Originally posted by Quark_666No, that's my fantastical justification. Incredibly improbable, but still very scary.
So you're basically using an issue that doesn't yet exist and probably won't ever exist to support the need for evil?
No, my personal support for the continued existence of "evil" is my distaste towards the thought of a species whose personalities consists of only so-called "positive emotions". Evil is a convenient one-syllable synonym for the tangible results of those negative emotions I listed earlier. The thought of a world without those emotions and the conflict they bring is frightening. I can't foresee our species forsaking war, conflict, and "evil" without literally enforcing it on ourselves. Screw freedom, we have peace!
Should we ever do away with conflict--the greatest producer of "evil" actions--it shouldn't be at the expense of the freedom to choose to be evil.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
You're face is stupid.I do think we need "evil", as it provides a pleasant counter-balance to the prospect that our species will... meld its consciousness via some technological wonder. Stuff of Sci-Fi, but who knows. But I doubt very, very much that the Great Dictators of the 20th century had that plan in mind.
Why would a collective mind eliminate evil? It could just as easily eliminate all the world's good.
Also if you define evil as being a good thing then you've destroyed the whole meaning of the word. Evil is, by definition, bad.
Originally posted by Lord LucienIf that's what evil means to you, one must wonder why we have the word "natural" in our vocabulary, and what word we should use to describe psychopathic and inhumane levels of cruelty.
No, that's my fantastical justification. Incredibly improbable, but still very scary.No, my personal support for the continued existence of "evil" is my distaste towards the thought of a species whose personalities consists of only so-called "positive emotions". Evil is a convenient one-syllable synonym for the tangible results of those negative emotions I listed earlier. The thought of a world without those emotions and the conflict they bring is frightening. I can't foresee our species forsaking war, conflict, and "evil" without literally enforcing it on ourselves. Screw freedom, we have peace!
Should we ever do away with conflict--the greatest producer of "evil" actions--it shouldn't be at the expense of the freedom to choose to be evil.
Originally posted by Quark_666No, reverse it. "Evil" is a convenient synonym for several things: The natural emotions, thoughts and tendencies that occur but aren't to someone's particular liking. The tangible results of those emotions made manifest---that can vary dramatically from something small-scale to something huge, depending on who's doing the defining at the moment. The religious concepts of things which anger or oppose God, the highest beacon and source of "good" on the moral scale.
"Natural" is a convenient synonym for "evil"?
The religious part aside, I call the first two manifestations of evil--thoughts and actions--to be wholly natural and in keeping with our species' nature. The religious one I call artificial and scripted, though the creation of the religion and script is an act that is itself, natural for our species.
Originally posted by Quark_666How about "psychopathic" and "cruel"? Psychopathy isn't the norm, but as it occurs, it is an expected tendency in select (and thankfully few) individuals. Cruelty is very normal. Duh. Can very in ranges of magnitude, depending on who it's coming from and who's experiencing it.
and what word we should use to describe psychopathic and inhumane levels of cruelty.
I think "inhumane" is already a synonym for cruel. "Humane" being defined as: "Having regard for the health and well-being of another; compassionate." Someone being the opposite of that is quite a common trait.
Originally posted by Lord LucienNot according to the question you were just answering, that I just asked.
No, reverse it.
Originally posted by Lord LucienThat is to say, evil is the emotions, thoughts and tendencies that aren't popular? Or that a person dislikes about themselves?
"Evil" is a convenient synonym for several things: The natural emotions, thoughts and tendencies that occur but aren't to someone's particular liking.
Originally posted by Lord LucienRepercussions?
The tangible results of those emotions made manifest---that can vary dramatically from something small-scale to something huge, depending on who's doing the defining at the moment.
Originally posted by Lord LucienSo when you were defining evil as the resistance to the hive mind, you meant something like this? Except more of an anti-matrix sort of thing?
The religious concepts of things which anger or oppose God, the highest beacon and source of "good" on the moral scale.
Originally posted by Lord LucienAnd defending us from a hive mind.
The religious part aside, I call the first two manifestations of evil--thoughts and actions--to be wholly natural and in keeping with our species' nature.
Originally posted by Lord LucienSo you wanna explain how you reconcile your belief that religion is scripted with your belief that religion is natural?
The religious one I call artificial and scripted, though the creation of the religion and script is an act that is itself, natural for our species.
Originally posted by Lord LucienI should be clearer for you. What reason have you to believe that evil should no longer be a general term encompassing both of these terms?
How about "psychopathic" and "cruel"? Psychopathy isn't the norm, but as it occurs, it is an expected tendency in select (and thankfully few) individuals. Cruelty is very normal. Duh. Can very in ranges of magnitude, depending on who it's coming from and who's experiencing it.I think "inhumane" is already a synonym for cruel. "Humane" being defined as: "Having regard for the health and well-being of another; compassionate." Someone being the opposite of that is quite a common trait.
Originally posted by Quark_666I generalize and insinuate. Sorry for the confusion.
Not according to the question you were just answering, that I just asked.
Originally posted by Quark_666Yes.
That is to say, evil is the emotions, thoughts and tendencies that aren't popular? Or that a person dislikes about themselves?
Originally posted by Quark_666Can also vary?
Repercussions?
Originally posted by Quark_666Sorta. Though I spoke of a hive-mind more as a fantastical example. Should that actually be imposed on us (by us?) then it would be freaking horrible, but also incredibly unlikely.
So when you were defining evil as the resistance to the hive mind, you meant something like this? Except more of an anti-matrix sort of thing?
Originally posted by Quark_666Sure. My support of the existence of "evil" is due more to my support of all the aspects of the human psyche. To abolish all aspects of what we collectively define as "evil" (both in thought and actions), I think we'd need to permanently remove those aforementioned "negative emotions" from our beings. From there, imagination (something we cherish) directs one to thoughts of Sci-Fi--drones, hive-minds, collectives, mindless organic automatons devoid of individuality or personality... etc. Stuff of Hollywood and video-games, but one can't but help fear that potential future.
And defending us from a hive mind.
Originally posted by Quark_666The scriptures of religion are constructs, the drive to create a religion (sub: faith, creed, order etc.) is natural (sub: human). Just as the drive to f*ck is natural, but plastic dildos aren't. Tools to embellish.
So you wanna explain how you reconcile your belief that religion is scripted with your belief that religion is natural?
Originally posted by Quark_666For the sake of conversational convenience, I don't think it should be divvied up. It'd be a pain in the ass to open every engagement with an essay on your moral views.
I should be clearer for you. What reason have you to believe that evil should no longer be a general term encompassing both of these terms?
But personally, I think the word "evil" can be very misleading. Depending on who the recipient is, "evil" can insinuate any emotion, action, thought etc. to any varying degree. But the impact the word can have (and often is intended to have) can be pretty big. To use such a blanket term to describe any non-preferential behaviour/deed kinda... sucks. Hitler was evil. Judas was evil. The Columbine shooters were evil. That racist prick at the office is evil. Jeffrey Dahmer was evil. The guy who mugged those people is evil. The corporate fatcats are evil. The insurance company who denied by request for a medical procedure is evil. Obama is evil.
One word--a million varying situations and degrees. And to someone like me, the implied immorality of all those uses doesn't even exist. But try having the exchange you and I just did every time you talk about any of those situations.
Convenience, brah.