Oh, and to further clarify the rock scenario; the absence of good isnt necessarily bad and vice-versa. A rock(or any non-living object) has nothing within its inherent conception to do good or evil, it has no intention at all. It is an outside will or idea that causes this subjective good or evil, however it is not the object that is inherently good or evil but rather the outside will or concept.
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarflove for wisdom? Or lust for wisdom.
Don't mean to go all Lexicon on you guys but....The term philosophy comes from the ancient Greek word "Öéëïóïößá" (philo-sophia), which means "love of wisdom".
How can you love wisdom? You don't love wisdom...you seek wisdom. Love has nothing to do with it! Have we been deceived? I though the idea behind the word was "reasoning and argument"?
Comments? 😉
Eh, this is what I get for attempting to defend someone else's vague statement. You have to keep in mind that I am not operating on the basis that Debbie Jo's statement is 100% or that it's the only definition of wisdom and its uses.
Originally posted by Great Vengeance
-Debbiejo said 'The function of wisdom is to discriminate between good and evil'.
And I replied, in a sense, it is. You could say otherwise and still be fairly right. Wisdom can also be used to help us learn how things operate, and why they operate the way they do. I agree with that as well. So that's not the sole definition of wisdom.
-What I originally wanted was an absolute definition of good and evil....I never expected anyone to come up with one.
So why ask for questions that people can't answer? Even if you use Debbie Jo's one statement as the truth, good and evil don't have to be objectively formed and defined in order for that statement to be true; that's essentially what I was working with when I began to point out things.
-Since good and evil are not objective values, they are judgemental human values that cant properly apply to everything. Like say...mathematics, could apply to everything since it is an objective value. Good and evil however, doesnt exist beyond what applies to its subjective nature.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. For one thing, you cannot use mathematics to be an objective reasoning tool beyond a certain point. Why not? Well, you can't apply numbers to everything. And mathematical proofs themselves cannot be proved by anything, so a base assumption is made in even using them. Same with using less formal reasoning. Now, just because the terms good and evil aren't apparently objective doesn't mean they can't be applied to everything. Indeed, they are applied to everything... Like I said, to one degree or another. Good and bad are solely human values. Nature doesn't assign them; we do. So they'll always be relative to human thought, same with our concept of reason and even mathematics. None of those systems has any meaning outside of human thought.
-Thus my question of what is a rock: good or evil? You cant properly apply good and evil to it because it is not within its realm of meaning. Your hypothetical situation is false(in my view, feel free to prove me wrong) because it uses outside meanings beyond the inherent concept of the rock to explain its inherent good or evil. For example, Gandhi would be considered good because it is within our concept of him that he is an altruist...the rock however is just a rock, nothing at all within its inherent concept to suggest good or evil tendencies. You would need to put it in a circumstance outside of its central meaning, to make it seem 'good' or 'evil'. Simply put, its natural state is alien to both good and evil and therefore neutral.
No, I disagree. For a rock to exist as we know it, it must be observed by a human being (Directly or indirectly) who automatically assigns values to it. Among these values are the values of whether it's good or not, and to what degree.
-So then wisdom cant be simply confined to the 'function of discriminating between good and evil' because there are other meanings that are beyond good and evils judgemental realm of meaning, and wisdom is the ability to discern any qualities or relationships... 'Insight'. Wisdom has a wider scope than just discriminating between good and evil.
I agree. I never meant to convey that it only is good for discriminating good against evil. That's my fault for picking up someone else's incomplete argument and running with it.
Originally posted by Janus Marius
...Good and evil are only objectively proven by a noble lie of sorts, from what I've studied. I haven't seen a compelling pure reason argument as to why anything is "evil" or "good" beyond how a person or culture feels about it. That's certainly not the answer I would have given you a few years ago, but it's all I have now.
I think you took Debbie too literally (Or perhaps I took her too generally)- what I believe she's saying is that wisdom helps us discriminate good from evil. As to what that good or that evil is, she doesn't say. And I'm agreeing with her in the sense that wisdom (a.k.a. knowledge) can definately help you discriminate things as good or bad. For example, lack of knowledge lends to stereotypes. However, having more knowledge might actually lead in some sort of understanding of the other party (Or perhaps of an object or creature within nature) and change how you perceive it, whether that be good or bad. Does that make sense now?
No, not at all. But you have to have some kind of knowledge to make any claims in the first place. You can have "partial wisdom" in that case. The term itself can be misleading because wisdom doesn't really denote when you reach it. It's not like "I know X amount of things about Y, therefore I am now wise." Even the term wisdom can be played with a bit. But what I'm saying is, you require some knowledge to make a claim, and in gaining wisdom you can make more thorough, discriminatory claims.
For example, when you were over a year old, could you see a shark and recognize it as bad? Probably not. However, as an adult, even if you haven't had a bad encounter with one, you have the knowledge that they are dangerous, and perhaps you will judge them as bad because of that. Or perhaps you're demented and you like being bitten. Then it's good. Either way, wisdom and knowledge have had an impact on your discrimination.
Initially? Perhaps not. I will agree to that. You can make base claims and unsupported claims without wisdom. But you cannot make binding claims until you have some knowledge under your belt. At least, not in clear conscience.
-Agreed, good and evil are subjective.
-If you use uncertain terms like 'good' and 'evil' and 'wisdom' and 'help' then I agree her statement works for the most part...as long as she is simply stating that this is one of wisdoms many functions, as opposed to saying it is wisdoms *only* function.
-Wisdom itself is uncertain, yes. This is why debates like these are so damn confusing to me.
-Well, I would ask, can the childs point of view(without wisdom) be considered any more 'wrong' than an adults point of view? And on what basis?
-'Clear conscience'...Again you imply that making a claim without wisdom is 'wrong', but how could that be true when good and evil are entirely subjective?
Hm, why did you requote the older post? Anyways...
-Well, I would ask, can the childs point of view(without wisdom) be considered any more 'wrong' than an adults point of view? And on what basis?
Certainly. The child's point of view is more often than not incorrect or skewed because the child cannot provide the logos for any of its assertions, nor can it claim to have sufficient knowledge or experience with the subject in order to make a binding, authoritative claim. And ever kid under the age of ten lies, I'm sure of it.
-'Clear conscience'...Again you imply that making a claim without wisdom is 'wrong', but how could that be true when good and evil are entirely subjective?
Wrong is not a direct equivalent of evil, really. And it's pretty reasonable to assume that anyone that anyone who makes claims without having the knowledge to back them up is not only likely to be wrong in his conclusion, but likely to be a serious asshat.
Originally posted by Janus Marius
Eh, this is what I get for attempting to defend someone else's vague statement. You have to keep in mind that I am not operating on the basis that Debbie Jo's statement is 100% or that it's the only definition of wisdom and its uses.And I replied, in a sense, it is. You could say otherwise and still be fairly right. Wisdom can also be used to help us learn how things operate, and why they operate the way they do. I agree with that as well. So that's not the sole definition of wisdom.
So why ask for questions that people can't answer? Even if you use Debbie Jo's one statement as the truth, good and evil don't have to be objectively formed and defined in order for that statement to be true; that's essentially what I was working with when I began to point out things.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. For one thing, you cannot use mathematics to be an objective reasoning tool beyond a certain point. Why not? Well, you can't apply numbers to everything. And mathematical proofs themselves cannot be proved by anything, so a base assumption is made in even using them. Same with using less formal reasoning. Now, just because the terms good and evil aren't apparently objective doesn't mean they can't be applied to everything. Indeed, they are applied to everything... Like I said, to one degree or another. Good and bad are solely human values. Nature doesn't assign them; we do. So they'll always be relative to human thought, same with our concept of reason and even mathematics. None of those systems has any meaning outside of human thought.
No, I disagree. For a rock to exist as we know it, it must be observed by a human being (Directly or indirectly) who [b]automatically
assigns values to it. Among these values are the values of whether it's good or not, and to what degree.I agree. I never meant to convey that it only is good for discriminating good against evil. That's my fault for picking up someone else's incomplete argument and running with it. [/B]
- Alright, then we are agreed that Debbiejos statement is vague and cant be taken literally.
- Agreed.
- Well I was making a point... that good and evil arent objective values, so any discrimination between them would be entirely subjective.
- Mathematics applies to everything in reality, everything represents an amount and everything represents some sort of shape or form. What Im saying, is good and evil cant be properly applied to everything because good and evil is limited by its own definition and imperfect human value...to be good or evil by definition you would have to have some sort of 'intention'...only a living thing can be inherently good or evil. A person observing the rock can ofcourse think whatever he wants about it, but that doesnt make it inherently good or evil.
-A rock exists as we know it, as an inanimate chunk of matter that has neither feeling nor intention. Good and evil is relative to human thought like you said, so good and evil cant be properly applied to something outside of human experience. We can deduce logically that if a rock were to be left alone, it would sit in a fixed position for eternity...this is alien to the concepts of both good and evil. You can argue that the absence of good equals evil, and vice-versa but I would have to disagree. Good and evil are not absolute concepts, so neither *have* to exist at any given point in time.
-Yes a human can think whatever he wants about something, but reality is what *isnt* subjective to human thought. Common wisdom describes what a rock is, and without opening up a new can of worms lets just say that common wisdom is correct on this matter. You having delusions that a rock somehow equals cheese doesnt change what a rock *is* in objective reality.
Originally posted by Janus Marius
Hm, why did you requote the older post? Anyways...Certainly. The child's point of view is more often than not incorrect or skewed because the child cannot provide the logos for any of its assertions, nor can it claim to have sufficient knowledge or experience with the subject in order to make a binding, authoritative claim. And ever kid under the age of ten lies, I'm sure of it.
Wrong is not a direct equivalent of evil, really. And it's pretty reasonable to assume that anyone that anyone who makes claims without having the knowledge to back them up is not only likely to be wrong in his conclusion, but likely to be a serious asshat.
-I think you missed the point. We are talking about the discrimination between good and evil, subjective concepts, and in this case how can one be 'incorrect' when it is entirely an opinion?
-If we were talking about something objective...say, how many rocks exist within the universe? Then if you spoke without knowledge you would be 'incorrect'...however if we are talking about the discrimination between good and evil then you *cant* be incorrect because of its subjective nature.
Mathematics applies to everything in reality, everything represents an amount and everything represents some sort of shape or form.
I absolutely disagree. Can you apply numerical values to the thoughts in your head right now? How about emotions? Can you apply numerical values to a history lesson? Why not? Because not all things can be measured in symbols.
What Im saying, is good and evil cant be properly applied to everything because good and evil is limited by its own definition and imperfect human value...to be good or evil by definition you would have to have some sort of 'intention'...only a living thing can be inherently good or evil. A person observing the rock can ofcourse think whatever he wants about it, but that doesnt make it inherently good or evil.
Yes, I agree. However, I'm not saying good or evil has to neccessarily be borne out of intent in order to be a part of the question at hand. Does wisdom help one discriminate evil from good? Depends on what you view as good and evil. If stubbing your toe makes a rock evil, then the rock is obviously evil to you. However, if a bit of wisdom made the difference in showing you that you should have been paying attention, then it may change how you view the object at hand. It might only lessen the degree of evil you feel about it, or you may go the opposite and even go so far as to hate yourself (Or your clumsiness, whatever).
Point being- Since good and evil are not clearly defined by Debbie Jo's post, we can work ANYTHING into the template she's given us. I'm simply showing you how I can see it working... in a sense. Don't let that slide by you- I'm arguing someone else's single sentence.
-A rock exists as we know it, as an inanimate chunk of matter that has neither feeling nor intention. Good and evil is relative to human thought like you said, so good and evil cant be properly applied to something outside of human experience.
By this logic, we can't apply reason to the outside world. I don't see how you reached this conclusion.
We can deduce logically that if a rock were to be left alone, it would sit in a fixed position for eternity...
O rly? If the rock were unobserved, how would you know it's still there? The thing is, unless it's observed, we don't know 100% if its still there. The basic assumption is that it does exist, but that's just an assumption. What makes you think the rock would never move? Never break down?
And again, you're missing the point- the moment it's observed by a human being, that human being's mind works to assign values to it. And one of the core values is: is it good or is it bad for me?
this is alien to the concepts of both good and evil. You can argue that the absence of good equals evil, and vice-versa but I would have to disagree. Good and evil are not absolute concepts, so neither *have* to exist at any given point in time.
And again you've totally missed the point- not only are things that are "absolute" only absolute in accordance with human understanding (In other words, we may infer things, but we cannot know the absolute truth about anything), but good and evil are human inventions, and thus are relative to whatever we assign them to. If being cool is a "good" according to the observer, and the rock is "cool", then the rock is "good". It's that simple.
Yes a human can think whatever he wants about something, but reality is what *isnt* subjective to human thought.
Yes, yes it is. You cannot describe "reality" to me or anyone else here without using perception gained knowledge processed by a human brain. Reality is relative to human beings in the sense that we cannot know reality outside of our own form of gaining knowledge.
Define "common wisdom"?
Common wisdom describes what a rock is, and without opening up a new can of worms lets just say that common wisdom is correct on this matter.
You having delusions that a rock somehow equals cheese doesnt change what a rock *is* in objective reality.
Well, anyone who suffers from delusions is obviously suffering at an operational level. I agree with that. However, we cannot know what a rock is in objective reality- we only have observations from a multitude of human beings who more or less operate like us. What you call objective is nothing more than the norm for human reasoning. And even then we may all be wrong- the rock may be pure energy being bent by space-time.
-I think you missed the point. We are talking about the discrimination between good and evil, subjective concepts, and in this case how can one be 'incorrect' when it is entirely an opinion?
I'm starting to think you disagree on principle each and every turn.
Wrong is not a direct equivalent of evil, really. And it's pretty reasonable to assume that anyone that anyone who makes claims without having the knowledge to back them up is not only likely to be wrong in his conclusion, but likely to be a serious asshat.
What part of this eluded you?
Originally posted by Janus Marius
I absolutely disagree. Can you apply numerical values to the thoughts in your head right now? How about emotions? Can you apply numerical values to a history lesson? Why not? Because not all things can be measured in symbols.Yes, I agree. However, I'm not saying good or evil has to neccessarily be borne out of intent in order to be a part of the question at hand. Does wisdom help one discriminate evil from good? Depends on what you view as good and evil. If stubbing your toe makes a rock evil, then the rock is obviously evil to you. However, if a bit of wisdom made the difference in showing you that you should have been paying attention, then it may change how you view the object at hand. It might only lessen the degree of evil you feel about it, or you may go the opposite and even go so far as to hate yourself (Or your clumsiness, whatever).
Point being- Since good and evil are not clearly defined by Debbie Jo's post, we can work ANYTHING into the template she's given us. I'm simply showing you how I can see it working... in a sense. Don't let that slide by you- I'm arguing someone else's single sentence.
By this logic, we can't apply reason to the outside world. I don't see how you reached this conclusion.
O rly? If the rock were unobserved, how would you know it's still there? The thing is, unless it's observed, we don't know 100% if its still there. The basic assumption is that it does exist, but that's just an assumption. What makes you think the rock would never move? Never break down?
And again, you're missing the point- the moment it's observed by a human being, that human being's mind works to assign values to it. And one of the core values is: is it good or is it bad for me?
And again you've totally missed the point- not only are things that are "absolute" only absolute in accordance with human understanding (In other words, we may infer things, but we cannot know the absolute truth about anything), but good and evil are human inventions, and thus are relative to whatever we assign them to. If being cool is a "good" according to the observer, and the rock is "cool", then the rock is "good". It's that simple.
Yes, yes it is. You cannot describe "reality" to me or anyone else here without using perception gained knowledge processed by a human brain. Reality is relative to human beings in the sense that we cannot know reality outside of our own form of gaining knowledge.
Define "common wisdom"?
Well, anyone who suffers from delusions is obviously suffering at an operational level. I agree with that. However, we cannot know what a rock is in objective reality- we only have observations from a multitude of human beings who more or less operate like us. What you call objective is nothing more than the norm for human reasoning. And even then we may all be wrong- the rock may be pure energy being bent by space-time.
- Thoughts and emotions are getting into the meta-physical, anything that can be observed can be applied to mathematics.
- But that is all entirely subjective...I dont see your point.
- I was unclear...I meant that 'good and evil' cant be applied to a non-living thing, because it does not operate like humans do....it has no thoughts, no intention. Good and evil by nature defines a certain type of intention...a rock is absent of it.
- From what people over the ages have observed, what I call 'common wisdom' is the closest thing we have to objective reality. Say...even though Julius Caesar cant be 'observed' we know that he at one time existed through common wisdom. Through common wisdom, we *think* we know what a rock is...Im using that as my basis for its comparison to good and evil. What we think a rock is, cannot be inherently good and evil because of its lack of intention.
- Yes...but if you consider the assumption to be false then what else do we have to work with>? And if the rock is absent of intention, and no other forces are working on it, then it is literally impossible for it to both move and/or break down based on our assumption of what a rock is.
- This is true. However we consider some statements more 'correct' than others based on rationalization. If you want me to explain objective reality, your right it is impossible for me or anyone else.
- Knowledge gained throughout the ages, using reasoning and empirical evidence.
- Its the best we have.
Im getting off for now. Forgive me if I was unclear throughout our debate, I need to read up on my philosophy so Im more prepared for this kind of thing. It seems to me we have established alot, such as Debbiejos statement being too vague to be taken literally, and if you want to skip more back and forth thats fine with me.
Meh, I would address this but I don't have the time and frankly, I'm not reaching you at all. I think you do indeed need to take a serious philosophy course (Preferably college level) or at least read up on the arguments you're presenting first, because I'm not just arguing with my head up my ass here.
Originally posted by debbiejo
The function of wisdom is to discriminate between good and evil.
I agree that this is a function allowed for by wisdom. In other words...
Wisdom = perspective, especially over time. It allows one to understand more of the Big Picture, the interconnections, patterns and cycles of reality. Wisdom is nourished via life experience, incorporating every faculty of human knowing. It allows one to better grasp the meaning (if any) of human existence, to understand choice and responsibility--the immediate (perhaps only) source of good and evil--and it allows us to understand what "God" might mean.
IMO, philosophy is Man's attempt to systematize wisdom, translating it into knowledge, so that every single person does not necessarily have to "stick their hand in the fire of life" to know that, sometimes, it burns.
Originally posted by Janus Marius
In a way, philosophy is fighting an uphill battle. No one ever seems to really learn from the past experiences' of others.
I agree. I think it has a lot to do with the psychology of the ego, particularly that pseudo-independent, I-know-better, I-can-do-it-alone mindset. This is why, for example, "youth is wasted on the young."
Originally posted by Janus Marius
Meh, I would address this but I don't have the time and frankly, I'm not reaching you at all. I think you do indeed need to take a serious philosophy course (Preferably college level) or at least read up on the arguments you're presenting first, because I'm not just arguing with my head up my ass here.
Isn't he just argueing that there are no absolute morals?
If one believes that obviously wisdom won't help in evaluating what is good and what is evil.