Philosophy of Evil - non-flaming thread

rufio wrote:

I have read fresco's post.

Ok, lemme try to help.

Quote:

"You are are unable to establish your thesis because you make no attempt at convincing others of the merits of your unilateral useage shift"

Does this refer to something I posted? I honestly can't tell, because it doesn't sound like anything I posted. Please be more specific.

It's jargon, but it is exactly what you did. Maybe fresco will explain it in detail.

Quote:

"you have the arrogance merely to dismiss possible support platforms such as Nietsche as classwork"

Personal attack.

Perhaps, but it was very relevant. Remove the "have the arrogance" part and you can't call it an attack anymore. If you still dismiss it then I can't help.

Quote:

" Try reading Wittgenstein on "meaning as usage", and may I suggest you pay particular attention to his criteria for "remaining silent""

Personal attack, and irrelevant.

I'm not a fan of "read this tome" arguments either.

Quote:

"At present your thesis has the intellectual status of a statement like "Wars are inevitable because they are nature's way of controlling populations""

Personal attack, unexplained.

Not in any way a personal attack. It was an attack on your thesis and a very pertinent one. You might be confusing an attack on your ideas with an attack on you.

Quote:

" I wasn't on the other thread but it's interesting to see you claim that things of value are drowned out by things of no value. That is exactly how I'd describe this thread as well"

Me too. Should I start another thread, or do you think you guys can start posting something useful now?

I was describing you. But nevermind, several people have been talking about you and you mistake them as talking about everyone else.

Quote:

"There is very very little in this thesis that I'd not challenge, but just see no point in doing so."

Then please leave, if you have nothing you are going to add.

I said I saw little point in challenging ideas when you will dismiss any challenge. I never said I had nothing to add or that I'd leave.

What I have to add is that you keep demanding that everyone address your flawed thesis and when they do you dismiss them.

0 Replies

1. You don't think people can chose their actions, fresco? Why not?

2. Given that the actor classifies objectives, then they would also classify the actions that acheive those objectives in the same way.

3. See #2.

4. What exactly are you refering to here?

5. A temptation is an influence that influences people to do things that do not acheive their objectives.

0 Replies

Craven,

Thanks for the objective analysis, exasperation does occasionally creep in!

Rufio,

Whether I believe people have "choice" is not the point! The point is that you appear to either dismiss or be ignorant of the vast debate that exists on the concept of "free will". Similar comments could be made about arguments for nonseparation of "actor" and "objective" which would seriously oppose your distinction between "good person" and "good action".

As for your other rejoinders to my points, you will also find references to them in the general "body of philosophy" which you say is "of no interest".

So unless tempted Twisted Evil

I will now join the ranks of the bemused spectators who have no choice Sad

but to watch you continue to thrash about in the ocean of your own making.

0 Replies

Quote:

...you continue to thrash about in the ocean of your own making.

Thrashing attracts sharks.

0 Replies

gustav

I like your style !

You perhaps should have contibuted to:http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=12905

0 Replies

Sorry, Craven, I missed your post. What I meant by the last personal attack is the fresco is attacking my idea, but not explaining how the attack relates to my idea. He's essentially saying "it's wrong because I say so". I'd really appreciate it if fresco came back and explained some of his cryptic mutterings.

Fresco:

"Whether I believe people have "choice" is not the point!"

I don't know, I thought the issue of free will might be relevent to the discussion (in ways that discussing Nietzshe's personal opinion might not be). I guess this is what I get for trying to discuss the objections you come up with. I can't address your complaints if you don't allow me to.

"Similar comments could be made about arguments for nonseparation of "actor" and "objective" which would seriously oppose your distinction between "good person" and "good action"."

So what are those arguments? I'd like to hear them.

"Thrashing attracts sharks."

One who is afraid of sharks will never get far. I'm used to making unwelcome waves, beleive me.

0 Replies

fresco is what I call a "philosopher". I love philosophy but when I say "philosopher" I reference the cryptic texts.

Many of the "philosophers" are hard to understand and sometimes easy to dismiss but that's because they are speaking in jargon.

And while anyone can speak in jargon and, in effect, create the murky, but not deep, pond there is the flip side of the coin. They are often speaking in the shorthand of one who has been here before and can therefore use fewer words to express the same thing.

He wasn't really saying "wrong cause I say so" and ironically it is something similar that he accused your thesis of.

I'm with you in wishing for clear explanations but in this case I think the shorthand is being given because the alternative might mean wasted effort.

To add to the explanation he gave you I'll just add this:

I don't believe in the concept of evil. This is not an uncommon position and it also complicates your thesis.

0 Replies

Well, like I said, if it's relevant, I'll discuss it. In what way don't you believe in evil? As an anthropomorphic persona? As a motive? As a religious teaching? As a force? As an influence? Or do you just not believe that any actions effect bad results?

I understand about the jargon, but I haven't been here very long, so I don't understand what fresco in particular means when he says that. I don't mean that he's actually giving no reason for what he's saying - I'm sure he is. That's just how it sounds to me because I don't have a clue what he's saying.

0 Replies

I don't believe evil exists as anything but a concept with no relation to reality.

BTW, being here won't help you understand fresco, learning philosophy and discussing it for years will.

It'll take some time, but eventually you will learn when someone is contructing a murky pond and when they ahve contructed a deep one.

I'm still learning that trick.

0 Replies

I assumed that hanging around and listening to fresco talk might give me some idea of what he was saying. Maybe not, I don't know.

Well, I am talking about evil as a personalized concept here. Do you not agree that people sometimes make choices that aren't optimal?

0 Replies

I agree that "people sometimes make choices that aren't optimal". But what have you attached to the question?

0 Replies

What do you mean?

0 Replies

The question's answer was a given. What comes next?

0 Replies

Oh. Well, an evil choice here, I just mean a choice that wasn't optimal to acheive the objective. Do you believe in that?

0 Replies

Sure but the way you descibe it now sounds like stupidity rather than evil is being descibed.

I don't believe in evil, even in an "evil" choice. Evil is a simplification and it, to me, is on the same intellectual level as "pure".

0 Replies

Not necessarily stupidity. I'll use this example because it happened to me: Suppose you are picking which college to go to. You want to major in, oh, maybe English. So you'll naturally want to pick a college that has a decent English major. But your best friend is going to a college that has a shitty English major. Which do you choose? There's a better answer and a worse one, in terms of your objective to major in English. You would call it stupidity to go to the non-English school instead? It was a conscious choice, not a mistake.

0 Replies

Who says stupidity is unconscious?

0 Replies

Well, ok, so you're calling it stupidity. That's what I'm talking about.

0 Replies

Stupidity is not evil.

"Let's talk about sex"

"Sure, sex is best with kids"

"What the hell are you talking about?"

"You know, Dec 25th"

"That's Christmas, not sex!"

"I call Christmas sex"

"Well it's no damn wonder that your thesis is rejected, you are cultivating misunderstandings"

0 Replies

You find me a dictionary definition that matches what I'm describing and I'll use that word instead. I'm serious.

In any case, since we now know what we're talking about, do you have anything else to despute?

0 Replies

Philosophy of Evil - non-flaming thread

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know