WhorlyWhelk wrote:
WW: A genius would probably have a different conception of "good" and "bad".
CD: Different from whom? and why do you say probably?
Different from a non-genius. I say probably because it is likely that someone who understands the nature of reality will understand how the mainstream conception of "good and bad" came about and think beyond that.
Thinking beyond mainstream conceptions of good and bad happens after one understands the nature of reality? I don't think so. Thinking beyond mainstream conceptions of good and bad, I would say, is a prerequisite for understanding the nature of reality.
WW: In David's case, anything that inhibits the pursuit or pursuit to spread truth being "bad", and anything that aids him in it being "good".
CD: It seems to me that the thing causing him to value notions of good and bad, is his very conception of genius.
I don't understand how you come to this.
Genius, wisdom, cannot be achieved without being motivated by a vague idea of what choices are superior. We pursue that which appears good, superior. However, what we discover as a result of effort is contrary to our expectations. Discovery is involuntary, and following that discovery, a new notion of good is established. Notions of good and evil are incidental by-products of what we involuntarily discover about reality.
WW: We can not survive without killing other life.
CD: Well, there is a big difference between killing for food and killing in order to feed vindictive & infantile psychological cravings.
What makes you think that a genius who commits mass murders does it "to feed vindictive & infantile psychological cravings"?
The way you word the above is funny. I hope you don't think that a single man can go on a killing spree that would impact the world in a very significant way. It would be more effective to simply stay alive, work on further perfecting yourself, and serve as an example and teacher to those who are open minded.
And what is this big difference you speak of?
Keep in mind, my original post was contrasting the stereotypical masculine types of sociopaths like Ted Bundy, Mark Essex, Klu-klux clan people, robbers, Simple minded Tyrants, etc to history's revered Geniuses and great thinkers, like Buddha, Socrates, Lau-tzu, Otto Weininger, Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, etc.
The aim was to discuss testosterone quantity as a factor responsible for the differentiation between history's heros and villains, and to discuss what, beyond, testosterone, contributes to masculinization of mind. (e.g., structural differences in the brain, endocrine glands, etc)
But I don't mind the discussion forking off elsewhere.
CD: I also don't think an unemotional, logical person is devoid of a sense of cruelty, and thus, if he can minimize it without hampering the survival of wisdom, he will.
WW: What is cruelty?
Cruelty is however one defines it. It's entirely subjective.
Is it not emotional?
A person may react emotionally to their conception of cruelty, or they may not.
Why does a logical, unemotional person inherently value the survival of wisdom in your "thinking"?
Valuing the survival of wisdom is simply the consequence to being a genius who values survival, given that the genius, as I conceive of him, identifies himself with the truth. He is the truth. He values the survival of himself. Thus, since wisdom is the outcome of knowing the truth, he values the survival of knowing truth, as knowing wisely is, at essence, what he is. Valuing survival is wanting yourself to be spread far and wide, to thrive indefinitely.
CD: Right, but your original contribution to this thread was suggesting a wise man, or a genius if you will, can have the appetites and drives of a serial killer.
Incorrect. My original question was: 'Can one not understand the nature of reality and at the same time kill, steal, etc?
I should have realized this earlier, but like I said above, I think the trouble here is that maybe you missed the point of my first post. If a wise man were to kill or steal, that wouldn't necessarily make him worthy of the label 'robber', genocidal maniac, serial killer, etc.
Those labels are insufficient to describe him, as he is not motivated by the forces ruling the ignoble souls worthy of those labels.
I was not talking about serial killers. I imagine you have some psychological definition attached to "serial killer", but I don't think someone who murders lots of people is necessarily a non-genius.
Not that this matters a whole lot, but I'm curious, is there anyone historically that you hold in high regard, who has killed many people?
CD: I am suggesting that the two mental attitudes are indeed exclusive, and cannot share the same host.
Any proof?
Well, consider the contrasting ways in which the two types of individuals have influenced mankind. On the one hand, we have history's genocidal killers, serial killers, robbers, tyrants, etc. And on the other hand we have our great thinkers. The great thinkers are the parents of humanity, doing their best to raise humans into an awareness of the illusion of inherently existing selves.
WW: Anyways, I want to know if there is something with understanding the nature of reality that makes killing, stealing, or any other acts considered bad by the herd, fundamentally wrong on the basis of truth.
CD: Truth cannot exist unless there is a mind there to conceive of it. The well being of humans is necessary for truth to take root in their minds. Thus, killing them, terrorizing them, and stealing from them, hinders their well being, and thus hinders the potential of truth's prominence and survival.
Nice try. Few problems:
1) I simply said "understanding the nature of reality", which is genius as defined by this forum. That is not synonymous with caring about the preservation of wisdom or spread of truth to other people's minds.
What would motivate you to kill people then, if you don't care about the survival of wisdom/truth?
2) Overpopulation would threaten us with an Easter Island scenario on a global proportion. Killing could be the rational way to go even for a genius that holds your sentimental values, if we advanced further into prolonging life and got overpopulated more.
Organizing the sort of army capable of putting a significant dent in the population would require effort and resources that would be better spent on becoming clear minded. Not to mention the frightened, scrambling, vindictive, irrational reactions that would inevitably follow the attack. It's not unreasonable to suspect that your attack might be a significant set back in regards to enlightening humanities consciousness.