that have no moral component. Good is a force that pushes beyond "neutral" and actually heals, restores, and creates.

From my perspective all definitions are of a relative nature. Things derive meaning due to context/contrast. Without it there can be no meaning.

From your perspective there is such a thing as "goodness", and as a hypothetical exercise, I would ask, how is it known/sustained/defined without "evil" as a measuring stick?

I can't see that it would be perceivable, and therefore may as well not exist at all.

I must admit that I believer there is such a thing as divine revelation and absolute Good, based on the definition given by God. I don't think things derive meaning from context and contrast alone, rather that those are tools that help us understand the inherent value and meaning underneath.

I'll pick an easy example to illustrate how something could be "good" without evil as a measuring stick. If I meet a stranger on the street and give them a refreshing drink even though they do not appear to need one, that would still be considered a kindness. The stranger doesn't need to be thirsty -- or worse, dying on the side of the road of dehydration -- for my action to be considered good.

Or imagine if I meet a stranger on the street and I spitefully knock the water out of his hand, spilling it on the ground. This isn't "evil" because I've failed to give him a refreshing drink. This isn't evil because I've withheld a good, I've actually created unnecessary pain or loss.

 

[teezzy]

I once debated a chick on Tinder who had something like, "abolish masculinity" or some b.s. in her profile. She was bangin' but clearly a little off.
Anywho, I argued that without masculinity there would be no femininity, and vice versa. Needless to say, we didnt smash.

 

[synchronicity]

Ultimately if you act in a way that would be beneficial for everyone, including yourself, that’s ‘good’. Anything else is ‘bad’ from someone’s perspective. Of course there’s a huge amount of confusion about what fits into those categories.

This touches on what I think is perceived as good by most. The idea of doing what "benefits" everyone. But if we have any experience in life, we know that intent and action often don't harmonize with result. You can be earnest in a spirit of benevolence, and ultimately (and I would say inevitably, due to balance) cause harm.

I'm not implying all is good.

What I meant was in reference to your comment that good did not utterly depend upon evil for its existence(and vice versa). If that were true, there could theoretically be a set of conditions where all was "good". Within those hypothetical conditions, how is good perceived? Without the frame of reference provided by the contrast, how is it known?

I once debated a chick on Tinder who had something like, "abolish masculinity" or some b.s. in her profile. She was bangin' but clearly a little off.
Anywho, I argued that without masculinity there would be no femininity, and vice versa. Needless to say, we didnt smash.

You've made a massive mistake!

I must learn to the trust the true gurus referenced by #Phonepunk# . It can be hard on a seeker looking for the bedrock of truth.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

This touches on what I think is perceived as good by most. The idea of doing what "benefits" everyone. But if we have any experience in life, we know that intent and action often don't harmonize with result. You can be earnest in a spirit of benevolence, and ultimately (and I would say inevitably, due to balance) cause harm.



What I meant was in reference to your comment that good did not utterly depend upon evil for its existence(and vice versa). If that were true, there could theoretically be a set of conditions where all was "good". Within those hypothetical conditions, how is good perceived? Without the frame of reference provided by the contrast, how is it known?

The theoretical world where all is good might be a place like Heaven. In christianity, for instance, there is a promise of a future eternal existence where God "wipes every tear from your eye", so even in Paradise there is at least a memory of sadness or a mark of imperfection. So the frame of reference still exists in this specific eschatological example since one still has a memory of past sins/imperfections. Again, I am framing it from a very specific religious framework instead of from a generalized one. There's no implication in christianity's version of an "all good" existence that one's memories would be eliminated. It's definitely a point worth considering, though: would a state of perfect existence and Goodness be marred even by the memory of past sins and betrayals? Christianity attempts to solve this dilemma by placing the burden on The Judgment, that final legal determination that declares who is Good and who is Evil, sheep from goats, etc.

My explanation may still not jive if you believe that Good is relative, or that Good's definition will shift based on the frame of reference it lives in. I don't see it that way, so if you do, then there will be unreconcilable conflicts in our paradigms about the nature of Good. Where I diverge is that I don't believe Good is just an arbitrary set of rules that happened to spring up through time and cultural progress. Instead, I believe Good is based on a concrete set of universal rules that apply across time, and I believe the rules are applied by a sentient being. Y'know, religion.

Theoretically, all could be "good" but I have no idea how that would operate in a universe of relative morals. I suppose no matter how far you dig eventually you will still hit a bedrock of fundamental Goods like preservation / propagation / enhancement of life, resistance / opposition / restoration in response to natural entropy.

Or else there's really no concept such as Good or Evil in which case who cares?

 

[Cravis]

Don’t be evil.

Be good, for goodness sake! Whooooooaaaa! Somebody's coming! Somebody's coming!

 

[synchronicity]

The theoretical world where all is good might be a place like Heaven. In christianity, for instance, there is a promise of a future eternal existence where God "wipes every tear from your eye", so even in Paradise there is at least a memory of sadness or a mark of imperfection. So the frame of reference still exists in this specific eschatological example since one still has a memory of past sins/imperfections. Again, I am framing it from a very specific religious framework instead of from a generalized one. There's no implication in christianity's version of an "all good" existence that one's memories would be eliminated....

This is approaching the essence of what I'm trying to express. For any heaven or utopia to have any meaning/value/awareness it must, if even only in memory, depend upon a frame of reference against a backdrop of a contradictory concept. Otherwise it is flavorless - a blank canvas without any definition. This is why, in my view, "good" and "evil" are inextricably linked, and therefore a unified whole. I'm not trying to sway your convictions, only sharing my angle, fwiw.

All of us who identify with any label that could be categorized as "spiritual", be it in the realm of organized religion or otherwise, have had profound, often transformative experiences. In my own experiences, many guided by, um, Mother Earth - I'll say, I've had deeply moving moments where I felt myself looking through a window into an understanding that all is good. All the various flavors of existence including the joys and sorrows, war and peace, cruelty and kindness, suffering and relief, victories and defeats - all of it - was the music of the most perfect symphony beyond all imagination or mental conception. And only when viewed from the limited perspective of the "self" was there any pain or suffering. Again, just sharing experience as it has occurred through this limited lens.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

This is approaching the essence of what I'm trying to express. For any heaven or utopia to have any meaning/value/awareness it must, if even only in memory, depend upon a frame of reference against a backdrop of a contradictory concept. Otherwise it is flavorless - a blank canvas without any definition. This is why, in my view, "good" and "evil" are inextricably linked, and therefore a unified whole. I'm not trying to sway your convictions, only sharing my angle, fwiw.

Yeah I get what you mean. This circles back to the core question: can an action be "Good" without any frame of reference? I believe it can be. If something can be Good without needing evil as a frame of reference, then I don't see how they can be considered a part of a "unified whole". Good and Evil are two distinct things.

To use an amoral example: do you propose that water and fire are two parts of a unified whole? Water quenches fire and fire dries water. Aren't they pretty much the same substance? Without fire, how would I know if something is "dry" and without water how would I know what it's like for a fire to be put out?

This is basically how many ancient cultures framed their moral / scientific thinking, based on a system of ideal forms and opposites. Some form of monism, essentially, which I reject.

All of us who identify with any label that could be categorized as "spiritual", be it in the realm of organized religion or otherwise, have had profound, often transformative experiences. In my own experiences, many guided by, um, Mother Earth - I'll say, I've had deeply moving moments where I felt myself looking through a window into an understanding that all is good. All the various flavors of existence including the joys and sorrows, war and peace, cruelty and kindness, suffering and relief, victories and defeats - all of it - was the music of the most perfect symphony beyond all imagination or mental conception. And only when viewed from the limited perspective of the "self" was there any pain or suffering. Again, just sharing experience as it has occurred through this limited lens.

The symphony of creation is certainly an experience. I agree that we all have a limited lens, and misconceptions as to what is Good and Evil often pop up because of that limited perspective.

 

[synchronicity]

To use an amoral example: do you propose that water and fire are two parts of a unified whole? Water quenches fire and fire dries water. Aren't they pretty much the same substance? Without fire, how would I know if something is "dry" and without water how would I know what it's like for a fire to be put out?

Well, we're going to need to look at things from a different angle to arrive at that answer. Where does any distinction arise? Within the mind. When the mind is in abeyance, there are no perceived differences. All categories and divisions are ultimately labels attached via thought - arbitrary lines drawn around "things" to bring them to life as "separate" entities. Where is the delineation between the river and the ocean? Those borders, like all things, are ideas. Ideas can never be reality. They are inherently abstraction - an attempt to frame and limit what is ineffable. Reality cannot be defined with language. Yes, in my experience, all is one.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Well, we're going to need to look at things from a different angle to arrive at that answer. Where does any distinction arise? Within the mind. When the mind is in abeyance, there are no perceived differences. All categories and divisions are ultimately labels attached via thought - arbitrary lines drawn around "things" to bring them to life as "separate" entities.

No, I think cognition itself -- even from a material perspective -- requires a distinction between what the mind perceives and what is more-or-less true about the external world. Our sense-perceptions of the world aren't Truth. Just because we think about something does not breathe distinct characteristics and differences into them. The magnetic properties of a lump of Iron versus a lump of Gold are not "arbitrary lines drawn around things to make them separate entities".

Human cognition does lean on an illogical Theory of Forms in some respect. Children learning about the world lump things into crude meta-categories to make sense. All animals could be "dog" until the child learns that different animals have different names. Male siblings might be "da da" until the child learns the difference between "male parent" and "male sibling". We operate through assumptions and symbolic impressions of the world. It's very true that we often do not see the nitty-gritty of "reality" around us. But that does not mean it does not exist in concrete form. The world doesn't vanish when I blink.

Where is the delineation between the river and the ocean? Those borders, like all things, are ideas. Ideas can never be reality. They are inherently abstraction - an attempt to frame and limit what is ineffable. Reality cannot be defined with language. Yes, in my experience, all is one.

Language is an imperfect descriptor of reality, and even our symbolic, cognitive interpretation of "reality" is limited. That doesn't make "reality" any less "real". Accepting the limitations of our description-tools is one thing, but implying that the limitation of our description-tools implies a background Oneness that our tools artificially split apart is another.

We also have the problem of a priori knowledge. To exist as a conscious being, you must accept certain truths about reality such as the flow of time, the specific "place" you occupy in your environment, the disctinction between your thoughts and the thoughts of others, and so forth.

 

[synchronicity]

No, I think cognition itself -- even from a material perspective -- requires a distinction between what the mind perceives and what is more-or-less true about the external world. Our sense-perceptions of the world aren't Truth. Just because we think about something does not breathe distinct characteristics and differences into them. The magnetic properties of a lump of Iron versus a lump of Gold are not "arbitrary lines drawn around things to make them separate entities".

Human cognition does lean on an illogical Theory of Forms in some respect. Children learning about the world lump things into crude meta-categories to make sense. All animals could be "dog" until the child learns that different animals have different names. Male siblings might be "da da" until the child learns the difference between "male parent" and "male sibling". We operate through assumptions and symbolic impressions of the world. It's very true that we often do not see the nitty-gritty of "reality" around us. But that does not mean it does not exist in concrete form. The world doesn't vanish when I blink.

Yes, symbolism/language gives shape to things, and when we change the symbols and their meanings, the shape of things change- what was true is no longer. And this happens continuously through an individuals life as well as a collective evolution/movement of symbols and culture.

Language is an imperfect descriptor of reality, and even our symbolic, cognitive interpretation of "reality" is limited. That doesn't make "reality" any less "real". Accepting the limitations of our description-tools is one thing, but implying that the limitation of our description-tools implies a background Oneness that our tools artificially split apart is another.

We also have the problem of a priori knowledge. To exist as a conscious being, you must accept certain truths about reality such as the flow of time, the specific "place" you occupy in your environment, the disctinction between your thoughts and the thoughts of others, and so forth.

How is "reality" known/interpreted if not through the mind, the primary tool of expression being language. The mind only knows "reality" via the labels it attaches, labels that it itself creates.

How can you be certain that you are in the world/universe rather than the reverse? All you know through direct experience is that when the conscious mind retreats the self and the universe vanish. You can make the common assumption that the former (you are in the world) is true, but that is not your direct experience, no matter how "obvious" it may seem to the mind.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Yes, symbolism/language gives shape to things, and when we change the symbols and their meanings, the shape of things change- what was true is no longer. And this happens continuously through an individuals life as well as a collective evolution/movement of symbols and culture.

The symbol grows from the real. Arguably, we only see imperfect symbols since -- by its nature -- a symbol cannot also be a distinct, real, unique, flawed example of the symbol.

To put it another way, there's no reason for symbolism to exist at all unless there were patterns and Forms that we could observe in the universe.

How is "reality" known/interpreted if not through the mind, the primary tool of expression being language. The mind only knows "reality" via the labels it attaches, labels that it itself creates.

Yes, but I can also perceive how my mind is impressed upon and influenced by the outside world. The fact that I can perceive the outside world at all implies that something is pressing in on my senses. My perception of what that is may be imperfect, and my tools to perceive it may be limited to sight, sound, touch, etc, but I am definitely perceiving something. To deny that would be to deny the lived experience of a conscious being in a physical body.

How can you be certain that you are in the world/universe rather than the reverse?

Well, certainty is a sticky thing...

I have a... let's call it a hunch that I am in the world/universe instead of the opposite because the universe imposes itself upon my physical body and upon my consciousness. As free as my consciousness is, I am still limited by flesh, blood, and biology. Even as I self-reflect on my existence, I cannot separate my conscious "self" from the physical human body which I inhabit. The body has shaped my mind as my mind has shaped my body. If there is no external universe that has shaped my consciousness, then there's no logical reason why I have a consciousness at all. Why am I thinking these thoughts at all instead of thinking the thoughts of a flea?

When I want to impose my consciousness on the outside universe, I have to first accept its rules. I can't just think and reality bends in obedience, as cool as psychic powers would be. I have to accept the concepts of time, of space, of movement, of cause-and-effect, of many other things before I can interact with the outside universe. If the universe is merely a projection of my own "self", it's an awful trick that I'm playing on Me.

So this is what leads me to believe I am in the world instead of the world being within me. There appears to be a two-way interaction between me and the world, but it follows rules that I do not define or impose.

All you know through direct experience is that when the conscious mind retreats the self and the universe vanish. You can make the common assumption that the former (you are in the world) is true, but that is not your direct experience, no matter how "obvious" it may seem to the mind.

Then what of the unconscious mind, which is affected by the "universe" even if I do not perceive it?

 

[synchronicity]

The symbol grows from the real. Arguably, we only see imperfect symbols since -- by its nature -- a symbol cannot also be a distinct, real, unique, flawed example of the symbol.

To put it another way, there's no reason for symbolism to exist at all unless there were patterns and Forms that we could observe in the universe.

That's fair. But what are those symbols referencing? They always inevitably refer back to the mind and its perceptions and way of operating. The mind has a need to categorize - it's what it does. But just because it is the nature of mind to see categories doesn't mean that categories and divisions are the default ground or essence of reality. Categories and labels are the domain of mind, no doubt. But to say that these categories have an independent existence outside of mind is a statement coming from the mind. It's like saying, I'm right because I say I'm right. Mind doesn't dispute its own nature.

Yes, but I can also perceive how my mind is impressed upon and influenced by the outside world. The fact that I can perceive the outside world at all implies that something is pressing in on my senses. My perception of what that is may be imperfect, and my tools to perceive it may be limited to sight, sound, touch, etc, but I am definitely perceiving something. To deny that would be to deny the lived experience of a conscious being in a physical body.

It always comes back to that trickster of a little word, "I". (and/or "my")

No question that there is perception and senses and "being". Do these things belong to the body/mind, or is the body/mind being perceived by another, from another level. Whose mind? Whose senses? It is the presumed state to have a body - to possess a unique identity, but the defendant for that argument is always the mind. And again, it is the nature of mind to create categories and divisions. When we observe the mind, we can watch it group and distinguish endlessly. The mind struggles to see itself with any objectivity.

Well, certainty is a sticky thing...

I have a... let's call it a hunch that I am in the world/universe instead of the opposite because the universe imposes itself upon my physical body and upon my consciousness. As free as my consciousness is, I am still limited by flesh, blood, and biology. Even as I self-reflect on my existence, I cannot separate my conscious "self" from the physical human body which I inhabit. The body has shaped my mind as my mind has shaped my body. If there is no external universe that has shaped my consciousness, then there's no logical reason why I have a consciousness at all. Why am I thinking these thoughts at all instead of thinking the thoughts of a flea?

When I want to impose my consciousness on the outside universe, I have to first accept its rules. I can't just think and reality bends in obedience, as cool as psychic powers would be. I have to accept the concepts of time, of space, of movement, of cause-and-effect, of many other things before I can interact with the outside universe. If the universe is merely a projection of my own "self", it's an awful trick that I'm playing on Me.

So this is what leads me to believe I am in the world instead of the world being within me. There appears to be a two-way interaction between me and the world, but it follows rules that I do not define or impose.

Then what of the unconscious mind, which is affected by the "universe" even if I do not perceive it?

Who is thinking the thoughts and experiencing the self? All that can be said without any doubt is that there are thoughts, that there is consciousness. To whom or what these things belong is an assumption made by the mind. Where do time and space go when the mind is silent? Under general anesthesia or deeps sleep, time and space (and concepts of all variety) vanish only to reappear with the mind coming back online. In my view, that is as compelling evidence as any that time and space - along with the self - are mental concepts.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

That's fair. But what are those symbols referencing? They always inevitably refer back to the mind and its perceptions and way of operating.

I don't think that's true. Let's say -- instead of reading the sentences you wrote above and drawing out your meaning -- I simply deconstruct the "symbols" and break it down as to some illusion in your mind and your perceptions and the way you are operating. It would be nonsensical. We both know a transmission of information is taking place. We might admit that our sense are an imperfect way of capturing a 100% accurate picture of the event, but we still perceive something real that takes place between ourselves.

If its all in the mind, it not only seems like a denial of what is Real but also a denial of imperfection, a denial of growth and entropy. If it's all relative, then everything is headed in every direction and nothing is categorized by anything. Pure, holy, innocent chaos. But chaos is unthinking. Cognition itself implies the opposite of chaos. It implies order, hierarchy, and value systems.

The mind has a need to categorize - it's what it does. But just because it is the nature of mind to see categories doesn't mean that categories and divisions are the default ground or essence of reality. Categories and labels are the domain of mind, no doubt. But to say that these categories have an independent existence outside of mind is a statement coming from the mind. It's like saying, I'm right because I say I'm right. Mind doesn't dispute its own nature.

Then maybe I'm not explaining myself. I agree that we impose arbitrary categories upon the world. Doesn't this imply the world and our imperfect cognitive categorization are distinct from one another? In either case, I might impose arbitrary categories on a "dog" and a "cat", but there will still be concrete distinctions between those two categories whether I like it or not. The transmission of offspring, for example, will not be possible between a pair of these "arbitrary categories".

I'm not saying the category "dog" exists outside of the mind in the same way that an actual living dog exists, but it does exist as a metaphysical object. You and I would not be able to have a conversation about "dog" unless we both, separately, came to similar conclusions about what "dog" is and what characteristics define "dog". The symbol we use for "dog" may just as well be "canine" or "pup" or a thousand other words. It is true that "dog" has no objective meaning or connection to the real dog. Humans make that connection real via cognition.

Man gave names to all the animals, in the beginning, long time agoooo.

It always comes back to that trickster of a little word, "I". (and/or "my")

No question that there is perception and senses and "being". Do these things belong to the body/mind, or is the body/mind being perceived by another, from another level. Whose mind? Whose senses?

Being is complicated and the answers to these are complex. Let me try to give an incomplete answer via psychology. We have both a conscious and a subconscious mind. The subconscious mind contains many parts of "you" that affect "you" in ways "you" cannot control. Thoughts that "you" think may be imposed upon "you" by the subconscious.

Before I'm willing to entertain the idea that my thoughts are just someone else's thoughts, I want to try to eliminate other possible explanations.

It is the presumed state to have a body - to possess a unique identity, but the defendant for that argument is always the mind. And again, it is the nature of mind to create categories and divisions. When we observe the mind, we can watch it group and distinguish endlessly. The mind struggles to see itself with any objectivity.

What evidence do we have that our natural limitations and "unique"ness are an illusion?

Who is thinking the thoughts and experiencing the self? All that can be said without any doubt is that there are thoughts, that there is consciousness. To whom or what these things belong is an assumption made by the mind. Where do time and space go when the mind is silent? Under general anesthesia or deeps sleep, time and space (and concepts of all variety) vanish only to reappear with the mind coming back online. In my view, that is as compelling evidence as any that time and space - along with the self - are mental concepts.

Consciousness is both an observer and a participant, but just because time and space blur for the individual observer, it doesn't mean anything changed in the real world. Under general anesthesia, the person still metabolizes glucose and delivers it to the brain. We can even go so far as to keep a braindead person alive while their heart pumps, their organs metabolize, and so forth. Even if the universe was emptied of all observers, all consciousness, would the evidence of time exist? Yes, particle spin would still decay. Chemical bonds would loosen. Pulsars would pulse at the same rate. The physical world will still carry on even after I am dead and my consciousness is snuffed. It's the same logic. I do not define reality. At best, I get a chance to observe it and to participate. Reality exists without me.

 

[GymWolf]

this topic remind me that i never played beyond good and evil...

 

[Tesseract]

 

[V4skunk]

Just a food for thought type of thread for those interested in the philosophical musings on morality.

I guess the beginning of this issue would be to examine how anything is perceived. How do we come to identify anything, how can a label be affixed to a notion or a thing?

Inevitably, we are brought to the idea of contrast or context. A blank canvas has no story to tell. It's only when we bring in contrast via color and form that an image can emerge. Otherwise things are completely ineffable in their "sameness".

To express things another way, how do we identify hot? The presence of cold brings it to life. How do we identify pleasure? Pain gives it its flavor. How do we know light? It is known relative to the darkness.

So in understanding the necessity of contrast and opposites in informing our perception, would it be fair to say that "good" utterly depends upon "evil" for its existence? (And vice versa, of course) If these notions are indeed inseparable, are they not, in fact, a whole rather than disparate parts? When I label something as "good" am I not validating the necessity of "evil" by default. (and vice versa)

It's why the idea of "utopia/heaven" is impossible. A "perfect" world could not be perceived in the first place because there would be no point of reference.

I'm sure there will be other views, and they are welcome, naturally. I'll just watch the discussion. I don't want to direct it or engage other than this post. But I am very curious to hear others thoughts.

Communist confirmed.
These idiots are all about twisting reality.

 

[#Phonepunk#]

its a lot like other abstract thinking. fun to imagine that good and evil are constructs, but you know them when you see them. it's like, you can talk about how "It's all illusion maaaan" but try sticking a needle through your tongue while entertaining that thought, you're gonna have a difficult time.

as mortal beings we are tethered to the dichotomy. perhaps in a mystical realm there exists a universe of pure undifferentiated consciousness (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kshira_Sagara). but you or i ain't gonna be experiencing that anytime soon without transcending our physical form.

 

[synchronicity]

I don't think that's true. Let's say -- instead of reading the sentences you wrote above and drawing out your meaning -- I simply deconstruct the "symbols" and break it down as to some illusion in your mind and your perceptions and the way you are operating. It would be nonsensical. We both know a transmission of information is taking place. We might admit that our sense are an imperfect way of capturing a 100% accurate picture of the event, but we still perceive something real that takes place between ourselves.

If its all in the mind, it not only seems like a denial of what is Real but also a denial of imperfection, a denial of growth and entropy. If it's all relative, then everything is headed in every direction and nothing is categorized by anything. Pure, holy, innocent chaos. But chaos is unthinking. Cognition itself implies the opposite of chaos. It implies order, hierarchy, and value systems.

What is "real" is such a cavernous pit. What can anyone verify to be real other than the sense of being aware? Any other assertion invariably relies upon assumptions.

Then maybe I'm not explaining myself. I agree that we impose arbitrary categories upon the world. Doesn't this imply the world and our imperfect cognitive categorization are distinct from one another? In either case, I might impose arbitrary categories on a "dog" and a "cat", but there will still be concrete distinctions between those two categories whether I like it or not. The transmission of offspring, for example, will not be possible between a pair of these "arbitrary categories".

I'm not saying the category "dog" exists outside of the mind in the same way that an actual living dog exists, but it does exist as a metaphysical object. You and I would not be able to have a conversation about "dog" unless we both, separately, came to similar conclusions about what "dog" is and what characteristics define "dog". The symbol we use for "dog" may just as well be "canine" or "pup" or a thousand other words. It is true that "dog" has no objective meaning or connection to the real dog. Humans make that connection real via cognition.

Man gave names to all the animals, in the beginning, long time agoooo.

This returns to the idea of division and identity, of course.

If you'll humor me, I'd like to examine the merits/validity of the idea of separation/duality on three different levels in relation to truth and/or worth. I think we can look at it from a practical/physical sense, from a theoretical sense and from a philosophical/spiritual sense.

In this first case, let's look at the idea of a separate body/mind. If I've understood you properly, you (along with most minds) are of the position that there is ownership of a distinct, separate "self" that can be understood as different from the whole - the whole of existence, the world, the universe, totality - whatever you want to call it. This self has physical properties that differentiate and separate it from its environment, properties that are uniquely attributable to the "person", whomever you may take yourself to be.

In this regard, the first place I would like to explore is in regards to the body itself. What is it and what is it made of? If you have a body, a limited identifier, there must be physical limits associated with said body. There has been much made of our constitution as the body has been studied over the years, but one thing is certain, and that is that we are host to many organisms that are not "human" in terms of genetic code. It used to be thought a 10-1 ratio or more, but even more modern estimates (which vary, to be fair) place it around 1.3 to 1 in favor of foreign microbes relative to human cells. These organisms are not us - not human, yet we could not live without them. They are critical for digestion, mood, and myriad other roles that are vital to the ongoing perception of being a human being. And this does not even take into account the very cells which we *do* call our own. We are dependent upon mitochondria which have a small amount of their own unique DNA, DNA that isn't "ours". Yet without them we cease. Simply from a physical level, it is difficult to make the case of a clear and distinct person, and I think it breaks down.

In the second case I'd like to consider the possibility of a separate self on a more theoretical level. If it were true that we existed in a "separate" fashion, it should be possible to "cut/paste" us out of the universe since we have a unique and distinct identity. However, it don't think it takes too much in the way of imagination to realize the dire consequences of trying to isolate a part of the universe from the whole by removing it. (I'm not talking about death/transition which is simply the continual process of change.) I'm talking about removal of something which, if in fact is separate, could quite readily be taken away. You can take a ball out of a bin because it's not the bin, right? (within the same universe) But if we tried to isolate the person away from the universe, I think it is fairly reasonable to imagine the collapse of the entire universe as *innumerable* factors that have brought the "person" into play are suddenly ripped from their moorings creating a domino effect that undoes the whole.

In the final case, I'd like to consider this question from a more spiritual sense. On the one hand we could have beings who see themselves in all things, that see themselves *as* all things. When I meet you, I don't view you as my brother, my enemy, my employer, my lover, or anything other than myself. I see you *as* me. I recognize that all is an expression of the same underlying energy, that all is one.On the other hand, we could have a world where the good and the bad are divided via moral code that judges and discriminates. In this world there is right and wrong, and there is good and bad. The bad should be punished and relegated to the shadows or seen as inferior while the good are beacons of justice and righteousness to be elevated. I can only speak for myself, but I would much rather live in a world where beings all see themselves as the whole, and "others" as themselves. I think it's easier to imagine a peaceful and harmonious existence in a world like that.

Being is complicated and the answers to these are complex. Let me try to give an incomplete answer via psychology. We have both a conscious and a subconscious mind. The subconscious mind contains many parts of "you" that affect "you" in ways "you" cannot control. Thoughts that "you" think may be imposed upon "you" by the subconscious.

Before I'm willing to entertain the idea that my thoughts are just someone else's thoughts, I want to try to eliminate other possible explanations.

Yes, it is and there's nothing wrong with searching for explanations, naturally. It doesn't change the situation that all we can say is that there are thoughts - without the ability to say from where they have arisen. It seems silly to some, for sure, but so much of experience is taken for granted without examination. I cannot say that thoughts originate in the mind. Who can honestly say that? I can say that there is awareness of thoughts, however.

What evidence do we have that our natural limitations and "unique"ness are an illusion?

What statement can definitively be made about the nature of reality?

Consciousness is both an observer and a participant, but just because time and space blur for the individual observer, it doesn't mean anything changed in the real world. Under general anesthesia, the person still metabolizes glucose and delivers it to the brain. We can even go so far as to keep a braindead person alive while their heart pumps, their organs metabolize, and so forth. Even if the universe was emptied of all observers, all consciousness, would the evidence of time exist? Yes, particle spin would still decay. Chemical bonds would loosen. Pulsars would pulse at the same rate. The physical world will still carry on even after I am dead and my consciousness is snuffed. It's the same logic. I do not define reality. At best, I get a chance to observe it and to participate. Reality exists without me.

This presumes a "real" world outside of mind. All you know as an observer is that the world/person were there, they were gone, and then they were there again. You have no experience of the body functioning or a world/universe existing at all absent conscious experience. You must assume those things. How can you say that you know the physical world carries on without you? What or whom is confirming this? You are not there to affirm or deny confirmation.

 

[Ballthyrm]

Good and Evil are dependent on the societal context.
ISIS think being anything but a faithful Muslim is Evil.

Our ancestors also had twisted belief.
But the goalpost has moved rather a lot since then.

You can't really say they didn't have a morality because we see today most of what they had done at the time as truly evil (like slavery for example)

One thing that has been said and need to be reiterated :

The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.

 

[SometimeLaterToday]

 

[ToughestSoul]

Evil is good, evil is the job.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Yes, it is and there's nothing wrong with searching for explanations, naturally. It doesn't change the situation that all we can say is that there are thoughts - without the ability to say from where they have arisen. It seems silly to some, for sure, but so much of experience is taken for granted without examination. I cannot say that thoughts originate in the mind. Who can honestly say that? I can say that there is awareness of thoughts, however.

What statement can definitively be made about the nature of reality?

Lots of statements.

I exist.
My internal thoughts are distinct from yours (I can hear mine and not yours, and versa vice).
I can perceive sensory inputs.
I can structure languages and ideas.

Let's just skip to the end of your train of thought and deny that we're even having this conversation at all. Philosophy of the absurd is fun for chit-chat but has no practical nor metaphysical application.

This presumes a "real" world outside of mind. All you know as an observer is that the world/person were there, they were gone, and then they were there again. You have no experience of the body functioning or a world/universe existing at all absent conscious experience. You must assume those things. How can you say that you know the physical world carries on without you? What or whom is confirming this? You are not there to affirm or deny confirmation.

The world existed prior to my birth. There's no reason to suggest reality would stop once I die. I don't believe truth is based on what I am there to affirm or deny. That's apparent even in my waking life and it would continue to be true after I die.

I reject the fundamental premise that inputs from my senses is the only thing all that can be known. Ironically, this doesn't imply monism, it implies materialism and the denial of a metaphysical self.

But I don't believe that sensory input is all that can truly be known. Cognition can take place with no sensory input needed. We can come to conclusions about reality by testing the boundaries of what our senses tell us, and we can cross-reference sensory inputs to determine reality.

Or we can shrug and say "it's just a simulation" or "we're just the dream of a higher being". You're selectively asking me to reject my senses but also to reject any reality outside of my own senses. This is contradictory. This results in spirals of philosophical musings that lead nowhere.

 

[Ascend]

Well, you sure opened up a can of worms here... I'll throw my thoughts into the mix.

This is a very deep subject, and, there are really no clear answers.
Everyone appears in this reality, basically not knowing why we are here and what we should do. However, nature (for lack of a better term) has given you some feedback mechanisms. These are not perfect, but they do have their clear purpose.

The most basic examples I can give is pain and pleasure, which has already been touched upon here. But pain is not necessarily bad, and pleasure is not necessarily good. I guess this is the point where I also have to say that bad and evil are two very different things. I'll try to elaborate on that later on.

That you feel pain is actually a good thing. It gives you feedback mechanisms, so that you can know something is wrong, and potentially change something. This applies to both physical and emotional pain. There is no growth without pain, and this, we learn from very early on. If you're not willing to stand up and fall, you will never walk.
Pleasure is the same thing, in the sense that it tells you that something is rewarding, and rather than changing something, to keep doing it. You might have felt pain when falling, but when you can finally run around without falling (as much) that is something that is quite rewarding, i.e. pleasure. It was worth making the effort to keep standing up.

And now we jump into perspectives... Some people see certain animals as evil for some reason. But I think this comes from a disconnect with life (or nature if you prefer), which is something that is basically only really occurring to humans (and maybe some pets & animals in zoos). Life is quite balanced, and it does what it does. We are constantly trying to 'beat' life, declaring war on different diseases, trying to control the environment etc. At some point, we have come to see ourselves as separate from other life, from nature. We no longer see ourselves as part of it. I think this has given strength to the idea that pleasure is good and pain is evil.

From the perspective of wild nature, generally, pain is almost certainly related to death. A wolf eating a deer is not evil. The deer suffers, and in most cases is helpless against a pack, but the wolves have to eat to survive. The deer might see the wolves as evil, while the wolves are actually dependent on deer. And if you know the story of Yellowstone and the wolves during the last century, it definitely gives you food for thought. Humans trying to control wolves, ultimately devastated Yellowstone. Trying to return wolves to Yellowstone helped a bit, but, most likely it will never return to what it was.

What we are given at birth, is there to maintain a certain balance. The wolf is hungry and must eat. The deer is fearful and must run. If you remove the wolf, the deer overpopulate and eat everything, ultimately killing themselves due to lack of food. If you remove the deer, the wolves have to find something else to eat. The flora overgrows, meaning life in trees becomes more prevalent, and the wolves will probably die out since they can't climb trees.

The existing balance is good for both. 'Good' meaning that they both can still thrive. The difference between bad and evil is knowledge. Say you have the power to remove either the deer or the wolves. You think removing one of them will be beneficial, which is exactly what happened in the past. You remove the wolves, thinking it would be beneficial, and the results were the complete opposite. Obviously, you were wrong. Your choice was bad, because the consequences were not in line with your preconceived notions.
Evil goes a step further. It means you know what the consequences are, and you STILL decide to do it. Even more so, if you try to convince others that it is good while you know it is bad, is probably the ultimate form of being evil. The intention is relevant, even if the action is the same. If you want to knock out a burglar in your house, but accidentally end up knocking out your wife, it is not the same as simply knocking out your wife, even if in both cases she is knocked out. Both are bad, but only one is evil.

And now we arrive at empathy, which is the ability to recognize and maybe even feel within ourselves the pain and suffering (but also pleasure) of others. No one wants to suffer, so when we recognize that others suffer, the empathy is expressed in what we call sympathy. It is acknowledgment of the suffering of someone else. If we decide to act on it, we call this compassion. Whichever it is, we categorize whatever has caused that suffering as bad, because we recognize that we would not like to be in that situation either.

One thing that we cannot recognize (easily) in others is intention. So if the pain was caused by another person, we cannot really know if it was merely a bad action or an evil action. And this is where things get murky. Because two people can be on completely opposite ends of a spectrum, both have perspectives that would have bad consequences if put into action, they both would see themselves as good and the other as evil. The same applies if both perspectives would have good consequences when put into action. They would still see themselves as good and the other as evil. And that is how conflicts happen.

Ultimately, we all know deep down, that having life is better than not having life. It's one of those feedbacks that nature has given us. Why that is, no one knows. We may get a different opinion based on our life experiences. People become suicidal, some people believe the earth would be better off without humans etc. The last one is interesting though, because no one ever says the earth would be better off being completely devoid of life. Generally, being devoid of humans would mean that other life could thrive much better. So deep down, we value life.

So that brings me to the conclusion... Good is whatever maintains the balance of life, bad is whatever disrupts the balance of life, evil is intentionally disrupting the balance of life.
This obviously leaves other questions, like;
What is "balance of life" exactly? Most likely this relates to having extremes that stray away from 'nothing' being equally powerful (like the dualities expressed in the opening post, e.g. being unable to know high without low existing).
What is the positive equivalent of evil? There doesn't seem to be one. Or are there two types of "good"?

 

[synchronicity]

Lots of statements.

I exist.
My internal thoughts are distinct from yours (I can hear mine and not yours, and versa vice).
I can perceive sensory inputs.
I can structure languages and ideas.

Let's just skip to the end of your train of thought and deny that we're even having this conversation at all. Philosophy of the absurd is fun for chit-chat but has no practical nor metaphysical application.

You can say that there is a sense of existence and there are thoughts. The label "mine" is attached by the mind. There are sensations. Language exists. Conversations occur. All of these statements about ownership or control are resting on the mental assertion of a separate self - an idea.

I'm not trying to get under your skin. You may not like what is being said, but it's not expressed in a combative spirit.

The world existed prior to my birth. There's no reason to suggest reality would stop once I die. I don't believe truth is based on what I am there to affirm or deny. That's apparent even in my waking life and it would continue to be true after I die.

I reject the fundamental premise that inputs from my senses is the only thing all that can be known. Ironically, this doesn't imply monism, it implies materialism and the denial of a metaphysical self.

But I don't believe that sensory input is all that can truly be known. Cognition can take place with no sensory input needed. We can come to conclusions about reality by testing the boundaries of what our senses tell us, and we can cross-reference sensory inputs to determine reality.

Or we can shrug and say "it's just a simulation" or "we're just the dream of a higher being". You're selectively asking me to reject my senses but also to reject any reality outside of my own senses. This is contradictory. This results in spirals of philosophical musings that lead nowhere.

How do you know the world existed prior to your awareness? I'm not asking you to reject your senses. I'm only saying to limit what you claim to know to what you can directly confirm. And that amounts to very little in the end.

 

[betrayal]

Good and evil is a human construct. A pure interpretation. Good is the opposite of evil only because it is something artificially created by humans in this way.

Good and evil is a pure interpretation of an event, for example a murder, a wedding, a lottery win or a pandemic. The event itself is never good or evil (or anything), but thinking about it makes it so. In this sense and depending on the interpretation, good can always be evil and vice versa.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

You can say that there is a sense of existence and there are thoughts. The label "mine" is attached by the mind. There are sensations. Language exists. Conversations occur. All of these statements about ownership or control are resting on the mental assertion of a separate self - an idea.

I'm not trying to get under your skin. You may not like what is being said, but it's not expressed in a combative spirit.

I don't take it as a combative spirit, I just do not see any evidence or argument to support the suggestion that my "uniqueness" is an illusion. It's not a resistance of my ego to the notion that "I" don't exist, it's the lack of any evidence in the face of overwhelming evidence that I am merely an I, stuck as an I in this body.

How do you know the world existed prior to your awareness?

Because we're having this conversation. Independently, you and I are communication with a language that was made before either you or I were born. We didn't invent the vast tech-tree of tools that allow us to have this conversation over the internet, either. It implies we have arrived after some sort of continuity that built up the material things we experience around us.

Let's just skip all the middle parts and get to the end: is this conversation even happening at all or not? Can you prove to me that it is? Is there even a "you" or "me" talking? It's interesting to think about but I don't tend to wander in the vast realms of the unfalsifiable for too long.

I'm not asking you to reject your senses. I'm only saying to limit what you claim to know to what you can directly confirm. And that amounts to very little in the end.

I think this position actually weakens your argument: Yes, I have a wide view of things I can perceive but a far more limited view of things that I can directly confirm, when we really pick it apart and question what we can know. How can unknown knowledge exist outside of my "conscious" mind in the first place? If my mind is the source of those boundaries and arbitrary definitions and symbols and categories, knowledge itself is arbitrary, yet whenever I encounter it, it follows rules unknown to me and patterns that I do not understand.

The very act of seeking out knowledge or having a conversation or doing anything except being static implies that knowledge and possibilities exists beyond what I currently know and what currently exists. This field of knowledge doesn't pop in and out of existence based on whether or not I'm aware of the knowledge. I reject the thinking that I can only know what I directly observe because the proposition itself cannot be directly observed. It is an axiom itself. Where have you directly observed that direct observation is a more reliable view into "Reality" than simply thinking about it?

I still feel like your argument requires that I selectively reject my senses (or my "direct observation", to be clearer) while at the same time relying only on direct observation for other conclusions. It is both profound and humbling to realize that I know very little, but that doesn't imply much about the fabric of reality.

 

[Barnabot]

applying hegels:

but i believe there's good and evil. not everything can be relativized. otherwise we could turn into being beyond good and evil.

 

[synchronicity]

I don't take it as a combative spirit, I just do not see any evidence or argument to support the suggestion that my "uniqueness" is an illusion. It's not a resistance of my ego to the notion that "I" don't exist, it's the lack of any evidence in the face of overwhelming evidence that I am merely an I, stuck as an I in this body.

What makes you confident in saying that when even the predominance of cells in the body aren't "your own" / aren't human?

Because we're having this conversation. Independently, you and I are communication with a language that was made before either you or I were born. We didn't invent the vast tech-tree of tools that allow us to have this conversation over the internet, either. It implies we have arrived after some sort of continuity that built up the material things we experience around us.

Let's just skip all the middle parts and get to the end: is this conversation even happening at all or not? Can you prove to me that it is? Is there even a "you" or "me" talking? It's interesting to think about but I don't tend to wander in the vast realms of the unfalsifiable for too long.

All I see is conversation occurring. Phenomena happening. There is consciousness and it has content, but I cannot attribute it to an individual. I am aware of the label of a person, but I don't find anyone to whom that label belongs other than as a thought form.

I think this position actually weakens your argument: Yes, I have a wide view of things I can perceive but a far more limited view of things that I can directly confirm, when we really pick it apart and question what we can know. How can unknown knowledge exist outside of my "conscious" mind in the first place? If my mind is the source of those boundaries and arbitrary definitions and symbols and categories, knowledge itself is arbitrary, yet whenever I encounter it, it follows rules unknown to me and patterns that I do not understand.

The very act of seeking out knowledge or having a conversation or doing anything except being static implies that knowledge and possibilities exists beyond what I currently know and what currently exists. This field of knowledge doesn't pop in and out of existence based on whether or not I'm aware of the knowledge. I reject the thinking that I can only know what I directly observe because the proposition itself cannot be directly observed. It is an axiom itself. Where have you directly observed that direct observation is a more reliable view into "Reality" than simply thinking about it?

I still feel like your argument requires that I selectively reject my senses (or my "direct observation", to be clearer) while at the same time relying only on direct observation for other conclusions. It is both profound and humbling to realize that I know very little, but that doesn't imply much about the fabric of reality.

For me, when it comes to knowledge, things are incredibly simple and very limited. Every claim I challenge myself on can be explained in a variety of potential and conceivable ways. All claims except for the claim of existence. I can't assert that I am not no matter what mental gymnastics I undertake. But everything else has many potential explanations. So when it comes to makings statements of fact, I can make almost none. I realize that many feel they can make assertions of "truth" but I see virtually all of it as either relative or unprovable. So for me, I leave the knowing to those who require knowledge. I have virtually none and yet I persist.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

What makes you confident in saying that when even the predominance of cells in the body aren't "your own" / aren't human?

I'm just as confident in saying that as I am in saying that I am not the carbon and H2O of my body.

All I see is conversation occurring. Phenomena happening. There is consciousness and it has content, but I cannot attribute it to an individual. I am aware of the label of a person, but I don't find anyone to whom that label belongs other than as a thought form.

There's such a thing as embracing ignorance because it feels similar to blissful humility. At the end of the day, there are some defined edges to the experience.

For me, when it comes to knowledge, things are incredibly simple and very limited. Every claim I challenge myself on can be explained in a variety of potential and conceivable ways. All claims except for the claim of existence. I can't assert that I am not no matter what mental gymnastics I undertake. But everything else has many potential explanations. So when it comes to makings statements of fact, I can make almost none. I realize that many feel they can make assertions of "truth" but I see virtually all of it as either relative or unprovable. So for me, I leave the knowing to those who require knowledge. I have virtually none and yet I persist.

Overcoming the desire to know does not give you an escape rope to the discussion of the nature of knowing. If you are content with your current level of knowledge, that's fine, but it doesn't lend any foundation to what you are asserting.

 

[Rat Rage]

What do you mean by "Is evil good"? Does good mean purpose to you? So are you asking whether evil has a purpose or is needed to give "good" meaning by being the contrast of it?

Kind of confusing. Anyway. Let's answer what good and evil is. Frist. both are concepts that only exist within social cratures. So in other words, both good and evil are social in nature. Both good and evil probably only applies to humans and other socially comnplex beings. Both are objective truth tied that have their origin in nature/biology. They are not truth that come from anywhere else, especially not from transzendental sources, since transzendental things don't exist. Yes, Gods, Magicians, Unicorns etc. don't exist.

So Good and evil have their origin in nature/biology. One universal, undeniably true concept of nature is the survial of the fittest or in other words the survial of the most adjusted creature/creatures to their surroundings.

Since all creatures in nature are in a constant battle with each other, all cratures - trough mutation / evolution - have formed varous attack and defense mechanism, or let's just say survival mechanisms. One of those survival mechanism that proved to be super successfull and actually enable a certain creature - the human - to become the top of the survial of the fittest battle is cooperation. Just like ants, who by the way rule the world as much (the biological total mass of ants on this planet is equal to the total biological mass of all other creatures, humans inclued, combined), humans only became the number one because of their abiliy to ultra-cooperate with each other.

For complex, social cooperation it is a requirement to be have certain natural abilites. Those are: the ability to comunicate, the ability to understand each other, the abiliy to be altruistic, the ability to feel emphathy. Apart of those main abilities, other's have formed as well. For example the dislike for unneccessary harm or violence to others for example. This is part of the emphathy ability.

ANYWAY, good and evil are directly tied to the nature of social cooperation. In other words, what is good and evil?

Good and evil are actions of social species. Good and evil is equal to either all actions that aid a species in the survial of the fittest and all actions that do not.

Since humans are social by their very natures and sociality is their main ability to hold their ground in the surivial of the fittest , it means that good and evil is equal to all actions and characteristics that aid human sociality and evil are all actions and characteristics that hinder human sociality.

That's why for example virtues, as they are mostly similarily decribed in various human societies, are inherently good while flaws, also mostly similarily decribed in various societies, are inheritly bad/evil.

 

[synchronicity]

I'm just as confident in saying that as I am in saying that I am not the carbon and H2O of my body.

So show me your boundaries.

Overcoming the desire to know does not give you an escape rope to the discussion of the nature of knowing. If you are content with your current level of knowledge, that's fine, but it doesn't lend any foundation to what you are asserting.

Most of my assertions (all of them?) have been in the negative - that you/we don't know.

I'm saying I can't define the self. I'm saying that I see no differences between good/evil.

I leave the proof otherwise to those who can prove it.

 

[synchronicity]

What do you mean by "Is evil good"? Does good mean purpose to you? So are you asking whether evil has a purpose or is needed to give "good" meaning by being the contrast of it?

Kind of confusing. Anyway. Let's answer what good and evil is. Frist. both are concepts that only exist within social cratures. So in other words, both good and evil are social in nature. Both good and evil probably only applies to humans and other socially comnplex beings. Both are objective truth tied that have their origin in nature/biology. They are not truth that come from anywhere else, especially not from transzendental sources, since transzendental things don't exist. Yes, Gods, Magicians, Unicorns etc. don't exist.

So Good and evil have their origin in nature/biology. One universal, undeniably true concept of nature is the survial of the fittest or in other words the survial of the most adjusted creature/creatures to their surroundings.

Since all creatures in nature are in a constant battle with each other, all cratures - trough mutation / evolution - have formed varous attack and defense mechanism, or let's just say survival mechanisms. One of those survival mechanism that proved to be super successfull and actually enable a certain creature - the human - to become the top of the survial of the fittest battle is cooperation. Just like ants, who by the way rule the world as much (the biological total mass of ants on this planet is equal to the total biological mass of all other creatures, humans inclued, combined), humans only became the number one because of their abiliy to ultra-cooperate with each other.

For complex, social cooperation it is a requirement to be have certain natural abilites. Those are: the ability to comunicate, the ability to understand each other, the abiliy to be altruistic, the ability to feel emphathy. Apart of those main abilities, other's have formed as well. For example the dislike for unneccessary harm or violence to others for example. This is part of the emphathy ability.

ANYWAY, good and evil are directly tied to the nature of social cooperation. In other words, what is good and evil?

Good and evil are actions of social species. Good and evil is equal to either all actions that aid a species in the survial of the fittest and all actions that do not.

Since humans are social by their very natures and sociality is their main ability to hold their ground in the surivial of the fittest , it means that good and evil is equal to all actions and characteristics that aid human sociality and evil are all actions and characteristics that hinder human sociality.

That's why for example virtues, as they are mostly similarily decribed in various human societies, are inherently good while flaws, also mostly similarily decribed in various societies, are inheritly bad/evil.

I'm asking if anything can be defined without context? That's all. And if not, using this particular thread topic's example, is it reasonable to say that opposites form more of a whole rather than isolated parts.

In other words, if good can't be comprehended without evil, should it be considered isolated/separate from it?

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

So show me your boundaries.

First let's establish whether the language I use to communicate those boundaries is even a distinct thing apart from "me" or "you", and let's further establish that "you" and "I" are separate. If all is one, then we shouldn't be talking to ourselves at such great length.

Most of my assertions (all of them?) have been in the negative - that you/we don't know.

Even to say "we don't know" is an assertion. As you admitted, you can't seem to talk yourself into the belief that you don't exist. So that infers some parts of reality are real, whether you like it or not. Saying "we don't know" is still making a declarative statement about the limits of our perception. How do you know that we don't know? What if all of us are born with an innate ability to perceive all ultimate facts and knowledge simply by imagining it? Have you directly observed something that refutes it? Why do you give preeminence to "direct observation" instead of "cognitive imagination"? Do you have any reason for illogically choosing one or the other? Do you know which one gets you closer to Real Reality?

I'm saying I can't define the self. I'm saying that I see no differences between good/evil.

I leave the proof otherwise to those who can prove it.

If you can't define the self, then it will be hard to prove Good or Evil too.

At the end of the day, no one can prove to you that you exist, much less convince you that meta-concepts exist. If we're already having discussions as to whether The Self exists, then we're not going to be able to answer if Good is Evil and vice versa. We've already lost the plot.

 

[synchronicity]

First let's establish whether the language I use to communicate those boundaries is even a distinct thing apart from "me" or "you", and let's further establish that "you" and "I" are separate. If all is one, then we shouldn't be talking to ourselves at such great length.

I see no separation. You do however. That's why I am asking for you to define the self as you see it - so I can understand.

Even to say "we don't know" is an assertion. As you admitted, you can't seem to talk yourself into the belief that you don't exist. So that infers some parts of reality are real, whether you like it or not. Saying "we don't know" is still making a declarative statement about the limits of our perception. How do you know that we don't know? What if all of us are born with an innate ability to perceive all ultimate facts and knowledge simply by imagining it? Have you directly observed something that refutes it? Why do you give preeminence to "direct observation" instead of "cognitive imagination"? Do you have any reason for illogically choosing one or the other? Do you know which one gets you closer to Real Reality?

Yes, I can claim knowledge of one thing - a sense of awareness. All else is either hearsay or presumptive in my view. If you are or anyone else is certain of the totality of reality or reality in its parts, it hasn't been conveyed in a way that I am capable of comprehending with certainty and/or clarity.

If you can't define the self, then it will be hard to prove Good or Evil too.

At the end of the day, no one can prove to you that you exist, much less convince you that meta-concepts exist. If we're already having discussions as to whether The Self exists, then we're not going to be able to answer if Good is Evil and vice versa. We've already lost the plot.

I'm not questioning existence, I'm questioning the limitations of identity.

 

[Rat Rage]

I'm asking if anything can be defined without context?

Yes, the material world. A rock is a solid mixture of various minerals. Good and evil are concepts of advanced/intelligent (earthly - because we ourself are the only reference so far) social species that represent desired actions in the survial of the fittest and don't exist outside that context.

Good and evil don't exist outside that context. Good and evil are natural, social concepts.

 

[synchronicity]

Yes, the material world. A rock is a solid mixture of various minerals. Good and evil are concepts of advanced/intelligent (earthly - because we ourself are the only reference so far) social species that represent desired actions in the survial of the fittest and don't exist outside that context.

Good and evil don't exist outside that context. Good and evil are natural, social concepts.

Yes, I agree in the first place - until language is brought into the picture. Reality needs no definition, no abstraction can bring it to life, and language only distances from pure experience I think. It's easy to get lost in the endless descriptions, beliefs and arguments and miss the real searching within the chatter of mind(s) for some truth that in abstraction rather than in direct momentary experience.

And on the second point, good and evil surely seem conceptual from this view as well. Of course, it's easy and natural to say that I want to escape the "evil" and embrace the "good", but I imagine that comes from a biological imperative that drives all life. Nobody's looking to get murdered.