psycho-philospohical questions that need answering

Post Reply New Topic

thank you thought-provoking is exactly what i was going for....i hope it gets lots of responses like you say. i really enjoy exploring other people's ideas on these subjects.

Ah, there we go. That's what I was confused about. To sum up my previous post, I'm wondering what the line of philosophical/logical reasoning you've used to link those two concepts are. I do not see how what you've described is inherently evil, (in fact I actually have moral problems with the instinctive love you're describing) and if you're just assuming that it is (which I'm guessing that you are due to the very nature of the concept you describe as something completely intrinsic and self-evident, existing without justification or the need for it) then that's why you're having so many problems with the question at hand. You need to figure out why that is first so you have a framework from which to work from.

Well, as BobTheMartian pointed out, a foundation is both good and perhaps necessary. If nobody's life has external value, then why is a specific group of people different?


I cannot understand evil on a personal level actually. I understand it as a horrific presence I perceive, but I cannot label it as anything other than "evil". No other description makes sense, and it is so personal that I cannot necessarily say it is perceived the same as sight is. In any case, as for the behavior of other people, I don't see most people as evil or particularly good, often times they only act out of the fulfillment of other desires, and rarely do I consider them really good for the sake of goodness, as they go for low-hanging fruit to get a self-esteem high rather than actually doing good.


I can understand the notion where personal bias might pop up. We usually do focus on the things that impact our lives the most.


None of us are likely self-recognized psychopaths or narcissists. To understand their humanity, it seems we would be best off understanding their perspective and value scheme and how it coheres in a non-superficial manner. I suppose we can understand what they look like to us, but we cannot penetrate deeper without a non-superficial understanding of their foundations.

here, as a romantic and sentimental person, i have to disagree with you. the idea of being in a state of love, and i mean love as the true ideal of complete empathy, recognition, and acceptance, with other human beings--all human beings--is preferable, more valuable, and yes, better, than any possible alternative. is it not the ultimate ideal of humanity? what we strive for? for me, this is something that i just know, and can't explain rationally. something deep and resounding in me knows this to be true. call it my heart, my soul, my humanity, what have you. i only know it is there and it is my truth. love is inherently valuable, for reasons i can never verbalise. it just is.



this paragraph saddens me, so much. first of all, you are making some assumptions about my personal beliefs that are inaccurate. i don't believe that human life is any more valuable or deserving of unique privileges than any other form of life on earth. i am discussing human life and human interaction because that is my sphere of experience, and because we are the ones who are sentient and therefore can posit these questions in the first place. altruism is an ideal and not a reality because of perspectives like yours. if we each say "i cannot trust that each of my fellow men is worth my love", then indeed we are not deserving of each other's love, and that inherent value ceases to exist. it takes a blind leap of faith to bridge that gap, to be part of the bigger picture. by valuing each other, we imbue ourselves, and life, with value. without that connection there is nothing. pointlessness. i don't think this will mean anything to you. what i'm saying now probably sounds very foolish.

all i can say to this is that i deeply believe that all life (human and non-human) is intrinsically valuable, and the fact that life exists at all is so unlikely and miraculous that it makes it all the more precious. perhaps that is a 'pseudo-religious' way of looking at things, but it is another one of those deep-down irrational truths that i mentioned before, that i cannot justify or explain. i only know that it is my internal truth. it is not a process of logic for me. this irritates most intellectuals that i converse with, especially other aspies. some understanding for me is completely emotional, not intellectual. my brain is wired very strangely when it comes to differentiating between reason and emotion, i believe because of the combination of AS and bipolar disorder.

edit--where's captain picard when you need him, to swoop in and defend humanity and the inherent value of life?

Last edited by starvingartist on 17 Apr 2009, 7:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Well, if love, why not the self? With the true expression of human nature being egoism? After all, what is more fundamental to us than our passions, our longings, and their expression without regard for the good or the just, or even truly of another person? How many cruelties do we commit in the average day? How many people do we neglect to love? If this is so, then how can love really be our ideal?

Two people that I think would be interesting to look at this from a philosophical point of view are Max Stirner and Marquis de Sade.

Max Stirner wrote "The Ego and It's Own" a book in defense of a pure egoism and a book that is a fore-runner of existentialist philosophy(which is a branch of continental philosophy, something you might already know about as your criticisms of knowledge appear to be postmodern, another branch of continental philosophy).

Quotes:




Marquis de Sade was a french man who lived around the time of the French Revolution, he was a noble who was imprisoned for years upon years. He also was the author of some plays and novels, most of which express a profoundly cruel philosophy. His name is where we get the word "sadism".

Quotes:
- Likely from one of his letters from Prison, but I am uncertain where it belongs, and wikipedia is the same.

- From Dialogue Between a Priest and a Dying man

Do you think works like this will help us understand these people?

Well, not all life. You don't let bacteria live and flourish for instance. If you do, then you likely do not do immense calculations to ensure the maximum level of flourishing of the maximum life forms of all sorts I would think.

Picard? He won't be born for a few hundred years or so.

why love only yourself? by having love for all humanity you enrich your own life, and soul, with love, as well. to love others is to love yourself.

I believe that with the exception of some very extreme cases, narcissism is NOT an intrinsic psychopathlogy as much as it is a learned behaviour. People are fundamentally selfish and self-interested and if they are not taught to be self-critical and to actively try to be considerate of others while growing up they become "narcissists". Narcissism is selfishness taken to an extreme. One of the most enduring and most tragically mistaken myths is that people who commit violence are pyschopaths/sociopaths; in other words such behaviour is so abnormal that only a person with a malfunctioning brain would have the inclination to do it. Nothing could be further from the truth. Violent behavior is very common throughout the world and if there werent laws against it and enforcement of those laws it would happen all the time, everywhere.

bacteria is valuable. it has its place in the bigger system of life, just like everything else does. it serves its purpose, as a cog in the great machine that is life on earth. that gives it value. you are picking at minutia, now.

Hogwash! You are reifying abstractions again.

Here is some advice:

1. Take your meds daily.
2. Do not reify abstractions. That causes advanced brain rot.

ruveyn

this is a little condescending. i don't think there are many people out there who have never heard of the marquis de sade and have no idea who he was. sorry but had to say it. maybe you didn't mean it that way?


i suppose i dismissed egoism a long time ago as short-sighted (from my perspective). it does nothing for me. it does not give me answers, or satisfaction of any kind. when i look for evidence of egoism in the world, examples of it, all i see are trails of destruction. egoism is death, slow death from the inside out. altruism is life, it is optimism. and without optimism, without hope--well what the hell is the point then? we might as well all go jump off a bridge, otherwise. egoism is silly and self-defeating.

please don't bother participating in what is proving to be a very fruitful discussion if all you have to offer are personal insults. it's beneath all of us.

And you are the winner of "The Most Redundant Comment of the Day" Award Congratulations!

when i read words like that, it reinforces my suspicion that there are some aspects of human nature that, although i am human, i will never comprehend because for whatever reason i am incapable. i read this and i feel negation that has nothing to do with my reason. it is only "no, this is not so, and cannot be so, and cannot be allowed to be so". what he describes is despair. egoism is despair, dressed up in a tawdry costume of self-importance and self-indulgence.

READ

MY

POST