Are We Humans Lowkey Evil?

[Deadlift]

We are a pile of hypocritical contradictions, to be honest. Perspectives makes things, yet it is subjective. Good and evil do not exist, yet no one is capable of being objective; it's an impossible perspective for us to achieve. So, you tell me?

Good and evil do not exist because of.. Why? I know you are smart enough to not come in and say "give me a slice of good and a drop of evil then" but since we are so contradictory to ourselves, how can we be so sure that good and evil do not exist? We aren't capable of making "right" conclusions as you want the concept of "right" not to exist.
You start from the principle that you have to doubt about everything.
But following this principle, you have to doubt even about the claim that you have to doubt about everything.
Therefore, this argument is fallacious.

 

[Awkward Linguist]

We are a pile of hypocritical contradictions, to be honest. Perspectives makes things, yet it is subjective. Good and evil do not exist, yet no one is capable of being objective; it's an impossible perspective for us to achieve. So, you tell me?

And how did you arrive to that conclusion? I'm intrigued.​

 

[shelke]

And how did you arrive to that conclusion? I'm intrigued.​

Define good and evil. This I can't wait to read.

Good and evil do not exist because of.. Why? I know you are smart enough to not come in and say "give me a slice of good and a drop of evil then" but since we are so contradictory to ourselves, how can we be so sure that good and evil do not exist? We aren't capable of making "right" conclusions as you want the concept of "right" not to exist.
You start from the principle that you have to doubt about everything.
But following this principle, you have to doubt even about the claim that you have to doubt about everything.
Therefore, this argument is fallacious.

Good and Evil are concepts. Concepts do not exist; they are manufactured and made. Right and wrong are again concepts. You are only proving me wrong by going for the "how can" statements that have no footing in logic.

 

[Sir Francis Drake]

Define good and evil. This I can't wait to read.



Good and Evil are concepts. Concepts do not exist; they are manufactured and made. Right and wrong are again concepts. You are only proving me wrong by going for the "how can" statements that have no footing in logic.

You must be registered for see images

 

[Deadlift]

Good and Evil are concepts. Concepts do not exist; they are manufactured and made. Right and wrong are again concepts. You are only proving me wrong by going for the "how can" statements that have no footing in logic.

Are you really speaking about logic when doing one way claims about the non existence of concepts. To deny good and evil just because it's difficult to "prove" their existence is intellectually lazy and dishonest.
Anyway, there hasn't been a single person in all the history who didn't live according to those concepts, including the most self proclaimed nihilist, so it is safe to assume we are not all psychotic and there is a reason for that.
What about saying that even if the concept of morality does not exist, our passionate desire to follow it gives existence to it?

 

[shelke]

Are you really speaking about logic when doing one way claims about the non existence of concepts. To deny good and evil just because it's difficult to "prove" their existence is intellectually lazy and dishonest.
Anyway, there hasn't been a single person in all the history who didn't live according to those concepts, including the most self-proclaimed nihilist, so it is safe to assume we are not all psychotic and there is a reason for that.
What about saying that even if the concept of morality does not exist, our passionate desire to follow it gives existence to it?

You haven't even countered my arguments. It's basically going around in circles now. Concepts do not exist. Who even gave you the idea that a conceptual idea is anything more than a cognitive ability of a human mind to try and rationalize various aspects of life he comes across? That makes it subjective, limited by perception that in turn is molded by various socio-cultural concepts again.

So, tell me ... how are good and evil any different? Your counter-argument is weak to its core, when you claim that I "cannot" prove its existence, when it's a man-made moralistic setup to begin with. It's a crafted "idea". And morals themselves are an ever-changing concept in nature. But, feel free to call "basic logic" intellectual laziness. I love it how you went off the tangent, straight to intellectualism, though.

 

[Marin]

You haven't even countered my arguments. It's basically going around in circles now. Concepts do not exist. Who even gave you the idea that a conceptual idea is anything more than a cognitive ability of a human mind to try and rationalize various aspects of life he comes across? That makes it subjective, limited by perception that in turn is molded by various socio-cultural concepts again.

So, tell me ... how are good and evil any different? Your counter-argument is weak to its core, when you claim that I "cannot" prove its existence, when it's a man-made moralistic setup to begin with. It's a crafted "idea". And morals themselves are an ever-changing concept in nature. But, feel free to call "basic logic" intellectual laziness. I love it how you went off the tangent, straight to intellectualism, though.

I'm sorry to butt in, but how can you say concepts do not exist? Even if they are just results of our cognitive ability they still exist - as the results of our cognitive ability.

I'd like to draw analogy to a fictional character, say Naruto. When people say Naruto doesnt exist they mean that he isnt real or so to say, hes not a living being. He is however a fictional character - an idea born from the mind of his creator. He exists as a fictional character. He exists as an idea.

So why should we accept that fiction exists but moral concepts dont when at the end of the day both are simply ideas stemming from our cognitive ability as you put it.

It seems to me that you have a specific narrow criteria for what clasifies as real or existent. One that completely discounts all abstract things at that.

 

[shelke]

I'm sorry to butt in, but how can you say concepts do not exist? Even if they are just results of our cognitive ability they still exist - as the results of our cognitive ability.

I'd like to draw analogy to a fictional character, say Naruto. When people say Naruto doesnt exist they mean that he isnt real or so to say, hes not a living being. He is however a fictional character - an idea born from the mind of his creator. He exists as a fictional character. He exists as an idea.

So why should we accept that fiction exists but moral concepts dont when at the end of the day both are simply ideas stemming from our cognitive ability as you put it.

It seems to me that you have a specific narrow criteria for what clasifies as real or existent. One that completely discounts all abstract things at that.

Concept is basically an abstract idea. That is all it is. It can be molded into a precept to get results, but it is never set in stone.

An idea is not something real; it's a conceptual abstraction. Let's suppose I ask you to define the number 2. Can you do it WITHOUT holding up two fingers or any other "concept" associated with two? You can't. Since it's manmade it cannot be called something that pre-existed the idea of concept. There is no tangible aspect to a concept as it's based on the ability of the mind. Mental abilities aren't tangible. They can produce tangible things, but themselves, they are abstractions.

A fictional universe isn't real. It doesn't exist. You are confusing ideas with what is reality. Though, what constitutes as Reality is a debatable topic, but these two are not even comparable. Abstracts things aren't real by nature. I am not sure why is it a difficult idea to grasp as there is a reason why abstract stands in opposition to concrete.

 

[Deadlift]

You haven't even countered my arguments. It's basically going around in circles now. Concepts do not exist. Who even gave you the idea that a conceptual idea is anything more than a cognitive ability of a human mind to try and rationalize various aspects of life he comes across? That makes it subjective, limited by perception that in turn is molded by various socio-cultural concepts again.

So, tell me ... how are good and evil any different? Your counter-argument is weak to its core, when you claim that I "cannot" prove its existence, when it's a man-made moralistic setup to begin with. It's a crafted "idea". And morals themselves are an ever-changing concept in nature. But, feel free to call "basic logic" intellectual laziness. I love it how you went off the tangent, straight to intellectualism, though.

Uhm so basically good and evil don't exist because they are societal concepts and societal concepts are wrong. Feels good. If good existed, obviously.

Really, how can you say I haven't countered arguments when you are just making claims without giving a single proof of what you are saying? I believe that the one who is not answering but repeating the same stuff is you, to be honest.
You have answered nothing of what I said. Nothing. So yes, you are just right when you say we're going in circles.
Said this, I believed we already discussed about societies in another thread, and it's as clear as there that you can't judge societies without the eyes of your own society. Yes my dear, your point about societal concepts has become pretty trendy in western societies in the last centuries, so please tell us again how we are so dumb in our societal cliches.
And you have yet to prove how if something is shared by many people it's necessarily wrong.
But I believe we should stick on topic anyway, thing that you definitely aren't doing since you're putting thousands of iron in the fire in order to dodge my questions.
Friendly, what about you leave a solid counterargument for the first reply I made to you today instead?

 

[Marin]

Concept is basically an abstract idea. That is all it is. It can be molded into a precept to get results, but it is never set in stone.

An idea is not something real; it's a conceptual abstraction. Let's suppose I ask you to define the number 2. Can you do it WITHOUT holding up two fingers or any other "concept" associated with two? You can't. Since it's manmade it cannot be called something that pre-existed the idea of concept. There is no tangible aspect to a concept as it's based on the ability of the mind. Mental abilities aren't tangible. They can produce tangible things, but themselves, they are abstractions.

A fictional universe isn't real. It doesn't exist. You are confusing ideas with what is reality. Though, what constitutes as Reality is a debatable topic, but these two are not even comparable. Abstracts things aren't real by nature. I am not sure why is it a difficult idea to grasp as there is a reason why abstract stands in opposition to concrete.

Exactly. Concepts are abstract. However being abstract doesnt mean being non-existent. You only exist to a certain degree therefore you arent tangible. But why should we limit reality to tangible things. Certainly reality isnt tangible either so are we to say reality isnt real? Being real by definition means to not be an idea yes but idea still exists as an idea. Fiction exists as fiction. These things exist on an abstract level. My concern isnt with what is real and what isnt its wether something exists or not. Thats why I word it in such a manner. Fiction exists on an abstract level. Thats why real is defined as existence as a fact. Not as only form of existence.

Ignore my reply if you want. I'm gonna have to reconsider my position on the abstract objects as right now I've become confused on the terms as they seem to contradict each other.

abstract
adjective
ˈabstrakt/
1.
existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence.

existence
ɪɡˈzɪst(ə)ns,ɛɡ-/
noun
the fact or state of living or having objective reality.

Definition of abstract says it exists apart from concrete realities but existence on its own is defined as that which belongs to a concrete reality. I'm going to concede this round and think about this a little.

 

[shelke]

Uhm so basically good and evil don't exist because they are societal concepts and societal concepts are wrong. Feels good. If good existed, obviously.

Really, how can you say I haven't countered arguments when you are just making claims without giving a single proof of what you are saying? I believe that the one who is not answering but repeating the same stuff is you, to be honest.
You have answered nothing of what I said. Nothing. So yes, you are just right when you say we're going in circles.
Said this, I believed we already discussed about societies in another thread, and it's as clear as there that you can't judge societies without the eyes of your own society. Yes my dear, your point about societal concepts has become pretty trendy in western societies in the last centuries, so please tell us again how we are so dumb in our societal cliches.
And you have yet to prove how if something is shared by many people it's necessarily wrong.
But I believe we should stick on topic anyway, thing that you definitely aren't doing since you're putting thousands of iron in the fire in order to dodge my questions.
Friendly, what about you leave a solid counterargument for the first reply I made to you today instead?

Precisely. A rather simple matter.

Where are your proofs? All you have is an antithetical argument, "you can't prove it, so they exist." It's simply a silly way of suggesting that I cannot prove anything, but it exists ... because I somehow believe it to be true. Your belief doesn't concern me, when you'll be hardpressed to find the distinction between good and evil beyond human history. If I suggest that unicorns are not a stuff of myth, but a real animal, and I saw one flying last night ... it even broke wing and sparkly rainbows came out of its hindquarters ... how am I wrong? See, that's not how this works; this black and white notion of abstractions you have got in store.

Good and evil cuturally shift and alter themselves. In one society one thing is evil, in another it wouldn't hold such a status. When you have so much discrepancy in one era, and if you look back, even more so, how can you suggest to me for a fact that some kind of "objective" bursh is at play here that would declare what is good and evil with a single divine stroke? I hope to god you are joking.

The fact that you can't seem to process that good and evil are ... concepts that are manufactured and integrated into the social system alone proves how cliched this all is. Also, just because "many" people share a belief doesn't make it right. Take nationalism and tell me ONE logical aspect behind any man's blind adherence to it. It's yet another cliche socities simply adore.

What have I dodged? You claim it's real, not me. You are the one who has to prove how an abstraction can even be real. The onus and burden of backing up your flimsy claim lies with you.

Ignore my reply if you want. I'm gonna have to reconsider my position on the abstract objects as right now I've become confused on the terms as they seem to contradict each other. abstract adjective ˈabstrakt/ 1. existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence. existence ɪɡˈzɪst(ə)ns,ɛɡ-/ noun the fact or state of living or having objective reality. Definition of abstract says it exists apart from concrete realities but existence on its own is defined as that which belongs to a concrete reality. I'm going to concede this round and think about this a little.

It's a little more complicated than that, as Reality has multiple dimensions. You wouldn't find it delineated on dictionary.com.

 

[Marin]

It's a little more complicated than that, as Reality has multiple dimensions. You wouldn't find it delineated on dictionary.com.

I know. Its just that different people have different definitions for reality and existence some of which contradict each other thus forcing me to rely on something other than definitions for this one.

Since you say there are multiple dimensions tho, I wonder what you mean by it. Would help me understand your point better and by extension allow me to reenforce mine.

My point is that the existence of an idea still passes as an actual existence in the form of an abstract object. Is this object independant of an observer's mind? No. Then it doesn't have a root in objective reality (the thing that buffles me is how can one even proclaim what objective reality is when bound by nothing but hissubjective perception). Does it exist tied to an observer's mind? Yes. Therefore it exists on an abstract level - not tied to an anchor of objective reality, but to the minds of the observers.

What I have just described is how an abstract object behaves in relation to its being. I find its existence plausible to an extent but not in the full sense of the word. Non the less it exists.

Upon reading your posts I have concluded that we agree on the properties of abstract objects but we disagree on the context of its being, wether abstract existence classifies as apart of reality.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[shelke]

I know. Its just that different people have different definitions for reality and existence some of which contradict each other thus forcing me to rely on something other than definitions for this one.

Since you say there are multiple dimensions tho, I wonder what you mean by it. Would help me understand your point better and by extension allow me to reenforce mine.

My point is that the existence of an idea still passes as an actual existence in the form of an abstract object. Is this object independant of an observer's mind? No. Then it doesn't have a root in objective reality (the thing that buffles me is how can one even proclaim what objective reality is when bound by nothing but hissubjective perception). Does it exist tied to an observer's mind? Yes. Therefore it exists on an abstract level - not tied to an anchor of objective reality, but to the minds of the observers.

What I have just described is how an abstract object behaves in relation to its being. I find its existence plausible to an extent but not in the full sense of the word. Non the less it exists.

Upon reading your posts I have concluded that we agree on the properties of abstract objects but we disagree on the context of its being, wether abstract existence classifies as apart of reality.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Read on Rumi's and Aristotle's concept of Reality. Two very very different ideals. To put it in a nutshell, Rumi rejects Reality as we know it, and prefers to erase it to reach True Reality which many call "faana" (to erase). Aristole talks about Reality that concerns Universe and Action, both of which are guided by Nature in regards to a human being's integration into a social system. In his terms, it is shaped by humanity. In Rumi's terms to erase one's reality is to truly shape it. These are but two aspects of reality. Then we have the subjective notion of it. What one experiences is subjective than the other.

That IS the point. You cannot have objective reality when you are guided by subjective impluses and perceptions. Everything we say, believe in and do is bound and confined within this subjectivity. How are morals any different? How can you call something "subjectively" manufactured an "objective" Truth?

But that is the thing, existence is a multifaceted concept. A thought "exists" in my mind, but paradoxially, it has no physical existence. Same is the case with concepts, ideas ... stories; all products of a cognitive process that, in turn, is so subjective that it cannot work beyond what it has accumilated.

Fair enough. I have no issues with your disagreements. It's a complicated topic to begin with.

 

[Marin]

Read on Rumi's and Aristotle's concept of Reality. Two very very different ideals. To put it in a nutshell, Rumi rejects Reality as we know it, and prefers to erase it to reach True Reality which many call "faana" (to erase). Aristole talks about Reality that concerns Universe and Action, both of which are guided by Nature in regards to a human being's integration into a social system. In his terms, it is shaped by humanity. In Rumi's terms to erase one's reality is to truly shape it. These are but two aspects of reality. Then we have the subjective notion of it. What one experiences is subjective than the other.

That IS the point. You cannot have objective reality when you are guided by subjective impluses and perceptions. Everything we say, believe in and do is bound and confined within this subjectivity. How are morals any different? How can you call something "subjectively" manufactured an "objective" Truth?

But that is the thing, existence is a multifaceted concept. A thought "exists" in my mind, but paradoxially, it has no physical existence. Same is the case with concepts, ideas ... stories; all products of a cognitive process that, in turn, is so subjective that it cannot work beyond what it has accumilated.

Fair enough. I have no issues with your disagreements. It's a complicated topic to begin with.

Was doing a bit of research earlier but am doing other things so can't focus on it right now. I'll be sure to check those 2 out as early as tommorow.

Actually we can have an objective reality, or rather we must have it, in order to exist ourselves. Be it this way or the other we would need to have a common ground through which we could talk to as we're doing now. Wether we can truly perceive it tho is a question.

I didn't say anything about morals being objective tho. I just argued for the existence of morals or (or any other idea) regardless of the objectivity or subjectivity that existence entails.

So I guess when it comes to these topics there's no clear resolution and thus we're left to "agree to disagree". I do have one more question however. In all this subjectivity, where the notion of truth and false isn't allowed, how can we claim relativism to be true without going against it? For a view which calls for no truths would leave its adopting as true contradictive to its very nature. A paradox.

If we don't think relativism or universal subjectivity is true we are simply forming a relative opinion - a worldview.

If we thinkrelativism or universal subjectivity is true then we are making a notion of there being an absolute truth, therefore implying that it is actually false.

Paradoxially, it would be more devastating for this view to accept it than to refute it. The only third option I see is to decide that there is no absolute truth besides the nothion that there is no absolute truth. This however I find unconvincing as it resorts to the taxicab fallacy, dismissing an issue when arriving at the desired location "just because".

 

[shelke]

Was doing a bit of research earlier but am doing other things so can't focus on it right now. I'll be sure to check those 2 out as early as tommorow.

Actually we can have an objective reality, or rather we must have it, in order to exist ourselves. Be it this way or the other we would need to have a common ground through which we could talk to as we're doing now. Wether we can truly perceive it tho is a question.

I didn't say anything about morals being objective tho. I just argued for the existence of morals or (or any other idea) regardless of the objectivity or subjectivity that existence entails.

So I guess when it comes to these topics there's no clear resolution and thus we're left to "agree to disagree". I do have one more question however. In all this subjectivity, where the notion of truth and false isn't allowed, how can we claim relativism to be true without going against it? For a view which calls for no truths would leave its adopting as true contradictive to its very nature. A paradox.

If we don't think relativism or universal subjectivity is true we are simply forming a relative opinion - a worldview.

If we thinkrelativism or universal subjectivity is true then we are making a notion of there being an absolute truth, therefore implying that it is actually false.

Paradoxially, it would be more devastating for this view to accept it than to refute it. The only third option I see is to decide that there is no absolute truth besides the nothion that there is no absolute truth. This however I find unconvincing as it resorts to the taxicab fallacy, dismissing an issue when arriving at the desired location "just because".

But, what does it mean to exist? Imagine someone dying somewhere. He existed. How many knew he lived and died? How does it make his existence a matter of objective perspective when only few would know he existed and died? When you have subjective beings, gauging subjective experiences ... how does it make that Reality objective? Kind of a contradiction, don't you think?

Everything is relative. Whether it is experience, vision, perspective and so on. This inconsistency in views is what is, probably, the only Truth in human existence. But is it absolute? I highly doubt it. That is the best way I can summarize it. The term "Turth" isn't some greater or lesser truth; it can exist for simplest of things. Death is truth, finality is truth, our own subjective existence is a small truth of our own, despite it being a paradox in regards to objectivity. Paradoxes arise when you widen the scope. How can one vouch for everyone's existence? You have numbers, but is it possible to share their experiences? Is it possible to collecticely experience them? Is it possible to develop an objective, absolute truth out of the simple notion that they exist? It isn't. You can't. It is "objectively" impossible.

^ You see? The more one delves into this, the more complicated it gets. If one concept is antithetical to Truth, then how can one say for certain that everything is abolustely False? Then you have conclusion yourself, that is there, really, an absolute truth? I don't believe it even exists.

 

[Marin]

But, what does it mean to exist? Imagine someone dying somewhere. He existed. How many knew he lived and died? How does it make his existence a matter of objective perspective when only few would know he existed and died? When you have subjective beings, gauging subjective experiences ... how does it make that Reality objective? Kind of a contradiction, don't you think?

It appears we have a misunderstanding. I'm not talking about a objective perspective. As if such a thing could exist, regardless of what worldview one holds. (The very definition of a perspective claims it to be a subjective property unique to each individual). No, what I find necessary is an objective/absolute reality. A medium for all of us to observe and based on which we can arrive at our subjective conclusions. Before tackling your example, I'm gonna lay out mine.

We're currently talking to each other through the magic of internet right? Using electric sygnals to exchange information through a comlex continuous transfer of data packets processed accordingly to a certain group of algorythms, no? Well, imagine a hypothetical scenario in which these sygnals would be actual beings (planktons of a sort). These beings would not be able to percieve the reality that surrounds them, they wouldn't be able to understand how they're moving through the internet, how these protocols and algorythms work, where they are coming from and what is their destination etc. They wouldn't know any of those things.

They'd only observe travelling at fast speeds and transforming to a binary format upon arriving at their destination. Every sygnal would see this road differently. Now, comes the question. Does their inability to percieve the reality surrounds them do anything to render that reality non-existent? The answer is a clear no. And I'm not talking here about their idea of reality, I'm talking about a reality they aren't/can't comprehend. A reality that exists regardless of their perceptions.

Same thing applies to us. Our simple inability to percieve reality as it is (in an objective consistent manner) speaks nothing for the objective reality itself. The very fact that we're here debating a reality means the reality exists. Us not being able to agree on it's undeniable existence means little to the existence on its own.

Your example of a dying man in much the same fashion speaks nothing about the reality but our perceptions of the reality. Wether we know he died or not doesn't change the fact that he really died. Reality isn't formed of subjective perspectives. It's formed of beings which aren't capable of objective perspectives and thus have to rely on subjective experiences.

I see no contradiction here.

Everything is relative. Whether it is experience, vision, perspective and so on. This inconsistency in views is what is, probably, the only Truth in human existence. But is it absolute? I highly doubt it. That is the best way I can summarize it. The term "Turth" isn't some greater or lesser truth; it can exist for simplest of things. Death is truth, finality is truth, our own subjective existence is a small truth of our own, despite it being a paradox in regards to objectivity. Paradoxes arise when you widen the scope. How can one vouch for everyone's existence? You have numbers, but is it possible to share their experiences? Is it possible to collecticely experience them? Is it possible to develop an objective, absolute truth out of the simple notion that they exist? It isn't. You can't. It is "objectively" impossible.

Ah, but how can something be true, yet not objective? The mere definition of the word "true" calls for an objective/absolute footing in an actual reality - a fact.

"being in accordance with the actual state or conditions; conforming to reality or fact; not false"

For something to be true it must be absolute. Otherwise we would ignore the meaning of the word true. A thing that puzzles me about your further statements is that you call occurances such as death (even tho you just said that death of a man is not a real thing/truth) true stating that simple things can be true but complex can't. Why is that? Surely death is just as compromising to the idea that there are no absolute truths as is any other notion that would imply absolute truthfullness. As I said above, if a man is to die then he has absolutely, undeniably died regardless of what one may think. His death is a fact.

The only thing you can do when faced with such things is expand the scope of absolute truths to all simple things, but this again begs the question, why? On what grounds do we choose what is allowed to exist as an absolute truth in a worldview permitting no absolute truths. The very question is a contradiction.

^ You see? The more one delves into this, the more complicated it gets. If one concept is antithetical to Truth, then how can one say for certain that everything is abolustely False? Then you have conclusion yourself, that is there, really, an absolute truth? I don't believe it even exists.

Indeed, the more I think about this the more contradictive it seems. There is really no way to make a point that this worldview is right as it would undermine the very worldview. The only thing you can say is that you think this worldview is right, but by doing so you concede that that very belief is no more than your own relative stance. Just one of many possible opinions which one could embrace but really has no valid reason to.

I don't see how any of this successfully answers the dilemma I proposed.

 

[shelke]

It appears we have a misunderstanding. I'm not talking about a objective perspective. As if such a thing could exist, regardless of what worldview one holds. (The very definition of a perspective claims it to be a subjective property unique to each individual). No, what I find necessary is an objective/absolute reality. A medium for all of us to observe and based on which we can arrive at our subjective conclusions. Before tackling your example, I'm gonna lay out mine.

We're currently talking to each other through the magic of internet right? Using electric sygnals to exchange information through a comlex continuous transfer of data packets processed accordingly to a certain group of algorythms, no? Well, imagine a hypothetical scenario in which these sygnals would be actual beings (planktons of a sort). These beings would not be able to percieve the reality that surrounds them, they wouldn't be able to understand how they're moving through the internet, how these protocols and algorythms work, where they are coming from and what is their destination etc. They wouldn't know any of those things.

They'd only observe travelling at fast speeds and transforming to a binary format upon arriving at their destination. Every sygnal would see this road differently. Now, comes the question. Does their inability to percieve the reality surrounds them do anything to render that reality non-existent? The answer is a clear no. And I'm not talking here about their idea of reality, I'm talking about a reality they aren't/can't comprehend. A reality that exists regardless of their perceptions.

Same thing applies to us. Our simple inability to percieve reality as it is (in an objective consistent manner) speaks nothing for the objective reality itself. The very fact that we're here debating a reality means the reality exists. Us not being able to agree on it's undeniable existence means little to the existence on its own.

Your example of a dying man in much the same fashion speaks nothing about the reality but our perceptions of the reality. Wether we know he died or not doesn't change the fact that he really died. Reality isn't formed of subjective perspectives. It's formed of beings which aren't capable of objective perspectives and thus have to rely on subjective experiences.

I see no contradiction here.

It hinges upon the belief as to what their reality is based upon. How many of those beings would share the same data? Sure, their path of travel is the same. They may have the same destination. But does that take away from their individual, limited existences? That makes their existence limited, and in turn, their Reality is limited as well.

Think of it this way, many people go to the same school. You may know the numbers, but how many carry themselves into our reality? 5, 10, 20 ... make it 50? What becames of the remaining 1000 you only know through a manufactured number? Their reality is reduced to a mere digit. You don't know them, their perspectives and their own limited realities.

It becomes a contradiction then, as without any ackowledgement, their reality is just as meaningless to you, as yours is to them; you would only be known to them as a digit; 1 in a 1000. What would be the collective reality then? Packets of subjectivity. Where is the abolute Truth here then? Where is the objective reality? What that reality even amounts to? When there is no shared knowledge, no shared data and perspective ... how can one "objective" stance on existence can even be formed? You cannot reduce it to numbers.

Death is a subjective experience. Looking at someone dying, isn't the same as dying and that isn't the same as hearing about it and that isn't the same as imagining people die on daily basis. I have penned down four different realities of death right now! Where is the Absolute Truth in Death's experience, when the experience is never the same?

Ah, but how can something be true, yet not objective? The mere definition of the word "true" calls for an objective/absolute footing in an actual reality - a fact.

"being in accordance with the actual state or conditions; conforming to reality or fact; not false"

For something to be true it must be absolute. Otherwise we would ignore the meaning of the word true. A thing that puzzles me about your further statements is that you call occurances such as death (even tho you just said that death of a man is not a real thing/truth) true stating that simple things can be true but complex can't. Why is that? Surely death is just as compromising to the idea that there are no absolute truths as is any other notion that would imply absolute truthfullness. As I said above, if a man is to die then he has absolutely, undeniably died regardless of what one may think. His death is a fact.

The only thing you can do when faced with such things is expand the scope of absolute truths to all simple things, but this again begs the question, why? On what grounds do we choose what is allowed to exist as an absolute truth in a worldview permitting no absolute truths. The very question is a contradiction.

Indeed, the more I think about this the more contradictive it seems. There is really no way to make a point that this worldview is right as it would undermine the very worldview. The only thing you can say is that you think this worldview is right, but by doing so you concede that that very belief is no more than your own relative stance. Just one of many possible opinions which one could embrace but really has no valid reason to.

I don't see how any of this successfully answers the dilemma I proposed.

But again, how do you know what Truth is? It's again a shared belief that is agreed upon by the masses. This definition is one such "agreed upon" sense of the word. A man steals money from someone. His truth is that he simply took money as he's poor. The society sees truth in a manner that he went against the established morals. Whatever isn't shared and agreed upon automatically becomes incorrect. If I call my right hand left and left hand right, does it change the fact that I have two hands and I simply used one at a single time? The terms I invented would be wrong, as right means the hand to the right and left just that. That is "manufactured Truth" and the other statement "False". There are no absolutes here.

I do not follow this statement: "A thing that puzzles me about your further statements is that you call occurrences such as death (even tho you just said that death of a man is not a real thing/truth) true stating that simple things can be true but complex can't. Why is that?" Kindly, rephrase it.

On what grounds should absolute Truths be expanded to simple things? There has to be some merit. Why should it be an absolute truth that two fingers means 2? Because it is an agreed upon notion? Why should it be an absolute truth that we live, when we never live the same way? Why is it an absolute truth that we die, when we never die the same way? Why should the notion of "absolutes" be even associated with "truth," when it's a mere bundle of agreed upon ideals, which are subjective?

Of course, it is my relative stance. Which makes it so delightfully ironic!

 

[Deadlift]

Precisely. A rather simple matter.

You denied the existence of right and wrong, you denied any of us the capacity to make conclusions, and now you come here claiming that "societal concepts" are wrong. You're self contradicting a lot.

Where are your proofs? All you have is an antithetical argument, "you can't prove it, so they exist." It's simply a silly way of suggesting that I cannot prove anything, but it exists ... because I somehow believe it to be true. Your belief doesn't concern me, when you'll be hardpressed to find the distinction between good and evil beyond human history. If I suggest that unicorns are not a stuff of myth, but a real animal, and I saw one flying last night ... it even broke wing and sparkly rainbows came out of its hindquarters ... how am I wrong? See, that's not how this works; this black and white notion of abstractions you have got in store.

Are you stoned? XD first of all, the one making claims here is you, as you will agree with me that "morality is wrong" is a positive claim. It's a statement, therefore the burden of the proof is on your shoulders as well. Sorry, but you can't be lazy in such a context.

Good and evil cuturally shift and alter themselves. In one society one thing is evil, in another it wouldn't hold such a status. When you have so much discrepancy in one era, and if you look back, even more so, how can you suggest to me for a fact that some kind of "objective" bursh is at play here that would declare what is good and evil with a single divine stroke? I hope to god you are joking.

Good and evil didn't shift that much. Yes, we have details of morality different than another culture, but there are things that have always been recognized as right or wrong.
Or you maybe can do some examples of societies where stealing was not wrong? Or the unmotivated killing of an equivalent? Would you make me some examples in which to save the life of a not condemned was not right?
It's the law of the species' survival, some things cannot be changed.

The fact that you can't seem to process that good and evil are ... concepts that are manufactured and integrated into the social system alone proves how cliched this all is. Also, just because "many" people share a belief doesn't make it right. Take nationalism and tell me ONE logical aspect behind any man's blind adherence to it. It's yet another cliche socities simply adore.

Do you even realize that such a concept of society is a societal belief as well? The notion of society as we do intend it was born in the Enlightenment, if you wanna be so aloof from societal concept you have to get rid even of the concept of societal concept. As I already said.
Nationalism has nothing to do with morality. It is just using the feeling of membership and to mix it with lots of rhetoric so you can "hypnotize" the masses. But it's not true that nationalism is "another" morality. If it wasn't, dictators wouldn't have to hide to their population all the homicides they do in order to keep their power stable.

What have I dodged? You claim it's real, not me. You are the one who has to prove how an abstraction can even be real. The onus and burden of backing up your flimsy claim lies with you.

For example you have ignored my confutation of your dubitative thought, as you didn't answer at all my question of how something shared by the most of the people is automatically wrong. And last but not least you are contradictory, as you speak of the non existence of morality with a moralistic tone I coul only dream about.

I don't see how any of this successfully answers the dilemma I proposed.

Line up brah, he likes to let questions unanswered

 

[shelke]

You denied the existence of right and wrong, you denied any of us the capacity to make conclusions, and now you come here claiming that "societal concepts" are wrong. You're self contradicting a lot.

Are you stoned? XD first of all, the one making claims here is you, as you will agree with me that "morality is wrong" is a positive claim. It's a statement, therefore the burden of the proof is on your shoulders as well. Sorry, but you can't be lazy in such a context.

Good and evil didn't shift that much. Yes, we have details of morality different than another culture, but there are things that have always been recognized as right or wrong.
Or you maybe can do some examples of societies where stealing was not wrong? Or the unmotivated killing of an equivalent? Would you make me some examples in which to save the life of a not condemned was not right?
It's the law of the species' survival, some things cannot be changed.

Do you even realize that such a concept of society is a societal belief as well? The notion of society as we do intend it was born in the Enlightenment, if you wanna be so aloof from societal concept you have to get rid even of the concept of societal concept. As I already said.
Nationalism has nothing to do with morality. It is just using the feeling of membership and to mix it with lots of rhetoric so you can "hypnotize" the masses. But it's not true that nationalism is "another" morality. If it wasn't, dictators wouldn't have to hide to their population all the homicides they do in order to keep their power stable.

For example you have ignored my confutation of your dubitative thought, as you didn't answer at all my question of how something shared by the most of the people is automatically wrong. And last but not least you are contradictory, as you speak of the non existence of morality with a moralistic tone I coul only dream about.

I am sorry, if you don't understand the concept of "language". If there was any other word, I could have used it to replace wrong, but unfortunately, there isn't any. The rest of it was enough to built some context, but it looks like you failed to grasp the crux of the argument again: "morals are manufactured." Does this phrase help? God, I hope so.

I see no counterargument other than the same old weak claims that it ... simply exists. Why? Where is the answer?

Perhaps, you should actually read a bit of history. Adultry was punishable by death, yet now, more than half the world practices it. Rape has death sentence in some countries, whilst others don't sentence that harshly, and that's just the tip of the iceberg here. I haven't even touched the cultural practices in the past such a slavery, rape (yes, it was a cultural practice amongst zoroastrians and the Christians under their rule), cannibalism etc. What are you even talking about? I mean, seriously?

Funny, because it has become synonymous with it, as persona non gratas are to be killed without impunity under the right contexts. Why do you assume this cliche is so far apart from the cliches of morality? Silly. Belief is also simply a set of ideals and concepts. Whether one wants to get rid of the concept isn't even the debate here. We are talking about something entirely different. I am not even remotely interested in that discussion as it's a dead horse to me at this point after my debates with Hawker in many a thread.

What have I not answered? You claim morals exist. I have laid down a simple principle: any "manufactured" idea doesn't exist. Now prove it that it does. Asking me for giving you meaning behind "manufactured" is like asking a map to tie shoelaces. It really is a "simple" explanation and you are running around in circles, asking me to validate that "why am I calling manufactured ... manufactured?" Are you sure I am the one who is stoned?

 

[roark]

I am sorry, if you don't understand the concept of "language". If there was any other word, I could have used it to replace wrong, but unfortunately, there isn't any. The rest of it was enough to built some context, but it looks like you failed to grasp the crux of the argument again: "morals are manufactured." Does this phrase help? God, I hope so.

I see no counterargument other than the same old weak claims that it ... simply exists. Why? Where is the answer?

Perhaps, you should actually read a bit of history. Adultry was punishable by death, yet now, more than half the world practices it. Rape has death sentence in some countries, whilst others don't sentence that harshly, and that's just the tip of the iceberg here. I haven't even touched the cultural practices in the past such a slavery, rape (yes, it was a cultural practice amongst zoroastrians and the Christians under their rule), cannibalism etc. What are you even talking about? I mean, seriously?



Funny, because it has become synonymous with it, as persona non gratas are to be killed without impunity under the right contexts. Why do you assume this cliche is so far apart from the cliches of morality? Silly. Belief is also simply a set of ideals and concepts. Whether one wants to get rid of the concept isn't even the debate here. We are talking about something entirely different. I am not even remotely interested in that discussion as it's a dead horse to me at this point after my debates with Hawker in many a thread.

What have I not answered? You claim morals exist. I have laid down a simple principle: any "manufactured" idea doesn't exist. Now prove it that it does. Asking me for giving you meaning behind "manufactured" is like asking a map to tie shoelaces. It really is a "simple" explanation and you are running around in circles, asking me to validate that "why am I calling manufactured ... manufactured?" Are you sure I am the one who is stoned?

By that You mean with que reality is subjetive by morals and perception wich is not complety "true". Reality exist independent of me and you, but how we deal with it is different. You are mixing concepts related to ethics and morality, and problematising with the wrong methods. There is a moral that is related to customs given society, and ethics, which is the agent able to judge the inherent moral values.

you are claiming so that ethics is related to moral granted to the human being, and then you affirmed, that there's is not right and wrong. But by your logic, moral judgments are related to the society in which we live consider right. However when that you affirm, primarly, that everything is relative, it makes relativity an absolute truth , which already is a contradiction.

Also with this, the moral progress is denied. And this has nothing to do with Darwinism. If you are, it iyou claim to be, that philosophy knowledgeable, should understand better what you presuppose.

Relative to steal, kill, adultery, torture it in all cultures was considered a bad thing and object or method of punishment. Even those who were celebrating death, if strangers killed their loved , it was never considered something good. So there was always a range for how it was tolerable, but there are ascpets that are inherent to the human being. How to the system with it, the values that are assigned to it, so, change over time.

societies are not morally infallible, human being is doomed to error because it is not perfect. With perfect, in the sense of complete.