The problem of evil

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Re: The problem of evil

Postby Fanman » Tue Apr 10, 2018 11:33 pm

Serendipper,

Because they deviate from the norm.


Exactly, but putting laws aside, what defines what the norm is? Memes, the zeitgeist, sub-cultures? Or is it something deeper / more intrinsic to the human-condition like conscience or the need for survival? I'm not sure?

Society seems awfully decadent to me. I see some imposition of morality, but not much practicing.

Things can seem that way I agree, but is that necessarily the case? I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt, which has sometimes been advantageous.

From my limited perspective, society seems to be stagnant in terms of morality, although when I look through the history books and the things that have occurred, I think that morality is on an upward curve, which (I think) is evident, as we've had a few paradigmatic shifts. So I think there is change for the better in terms of morality, but we may not experience the changes in our lifetimes.

There is a song that goes "You've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything."


Its a maxim that a lot of people use. Basically I think its about having principles and whether we are willing to compromise them or not. I've stuck to principles in the past, but it came up turtles. I'm not so sure I wouldn't compromise if faced with the same situations again, would compromising imply that I have fallen for something?
Fanman
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

Re: The problem of evil

Postby Serendipper » Tue Apr 10, 2018 11:34 pm

Greatest I am wrote:You do what you do for your own sense of duty to your fellow man and the honor you feel that allows you to hold your head high.

It's not so much a sense of duty but sense of consideration. If we agree to meet at 5, I will be there because I'm considerate of you, not because it's my duty to arrive. And because I've extended the consideration, if you do not show, then I'll be mad because the consideration I've shown was not reciprocated.

" The bad part of holding yourself to high standards is being in judgement of those who don't."

Yet if those like you did not, the rest would never improve.

Well, it's not working because ever since smartphones came along, people took a dive off the moral ladder. For every example I am, there are 1 billion opposites.

"Those who know, don't speak; those who speak, don't know."

If one is in the know and does not speak, then one does not love or care about his fellow man.

I suppose it's because he doesn't have a puzzle to solve because it's already solved, so no reason to chat about it. The ones who talk are the ones who haven't solved their own problems. "The empty can rattles the most."

I quote few word out of the scriptures for their moral value, because they are few but do quote this one.

Proverbs 3:12 For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

Yes but then there are the plagues he dispensed which didn't produce correction, but made the people dig in more in their ways.

Revelation 16:11 And blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, and repented not of their deeds.

I do not love near as well or as much as I should, and likely never will, but duty forces me to try to correct which at the same time would correct myself if I were wrong thanks to whatever wisdom I would learn from my interlocutors.

Where does the sense of duty originate?

Imagine if no one bothered to correct poor thinking or actions. We would still be living in caves and trees.

Yes but knowledge progresses one funeral at a time. People don't like to be corrected.

Remember that when a love bias is formed, it's counterpart, a hate bias is formed against whatever goes against your love bias. IOW, hate is born of love and should be embraced as it will act to reduce hateful actions and thoiughts.

Yes exactly. You must hate that which threatens what you love.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1383
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The problem of evil

Postby Serendipper » Tue Apr 10, 2018 11:51 pm

Fanman wrote:Serendipper,

Because they deviate from the norm.


Exactly, but putting laws aside, what defines what the norm is? Memes, the zeitgeist, sub-cultures? Or is it something deeper / more intrinsic to the human-condition like conscience or the need for survival? I'm not sure?

A coincidental agreement defines the norm. Just ask a group of people what they feel is right and there you have a norm and the deviants.

Society seems awfully decadent to me. I see some imposition of morality, but not much practicing.

Things can seem that way I agree, but is that necessarily the case? I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt, which has sometimes been advantageous.

From my limited perspective, society seems to be stagnant in terms of morality, although when I look through the history books and the things that have occurred, I think that morality is on an upward curve, which (I think) is evident, as we've had a few paradigmatic shifts. So I think there is change for the better in terms of morality, but we may not experience the changes in our lifetimes.

Morality could be cyclical rather than steadily progressing one way or the other. We now have gay marriage, transgenderism, undermining the sanctity of marriage in general and family values, rejection of 10 commandments from schools, and 100s of other subtleties that contribute to an overall decline in having anything to stand for.

Like the Garden of Allah song by Don Henley:

It was pretty big year for predators
The marketplace was on a roll
And the land of opportunity
Spawned a whole new breed of men without souls
This year, notoriety got all confused with fame
And the devil is downhearted babe, cause
There's nothing left for him to claim

He said it's just like home
It's so low-down I can't stand it
I guess my work around here has all been done


Y'know I remember when things were a lot more fun around here
When good was good and evil was evil
Before things got so fuzzy


https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/donhenl ... allah.html

There is a song that goes "You've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything."


Its a maxim that a lot of people use. Basically I think its about having principles and whether we are willing to compromise them or not. I've stuck to principles in the past, but it came up turtles. I'm not so sure I wouldn't compromise if faced with the same situations again, would compromising imply that I have fallen for something?

Maybe

24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.


I'm guessing either you built your principle on the sand and it fell or you built it upon a rock and then was lured away. So I suppose either it fell or you fell. The same things happened to me too.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1383
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The problem of evil

Postby Fanman » Tue Apr 10, 2018 11:53 pm

GIA,

I agree. That seems to be the case except when a country is religious. Stats are showing that the more religiosity there is in a country, the less peaceful and internally coherent it is.


I agree. The seemingly “outdated” nature of religion can have the effect of causing a society to be non-progressive or worse. I believe the correct term is anachronistic.

Religion is not our friend, even though I am one of those who follows a religious ideology. Gnostic Christianity. We tend to be peaceful though as we are thought to be closer to agnosticism than theism.


That's all good. I think that religion can have benefits for the individual, but it's imposing nature hasn't really worked for any of the societies where it is very prevalent. But that's my Western perspective.
Fanman
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

Re: The problem of evil

Postby Fanman » Wed Apr 11, 2018 12:17 am

Serendipper,

A coincidental agreement defines the norm. Just ask a group of people what they feel is right and there you have a norm and the deviants.


That's right. Although I would query whether the agreement is coincidental. People from the same culture / sub-culture may well share the same perspectives.

Morality could be cyclical rather than steadily progressing one way or the other. We now have gay marriage, transgenderism, undermining the sanctity of marriage in general and family values, rejection of 10 commandments from schools, and 100s of other subtleties that contribute to an overall decline in having anything to stand for.


Very interesting. I agree, morality could be cyclical rather than progressive. But still, I think that there would be an upward curve, even if we look at a period of time of just 100 years, but there would be some “dips” along the curve. As for there being anything to stand for, I guess we have to choose our own reasons, rather than any cause being inherently worthy. And even if we think that something is inherently worthy of standing for, there are norms, values and dare I say political correctness to be considered.

I'm guessing either you built your principle on the sand and it fell or you built it upon a rock and then was lured away. So I suppose either it fell or you fell. The same things happened to me too.


Very good. With hindsight, my case was surely one of sand and it fell. Although at the time I was sure it was rock :-k .
Fanman
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

Re: The problem of evil

Postby phyllo » Wed Apr 11, 2018 1:19 am

No, I've been unceremoniously replying to everyone and every point for the last 4 months while quietly watching every single person here eventually fail to reciprocate and I've not said a peep until now and only because it's an example of my morality affecting my decision, but not y'all's.

Do I put myself above you? Maybe, but I couldn't do what y'all do because I view it as inconsiderate. I just don't feel right about it and I never have. The only way I can leave anyone hanging is just to leave to site altogether. So are you superhuman or am I? How can we tell? Is the drunk drinking 30 beers per night superhuman? Or the one who wouldn't notice if beer fell off the earth? Who has the advantage?
Okay, I understand what you expect.

You expect to have control over other people, how they react, how they interpret your actions - you can't have that. You only have control over your own decisions, your own actions and your own interpretations.

If you think that you are above me, then it's your thought and I can't do anything about it.

If you think that I'm inconsiderate then that's your evaluation of me. I can't do anything about it. If you tell me,then I will consider the merit of your statement and I may do something to change my behavior or maybe not - It's my decision, not yours.
Morality is obviously a disadvantage:

Survival was a moral as well as a physical struggle.
Ignores all the instances when people have helped each other.
"The fact that you possess a sense of morality, and we do not, gives us an evolutionary advantage."
If morality was an evolutionary disadvantage then it would no longer exist except in perhaps small isolated cases. The advantageous adaptation would have been amorality. That's not the current situation.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10963
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: The problem of evil

Postby Serendipper » Wed Apr 11, 2018 1:26 am

Fanman wrote:Serendipper,

A coincidental agreement defines the norm. Just ask a group of people what they feel is right and there you have a norm and the deviants.


That's right. Although I would query whether the agreement is coincidental. People from the same culture / sub-culture may well share the same perspectives.

Sure but one environment selects for the next. We've had good weather for the last so many 1000s of years which caused culture to be one way rather than another and ultimately it just so happened. Prosperity engenders decadence since when times are good there is no selection force determining objectively why one way is better than another, so people abandon traditions thinking this time is different or perhaps not remembering the hardships of previous generations.

Image

Morality could be cyclical rather than steadily progressing one way or the other. We now have gay marriage, transgenderism, undermining the sanctity of marriage in general and family values, rejection of 10 commandments from schools, and 100s of other subtleties that contribute to an overall decline in having anything to stand for.


Very interesting. I agree, morality could be cyclical rather than progressive. But still, I think that there would be an upward curve, even if we look at a period of time of just 100 years, but there would be some “dips” along the curve.

You think we're more moral now than 100 yrs ago?

As for there being anything to stand for, I guess we have to choose our own reasons, rather than any cause being inherently worthy. And even if we think that something is inherently worthy of standing for, there are norms, values and dare I say political correctness to be considered.

I think it's a function of the number of people and general prosperity. When yahoo IM was the thing, people said goodnight, goodbye, TTYL. They had to wait until they got home to talk and was very excited to do so, but now we carry people around in our pocket, we don't say goodnight or bye or go to hell because, who cares? People are of abundance so there is nothing selecting for considerate behavior. If someone protests, block him and pick from the multitude that remains.

We are raising a generation of deluded narcissists

I'm guessing either you built your principle on the sand and it fell or you built it upon a rock and then was lured away. So I suppose either it fell or you fell. The same things happened to me too.


Very good. With hindsight, my case was surely one of sand and it fell. Although at the time I was sure it was rock :-k .

Sometimes sandy clay can seem like a rock, until it rains ;)
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1383
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The problem of evil

Postby Serendipper » Wed Apr 11, 2018 1:58 am

phyllo wrote:
No, I've been unceremoniously replying to everyone and every point for the last 4 months while quietly watching every single person here eventually fail to reciprocate and I've not said a peep until now and only because it's an example of my morality affecting my decision, but not y'all's.

Do I put myself above you? Maybe, but I couldn't do what y'all do because I view it as inconsiderate. I just don't feel right about it and I never have. The only way I can leave anyone hanging is just to leave to site altogether. So are you superhuman or am I? How can we tell? Is the drunk drinking 30 beers per night superhuman? Or the one who wouldn't notice if beer fell off the earth? Who has the advantage?
Okay, I understand what you expect.

You expect to have control over other people,


Maybe you misread "No, I've been **unceremoniously** replying to everyone and every point for the last 4 months while **quietly** watching every single person here eventually fail to reciprocate and **I've not said a peep** until now and only because it's an example of my morality affecting my decision, but not y'all's."

How could I expect to control other people when I never let them know? It's a hopeless situation. I can't change 8 billion people, so I gave up on them and if someone replies, fine; if not, fine. But that easy-going attitude comes with consequences since if I don't regard humans above animals, or even on par, then I have no sympathy for them and if I see someone plotting destruction, I'm minding my own business rather than burdening myself with the obligation of protecting people who can't display consideration for anyone else.

As I said before, I've gotten to the point that I'd rather throw things in the garbage than sell on craigslist because I can't handle one more person breaking their word to me. "I'll be there tomorrow at 6 to buy the widget you're selling" and I take time out of my schedule to be available at 6 only to find they don't show or call to let me know that they've changed their mind. I've transformed from the most considerate and helpful person you'd ever be lucky enough to know to a genuine misanthrope with no respect for humanity whatsoever.

In Plato's Phaedo, Socrates describes a misanthrope in relation to his fellow man: "Misanthropy develops when without art one puts complete trust in somebody thinking the man absolutely true and sound and reliable and then a little later discovers him to be bad and unreliable ... and when it happens to someone often ... he ends up ... hating everyone."[9] Misanthropy, then, is presented as a potential result of thwarted expectations or even excessively naïve optimism, since Plato argues that "art" would have allowed the potential misanthrope to recognize that the majority of men are to be found in between good and evil. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misanthropy

Morality is obviously a disadvantage:

If morality was an evolutionary disadvantage then it would no longer exist except in perhaps small isolated cases. The advantageous adaptation would have been amorality. That's not the current situation.

It's not over yet and morality is declining... if we measure morality as consideration for others.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1383
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The problem of evil

Postby phyllo » Wed Apr 11, 2018 2:30 am

Maybe you misread "No, I've been **unceremoniously** replying to everyone and every point for the last 4 months while **quietly** watching every single person here eventually fail to reciprocate and **I've not said a peep** until now and only because it's an example of my morality affecting my decision, but not y'all's."
I read between the lines. If you really had no expectations then you would not be upset about their responses(or lack of responses).
How could I expect to control other people when I never let them know?
That would be irrational.
It's a hopeless situation. I can't change 8 billion people, so I gave up on them and if someone replies, fine; if not, fine. But that easy-going attitude comes with consequences since if I don't regard humans above animals, or even on par, then I have no sympathy for them and if I see someone plotting destruction, I'm minding my own business rather than burdening myself with the obligation of protecting people who can't display consideration for anyone else.
Sounds like you are angry and resentful.
In Plato's Phaedo, Socrates describes a misanthrope in relation to his fellow man: "Misanthropy develops when without art one puts complete trust in somebody thinking the man absolutely true and sound and reliable and then a little later discovers him to be bad and unreliable ... and when it happens to someone often ... he ends up ... hating everyone."[9] Misanthropy, then, is presented as a potential result of thwarted expectations or even excessively naïve optimism, since Plato argues that "art" would have allowed the potential misanthrope to recognize that the majority of men are to be found in between good and evil. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misanthropy
Notice that Plato says that the misanthrope's solution of "hating everyone" can and should be avoided.
It's not over yet and morality is declining... if we measure morality as consideration for others.
Morality is measured by consideration for others?

I'm not sure about that.

If it is a correct measure, then is consideration on the decline? How does one actually measure consideration?
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10963
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: The problem of evil

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Apr 11, 2018 3:26 am

Serendipper wrote:No, I've been unceremoniously replying to everyone and every point for the last 4 months while quietly watching every single person here eventually fail to reciprocate and I've not said a peep until now and only because it's an example of my morality affecting my decision, but not y'all's.
Consider the possibility that at least one of those people experienced some of those responses you made in every instance not as examples of reciprocity. The act of answering with words is not necessarily responding. If you grasped at any possible point even if it contradicted previous ones, there is no reciprocity. Ah, they left me again. Well, sure, they found themselves alone, and so left. The noble victim tone seems out of place to me.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: The problem of evil

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Apr 11, 2018 3:39 am

phyllo wrote:One has to consider the obvious definition of the word "steal". Later, one can move on to other considerations.
I did. I specifically addressed that in two ways, one based on what one is doing when stealing and how this differed from what was happening in the scenario and then I did it in relation to the definition you provided, by pointing out that one does in fact have a legal right to take weapons away from terrorists and so it is not considered, under the law, stealing.
You have a legal right to stop a terrorist act in that scenario by taking the terrorists bomb. Taking it. If you steal it and keep it for yourself or sell it after stealing it, that would be stealing it and not taking it.
You know what they say ... one person's 'terrorist' is another person's 'freedom fighter'.

Not relevant. I worked with YOUR definition.


"Legal right" is itself problematic ... what if a law is enacted which allows you to search any person's wallet and take out any currency which exceeds the amount in your own wallet, thus equalizing the amount in both your wallets. Is that "legal right" ethical? I'm sure lots of people would say "yes".
Right laws can be immoral, as I have said elsewhere. But you are just shifting around. As it happens in the example given, the law, according to both you and me, is fine. It allows one to prevent a terrorist act by taking a bomb from the terrorists. It is not morally or legally an act of stealing.

That some other scenario in some other place might be is not relevant.

And you have a pattern of not responding to points or perhaps not even reading them, just jumping somewhere else and trying some other way to defend your position, rather than addressing particular points made. It ends up with one kind of rudeness where you respond that I have not addressed something when I have and then mounting arguments that have already be countered - if they have not been countered well, then demonstrate it, but is as if they never happened. That is rudeness two. It happened in the thread about moderation and it has happened in other places. It comes off like it is just too hard for you to admit you might be wrong, but I don't know if that's what it is.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: The problem of evil

Postby Serendipper » Wed Apr 11, 2018 3:47 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Serendipper wrote:No, I've been unceremoniously replying to everyone and every point for the last 4 months while quietly watching every single person here eventually fail to reciprocate and I've not said a peep until now and only because it's an example of my morality affecting my decision, but not y'all's.
Consider the possibility that at least one of those people experienced some of those responses you made in every instance not as examples of reciprocity. The act of answering with words is not necessarily responding. If you grasped at any possible point even if it contradicted previous ones, there is no reciprocity. Ah, they left me again. Well, sure, they found themselves alone, and so left. The noble victim tone seems out of place to me.

No you have some hangups about Alan and didn't want to talk anymore, but at least you told me. And this one has been hanging 12 days viewtopic.php?f=7&t=193363&start=225#p2698252

There may be others but I haven't been keeping track. Maybe I shouldn't include you, but it just it seems a ubiquitous trend. I don't want to obligate anyone because I'd feel bad about that, but I'm just pointing out the trend of lack of consideration for others in general, whether it be on here, text, traffic, their promises. And the standards I hold have no influence on anyone else.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1383
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The problem of evil

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Apr 11, 2018 4:00 am

Serendipper wrote:[
No you have some hangups about Alan and didn't want to talk anymore, but at least you told me. And this one has been hanging 12 days http://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.ph ... 5#p2698252
I told you my reasons for stopping, but you 'know' what my real reasons for stopping are: my hang ups. What I said my motivation was, I was incorrect about. You can mind read here and tell me what my motivations were. And that post will keep on hanging, despite how impressed I am with your psychic ability.
It is not even possible that I might have been in error about your arguments but honest about my motivations for stopping. Nor that I was right about your arguments. No, I was wrong about my motivations, period, Jeez.
There may be others but I haven't been keeping track. Maybe I shouldn't include you, but it just it seems a ubiquitous trend. I don't want to obligate anyone because I'd feel bad about that, but I'm just pointing out the trend of lack of consideration for others in general
I found your responses to have a lack of consideration for this reader. I explained that in that post. This is clearly not remotely a possibility to you. You keep producing words, so you must be the one being considerate. I don't think that is necessarily the case, nor do I think it is the case in this instance.

Now you are presenting yourself as the lone honorable person, victimized by people who do not live up to a contract that I do not remember signing. I signed no contract that I must continue to respond to someone who does not seem to me to be being respectful to what he himself has said or to the work I am putting in, since, as I said in my last post in that thread, your arguments contradicted themselves and not subtly, so it felt like you would simply say anything to win or not lose your estimation of Watts. Amongst other things. If something is sufficiently disingenuous, I have feel no obligation to keep responding. Now, I am not saying you are a disingenuous person, but what was happening there, at that time seemed disingenuous to me. That possibility is just not there for you. So you know what my problem was: my hang ups.

Well, good luck with your imperviousness to feedback and your sense of victimization.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: The problem of evil

Postby phyllo » Wed Apr 11, 2018 4:08 am

I did. I specifically addressed that in two ways, one based on what one is doing when stealing and how this differed from what was happening in the scenario and then I did it in relation to the definition you provided, by pointing out that one does in fact have a legal right to take weapons away from terrorists and so it is not considered, under the law, stealing.
I wasn't considering the legal aspects of stealing because I think that it's a separate issue from the ethics of stealing.
Not relevant. I worked with YOUR definition.
My definition didn't involve any legality("Since I would define 'stealing" as taking somebody's property without his/her permission, then it is stealing whatever the motives or intent."). My mistake was using the dictionary definition without editing it. I didn't realize that you would fixate on the "legal rights" phrase. I didn't want to discuss laws. But apparently that's the most important factor for you.
Right laws can be immoral, as I have said elsewhere. But you are just shifting around. As it happens in the example given, the law, according to both you and me, is fine. It allows one to prevent a terrorist act by taking a bomb from the terrorists. It is not morally or legally an act of stealing.
I still don't want to discuss law.
And you have a pattern of not responding to points or perhaps not even reading them, just jumping somewhere else and trying some other way to defend your position, rather than addressing particular points made. It ends up with one kind of rudeness where you respond that I have not addressed something when I have and then mounting arguments that have already be countered - if they have not been countered well, then demonstrate it, but is as if they never happened. That is rudeness two. It happened in the thread about moderation and it has happened in other places. It comes off like it is just too hard for you to admit you might be wrong, but I don't know if that's what it is.
I'm sorry that you don't like my posting style.

I was wrong to post that dictionary definition but I was not wrong in the other aspects of my posts.

These complaints of yours have grown tiresome very quickly.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10963
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: The problem of evil

Postby Serendipper » Wed Apr 11, 2018 4:17 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Serendipper wrote:[
No you have some hangups about Alan and didn't want to talk anymore, but at least you told me. And this one has been hanging 12 days viewtopic.php?f=7&t=193363&start=225#p2698252
I told you my reasons for stopping, but you 'know' what my real reasons for stopping are: my hang ups. What I said my motivation was, I was incorrect about. You can mind read here and tell me what my motivations were. And that post will keep on hanging, despite how impressed I am with your psychic ability.

Let it hang. I stand by my abilities.

There may be others but I haven't been keeping track. Maybe I shouldn't include you, but it just it seems a ubiquitous trend. I don't want to obligate anyone because I'd feel bad about that, but I'm just pointing out the trend of lack of consideration for others in general
I found your responses to have a lack of consideration for this reader. I explained that in that post. This is clearly not remotely a possibility to you. You keep producing words, so you must be the one being considerate. I don't think that is necessarily the case, nor do I think it is the case in this instance.

That's only your interpretation, which I don't agree with. How am I inconsiderate?

Now you are presenting yourself as the lone honorable person,

Should I keep it a secret? Would you feel better if you didn't know? Should I repress my emotions?

victimized by people who do not live up to a contract that I do not remember signing.

Evaluation is not a contract.

I signed no contract that I must continue to respond to someone

Then don't. Did you sign a contract not to lie? So why not lie too? Shit man, take the plunge! To hell with everyone; we're all pricks, weren't you paying attention: misanthrope. No one can live up to my standards and I'm a judgmental hypocrite, so we're all bad therefore you have no moral obligation, so why not just embody what I'm bitching about? Own it!

who does not seem to me to be being respectful to what he himself has said

That's entirely possible, but I've no clue what you're referring to.

or to the work I am putting in,

If you have to work at this, you shouldn't do it. It should be fun.

since, as I said in my last post in that thread, your arguments contradicted themselves and not subtly,

I said I fixed your misunderstanding that they contradicted. No contradiction. You didn't reply.

so it felt like you would simply say anything to win or not lose your estimation of Watts.

That's the wrong impression. I'd love to find some good objections.

Well, good luck with your imperviousness to feedback and your sense of victimization.

Thanks
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1383
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The problem of evil

Postby Serendipper » Wed Apr 11, 2018 5:08 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:I signed no contract that I must continue to respond to someone

It suddenly occurred to me that may be debatable. Remember:

If a moderator sees a poster presenting an argument and dismissing any counterpoints without engaging them,,, ,,, a warning may be issued.

What's debatable is whether you signed that contract or not. Anyway, a little irony for you.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1383
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The problem of evil

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Apr 11, 2018 6:17 am

Serendipper wrote:
Karpel Tunnel wrote:I signed no contract that I must continue to respond to someone

It suddenly occurred to me that may be debatable. Remember:

If a moderator sees a poster presenting an argument and dismissing any counterpoints without engaging them,,, ,,, a warning may be issued.

What's debatable is whether you signed that contract or not. Anyway, a little irony for you.


here's what I 'signed' when I registered...

By accessing “ILovePhilosophy.com” (hereinafter “we”, “us”, “our”, “ILovePhilosophy.com”, “http://www.ilovephilosophy.com”), you agree to be legally bound by the following terms. If you do not agree to be legally bound by all of the following terms then please do not access and/or use “ILovePhilosophy.com”. We may change these at any time and we’ll do our utmost in informing you, though it would be prudent to review this regularly yourself as your continued usage of “ILovePhilosophy.com” after changes mean you agree to be legally bound by these terms as they are updated and/or amended.

Our forums are powered by phpBB (hereinafter “they”, “them”, “their”, “phpBB software”, “www.phpbb.com”, “phpBB Group”, “phpBB Teams”) which is a bulletin board solution released under the “General Public License” (hereinafter “GPL”) and can be downloaded from www.phpbb.com. The phpBB software only facilitates internet based discussions, the phpBB Group are not responsible for what we allow and/or disallow as permissible content and/or conduct. For further information about phpBB, please see: https://www.phpbb.com/.

You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-orientated or any other material that may violate any laws be it of your country, the country where “ILovePhilosophy.com” is hosted or International Law. Doing so may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned, with notification of your Internet Service Provider if deemed required by us. The IP address of all posts are recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. You agree that “ILovePhilosophy.com” have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic at any time should we see fit. As a user you agree to any information you have entered to being stored in a database. While this information will not be disclosed to any third party without your consent, neither “ILovePhilosophy.com” nor phpBB shall be held responsible for any hacking attempt that may lead to the data being compromised.
The rules you quoted I have not agreed to or signed under and made it clear that I did not agree to them in the thread on those rules started by the owner. The agreement I made I have not broken.
Last edited by Karpel Tunnel on Wed Apr 11, 2018 9:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: The problem of evil

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Apr 11, 2018 6:54 am

Serendipper wrote:Let it hang. I stand by my abilities.
OK, so you know I stopped responding to you there because I have a hang up with Watts and not in reaction to how I thought you were posting. Which is a fuck you to me, and so was the way you presented yourself as the only honorable person (in the world potentially) but certainly here at the forums. You might want to consider that some people may pull away from you because your attitude, that you think you are the only honorable person affects the way you communicate with them and your own ability to introspect and evaluate what you are doing. Toss in your certainty around your psychic abilities and you have a really toxic batch.

That's only your interpretation, which I don't agree with.
Of course it is my interpretation. And right or wrong that interpretation was why I stopped responding to you in that thread despite your psychic conclusion. Here you seem to accept that it is my interpretation. Would it be so strange if that was my interpretation that it would lead to motivating me to stop responding? And in fact it was the reason. Being bugged by Watts could easily motivate my continued critique of him, in fact that is more likely. But you are sure, for some reason, I stopped because I had a problem with Watts. Frankly that's not just bad psychic abilities, but just plain psychologically insightless.

How am I inconsiderate?
When someone is repeatedly willing to contradict himself and not on small points but on the main point of disagreement, without acknowledging it, it is inconsiderate because it is not honorable disagreement. It is 'I will say anything to win or not lose'. If you were not very intelligent I would think it might just be errors. Now I don't think you sat there and decided to not notice the serious contradictions, but unconsciously it served you and it made the discussion uninteresting and rude. When someone assumes they know other people's motivations (online, no less) when presented with very likely other interpretations and decides to just go with his psychic abilities, that is also inconsiderate. Of me, in this instance.

Now you are presenting yourself as the lone honorable person,

Should I keep it a secret?
No, I was just noting the position you are taking as part of a point I was making and consider your estimation incorrect. But my mentioning that you present yourself this way is not me saying you should keep that estimation to yourself. It is good you got your universal fuck you on the table.
Would you feel better if you didn't know?
Didn't know what you thought you were? No. It's helpful actually.
Should I repress my emotions?
That's not an emotion.
victimized by people who do not live up to a contract that I do not remember signing.

Evaluation is not a contract.
Sure.

I signed no contract that I must continue to respond to someone

Then don't.
Um what an odd thing to say, I already did stop responding in that thread, as I said I would. You noticed that so...what a weird thing to say.
Did you sign a contract not to lie? So why not lie too?
Again, here you are implying that I am saying I can do bad things because I did not sign a contract to not do them. Whereas I am saying that I signed no contract to be treated poorly and I backed out. Your post seemed to be saying that it is honorable to just keep posting regardless of how you are being treated. That is not a contract I have signed nor an ideal or goal of mine. It seems to be one of yours. Me I do not consider it immoral or dishonorable to back away from having my time wasted and doing something else I find valuable and/or enjoy. Perhaps you and Iambiguous will find an infinite honor in each other and post together till death do you part in some thread. You might want to consider, I guess in your case, what to do if having fun and honorably responding forever come into conflict. I would prefer to have a more flexible approach to my activities. I am impressed you always find it fun while also being a victim.

Shit man, take the plunge! To hell with everyone; we're all pricks, weren't you paying attention: misanthrope. No one can live up to my standards and I'm a judgmental hypocrite, so we're all bad therefore you have no moral obligation, so why not just embody what I'm bitching about? Own it!
I don't think everyone's bad. I don't think you are bad or simply a prick. I think you were doing something in that thread that was disrespectful and not interesting, after a while. I think this noble victim posturing is disrespectful and not interesting. You are not everyone. And these patterns are not all you are.

who does not seem to me to be being respectful to what he himself has said

That's entirely possible, but I've no clue what you're referring to.
Well, it's back there in my last response in that thread.

or to the work I am putting in,

If you have to work at this, you shouldn't do it. It should be fun.
I am not sure how that kind of telling me what I should do and what my attitude should be fits with other statements you have made about moral positions, but I'll follow my own conscience thank you. I find value in things that are not always fun. If you only find value in activities that are fun, your ability to be introspective, for example, and to know what you are doing and ability evaluate your behavior is seriously undermined. Facing what one is doing, feeling, did and felt is often not fun in just those most important places. I mean, I am likely taking too seriously what was simply a dig, a getting a shot in at me, but it was, in this instance, fun to point out the stupidity of it on three levels. Only doing fun things can also limit skill development, should one have certain types of mastery goals. Desire for that mastery or self-knowledge is easily enough motivation however, and there is flow possible.

I said I fixed your misunderstanding that they contradicted.
yes, you said you did.

That's the wrong impression. I'd love to find some good objections.
So,you've said.

I really appreciate knowing more about how you view yourself in contrast to everyone else and how you only do things for fun. It helps me to put your introspective abilities in context. It gives me a sense of how hard it might be for you to notice what you are doing, when something important to you is at issue. It makes it easier to ignore you without a nagging feeling from my conscience that I left someone hanging who had not already left me hanging long ago. And since my conscience is clear I have not been dishonorable, as you have argued elsewhere.

I hear you Serendipity - a name I understand the relevance of better now - you saw me get out of bed before you had yours. Thing is, you think I had mine and I am so rude to leave you hanging. But not only did I not have mine, you think the way you've been touching me was pleasant. You think you are the one good lover, whom no one satisfies.

The second part may be true, but the first is not. In fact it is false in a couple of ways.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: The problem of evil

Postby Fanman » Wed Apr 11, 2018 12:12 pm

Serendipper,

You think we're more moral now than 100 yrs ago?


If we look at things in terms of the progression of human rights, then I think that we're more moral now than 100 years ago.

Sometimes sandy clay can seem like a rock, until it rains


Very true. I have found that when things are sailing smoothly grace abounds, but when times get hard, people often want resolutions asap. It has a lot to do with people's need for security IMV.
Fanman
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

Re: The problem of evil

Postby Serendipper » Wed Apr 11, 2018 6:38 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Serendipper wrote:Let it hang. I stand by my abilities.
OK, so you know I stopped responding to you there because I have a hang up with Watts and not in reaction to how I thought you were posting. Which is a fuck you to me, and so was the way you presented yourself as the only honorable person (in the world potentially) but certainly here at the forums. You might want to consider that some people may pull away from you because your attitude, that you think you are the only honorable person affects the way you communicate with them and your own ability to introspect and evaluate what you are doing. Toss in your certainty around your psychic abilities and you have a really toxic batch.

Here is what you said: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=193673&start=375#p2698635

I am going to give this exchange a rest for two reasons 1) It feels like you will say anything to keep Alan Watts on the pedestal. 2) As a social mammal, I am now tired of seeing emotions and the expression of emotions judged so universally negatively.

So, I do not need psychic abilities; just a memory.

And if I've told you "fuck you", you should be happy I've not repressed my emotions like Alan Watts.

And people who issue threats or ultimatums have earned themselves a violent reaction because I am not a robot, saint, or honorable person, but an animal just like everyone else. Don't bother with the threats because I will never give in to them. The best way to manipulate me is to play the victim and appeal to empathy. It also works with others:

I called my ISP and barked "If you reach into my pocket for an extra $5 one more time, I'm all done with you!" He basically told me to go fuck myself. A year or so later I called back "I've got a competing offer from DSL and I don't know what to do. Can you help me decide which is best?" They took $20/mo off my bill and bumped my service to 100mbs.

And yes I pride myself on keeping my word and diligently replying to messages and I'm not the only person on earth who does so, but one of an extremely small minority. There are just too many people and the devices are made for convenience, not productivity, so regardless if people actually wanted to reply, they're handicapped by convenience and couldn't keep up with everyone anyway. Plus the fact that people are easily replaceable by virtue of fantastic amounts of them, so there is increasingly less incentive to be considerate.

If you tell me you do not want to talk to me anymore, that's unfortunate, but there are 8 billion other people and we may as well say infinite because I couldn't shake hands with them fast enough to keep up with the birth rate.

That's only your interpretation, which I don't agree with.
Of course it is my interpretation. And right or wrong that interpretation was why I stopped responding to you in that thread despite your psychic conclusion.

See, here we go again because everything you say from here on is going to be based on the psychic conclusion which was in fact correct, but you're going to suppose it's wrong for the rest of this post.

Being bugged by Watts could easily motivate my continued critique of him, in fact that is more likely.

That never happens in practice.

How am I inconsiderate?
When someone is repeatedly willing to contradict himself and not on small points but on the main point of disagreement, without acknowledging it, it is inconsiderate because it is not honorable disagreement. It is 'I will say anything to win or not lose'. If you were not very intelligent I would think it might just be errors. Now I don't think you sat there and decided to not notice the serious contradictions, but unconsciously it served you and it made the discussion uninteresting and rude. When someone assumes they know other people's motivations (online, no less) when presented with very likely other interpretations and decides to just go with his psychic abilities, that is also inconsiderate. Of me, in this instance.

Where did I contradict myself? Why didn't you take the time to spell it out? Maybe I can't see it? I'm not the most perceptive person on earth.

Now you are presenting yourself as the lone honorable person,

Should I keep it a secret?
No, I was just noting the position you are taking as part of a point I was making and consider your estimation incorrect. But my mentioning that you present yourself this way is not me saying you should keep that estimation to yourself. It is good you got your universal fuck you on the table.

Funny how I claim no one can keep their word nor reply to messages which no one challenges, but instead I'm demonized for flattering myself for doing what should be admirable. By that logic, instead of training harder to beat the fastest runner, let's just shoot him. Anyone not in prison should be executed lest we become self-righteous about not being criminals.

And this is exactly why works cannot save you and all religions are moot, at best. If you could be perfect, you'd be contaminated with purity and not be perfect. There is no way to win.

I signed no contract that I must continue to respond to someone

Then don't.
Um what an odd thing to say, I already did stop responding in that thread, as I said I would. You noticed that so...what a weird thing to say.

That's just to say that whatever means you're going to use to threaten me, I will tell you to do it. If you say you have no obligation to do X, then don't.

Did you sign a contract not to lie? So why not lie too?
Again, here you are implying that I am saying I can do bad things because I did not sign a contract to not do them. Whereas I am saying that I signed no contract to be treated poorly and I backed out. Your post seemed to be saying that it is honorable to just keep posting regardless of how you are being treated. That is not a contract I have signed nor an ideal or goal of mine. It seems to be one of yours. Me I do not consider it immoral or dishonorable to back away from having my time wasted and doing something else I find valuable and/or enjoy. Perhaps you and Iambiguous will find an infinite honor in each other and post together till death do you part in some thread. You might want to consider, I guess in your case, what to do if having fun and honorably responding forever come into conflict. I would prefer to have a more flexible approach to my activities. I am impressed you always find it fun while also being a victim.

It's not about posting forever, but coming to a resolution.

You're taking dad's line: he runs from an argument because he's afraid to be wrong, so the issue festers and pops up even more ferociously the next time until eventually he sacrifices his own son on his ego altar proclaiming that his mistake was talking to me in the first place "Damn it! I knew it! I should have kept my mouth shut. When will I learn!" So yeah, if you can't handle being wrong or aren't after truth, then you're going to be betteroff not engaging me. Now, of course, you're going to say I'm dogmatic, but I'm dogmatically going to refuse that diagnosis.

Corned beef comes with a little seasoning pack inside and I suggested we research when is the best time to add the spices because in my experience, spices can have the flavor cooked out of them so maybe it's better to put them in at the end rather than boil them for 5 hours, well dad blew up and said "I've been making corned beef for 30 yrs!" and he had no interest in researching anything; only in being right. So his solution is to avoid me. No more corned beef, no more dinners, no more talking, no more relationship, no more having to be wrong. People will do anything to guard their egos. And the atheists give Abraham a hard time for attempting to sacrifice his son :lol: They would do the same damn thing for much less.

Shit man, take the plunge! To hell with everyone; we're all pricks, weren't you paying attention: misanthrope. No one can live up to my standards and I'm a judgmental hypocrite, so we're all bad therefore you have no moral obligation, so why not just embody what I'm bitching about? Own it!
I don't think everyone's bad. I don't think you are bad or simply a prick. I think you were doing something in that thread that was disrespectful and not interesting, after a while. I think this noble victim posturing is disrespectful and not interesting. You are not everyone. And these patterns are not all you are.

Isaiah 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

who does not seem to me to be being respectful to what he himself has said

That's entirely possible, but I've no clue what you're referring to.
Well, it's back there in my last response in that thread.

So you have no clue either.

or to the work I am putting in,

If you have to work at this, you shouldn't do it. It should be fun.
I am not sure how that kind of telling me what I should do and what my attitude should be fits with other statements you have made about moral positions, but I'll follow my own conscience thank you.

If it isn't fun, then you're trying to accomplish something for which you cannot determine if it's good. The only innocent motivation is fun.

I mean, I am likely taking too seriously what was simply a dig,

Probably so.

I really appreciate knowing more about how you view yourself in contrast to everyone else and how you only do things for fun. It helps me to put your introspective abilities in context. It gives me a sense of how hard it might be for you to notice what you are doing, when something important to you is at issue. It makes it easier to ignore you without a nagging feeling from my conscience that I left someone hanging who had not already left me hanging long ago. And since my conscience is clear I have not been dishonorable, as you have argued elsewhere.

Idk what to say to that.

I hear you Serendipity - a name I understand the relevance of better now - you saw me get out of bed before you had yours. Thing is, you think I had mine and I am so rude to leave you hanging. But not only did I not have mine, you think the way you've been touching me was pleasant. You think you are the one good lover, whom no one satisfies.

The name implies I do not take credit for my ideas which I can only stumble upon.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1383
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The problem of evil

Postby Serendipper » Wed Apr 11, 2018 6:50 pm

Fanman wrote:Serendipper,

You think we're more moral now than 100 yrs ago?


If we look at things in terms of the progression of human rights, then I think that we're more moral now than 100 years ago.

I think a man is serving 2 years in prison for teaching a dog to perform a nazi salute. Is that progression of human rights? I feel like I have less rights today than 10 years ago. I don't have the right not to wear a seatbelt or helmet. I can't drink a beer while mowing the lawn or else risk a dui. I can't open an account in another country to avoid the FIFO accounting policy of the US. In other words, analogizing assets to cars, if I buy a red car and a blue car, but sell the blue car first, I have to report that I've sold the red car first because: first in, first out.

And just today: New California Bill Would Eliminate Free Speech, Require "Online Fact Checkers"

These people will not be happy until I am strapped to a table in a rubber room for my own protection. Quantity and longevity trump quality to the communists and feminists.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1383
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The problem of evil

Postby Greatest I am » Thu Apr 12, 2018 12:53 am

Speaking of how well we are doing morality wise, have you guys seem this presentation that shows how we have never had the great stats that we now enjoy.

Richard Dawkins latest.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLulcfyqrc0

Regards
DL
User avatar
Greatest I am
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1795
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 4:07 pm

Re: The problem of evil

Postby Silhouette » Thu Apr 12, 2018 1:23 am

The interesting thing about morality is that it's an internalisation of self-oppression, it gets people to police themselves so they don't need policing by others as much. But today people feel they don't need to be moral because they feel they can be trusted to be free to do whatever they want to do to themselves.

Some other significant factors at play are that communication is increasingly enormously: if something good or bad happens, more people are able to find out about it and/or share it - even unintentionally, accidentally or opportunistically via their mobile communication technologies - and also, populations are increasing globally and local population densities are increasing: more people are closer to more other people. Travel technologies result in an increased potential for more and more people to be surrounded by more and more unfamiliar people, each communicating about one another more and more.
i.e.
Advances in technologies and the corresponding growth in populations have perhaps inadvertently resulted in both a better policing of one another by one another, and less trustingly so.

So putting all of this together: with these better technologies, higher and more blended populations, and more demands about our personal freedoms, we're under much more pressure to act socially acceptably and less able to slip under the radar, we're less trusting of others to act socially acceptably and more exposed to one another whether we do or don't, we feel more and more entitled to do whatever we want, and we even have less time to gather a bigger picture about the whole thing, leaving us vulnerable to cherry-picked one-sided pictures of everyone else.

Cue the hysteria and feeling like we have less rights than we used to, on pretty much all accounts and from all sides and every angle - simply as a result of our own success as a species!

As an aside, I'm not convinced it's a political thing at all. People seem to either distrust centralised powers more, or decentralised powers more. The former are more accountable but less free to do good or bad, and vice versa - it's basically a choice between lower risk lower reward and higher risk higher reward. The existence of the theory that it's all down to your brain chemistry is not surprising at all. But what if neither is the real issue, and seeming to have less rights is happening either way regardless and apolitically?
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3438
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: The problem of evil

Postby Zero_Sum » Sat Apr 21, 2018 5:27 pm

Christian capitalists discussing morally or ethics makes me lolz. Can there be any bigger hypocrites in this world?
The temple mount will be rebuilt in Jerusalem and all the nations of the world will be ruled from there. All races, cultures, leaders, and nations will come to bow before the new messiah yet to come. All will come to know the chosen of God who refer themselves as Jews. For every Jew there will be a thousand goyim that will be their slaves as it was ordained by God. Every man, woman, and child will convert to Zionism.
User avatar
Zero_Sum
New World Order Enthusiast
 
Posts: 1838
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm
Location: United States- Greater Israel

Re: The problem of evil

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sat Apr 21, 2018 9:50 pm

Zero_Sum wrote:Christian capitalists discussing morally or ethics makes me lolz. Can there be any bigger hypocrites in this world?

While I love a puzzle challenge like this and think I can certainly find other, even red side of the divide, hypocrites, i think in this forum it is probably best to say. good point. And perhaps refer to how US capitalists have influenced latin americans. It not necessarily the best example, but it is so clear.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

cron