GENIUS FORUMS

Absolutely, and you raise an important point. Although it is enthusiastically embraced and promoted by culture, the roots go deeper. I've read several studies documenting the effect you refer to, and I do think it is a factor. There is almost certainly a built-in animal drive to "punish freeloaders" in certain situations. However, other studies have recently shown that altruistic behavior may be hard-wired as well. I'd have to dig that up, if you're interested.

But, as you correctly pointed out, none of this has any particular relevance to how human moral frameworks ought to be structured. To attempt to derive an "ought" from an "is" is to commit the naturalistic fallacy, not that it stops the bulk of those who favor a "Lord of the Flies" approach to economics from talking about "natural law" and other such slogans in the context of fundamentally moral considerations.

Oh, BTW, I still have you on ignore. I only saw you call Philo a "little bitch" because I clicked one of your posts out of curiosity.

[Insert rolling-on-the-floor laughing emoticon here.]


-

Victorious Shahrazad Baggins.

To manifest 55 million dollars in the eldest of my bank accounts!

Unidian,

But "the herd" are not the only ones who reject bullying behavior. Had some heckler come crashing into one of the Buddha's lecture shouting all sorts of abuse, I'm sure he would have been shown the road. It is human nature to reject such behavior. The much-touted "herd" / "sage" disticntion has no relevance here, in my view, except that a "sage" might kick the heckler out politely.

The herd are the ones who reject all bullying. Others may reject it in some cases and endorse it in others. Others may use it themselves in certain instances and not in others. To be a bully indiscriminately is probably not a smart move because you will be creating tons of enemies.

"Progress" is entirely defined by one's values. The "best" genes dominating the gene pool is meaningless if "best" is left undefined. And since "best" is a value-laden statement of the purest sort, what sort of gene pool (and by extension, culture) we want to promote is entirely up to us.

True enough, though I'm not sure you could call stagnation progress since progress seems to imply you are actually moving in some direction.

Most people, including almost all recognized sages such as the Dalai Lama, feel that the "best" society to work toward is a deeply compassionate one which promotes the greatest quality of life for the greatest number, across the spectrum.

Why do you value the opinion of these sages? Sages seem to be moral by definition, so there is no surprise that they are all moral. The sage's very starting point goes back to "life is suffering" -- therefore let us drop out of life. Sages are necessarily passive, hence they cannot be bullies because bullying is active.

It is almost universally agreed that a social Darwinist approach such as that employed by the Nazi party is not conducive to this.

In this day and age the vast majority of people are moral herd members seeking the goal of non-suffering and peace for all. The majority is sick. The majority is against social Darwinism because social Darwinism is against them (weakness). This is no surprise.

I wouldn't place any genius in the fevered scribblings of social Darwinists about "the natural right of the strong" and so forth. People with such views were once hanged at Nuremberg, which was a pretty lousy outcome even from the totally self-interested perspective.

Would you rather be hanged after your joy ride or live a long boring life and rot to death in a hospital bed? ;-)

Big Dog is a bully who doesn't hesitate to use his superior strength to intimidate other combatants. Big Dog may be smart, articulate or just plain mean, but in any case he is a remorseless fighter, brutally ripping into even the weakest of combatants. Once Big Dog securely fastens his powerful jaws on a hapless victim, Me-Too will join the attack. Me-Too is far too weak and insecure to engage in single combat, and must ally himself with Big Dog or a pack of other Warriors to bring down his quarry.

Borrowed from flame warriors:
http://www.politicsforum.org/images/fla ... ame_02.php

Disclaimer: Shahrazad is not the author of the words quoted or the creator of the attached image, nor does she want anyone to believe that she is. Please click on the link provided.

-

Philosophaster wrote:As I think I said before, I don't see this issue as a very complicated one. I want a world where the largest possible number of people who want food, clothing, medical care, and a place to live can have those things, regardless of whether they want to work for them. But that last little bit seems to really get people going.

Why do you want this? Is there some inherent value to the maximum number of human beings surviving on earth at the same time, and the maximum number living out of poverty?

Unidian wrote:Yeah, that last bit is the catch. The reason everybody chokes is that the existing moral framework of Western culture insists that self-support is morally required and to be supported by others is morally objectionable. This stems from the Puritan work ethic, among other antiquated values. Naturally, other moral frameworks are possible, and in fact have existed throughout history. A culture in which "to each according to need, from each according to temperament" is not only feasible and potentially desirable, it has already been practiced in numerous native cultures.

"Punish the workers by forcing them to support the rest! Punish the strong by forcing them to draw the weak behind them!" -- Who do you imagine rallies this? -- clearly the weak, the small, the poor and downtrodden who stand to gain from such an unnatural equalization. Sucks to be you and fortunately this dream will never come true.

Unfortunately for us, the moral framework in which every human being is entitled to the necessities of a decent life as an inalienable human right is very much opposed to prevailing Western culture.

Not really. This moral framework is very much opposed to life itself. The strong will never submit to it and the weak will forever be looking for the strong to submit to it. As long as there are strong it won't work, and when there are no strong left what do the weak stand to gain? Nothing.

Neil Melnyk wrote:

Philosophaster wrote:As I think I said before, I don't see this issue as a very complicated one. I want a world where the largest possible number of people who want food, clothing, medical care, and a place to live can have those things, regardless of whether they want to work for them. But that last little bit seems to really get people going.

Why do you want this? Is there some inherent value to the maximum number of human beings surviving on earth at the same time, and the maximum number living out of poverty?

"Inherent?" No, but that's because the idea of "inherent value" is nonsense. It is what I happen to value because I have sympathy for other human beings.

Neil Melnyk wrote:Not really. This moral framework is very much opposed to life itself.

LOL. "The moral framework that attempts to preserve people's lives regardless of whether they choose to work is opposed to life itself!"

That's rich. :-)

Philosophaster wrote:"Inherent?" No, but that's because the idea of "inherent value" is nonsense. It is what I happen to value because I have sympathy for other human beings.

What is this sympathy supposed to accomplish? By equalizing you just make things worse. Why not, for example, spread some dogmatic religion that makes everyone believe the weak and poor are going to Heaven? Then they will be happier than economic equality could ever make them and you could have your happiness as well -- a win-win situation.

Philosophaster wrote:LOL. "The moral framework that attempts to preserve people's lives regardless of whether they choose to work is opposed to life itself!"

That's rich. :-)

Yes it is. Life is of course struggle, overcoming, competition -- growth. For anything to grow it must kill something else. When anything grows it harms something else. When anything lives is in competition with other living things.

The herd are the ones who reject all bullying. Others may reject it in some cases and endorse it in others. Others may use it themselves in certain instances and not in others. To be a bully indiscriminately is probably not a smart move because you will be creating tons of enemies.

If one rejects all morality, or at least any morality in which bullying is considered inherently wrong, than certainly one can espouse this conclusion. But I have a moral framework in which bullying is is wrong, so I oppose it on principle. Having rejected such a moral framework, you may see my choice to embrace it as a weakness. Again, this perception is strictly an issue of values. You perhaps value freedom from a potentially restrictive moral code more than you value whatever might be gained from having one. My values differ, because I define "strength" and "weakness" differently. I see nothing more to it than that.

Why do you value the opinion of these sages? Sages seem to be moral by definition, so there is no surprise that they are all moral. The sage's very starting point goes back to "life is suffering" -- therefore let us drop out of life. Sages are necessarily passive, hence they cannot be bullies because bullying is active.

I see no evidence to suggest that persons such as the Dalai Lama "drop out of life" and every evidence that they do not. Are you familiar with the concept of the Bodhisattva? In many forms of Buddhism, including the large Mahayana tradition, the highest goal is not to renounce life and enter a solitary state of Nirvana. Rather, it is to postpone "enlightenment" and return to the world to work toward the liberation of all sentient beings. There is nothing "passive" about this.

In this day and age the vast majority of people are moral herd members seeking the goal of non-suffering and peace for all.

Really? While I understand that for a Nietzschean thinker, this is seen as a scathing condemnation, you should realize that from almost all other perspectives, you are giving "the herd" a great deal of credit. I see little or no evidence that the majority of people are deeply or even passingly concerned with morality in any meaningful sense. Certainly they are quite capable of spouting moral slogans and parroting various moral ideas, but there is little effort to really understand or live such principles. Are you sure you want to assert that in a world dominated by corporate capitalism, war, and omnipresent social division, most people are really "seeking the goal of non-suffering and peace for all?" I think it's going to be an uphill battle to support that claim with any persuasiveness.

Nat: I wouldn't place any genius in the fevered scribblings of social Darwinists about "the natural right of the strong" and so forth. People with such views were once hanged at Nuremberg, which was a pretty lousy outcome even from the totally self-interested perspective.

Neil: Would you rather be hanged after your joy ride or live a long boring life and rot to death in a hospital bed? ;-)

Assuming that a "joy ride" means doing anything I want without regard to others, I'll go with the latter. And if Nature and statistics are willing, I will probably get my wish. Why I would choose this option will be seen as completely incomprehensible and nonsensical to those who reject the basic moral framework that informs the choice, so I'll leave it at that.

Neil,

Sages seem to be moral by definition, so there is no surprise that they are all moral. The sage's very starting point goes back to "life is suffering" -- therefore let us drop out of life.

Your basing your views on sages on populist religious ideas here. Sages are neither moral, nor do they start off with the idea that life is suffering. You're living in a cartoon world there.

Of course, given the fact that populist teachers such as the Dalia Lama are cartoon figures themselves, your confusion is perhaps understandable.

-

Neil,

"Punish the workers by forcing them to support the rest! Punish the strong by forcing them to draw the weak behind them!" -- Who do you imagine rallies this? -- clearly the weak, the small, the poor and downtrodden who stand to gain from such an unnatural equalization. Sucks to be you and fortunately this dream will never come true.

Again, this is all based on your value judgments as to who "the strong" and "the weak" are. Another view is entirely possible and is well-represented in the spiritual literature of the world. Jesus' statement that "many who are last shall be first" is a very good example. Many who are last (weakest) in the eyes of the world are first (strongest) in the "Kingdom of Heaven" (the realm of insight, compassion, unity, morality, etc).

And oh yes, Neil, you can bet your bottom can of Zyklon-B that this dream (and far more beyond your wildest imagination) is going to come true, and much sooner than you and your social Darwinist compatriots would like. Progressive forces nurtured for millenia are near culmination. Prepare now. It is no more than a couple centuries away at the latest. As for "sucks to be you," I'd refer you back to "many who are first shall be last."

All your kind can ever do is kill us, Neil, and you've certainly done that prodigiously at every possible opportunity. But as the character "V" stated, "ideas are bulletproof." You are, and have always been, on the wrong side of history.

Unidian wrote:But I have a moral framework in which bullying is is wrong, so I oppose it on principle. Having rejected such a moral framework, you may see my choice to embrace it as a weakness.

We can leave it at this but I don't find this very philosophical of you Nat. In the past philosophers as well as sages at least tried to back up their morality rather than just say "it is my belief, therefore I reject bullying on principle -- the end!"

I see no evidence to suggest that persons such as the Dalai Lama "drop out of life" and every evidence that they do not. Are you familiar with the concept of the Bodhisattva? In many forms of Buddhism, including the large Mahayana tradition, the highest goal is not to renounce life and enter a solitary state of Nirvana. Rather, it is to postpone "enlightenment" and return to the world to work toward the liberation of all sentient beings. There is nothing "passive" about this.

Ahh right. They are the living preachers of death! All religions have this priest function built into them so they can spread themselves. It even makes Buddhism somewhat illogical since there is no reason to value the preservation of the religion in a meaningless, empty world. Yet clearly a religion wouldn't exist that didn't have this function.

Really? While I understand that for a Nietzschean thinker, this is seen as a scathing condemnation, you should realize that from almost all other perspectives, you are giving "the herd" a great deal of credit. I see little or no evidence that the majority of people are deeply or even passingly concerned with morality in any meaningful sense. Certainly they are quite capable of spouting moral slogans and parroting various moral ideas, but there is little effort to really understand or live such principles. Are you sure you want to assert that in a world dominated by corporate capitalism, war, and omnipresent social division, most people are really "seeking the goal of non-suffering and peace for all?" I think it's going to be an uphill battle to support that claim with any persuasiveness.

Granted, lots of it is talk and act. However I think the majority at least to some level want to be moral. For example if you went out and asked 1,000 people if murder is wrong 95% would probably reply that it is.

Assuming that a "joy ride" means doing anything I want without regard to others, I'll go with the latter. ... Why I would choose this option will be seen as completely incomprehensible and nonsensical to those who reject the basic moral framework that informs the choice, so I'll leave it at that.

It is not nonsensical at all. You are afraid to crash. ;-) Joyrides are dangerous and you want to avoid suffering and hence danger. Take no risks, lose nothing -- and gain nothing!. You don't have confidence in your riding ability or that you can handle other riders. However if you could slow everyone else down and stop all other joyriders you still remain "equal" with them!

Granted, lots of it is talk and act. However I think the majority at least to some level want to be moral. For example if you went out and asked 1,000 people if murder is wrong 95% would probably reply that it is.

I bet you wouldn't, though.

I once encountered someone with your views at another forum. He was saying similar things and a hypothetical situation came up in which he stated that if there were a widespread emergency or panic which distracted everyone, he would utilize the opportunity to randomly kill someone just for the fun of it, just to "find out what it feels like." Does that sound like something you might be interested in doing, provided you were sure you wouldn't get caught? I have a feeling it is.

It is not nonsensical at all. You are afraid to crash. ;-) Joyrides are dangerous and you want to avoid suffering and hence danger. Take no risks, lose nothing -- and gain nothing!. You don't have confidence in your riding ability or that you can handle other riders. However if you could slow everyone else down and stop all other joyriders you still remain "equal" with them!

Utter rubbish. This demonstrates to me quite clearly that you have no understanding whatsoever of my motives. Of course, I already predicted that would be the case, since you and I are coming from completely different perspectives.

David,

Your basing your views on sages on populist religious ideas here. Sages are neither moral, nor do they start off with the idea that life is suffering. You're living in a cartoon world there.

I really thought it was quite logical. Sages believe life is meaningless. They do not want to participate in something meaningless because that would be delusional -- hence they are necessarily passive, since to be active is cast as "delusional". OKAY -- perhaps I was wrong to say sages are necessary moral and that morality is passive. However sages are necessarily passive and bullying is being active. Hence sages are necessarily non-bullies, and they cast all bullies as "delusional". Another property of sages seems to be that they value the persistence of wisdom or spread of their religion. Hence they must value the spread of passiveness and non-bullying, and must be against bullying.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:This looks like the old debate about the chicken and the egg.

not in the slightest. On one hand, we have ample evidence that where philosophy and suffering are causally related, philosophy precedes suffering. on the other hand we have zero evidence that suffering leads to philosophy -- just arbitrary assertions of a couple of idiots.

I guess it could work like you said but then it's just one of the possible causes and underneath that curiosity, that desire for truth that propelled Gautama unto his supposed path surely lies just another form of suffering, another form of make-believe.

... which everyone suffers from, but only very few actually parlay into philosophy -- which therefore means that you cannot peg this form of suffering as a cause of turning to philosophy. I had addressed this in the very beginning.

Face it. Suffering doesn't lead to philosophy. Just accept this, and move on.

Unidian, you fucking loser, you can't help yourself, can you? you are still answering my posts. No willpower. :D

Unidian wrote:I saw some of the material Neil quoted. Victor mischaracterizes (or intentionally misrepresents) my disdain for excessive private property and certain other unconventional qualities as sociopathic behavior.

No, not sociopathic. As i had said, sociopathy is the lack of empathy. you lack another fundamental human psychological impulse -- sense of fairness. You are not a sociopath, just a person who makes the lives of everyone around him harder.

Sociopaths don't argue for a more just and equitable world.

neither do you. You argue for a world which would benefit you more.

The reason everybody chokes is that the existing moral framework of Western culture insists that self-support is morally required and to be supported by others is morally objectionable.

No, liar, having others support you involuntarily is objectionable. Coercion is morally objectionable.

Neil,

Sociopathy is not a "philosophy," it is a mental defect. It is a weakness which eventually lands many people with your views in one sort of public facility or another, unless they are cunning enough to become CEO's (where it is accepted). You and David Quinn have much more in common than you might suppose. Schizoid Personality Disorder is not a "philosophy" either, although David has done his best to make a religion of it. But no amount of philosophizing will turn a mental deficiency into a legitimate philosophical position. That is why the Buddha is world-famous and David, who says many of the same ostensibly wise and insightful things but inevitably flavors them all with his defect, labors on in virtual anonymity. Your own defective camp has had somewhat more success, manifesting the Nazi party in the 1930's and the neo-conservative wing of the Republican party more recently, as well as a large number of self-proclaimed (and profoundly misnamed) "libertarians." But that is only because there are far more people who lack a conscience than people who have SPD.

Having said that, I'm not going to expend any more effort answering various attempts to justify sociopathy, just as I gave arguing against David's SPD religion a long time ago.

I read a couple pages of some book on sociopaths awhile ago. What absolute crap! HAHAHA. The desire for anything but universal peace is portrayed as a genetic defect. This "theory" forgets that 99.999999999% of species on planet earth do not desire universal peace and that no humans did until relatively recently either. There is an infinitely better case to suggest that the desire for universal peace is a defect left behind by Christianity.

Neil,

While we're talking about Christianity, why don't we start discussing the horrendous influence of Disney cartoons on youth?

I swear, Walt has had more influence on the Western world that Karl Marx and Jesus Christ combined. More people watch his morality plays than read the morality plays in the Bible.

Neil Melnyk wrote:David,

Your basing your views on sages on populist religious ideas here. Sages are neither moral, nor do they start off with the idea that life is suffering. You're living in a cartoon world there.

I really thought it was quite logical. Sages believe life is meaningless. They do not want to participate in something meaningless because that would be delusional -- hence they are necessarily passive, since to be active is cast as "delusional".

If you replace "life" with "deluded life", you would be getting closer to the mark.

I personally think that deluded life is meaningless, since it involves thoughts and aims which are contradictory in nature. Coherence is thereby eliminated.

Deluded life is like a moth approaching a flame in the belief that it will bring it happiness.

OKAY -- perhaps I was wrong to say sages are necessary moral and that morality is passive. However sages are necessarily passive and bullying is being active. Hence sages are necessarily non-bullies, and they cast all bullies as "delusional". Another property of sages seems to be that they value the persistence of wisdom or spread of their religion. Hence they must value the spread of passiveness and non-bullying, and must be against bullying.

So what do you think of my emphasis on masculinity then?

-

I'm afraid Neil's appreciation of Buddhism is on the level of the Pope's, which is marginally below Nietzsche's.

A bloke can't afford to sleep around here; he wakes up to an infestation of tommy-rot and misconception.

Trevor,

While we're talking about Christianity, why don't we start discussing the horrendous influence of Disney cartoons on youth?

I swear, Walt has had more influence on the Western world that Karl Marx and Jesus Christ combined. More people watch his morality plays than read the morality plays in the Bible.

Unbelievably enough, American conservatives and "libertarians" have actually argued the equivalent of this. A while back, one of their high-profile representatives stated that the "Mister Rogers" television show had ruined the current generation of Americans by encouraging them to believe that they were "special and worthwhile just the way they are," and that hard work was therefore not necessary to establish one's status and worth.

Yeah, seriously, they made that argument. They demonized Mister Freaking Rogers. That's what it has come to.

David,

NM: I really thought it was quite logical. Sages believe life is meaningless. They do not want to participate in something meaningless because that would be delusional -- hence they are necessarily passive, since to be active is cast as "delusional".

DQ: If you replace "life" with "deluded life", you would be getting closer to the mark.

I personally think that deluded life is meaningless, since it involves thoughts and aims which are contradictory in nature. Coherence is thereby eliminated.

Deluded life is like a moth approaching a flame in the belief that it will bring it happiness.

A moth approaching a flame in the belief that it will bring happiness is not incoherent or contradictory in nature pal. Perhaps the moth will actually be quite happy before he burns. The point is that he has some goal in life and since life is inherently meaningless to have a goal is to be deluded. To be active is to have a goal. Therefore the sage should be necessarily passive.

So what do you think of my emphasis on masculinity then?

Your version of masculinity isn't a bully or a dominator. He is just unemotional, completely rational, and has no goals or values in life.