|
Cups
technically "here"


Registered: 12/24/09
Posts: 1,925
|
Re: who's the real enemy? [Re: Icelander]
#14120179 - 03/14/11 04:21 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
What is in it for you Icelander?
-------------------- What's up everybody?!
|
An Octopus
cephalopod



Registered: 03/11/11
Posts: 73
Loc: Indiana
Last seen: 12 years, 4 months
|
Re: who's the real enemy? [Re: Icelander]
#14120191 - 03/14/11 04:23 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
You come across extremely pretentious. Trying to "educate" me?
Your unwillingness to entertain viewpoints other than "everything people do is selfish" betrays a want of security in said viewpoint, methinks
-------------------- vibes and stuff
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: who's the real enemy? [Re: An Octopus]
#14120204 - 03/14/11 04:26 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
An Octopus said: You come across extremely pretentious. Trying to "educate" me?
Your unwillingness to entertain viewpoints other than "everything people do is selfish" betrays a want of security in said viewpoint, methinks
Pretentious or not that's what many are trying to do here. Educate others to our POV. And who cares what you "think". You haven't presented much to back any of your assertions.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
Edited by Icelander (03/14/11 04:26 PM)
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: who's the real enemy? [Re: Cups]
#14120210 - 03/14/11 04:27 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Cups said: What is in it for you Icelander?
Ego gratification, entertainment, etc.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
4896744
Small Town Girl


Registered: 03/06/10
Posts: 5,128
Loc: United States
Last seen: 11 years, 8 months
|
Re: who's the real enemy? [Re: An Octopus]
#14120536 - 03/14/11 05:18 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
An Octopus said: Incorrect. You sacrificing yourself for me may be your personal choice based on your own ethics, but you do it to benefit me, not you. To say otherwise would be ridiculous. In addition, if people act only according to their own interests and desire for self-fulfillment, there would be no such thing as "sacrificing yourself for me." Such things go waaaaaay beyond the basic survival instincts over which you obsess.
From that Levy book; this should help clarify my position:
Quote:
"We are able to transform our minds by transforming the worlds with which we interact; our minds create the tools that create our minds (p. 203). The ways in which we change ourselves and our environment, change ourselves by changing our environment, illustrate the extent to which our evolutionary past does not predict our future lives. We are evolved beings, moral animals, but we exhibit a degree of behavioural flexibility unknown elsewhere in the animal kingdom. Our biology constrains us, but these constraints are relatively few and broad. We can build our future, not in spite of our nature, but because of it: evolution has gifted us with the ability to create ever new, and ever changing, social worlds, to control our destinies and fight injustice. We are short-sighted, greedy, aggressive and xenophobic, but we are also rational and just, generous and hospitable. Which of our many, at once natural and social, conflicting dispositions shall have the last or most significant say is not laid down in our biology (xv)."
First of all you never provided evidence to support your claim of morality being something that can only be understood if your smarter, and that it somehow elevates us. You have to do more than say you think we are interconnected.
Second, you are wrong when saying that sacrificing oneself is not self-fulfillment. The reason to sacrifice oneself is always a personal one, where the person feels as if it is the right thing to do and they want to uphold their image of themselves as a "good" person. Why they want this image to uphold may be due to promise of an afterlife, or even due to a large ego which holds it's relative idea of "good" in a high rank of importance.
You mention that these are not survival instincts, and in a sense you are right. They may not truly be beneficial from an evolutionary standpoint, but they are merely flukes that come about. The thing is that these flukes will always be a small percentage of the general populace.
Me and Icelander are also "flukes" in the sense that we don't put any real effort towards trying to benefit the world beyond what benefit we receive. We realize that rationally we should be selfish. This will also most likely never be the general conclusion.
-------------------- Live your Life!
|
4896744
Small Town Girl


Registered: 03/06/10
Posts: 5,128
Loc: United States
Last seen: 11 years, 8 months
|
Re: who's the real enemy? [Re: An Octopus]
#14120542 - 03/14/11 05:20 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
An Octopus said: You come across extremely pretentious. Trying to "educate" me?
Your unwillingness to entertain viewpoints other than "everything people do is selfish" betrays a want of security in said viewpoint, methinks
Are you saying that you too are not trying to educate Icelander and me? Do you not think that your viewpoint is right, and that we would be better off holding it?
-------------------- Live your Life!
|
An Octopus
cephalopod



Registered: 03/11/11
Posts: 73
Loc: Indiana
Last seen: 12 years, 4 months
|
Re: who's the real enemy? [Re: Icelander]
#14120940 - 03/14/11 06:27 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
iThink said:
Quote:
An Octopus said: You come across extremely pretentious. Trying to "educate" me?
Your unwillingness to entertain viewpoints other than "everything people do is selfish" betrays a want of security in said viewpoint, methinks
Are you saying that you too are not trying to educate Icelander and me? Do you not think that your viewpoint is right, and that we would be better off holding it?
Well, I'd like to think that both of our perspectives stand to benefit by being exposed to each other... but the way he said "educate" implied that my view was somehow objectively lesser than his and requires refinement by someone "more educated." I consider that sort of passive-aggressive snobbery detrimental to an intellectual debate.
In your earlier post you reaffirmed that humans, like most other animals, act purely upon survival instincts, but you also allow for "flukes." I, on the other hand, believe that survival instincts are just the most basic foundations for human actions, and as highly evolved and intelligent animals we are capable of much higher methods of thinking, learning, and acting. I could come up with many examples to support this, but I'd like to remain focused on the example Icelander brought up: a sacrifice for the sake of another, let's say taking a bullet for someone.
I am standing beside you in a dark alley, and a mysterious character emerges from the darkness and pulls out a gun. He aims the gun at you, whose back is turned, and as I notice it I instinctively push you out of the way and take the bullet, giving you time to escape/fight back and losing my life in the process. At no point does the thought cross my mind, "I must do this to maintain my status as a good person." It is ludicrous to think that it would. What good is status when you are dead?
This is what I perceive as the main fallacy in the belief that all humans, like all animals, are purely selfish creatures. We act in our own self-interest most of the time, yes. But not all of the time. There are situations when the "self" entirely dissolves in our minds and we act solely for the benefit of others with no regard to ourselves. When people do this, they are often considered "heroes." Now I expect that you would argue that the attainment of a heightened status is the primary motivator for these sorts of selfless actions... I reject this. Humans may be naturally selfish creatures, but we can transcend this. I think that transcending the self is essentially the goal in life... surely you've been confronted by this notion at least once during your psychedelic escapades, no?
Quote:
Icelander said:
Quote:
An Octopus said: You come across extremely pretentious. Trying to "educate" me?
Your unwillingness to entertain viewpoints other than "everything people do is selfish" betrays a want of security in said viewpoint, methinks
Pretentious or not that's what many are trying to do here. Educate others to our POV. And who cares what you "think". You haven't presented much to back any of your assertions.
I have presented evidence from a published work dealing with morality as an evolutionary concept. You have presented no evidence from any source. Therefore it is quite silly for you to attack my arguments on the basis of a lack of evidence. I think I've made a pretty good case for my views on greed, morality, and life... I think that for the most part you have as well, for yours. Let's not degenerate into ad hominems. I will try to do the same.
-------------------- vibes and stuff
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: who's the real enemy? [Re: An Octopus]
#14121006 - 03/14/11 06:36 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Well, I'd like to think that both of our perspectives stand to benefit by being exposed to each other... but the way he said "educate" implied that my view was somehow objectively lesser than his and requires refinement by someone "more educated." I consider that sort of passive-aggressive snobbery detrimental to an intellectual debate.
You can consider it anything you want I was just stating an obvious basic truth.
You continually ignore what I'm saying about human nature. In your present example your actions are informed by your current belief systems which cause your automatic reaction. Another person would act differently due to their belief system. It is of personal benefit to our self image to act within the parameters of our beliefs. You would never risk your life if you didn't think it a worthwhile act and you a worthwhile person for acting in such a fashion.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
An Octopus
cephalopod



Registered: 03/11/11
Posts: 73
Loc: Indiana
Last seen: 12 years, 4 months
|
Re: who's the real enemy? [Re: Icelander]
#14121036 - 03/14/11 06:41 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Icelander said:
You can consider it anything you want I was just stating an obvious basic truth.
You continually ignore what I'm saying about human nature. In your present example your actions are informed by your current belief systems which cause your automatic reaction. Another person would act differently due to their belief system. It is of personal benefit to our self image to act within the parameters of our beliefs. You would never risk your life if you didn't think it a worthwhile act and you a worthwhile person for acting in such a fashion.
So now you're saying that people only act according to their belief systems. That's quite a bit different from saying that people only act according to basic survival instincts. I don't think that you know quite so much about human nature as you think you do... it isn't as simple as you make it out to be... and your argument has morphed substantially throughout this debate...
-------------------- vibes and stuff
|
HippieChick8
seeker of justice



Registered: 06/25/09
Posts: 869
Loc: Texas
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
Re: who's the real enemy? [Re: An Octopus]
#14121081 - 03/14/11 06:51 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
An Octopus said:
Quote:
iThink said:
Quote:
An Octopus said: You come across extremely pretentious. Trying to "educate" me?
Your unwillingness to entertain viewpoints other than "everything people do is selfish" betrays a want of security in said viewpoint, methinks
Are you saying that you too are not trying to educate Icelander and me? Do you not think that your viewpoint is right, and that we would be better off holding it?
Well, I'd like to think that both of our perspectives stand to benefit by being exposed to each other... but the way he said "educate" implied that my view was somehow objectively lesser than his and requires refinement by someone "more educated." I consider that sort of passive-aggressive snobbery detrimental to an intellectual debate.
In your earlier post you reaffirmed that humans, like most other animals, act purely upon survival instincts, but you also allow for "flukes." I, on the other hand, believe that survival instincts are just the most basic foundations for human actions, and as highly evolved and intelligent animals we are capable of much higher methods of thinking, learning, and acting. I could come up with many examples to support this, but I'd like to remain focused on the example Icelander brought up: a sacrifice for the sake of another, let's say taking a bullet for someone.
I am standing beside you in a dark alley, and a mysterious character emerges from the darkness and pulls out a gun. He aims the gun at you, whose back is turned, and as I notice it I instinctively push you out of the way and take the bullet, giving you time to escape/fight back and losing my life in the process. At no point does the thought cross my mind, "I must do this to maintain my status as a good person." It is ludicrous to think that it would. What good is status when you are dead?
This is what I perceive as the main fallacy in the belief that all humans, like all animals, are purely selfish creatures. We act in our own self-interest most of the time, yes. But not all of the time. There are situations when the "self" entirely dissolves in our minds and we act solely for the benefit of others with no regard to ourselves. When people do this, they are often considered "heroes." Now I expect that you would argue that the attainment of a heightened status is the primary motivator for these sorts of selfless actions... I reject this. Humans may be naturally selfish creatures, but we can transcend this. I think that transcending the self is essentially the goal in life... surely you've been confronted by this notion at least once during your psychedelic escapades, no?
Quote:
Icelander said:
Quote:
An Octopus said: You come across extremely pretentious. Trying to "educate" me?
Your unwillingness to entertain viewpoints other than "everything people do is selfish" betrays a want of security in said viewpoint, methinks
Pretentious or not that's what many are trying to do here. Educate others to our POV. And who cares what you "think". You haven't presented much to back any of your assertions.
I have presented evidence from a published work dealing with morality as an evolutionary concept. You have presented no evidence from any source. Therefore it is quite silly for you to attack my arguments on the basis of a lack of evidence. I think I've made a pretty good case for my views on greed, morality, and life... I think that for the most part you have as well, for yours. Let's not degenerate into ad hominems. I will try to do the same.
Just because you quoted a published work, does not mean that it automatically overrides Icelander's argument. I believe this is a fallacy of philosophical debate called "appeal to authority". Is there really such a thing as an "expert" on a subject so ambiguous as "morality"?
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: who's the real enemy? [Re: An Octopus]
#14121100 - 03/14/11 06:54 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
An Octopus said:
Quote:
Icelander said:
You can consider it anything you want I was just stating an obvious basic truth.
You continually ignore what I'm saying about human nature. In your present example your actions are informed by your current belief systems which cause your automatic reaction. Another person would act differently due to their belief system. It is of personal benefit to our self image to act within the parameters of our beliefs. You would never risk your life if you didn't think it a worthwhile act and you a worthwhile person for acting in such a fashion.
So now you're saying that people only act according to their belief systems. That's quite a bit different from saying that people only act according to basic survival instincts. I don't think that you know quite so much about human nature as you think you do... it isn't as simple as you make it out to be... and your argument has morphed substantially throughout this debate...
I wasn't the one who made the statement that we act only on our survival instincts. Ithink said that.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
4896744
Small Town Girl


Registered: 03/06/10
Posts: 5,128
Loc: United States
Last seen: 11 years, 8 months
|
Re: who's the real enemy? [Re: An Octopus]
#14121120 - 03/14/11 06:58 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
The scenario you put forth is nothing more than a misfiring of the compassion tool for survival. If you could do something to surely save the person while posing no danger to yourself then it would be more beneficial to the species and not a misfiring.
Even when morality helps the human race as a whole how does that mean it is inherently "good" in an objective sense? It is purely subjective because you are defining good to mean beneficial for humanity. Why is it "right" to push ourselves to behave in a certain way? To satisfy the impersonal unfeeling forces of the universe?
-------------------- Live your Life!
|
An Octopus
cephalopod



Registered: 03/11/11
Posts: 73
Loc: Indiana
Last seen: 12 years, 4 months
|
|
Quote:
Just because you quoted a published work, does not mean that it automatically overrides Icelander's argument. I believe this is a fallacy of philosophical debate called "appeal to authority". Is there really such a thing as an "expert" on a subject so ambiguous as "morality"?
I think i've presented quite a bit more than just that one quote. In fact I didn't supply any evidence at all to back up my arguments until my arguments were dismissed for a lack of evidence. You guys are silly. When I make arguments based on my own beliefs, you demand evidence; when I present evidence, it's an appeal to authority fallacy.
-------------------- vibes and stuff
|
4896744
Small Town Girl


Registered: 03/06/10
Posts: 5,128
Loc: United States
Last seen: 11 years, 8 months
|
Re: who's the real enemy? [Re: Icelander]
#14121133 - 03/14/11 07:00 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Icelander said:
Quote:
An Octopus said:
Quote:
Icelander said:
You can consider it anything you want I was just stating an obvious basic truth.
You continually ignore what I'm saying about human nature. In your present example your actions are informed by your current belief systems which cause your automatic reaction. Another person would act differently due to their belief system. It is of personal benefit to our self image to act within the parameters of our beliefs. You would never risk your life if you didn't think it a worthwhile act and you a worthwhile person for acting in such a fashion.
So now you're saying that people only act according to their belief systems. That's quite a bit different from saying that people only act according to basic survival instincts. I don't think that you know quite so much about human nature as you think you do... it isn't as simple as you make it out to be... and your argument has morphed substantially throughout this debate...
I wasn't the one who made the statement that we act only on our survival instincts. Ithink said that.
I also said there are what amounts to mis-firings of survival instincts. This statement may be using the terms too generally though.
-------------------- Live your Life!
|
An Octopus
cephalopod



Registered: 03/11/11
Posts: 73
Loc: Indiana
Last seen: 12 years, 4 months
|
Re: who's the real enemy? [Re: 4896744]
#14121151 - 03/14/11 07:02 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
iThink said: The scenario you put forth is nothing more than a misfiring of the compassion tool for survival. If you could do something to surely save the person while posing no danger to yourself then it would be more beneficial to the species and not a misfiring.
Even when morality helps the human race as a whole how does that mean it is inherently "good" in an objective sense? It is purely subjective because you are defining good to mean beneficial for humanity. Why is it "right" to push ourselves to behave in a certain way? To satisfy the impersonal unfeeling forces of the universe?
I am not defining "good" to mean "beneficial for humanity." Beneficial to all life in the Multiverse would be more accurate... but even then that's not really correct. I don't necessarily think that morality is objective; if it were then we would not be having this debate. I also dont think it is 100% subjective. It is simply an accessory to our mental, spiritual, and physical evolution, and all beings will perceive it differently until all beings are enlightened.
edit: and I don't consider myself 'enlightened' in the slightest, so don't think that I do haha. I still have much, much, MUCH to learn, as do all of us.
-------------------- vibes and stuff
Edited by An Octopus (03/14/11 07:04 PM)
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: who's the real enemy? [Re: 4896744]
#14121162 - 03/14/11 07:05 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
While we may not only act on our personal survival instincts we always will act for the benefit of our self image.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
4896744
Small Town Girl


Registered: 03/06/10
Posts: 5,128
Loc: United States
Last seen: 11 years, 8 months
|
Re: who's the real enemy? [Re: An Octopus]
#14121170 - 03/14/11 07:07 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
An Octopus said:
Quote:
iThink said: The scenario you put forth is nothing more than a misfiring of the compassion tool for survival. If you could do something to surely save the person while posing no danger to yourself then it would be more beneficial to the species and not a misfiring.
Even when morality helps the human race as a whole how does that mean it is inherently "good" in an objective sense? It is purely subjective because you are defining good to mean beneficial for humanity. Why is it "right" to push ourselves to behave in a certain way? To satisfy the impersonal unfeeling forces of the universe?
I am not defining "good" to mean "beneficial for humanity." Beneficial to all life in the Multiverse would be more accurate... but even then that's not really correct. I don't necessarily think that morality is objective; if it were then we would not be having this debate. I also dont think it is 100% subjective. It is simply an accessory to our mental, spiritual, and physical evolution, and all beings will perceive it differently until all beings are enlightened.
Show me evidence that everything is interconnected, and even if it is all interconnected why should that make it "right" to benefit things you don't experience first hand.
Also, you are saying morality is both objective and subjective? Give me some evidence backing morality to be objective.
Lastly, what do you mean by spiritual. You believe in things beyond the physical world?
-------------------- Live your Life!
|
4896744
Small Town Girl


Registered: 03/06/10
Posts: 5,128
Loc: United States
Last seen: 11 years, 8 months
|
Re: who's the real enemy? [Re: Icelander]
#14121174 - 03/14/11 07:08 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Icelander said: While we may not only act on our personal survival instincts we always will act for the benefit of our self image.
Yes, I would classify that as a misfiring. Caring about self-image generally leads you to be a person is more agreeable/beneficial to all.
-------------------- Live your Life!
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: who's the real enemy? [Re: Icelander]
#14121176 - 03/14/11 07:08 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Icelander said: While we may not only act on our personal survival instincts we always will act for the benefit of our self image.
http://www.agnoiology.com/2003/03/24/humans-are-inherently-selfish-2/
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
An Octopus
cephalopod



Registered: 03/11/11
Posts: 73
Loc: Indiana
Last seen: 12 years, 4 months
|
Re: who's the real enemy? [Re: 4896744]
#14121193 - 03/14/11 07:11 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Icelander said: While we may not only act on our personal survival instincts we always will act for the benefit of our self image.
What about serial killers? Genocidal dictators? Monastic devotees? These types of people seem much more concerned with power and self-fulfillment (or in the case of monks, power and self-transcendence) than they do maintaining a good "self-image." What of hermits?
Quote:
iThink said:
Quote:
An Octopus said:
Quote:
iThink said: The scenario you put forth is nothing more than a misfiring of the compassion tool for survival. If you could do something to surely save the person while posing no danger to yourself then it would be more beneficial to the species and not a misfiring.
Even when morality helps the human race as a whole how does that mean it is inherently "good" in an objective sense? It is purely subjective because you are defining good to mean beneficial for humanity. Why is it "right" to push ourselves to behave in a certain way? To satisfy the impersonal unfeeling forces of the universe?
I am not defining "good" to mean "beneficial for humanity." Beneficial to all life in the Multiverse would be more accurate... but even then that's not really correct. I don't necessarily think that morality is objective; if it were then we would not be having this debate. I also dont think it is 100% subjective. It is simply an accessory to our mental, spiritual, and physical evolution, and all beings will perceive it differently until all beings are enlightened.
Show me evidence that everything is interconnected, and even if it is all interconnected why should that make it "right" to benefit things you don't experience first hand.
Also, you are saying morality is both objective and subjective? Give me some evidence backing morality to be objective.
Lastly, what do you mean by spiritual. You believe in things beyond the physical world?
No, I did not say that morality is both objective and subjective reading comprehension plz... I said it is neither objective nor subjective.
And I believe that many, many aspects of the physical world lie beyond what can be measured by empirical reasoning. Reality is an illusion, just a product of our own subtle consciousnesses.
Have you guys not done shrooms or what?
-------------------- vibes and stuff
|
|